1915-04-01

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the 'following message from His Royal Highness the Governor General:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of Parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have directed the Clerk of the House to lay on the table of the House my recommendation and his report in connection with the appointment of Mr. Stanley Scott Spencer as messenger in the reading room of the House of Commons.



REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh annual report of the commissioners for the 'demarcation of that part of the 141st meridian which forms the boundary between Canada and the United States.-Mr. Roche.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Edith Mar-gueritta Lyons.-Mr. Barnard.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Charles Isaac Alexander.-Mr. MeCraney.

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

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What sum or sums have been paid by the Government, or any department of Government, since March 3, 1914, to the Royal Print and Lithograph Company, Halifax, and what services were performed for the same?
July 31. 1 copy Halifax City
Directory, 1914	 4	50
1915.
Jan. 11. 500 boolts C.S., No. 256 at
57ic	 287	50
"	20. 4,000 form additional work and
materials	
25	00Total	$747	30


Mr. CODERRE:: Militia and Defence:
Date
of	Services performed. Amount
Payment.
1914.
Nov.	10.	Printing	receipt	forms,	acct.	6-8-14.	.. .. $	1	50Dec.	29.	Printing:	3 time	sheets,	acct.	30-11-14.. ..	12	001915.	Jan.	15.	Printing	receipt	forms,	acct.	3-11-14	7	50Feb.	11.	Printing-	receipt	forms,	acct.	6-3-15.	oo	00Mar.	5.	Printing	4,500	enrollment	forms,	acct. 6-	2-15.. .	8	00

Printing Bureau, $19: Printing 100 poster " Recruits," 100	" Proclamation", 4,000
" Medical Certificate " and " Oath."


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC AND QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	WThat amounts have been paid by the Federal Government, before the tenth of October, 1911, for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Quebec bridge?
2.	What amounts have been since paid for the same purposes?


Louis Coderre: Railways and Canals:
1.	Before October 10, 1911-Quebec bridge expenditure: $8,344,928.09. Before October 10, 1911-Paid under guarantees on Grand Trunk Pacific, $27,691,864.99.
2.	Since October 10, 1911 to February 28,
1915, Quebec bridge expenditure:	$7,359,-
675.45. Since October 10, 1911-Paid under guarantees on Grand Trunk Pacific, $43,212.504.71.
Railways and Canals:
1914.
Mar.	7.	800	circular, safety first..	.'.$	3	25"	9.	300	form, cross sections.$10	00
3,500 form, daily force
return	 37	50
300 form, progress estimates, sec. 1 & 2. 25 00 " 18.	400 estimate of work
done	
44	00"	27.	3,000	form concrete inspection records.. SO	00
500 progress estimate
dock, 1st units. . 45 00

 241 50
"	4. 2,000 form materials and
temperature.. ..$25 00
1.000	form add'l. work
and material. .. 12 50 '
2.000	weekly report form. 18 00
" 12.	800 progress estimate.. 20 00
"	4. 2,000 contractors' equipment forms.. .. 20 00
" 12. 1,000 dredging returns.. 12 50

 108 00
Mar. 31. 12 Imperial binders, 8|
14 at $1.15	13	80
6 Imperial binders, 8| x
.	27 at $2.25	 13 50
4 Imperial binders, 81 x
40 at $3	12	00

 39	3t>
May. 27. 800 prog, estimate forms (S.
L.R. record, ruled, printed
and punched	 15	00
July 18. 3,000 labels, safety first,
2 colours;	500
label card	12	75500 ribbon for do.. ..	4	50
17 25


MR. T. R. E. McINNES.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	Is Mr. T. R E. Mclnnes in the employ of the Trade and Commerce Department or any other department of the Government?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and at what salary?
3.	For how long has he been in the employ of the Government?


Louis Coderre: Not in the employ of the Government.


AMHERST REDSTONE CO.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Has any material been purchased by the Government of Canada from the Amherst Redstone Company since October 12, 1911?
2.	If so. what department made said purchase, what quantity was purchased, what price was paid, and where delivered?


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


CANADIAN PATRIOTIC FUND.
Mr. S. SHARPE:: What is the approximate total amount of money paid or subscribed by provinces, and by cities to the Canadian Patriotic Fund, an 1 ts branches, including associations not affiliated with, but whose objects are similar in character to that of the Canadian Patriotic Fund.


Louis Coderre: The head office of the
Canadian Patriotic Fund has no complete

record of the amounts subscribed or moneys promised throughout Canada for patriotic purposes. Only when cash is transmitted to or placed under the control of the honorary treasurer of the central fund are such moneys taken into account. The contributions received by the honorary treasurer up to and including the 30th March, 1915, amount to $3,379,962.28, and New Brunswick has been credited with $33,637.51, and British Columbia with $83,318.58, on account of moneys expended for relief, making a total of $3,496,918.37.
Allocated to the provinces, the contributions are as follows:
General Contributions.
Canadian Patriotic Fund Association, Ottawa, transferred to Canadian Patriotic Fund.. $ 75,972 62 Public service of Canada .. ..	60,818 10
Provinces.

Ontario (sundry contributions)	 $
Quebec (sundry contributions, including Canadian
Pacific Railway)	
Nova Scotia, provincial branch Canadian Patriotic Fund.... New Brunswick, county
branches	
Prince Edward Island branch Manitoba Patriotic Fund (Contributing Association) Alberta North branch, $64,-191.39; Alberta South branch, $65,467.23; undivided, $20,173.40	
Saskatchewan, provincial
branch	
British Columbia	
Vancouver branch, not yet reported	
Yukon Territory	
United States (sundry contritions)	
1,163,103 06
1,399,554 43
111,639 80
121,978 15 25,000 00
88,720 80
149,837 02
141,628 47 141,763 95
9,219 95 7,632 02

The National Canadian Patriotic Fund has no means of knowing what sums have been raised or expanded for the assistance of soldiers' dependents by local relief committees which have declined to become associated with the National Canadian Patriotic Fund.
Cash sent in by Cities and Towns of Ontario and Quebec up to and including March 22, 1915.
Almonte	
$	14,389 00Belleville (special)	
5,000	00Berlin	
22,756	00Brantford	
11,836	91Brockville	
9,197	56Buckingham	
8,631	90Cobalt	
'	2,820 00Copper Cliff (special)	
10,023	35Fraserville, P. Q	
4,011	19Galt	'	
20,311 23Granby	
4,113	21Guelph	
19,911	70Hamilton	
83,674	65Hespeler	
6,700	00Kingston	
25,000	00Lachute, P.Q	
2,000	00Leamington	
5,500	00Montreal (including $50,000	,	*from Canadian Pacific Railway)	
1,055,017	04Oshawa	
10,749	68Ottawa	
236,690	15Owen Sound	
6,050	00Pembroke	
10,5.37	15Peterboro	
21,783	09Port Arthur	
2,000	00Perth	
6,609	00Prescott	
3,979	90Quebec	
148,938	29Richmond, P.Q	
2,000	00St. Catharines	
17,990	81St. Thomas and Elgin county.. 22,500	00Sault Ste. Marie	
9,973	61Sherbrooke	
17,305	68Smiths Falls	
3,812	37Sudbury.. ..-	
2,000	00Toronto	
466,380	86Three Rivers	
9,843	40Walkerville (special)	
25,000	00Waterloo	
8,565	50Welland	
10,286	52Windsor Mills	
2,143	53
There is at present in press the first report of the National Canadian Patriotic Fund, which it is expected will be ready for general distribution towards the end of the month. This report will contain in detail full information regarding the fund.


CANADIAN PEAT SOCIETY.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Where are the headquarters of the Canadian Peat Society?
2.	Who is the president of the society, and where does he reside?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	22 Castle Building, Ottawa.
2.	J. M. Shuttleworth, Brantford, Ontario.


I.AUZON DRY DOCK.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Did the Government take possession of lands belonging to private individuals for the construction of a dry dock or for other purposes at Dauzon, county of Lfivis?
2.	(a) What are the names of the proprietors of such lands (b) the names of those who have been paid, and the amount paid to each?
3. What are the names of the land owners who have not been paid, the amount due to each, and the reasons why they have not been paid?
4.	(a) what is the date of the taking possession of these lands (b) and when will the proprietors be paid?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes, for the construction of a dry dock.
2 and 3. (a) G. T. Davie & Son; Mrs. Judge Isidore Belleau and Mrs. Mrs. J. S. Murphy; (b) Nothing paid.
4.	(a) Possession taken of a part on 15th January, 1913, and balance on 16th July, 1913; (b) When the value is established by the Exchequer Court.


MILITARY SUPPLIES-SHEEPSKINS.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Has the Government or the Militia Department since October, 1911, purchased sheepskins with the wool on?
2.	If so, from whom, in what quantity, at what date, and for what price?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.	'
2.	A. R. Clarke, Ltd., Toronto; 600; January 12, 1915; $6 each.


MILITARY SUPPLIES-DRUGS, ETC.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Were any drugs or other materials supplied to the Militia Department or the Canadian expeditionary forces by Act Metropole of Toronto?
2.	If so, what was the amount of the order?


Major General HUGHES :: Yes, blue1
prints and tracing papers; $43.20.


ST. THOMAS ARMOURY.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Have negotiations taken place for the leasing of the armoury in the city of St. Thomas for school purposes?
2.	Have there been negotiations for the sale of the present armoury or for its exchange for other property? If so, what is proposed?


Major General HUGHES:: No negotiations have taken place. Private conversations have taken place from time to time, but there has been nothing definite whatever.


SHUBENACADIE POST OFFICE.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Have any lands been purchased or bargained for at Shubenacadie, N.S., by the Government for a post office site?
2.	(a) If so, from whom was the same purchased, (b) what is the price paid or to he paid, (c) and where is the same located?
3.	(a) Does the same lot of land contain any buildings? (b) If so, what will it cost to remove the same before commencing construction of the post office?
4.	(a) Were any other lots offered to the Government for a site? (b) If so, who, at what price, (c) and did the Government take the same into consideration, (d) and on what grounds were they declined?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	A site is being acquired.
2.	(a) From Mr. J. A. Kirkpatrick; (b) price to be paid, $1,500; (c) fronting on the Halifax and Truro road, opposite the I.R.O. station.
3.	(a) Yes; (to) nothing, as the vendor is to .remove the buildings at his own expense.
4.	(a) YeS; (b) by Mr. W. N. Burris, for
$6,500; (c) yes; (d) the "departmental purchasing agent reported that he was unable to recommend the purchase of so costly a site.	'	'


DREDGE NO. 7.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	What was the cost of maintenance for dredge No. 7 for the calendar year 1914, and approximately for the fiscal year 1914-15?
2.	How much was paid the Southern Salvage Company for attending the said dredge, .supplying coal, etc.?
3.	What are the main divisions and i!'e amounts of the cost of maintenance, supplies, etc., of the said dredge No. 7 for the said calendar year or the said fiscal year?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$34,602.83.
2.	$12,550.08.
3.	Wages, $6,007.01; provisions, $1,834.98; fuel, $3,297.93; stores and equipment, $1*544.42; contingencies, $36.02 ; water, $167.85; wharfage, $124.84; rent of tugs, $8,085; repairs, $13,504.78; total, $34,602.83.


STEAMER COAST GUARD.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was the amount paid the Southern Salvage Company of Liverpool, N.S., for its steamer Coast Guard in connection with dredging operations for the calendar year 1914?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$2,424.10.


JOHN T. DAGNEAU.
Mr. MARCIL :: 1. What position does John Dagneau,, of St. Omer, Bonaventure county, Quebec, occupy in the Inland Revenue Department service?
rMr. Marcil.]

2. (a) When was he appointed, (b) at what salary, (c) and what is his present salary?
ii. (a) What amount has been paid him since his appointment for salary, (b) and for travelling- expenses (c) or other allowances?


Mr. BLONDIN:: _
Mr. John T. Dagneau, assistant inspector of weights and measures.
2.	(a) August 25, 1913.	(b) $450.	(c)

3.	(a) As salary $682.30.	(b) No travelling expenses, (c) No other allowances.


WRECK OF STEAMER MONTMAGNT.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1. Is it true that the wreck of the steamer Montmagny lies at present opposite lie aux Grues, in the river St. Lawrence, within a few yards of the channel generally followed by the ocean steamers?
2 .If so, does the Government propose to have that wreck removed at once?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. The wreck is 600 feet distant from the axis of the channel, marked by the Hospital rock range lights. It is marked by a gas buoy, and therefore forms no obstruction to navigation.
3.	The department will consider the question of removal when the wreck has been examined after the opening of navigation.


CHAMPLAIN MARKET STATION.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	When was the work commenced for the construction of the Transcontinental railway station on the site of the Champlain market in Quebec?
2.	When was such work suspended, and for what reason?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The following information has been furnished by the Chief Engineer of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission:
1.	June 19, 1914.
2.	December 20, 1914, for the reason that it was considered inadvisable to carry on the masonry and brick work during the severe winter weather.


REV. W. T. SUCKLING.
Mr. MACDONALD:: [DOT]
1.	Does the Reverend W. T. Suckling hold the appointment of Champlain to the 14th King's Canadian Hussars?
2.	Is it a fact that he has risen from the ranks, that he has taken an active interest in all matters pertaining to the militia, has he thoroughly qualified himself to instruct in musketry, and is reckoned one of the crack shots of Nova Scotia?
3.	Has he volunteered for overseas service, and has he been recommended for the position
118J
of Chaplain to the 6th Canadian Mounted Rifles?


Major General HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No information.
3.	Yes.


WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
Mr. OLIVER moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports or proceedings, and of all other documents relating to the purchase in Canada of horses for army service, by the British and French governments respectively.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: This motion has been standing for some time. It is not considered best in the public interest to bring down a return such as is requested.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Can we know what is against the public interest in giving that information?


George Eulas Foster: We will probably have some discussion on that question before we get through.


Frank Oliver: Yesterday the Minister of Public Works said that the Prime Minister would make a statement dealing with this question.


George Eulas Foster: Very well; if that statement was made we can allow the motion to stand.
Motion stands.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lachance:	For a copy of all correspondence, calls for tenders and Orders in Council, relating to the deepening of the river St. Charles at the city of Quebec, and the construction of a dam at the same place.


George Eulas Foster: That when this House adjourns on Thursday the 1st of April, it stand adjourned until Saturday, the 3rd of April.


Wilfrid Laurier: What about Monday, which is also a legal holiday?


George Eulas Foster: It is proposed that the House should sit on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Major General HUGHES:: I should just like to make a quotation from the report of the Chief of Ordnance to the Secretary of War of the United States Government for

the year 1914. On page 48 of the report the following figures are given with reference to ammunition manufactured by the United States Government:
The average total cost ot rifle ammunition for the year was $26.24 per thousand, as compared with $27.08 per thousand for the preceding year; both costs being based on the same percentage to provide for the arsenal and War Department burdens. There was, however, an increase in the cost of material of 21 cents per thousand, so that the saving in the manufacturing over last year amounted to $1.11 per thousand, or a total saving of approximately $56,900. The average cost of the rifle ball cartridges procured from private manufacturers during the preceding year was $38.06 per thousand.



YUKON PLACER MINING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 67, to amend the Y'ukon Placer Mining Act.-Mr. Roche.
Mr. ROCHE:: The Senate has amended the Act to also include those who after enlistment are laid up through wounds or sickness. The Act, of couise, is to protect those who have mining claims and have enlisted from having their claims cancelled during their absence.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The same principle as to cancellations is involved in regard to homesteads as in regard to mining rights. What is the policy of the department as to the cancellation of homesteads at the present time?
' Mr. ROCHE: Those who go to the front after enlisting will be protected. No cancellation will take place during the time they are oil active service.


William Erskine Knowles: With regard to cancellations generally, I have heard that no cancellations will be considered until the first of May.


William James Roche: There is a general protection up to the 1st of April for all homesteaders.
Amendment read the first and the second time and concurred in.



INLAND REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
Oil motion of Hon. P. E. Blondin (Minister of Inland Revenue), Bill No. 115, to amend the Inland Revenue Act, was read the second time, considered in Committee, reported, Tead the third time, and passed.
[Mr. Sam. Hughes.J


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. P. E. Blondin (Minister of Inland Revenue), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Inland Revenue may authorize the employment of such temporary or acting officers of Excise in the second or outside division of the Department of Inland Revenue as are required to carry on the work of the department, that no such officer shall receive a higher salary than the salary allowed to permanent officers of the same rank and class, and no such salary shall be paid until voted by Parliament.
Mr. PROULX:: Are these officers to do the ordinary work of the department or some new work?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This amendment is in order to include in the Inland Revenue Act a clause similar to clause 6 of the Customs Act, regarding the appointment of temporary officials by Order in Council. In the past, and I am referring now to both the late Administration and the present, temporary officers were appointed by the Minister of Inland Revenue, under the impression that Clause 6 of the Customs Act also applied to InlandRevenue appointments. The attention of the department has been drawn to it by the Auditor General, and this is only to give authority to the department for what has been done in the past. It does not refer at all to any new employees; it refers only to the general employees, with whom the department is without power to-day to deal, and to the payment of whom the Auditor General would object in the future if this amendment were not provided.


Edmond Proulx: I would be afraid that the minister proposed to appoint an army of employees. A few days ago, when discussing his Estimates, he said that he in- . tended to appoint some new employees to prevent the adulteration of maple syrup and sugar. I thought that perhaps this legislation was to provide for the appointment of these new employees.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Not at all. As for the Bill passed yesterday, I think .1 gave a satisfactory explanation, I believe that both sides of the House were anxious that I should appoint as many employees as are necessary to see that the law is complied with.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I und .rstand the resolution properly, it is simply

to change the mode of appointing officers. Do I understand that officers are now appointed by Order in Council and that the object is to have them appointed by the minister?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No. We have to employ temporary officers in the Inland Revenue Department just as they have to do in the Customs Department. If we need additional help we have to employ temporary officers, some for a month or two, or perhaps some for a year. Most of the officers appointed by the department have to be appointed temporarily in order that they may become used to the service, and after a time, if they prove themselves competent, they are appointed permanently. It was found by the Auditor General that under the present law we had no authority to employ temporary hands. That is the reason of the amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood that the object was to have in the Inland Revenue Department the same law as prevails in the Customs Department. What is the law governing the Customs Department?	_


Pierre Édouard Blondin: We have no authority
to make these appointments, although they have foeen made by the minister in the past. Section 6 of the Customs Act provides that:
The minister may, from time to time, authorize the employment of such temporary or acting officers of custom in the second or outside division of the Department of Customs as are required to carry on the work of the department.
2. No such officer so employed shall receive a higher salary than he would be allowed if appointed permanently to the same rank and class ; nor shall any such salary be paid until voted by Parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then what
you are proposing is the same as this?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Will that indude temporary clerks appointed at Ottawa?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No, it only applies to temporary employees in the outside service.


Mr. PROIJLX:: Are there many temporary employees in the department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There are not more than the usual number. I understand that there are between 200 and 300 temporary employees all over the Dominion.


Edmond Proulx: Are they employed all
the year round or only for a few months?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It depends on their employment. Most of them are employed all the year round.


Mr. BUREAU:: What particular work are these temporary employees put at?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: They are employed in
the different offices all over the country.


Jacques Bureau: At what particular work?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The usual work. As I explained a few moments ago, when at Montreal, Quebec or elsewhere, we take on new employees we always-take them on temporarily,' and after a while they may be appointed permanently.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand the minister to say that this is only the opening wedge to 'make men permanent? You say he employs them temporarily and then they are made permanent?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No; that is not what I mean. Some of them, if their services are required and if they have been found duly qualified, will be appointed permanently. My hon. friend will understand that it is a great advantage to put a man on and test him before appointing him permanently.


Edmond Proulx: Does this amendment
give the minister a means of evading the Civil Service Act?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It only applies to the
outside service. What we are asking Parliament to do is only to give the Inland Revenue Department the same right as it gave to the Customs Department. Clause 6 exists for the Customs Department but it does not exist for the Inland Revenue Department. In the past, the late Government appointed temporarily officials without any authority and it is to correct this condition that we are bringing in this legislation.


Edmond Proulx: Then these employees will not have to obtain a certificate from the Civil Service Commission?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: They never have to in the outside service.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has the Auditor General paid these men up to the present?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: What causes the question to arise now? Is it owing to the great number of men recently employed?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I suppose some lawyer in the department has raised the question and it has been brought to my attention.


George Eulas Foster: The Department of the Auditor General is a progressive department, but it does not pretend to know everything all at once. It finds out that it has been making payments without proper authorization. It does not want to do wrong any more and it asks you to put it in a position to do right.


William Pugsley: I notice that the Auditor General's Department has been progressing very well lately.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Do as we do-turn
'them out when they do wrong.


Jacques Bureau: In what particular
branch of the outside service are these employees required-weights and measures, gas and electricity inspection, selling stamps, or where?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In every branch, mostly in the Excise Department.
Mr. MARCH.: Is there any age limit for appointment to the outside service in the Inland Revenue Department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No.


Mr. MARCIL:: You can appoint them as old as you like?


Jacques Bureau: They appointed one 87 years old in Three Rivers.


George Eulas Foster: You appointed
one after he was dead.


Jacques Bureau: You let them vote after they are dead.


Charles Marcil: When you appoint a man to the outside service do you require that he should qualify or pass an examination for the work that he is to do before you appoint him, or do you appoint him subject to the examination being passed later on?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: We appoint him subject to examination. We can appoint a man . temporarily without an examination but in order to be permanent he has to undei'go examination.


Charles Marcil: Do you allow him a certain time in which to qualify for his work?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No. It all depends on the necessity of making a new permanent appointment for the work that is being done in his locality.


Charles Marcil: When you appoint a man and he turns out to be incompetent for the work for which he is appointed, do you

keep him on or do you give him a specified time in which he must pass an examination to show his .qualification for the work?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When we want to make a new permanent appointment, the man is advised that he will have a certain time in which to pass his examination. If his services are not found to be satisfactory, all the department has to do is to turn him out.


Charles Marcil: In my constituency we have two employees in the Weights and Measures Branch. One ceased to be an employee, having been dismissed for political partisanship, and he has since become a member of the Quebec Legislature. The other was dismissed on the same ground after an investigation which lasted a couple of years. Three men were appointed to fill their places: one from Gaspe, Mr. Myles; one from Bonaventure, Mr. Dag-neau; and one from Rimouski, Mr. Desjardins. Have those three men qualified for the work for which they were appointed, and are they still in the service of the department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: They are still in the service of the department; they have not yet qualified for permanent positions.


Charles Marcil: Why was it necessary to appoint three men to fill two vacancies?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Was the change made by me?


Charles Marcil: No, it was made by your predecessor.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Would my hon. friend object to my taking some more time to look into the matter?


Charles Marcil: Certainly not.


William Erskine Knowles: Appointments under
this proposed legislation are undesirable, because it seems to enlarge the scope of appointments that are not under the guardianship of the Civil Service Commission. The whole trend of better public opinion at present is in the way of revolt against patronage. I say this without a partisan meaning, because both sides may more or less have erred in that regard. What rule does the minister apply to .men who are taken on, and who have not over them the guardianship of the commission, in the way of protecting the country against partisans? The other day he laid it down as a principle that the gentleman next to him in position might indulge in free speech, and perhaps become offensive to

18TI
45 per cent of the people of Canada, by his abusive utterances against one of the great parties in Canada, but that the minister would in no way interfere with his freedom of speech. I am not going to revive the discussion in reference to the deputy minister, who was the subject of discussion; but as regards those men who are appointed entirely from political recommendations and who are not under the control of the commission, what is the minister's policy with regard to their indulging in controversial partisan disputes in the country, either at election time or at any other time?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: They.have no right whatever to take an active part in politics. If any one of my officials should persist in such a course, I would have to dismiss him.


William Erskine Knowles: Would the minister
apply that principle to his deputy minister?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is another question which I would ask my hon. friend not to bring up on this resolution.


Mr. GRAHAM:: One of the difficulties in the making of those temporary appointments is that a great'number of officials are called temporary when they really are permanent-,- although, legally speaking, they are only temporary, because they have never been appointed to permanent positions. As soon as a Government changes, no matter what Government it is, pressure is brought to bear upon it to dispense with the services of such men, and it is said: why, such a man is only a temporary employee anyway; he has not a permanent position. Although he may have worked for ten years in the Government service he is still considered as a temporary employee. There ought to be some change in that respect. When a man or a woman has been in the employ of the Government for a certain length of time, that employee ought to become what is called permanent, so that dismissal could not occur without ail Order in Council and without cause. Hundreds of so-called temporary employees are really permanent, although they are called temporary and subject to dismissal for reasons which do not apply to permanent employees. The Department of Customs, the Post Office Department and the Department of Inland Revenue are the departments that have the greatest number of temporary employees while .the Department of Interior has also a great many. Such people may be employed for six weeks or for six years; but
they have no protection against dismissal although they may be the best employees in in the Government.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I should like to emphasize the remarks of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). There is a very singular case in Peterborough that illustrates the importance of what my hon. friend says. A fine old gentleman was appointed by the late Government to a position in Peterborough on the temporary list. That man cannot be turned out. He is over eighty years of age. He is ageing and he raises Cain with the customers. Application has been made by the collector to have him dismissed, but I said that I would not consent to have him dismissed. He comes of an excellent family that has survived the evils of Liberalism. The fact of the matter is that the man, if he were dismissed to-morrow, would be out on the street. He has been for many years in the service. If automatically he could have become a permanent clerk, he would be entitled to a retiring allowance; but as it is, he is not. It is impossible in the name of humanity to let that man go, but what are we to do? Is there no remedy for that sort of thing?


William Erskine Knowles: Let us say that two men who are appointed under this proposed legislation show political partisanship and one of them displays partisanship in favour of the present Government, and the other in favour of the Liberals. 'Will the minister always use the two of them alike, and always adopt the policy that he has just annunciated? Will he fire a Tory for as little partisanship as he will a Grit?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The minister is bound
to follow the same line of policy towards all employees.


Jacques Bureau: Will he do it?~


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Certainly.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has the minister under
this proposed legislation power tq appoint any of these officers in the city of Hull, which adjoins Ottawa, but which is in another province?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: We have no other object in proposing this amendment than to correct an irregular procedure under the law.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But the minister will have power to appoint Excise and Inland Revenue officers in the city of Hull under this legislation when it is passed?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am not informed that there is any necessity for such appointments.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The city of Hull has over 20,000 population. It is true, it borders on the city of Ottawa, but it is divided from Ottawa by the Ottawa river. The minister can see the city of Hull even as he looks from Parliament Hill. It is a very important commercial city, perhaps the greatest manufacturing city along certain lines in the Dominion of Canada. It would be a great convenience to the city of Hull to have these officers appointed. Just prior to going out of power the late Government opened a customs office in Hull, and that office yields great profit to the Government' >and is of immense advantage to the surrounding section of country. This proposed law will give the Minister of Inland Bevenue power to appoint similar officers for his department in the city of Hull, and I ask him if he will not appoint some of these officers for the good of the public service and the general convenience of the people?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I will give the remarks of my hon. friend all consideration, and if there is necessity I will make the appointments.


George Eulas Foster: I am a little surprised at my hon. friend from' Wright (Mr. Devlin).


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Surprised?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, that he would put temptation in the way of the Minister of Inland Revenue and urge it upon him. The minister's answer was that if there were no necessity there would he no appointments. Now the hon. gentleman is trying to induce the minister to appoint officers in Hull simply because Hull can be seen from Ottawa and is the largest manufacturing city in the world. Surely he cannot wish officers appointed, even in Hull, if there is no necessity for them.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Perhaps my language was not clear to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was speaking non-politically.


George Eulas Foster: As usual.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I try to speak nonpolitically. I was pointing out the importance of the city of Hull and its peculiar situation. Although it is near the city of Ottawa it serves a portion of the country which cannot 'be conveniently served by the 
officers in Ottawa city. There was formerly necessity for opening a customs office there, and there is the same necessity for opening an Inland Revenue office. I would not ask the Government to spend a dollar where there is no necessity. 1 am only sorry the Government is in the habit of spending money where there is no necessity.


Edmond Proulx: I do not understand this measure. Does it mean that the minister is getting power to pay yearly salaries to men who are employed only a few months in the year?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No, I am only asking
that a privilege enjoyed by every other department of the Government should be extended to the Department of Inland Revenue.


Edmond Proulx: The resolution says: "No such officer shall receive a higher salary than the salary paid to permanent officers of the same rank and class." Would not that put them in the same rank as the permanent employees?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No. It means that they cannot be appointed at a higher salary than that of the permanent officers whom they may be called upon to replace temporarily.


Edmond Proulx: But if the minister already has the power to employ temporary employees what does he need this for?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have not the power,
while other departments have.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does this give the
minister any power that he has not previously exercised? I understand not.


George Eulas Foster: Up to this time certain appointments have been made, but the Auditor General has notified the minister and the department that this is not legal and that he cannot any 12 noon, longer pay for that kind of appointment, and that if these officers are to be paid, authority of law must be procured. And I understand the minister is getting the authority under this Bill.


William Pugsley: Before asking for this
legislation the minister ought to furnish the committee with the memorandum from the Auditor General.


George Eulas Foster: Surely, the hon. gentleman is going very far. The responsible minister has risen in his place and

stated his reason for proposing this Bill, and that reason is that he has been notified by the Auditor General that this kind of appointment cannot any longer be paid for. Now the hon. gentleman says that before the Bill passes the minister should bring the proof. I do not think he should say that to a minister of the Grown.


William Pugsley: I do not think that is asking too much. The Department of Inland Revenue has been in operation since Confederation-for nearly fifty years. The minister tells us that temporary employees have been appointed from time to time during all that period and no objection has been raised. Now, I cannot think it possible that that has been done contrary to the law. I cannot imagine for a moment that that is the cause of asking for this legislation. It is no reflection upon the judgment of the minister to ask that the memorandum of the Auditor General should be produced. It would be very interesting to the House to know how it comes that this which has been going on for fifty years is now found to be objectionable under the law. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) must forgive me if I am a little suspicious as to the reason for this. We know that when this Government first came into office they wanted to get rid of the commissioners engaged for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway. They did not like to dismiss them, but they passed a law reducing the number of commissioners to one. I remember that in New Brunswick, not long ago, the Government there wanted to get rid of a very valued official. They did not like to dismiss him-to do so would have offended the public very much. But they passed a law fixing an age limit which was just such as to exclude this man, and so he was removed from office by legislation. Now the Minister of Inland Revenue, perhaps, wants to dismiss a lot of temporary employees.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Not at all.


William Pugsley: He wants to declare that they are not legally appointed, and he wants power to make legal appointments. That is, he can quietly let these employees retire from office without incurring the odium of making dismissals. If called upon later to justify this act, he could say, and say truthfully, that Parliament had declared that these gentlemen engaged in temporary work were not legally appointed and therefore were not in the employ of
the Government at all. He could say: I did not dismiss them; they passed naturally out of the Government's employ, and I have appointed new officers under the authority Parliament has given me. The hon. gentleman will forgive me, if, in the light of what has taken place in the three years since this Government took office, we on this side, at least I-and I only speak for myself-am a little suspicious as to the reason for the passing of this Bill.
M. BLONDIN:	I shall be pleased to
give a copy of the memorandum to my hon. friend. He asks under what authority the department has been proceeding for years. The Auditor General did not refer particularly to the present; he referred to the condition under the late Government as well. We are simply making a provision similar to that which applies to the Customs Department.


William Pugsley: The minister will produce that memorandum?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What is the classification of the officials of the Inland Revenue Department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There are four classes: special excisemen and first, second and third-class excisemen.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Are all the officers of the second division in the outside service?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: the minister stated a few moments ago jthat temporary employees should not receive higher salaries than the officials whom they replace. Are these temporary employees appointed simply to replace other officials,, or in addition to the regular permanent staff of the department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: These temporary officers are employed only when required. The intent of this proposed legislation is to provide for the appointment of temporary employees, who are paid only very small salaries.


Jacques Bureau: Are they to be appointed only when certain permanent officials are ill or on leave of absence, or are they to be appointed in addition to the regular staff?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Most of these temporary officials are employed when the work increases to such an extent that their services are necessary.


William Pugsley: Under a provision of the Inland Revenue Act, temporary employees may be appointed by Order in Council. I quote section 12:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, appoint officers and other persons to carry out this Act and all other Acts relative to the matters and things placed under the control and management of the department, and also all Orders in Council or regulations made there- ' under, and the Governor in Council may assign the names of office of such officers and persons, and grant them such salaries or pay for their labour and responsibility as he deems reasonable and necessary, and may appoint the times and manner in which the same shall be paid; but no such, officer or person shall receive a higher annual salary than is allowed in his case by the Civil Service Act.
It is clear, therefore, that the Governor in Council has at the present time power to appoint permanent or temporary officers all over the Dominion to positions in the outside service as well as in the inside service. My hon. friend is trying to-day, for some reason which he has not fully explained to. the committee, to take that power out of the hands of the Governor in Council and to place it in the hands of the minister. Is that in the public interest? Is there any reason for it? What is to hinder the minister from making his recommendations to council in respect of the appointment of temporary or permanent officers throughout the Dominion, as Las been the custom for the last fifty years?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The only answer I can give my hon. friend is that we are asking only for such power as is given to the ot) er departments.


William Pugsley: Does the minister not agree with me that the Governor in Council, on his recommendation, may, under section 12 of the Act which I have jnst read, appoint temporary officers for work m any part of Canada?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not see why my hon. frrend. should wish to deprive my department of a privilege which it was deemed wise to extend to the other departments of Government. That is the only answer that I can give.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the necessity for it has not been felt in my hon. friend's department.	*
Resolution reported,' read, the first and the second time and concurred in, and referred to Committee of the Whole on Bill No. 116, to amend the Inland Revenue Act.
Bill No. 116, to amend the Inland Revenue Act, founded on the above resolution, read

the second time, and the House went into [DOT]committee thereon, together with the resolution reported this day, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-employment of temporary officers:


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am informed that there is no possibility of hiring temporary help without passing this measure. I shall have all the details before the third reading.


William Pugsley: It seems to me absurd to say that under the section of the existing Act which I have read the Governor in Council has not power to appoint men of the class provided for in the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I shall have all the information from my department.
Bill reported.



SOLDIERS' VOTING BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the. House went into .committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision to enable every male British subject of twenty-one years of age or upwards serving in the military forces of Canada in the present war, to exercice his electoral franchise, and that the cost incurred in carrying out the provisions of any Act to be based upon this resolution may be paid by the Governor in Council out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. .
Mr. DOHERTY:: The Bill to be based upon this resolution makes provision whereby men engaged in the active military service of the country may he enabled to vote in the event of an election occurring while they are still on such service. The Bill in addition provides a method whereby they may be enabled to exercise that franchise. It occurred to me that possibly it might meet the general convenience if the discussion was had on the Bill itself.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Bill is of a very extraordinary nature, but I would not care to offer an opinion on it until I had seen its provisions. Therefore, we shall let the resolution pass.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.
*Mr. Doherty thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. Ill, to enable Canadians on active military service during

1S75
the present war to exercise their electoral franchise.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called:
House in Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners Act by providing that the corporation may make bylaws for the imposition of tolls, rates, fees and dues, other than pilotage dues, sick mariners' dues and steamboat inspectors' fees, and that all tolls, rates, fees, dues and other revenue levied or collected by the corporation under the authority of the said Act, shall be paid to, and be retained by the corporation, and form part of its general revenue.-Mr. Hazen.
George Eulas Foster: 

GOLD AND SILVER MARKING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster, Bill No. 113, to amend the Gold and Silver Marking-Act, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Air. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-offences made punishable on summary conviction, and minimum penalties added:
George Eulas Foster: The purpose of
this amendment is simply to provide better means for the enforcing of the Act. There is no change at all in any of the provisions of the Bill. In the first place the amendment is to provide that one who violates the Act shall be liable to summary conviction. Before, it was merely an indictable offence. This makes the procedure more simple and enables prosecutions to be made before the magistrate. Up to the present the supervisor or superintendent of the Act has had great difficulty in enforcing it on account of the delays that took place. The amendment also asks that the minimum fine be $25. The maximum is already fixed at $100. It also provides that the articles in regard to which a conviction is obtained under the Act shall be confiscated to the Crown. This conforms to the legislation in the Customs Act and the Criminal Code. Another amendment makes it possible for the inspector to seize articles
which he believes are in contravention of the Act, and to hold the same until the case is disposed of. Hitherto all he was able to do was to make an inspection and report, and then before the courts could take the matter up the articles would mysteriously disappear and the evidence was gone.


William Erskine Knowles: Could this summary
conviction be had before an ordinary justice of the peace?


George Eulas Foster: I think so.


William Erskine Knowles: In our part of the country we are very far away from any inspector.
I have in mind a certain case where a more or less unprincipled jeweller came into the town and imposed upon the people very much. He carried on business quite a long time, selling watches and other things, and made a great deal of money. I remember being waited on by a deputation of the permanent jewellers, but the trouble seemed to be to get any inspector, and it occurred to me then whether ' the inspectors are conveniently situated gedgraphically. I should like to ask the minister about that.


George Eulas Foster: When the Act
came into force one inspector was appointed, and he does the work for the whole Dominion. He makes periodical trips through different parts of the country, and if there are any cases such as my hon. friend has mentioned he is informed about it. However, it is not necessary for him to be in any particular place in order to enable proceedings to be taken. This Act has been in force only a short time and has worked well, although the machinery for proper prosecution has been inefficient. In some cases offences against the Act have been thoroughly dealt with, but in more cases there was such delay and difficulty in getting evidence that the prosecutions did not turn out satisfactorily. There is probably more need of these amendments and of a better enforcement of the Act at present than heretofore, because the conditions of the country are such as rather to place a premium on the sale of cheap goods, and many people are being grossly imposed upon. They think they are getting fairly good jewellery, when really they are getting nothing but pinchbeck. The department proposes to see that the Act is enforced and, providing the expense is not too great, the proper machinery will he added as it becomes necessary.


William Erskine Knowles: The clause says " who being a dealer." Would that apply to a
7R76

clerk? Lots of these people give themselves fancy names, such as the New York Watch Company or the New York Watch Agency.


George Eulas Foster: The Act defines a dealer as " any person who is a manufacturer of, or seller of, or dealer in," whether wholesale or retail.


William Erskine Knowles: It would not apply to clerks?


George Eulas Foster: It would take in any person who sells. But I suppose that a company or firm is responsible for what its employees do.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Air. Sevigny in the Chair.
Department of Indian Affairs-Indians of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-to provide a further amount for seed grain, $18,941; to provide a further amount for relief of destitute Indians, $20,000.
['Yes. Now, I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Perhaps we will be better able to deal with this measure after we have slept over it, and therefore I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.35. p.m., until Saturday, April 3, at 11 a.m.\nSaturday, April 3, 1915.']
Mr. TURRIFF:: What is the particular cause that has led up to the granting of this relief for destitute Indians? There are very few Indians in that part of Saskatchewan where they had a crop failure. There must be some other cause than the failure of crop. I would like some information on the point.


William James Roche: This includes the Northwest, but it has largely to do with the outlying Indians. The information I have is that the outbreak of hostilities in Europe has affected the Indians to a considerable extent. The war has interfered with the fur trade, the European market for furs has disappeared for the time being, and the Indians' source of supplies has almost vanished, as they have no market for their furs and cannot get goods in trade for them, as the fur-traders will not accept the furs or make advances to the Indians in the form of supplies to enable them to go to their hunting grounds. The Indians are advised to hunt for food, and many are doing so, but nevertheless they have to be assisted. The department, through trading companies and the Northwest Mounted Police, have organized a system of relief for Indians requiring assistance, and as the vote for such requirements under normal circumstances is proving inadequate to meet the demand under the changed conditions, a supplementary grant becomes necessary.


Frank Oliver: What particular localities are likely to receive assistance under this grant?


William James Roche: It is in the outlying and extreme northerly portions of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Frank Oliver: There are no agents in these outlying districts. By what means is the relief to be distributed?


William James Roche: It is distributed largely through orders of the missionaries.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand that it is distributed entirely on the orders of the missionaries, or is there a division of authority ?


William James Roche: It will also be distributed through the Northwest Mounted Police where there are mounted police.


Frank Oliver: Either through the
mounted police or the missionaries?


William James Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: It does not rest with the trading companies?


William James Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: Is there any destitution among the Indians of St. Peter's reserve?


William James Roche: There has been nothing reported to the department. They are doing pretty well, I understand. They have had smallpox there.


Frank Oliver: I understand that some days ago an opportunity was taken, while discussing the affairs of the Indian Department, to place before the House certain statements in regard to a transaction in relation to the St. Peter's Indian reserve, which was intended to be a reflection upon the administration of the Indian Department, and a criticisni of the transaction by which the surrender of this reserve was secured.
I am sorry I was not present at the time, but I do not think it would be fair to the House or to the country to allow the opportunity to pass without placing before the House in as short a form as possible tne present position in regard to this reserve. There is a somewhat complicated series of accusations. One is that the Indians were not properly treated by the Government. In regard to that, I can only say that a treaty was made with the Indians for the surrender of the reserve. They were paid in accordance with the usual practice as to treaty payments, and over and above the price

that they received for the reserve, they received in exchange another reserve of greater area and better adapted to their requirements. Therefore the Indians were not mistreated in the transactions between them and the Government.
In regard to the attitude of the department and the circumstances of the surrender; the surrender was taken as other surrenders in Canada have been taken up to the present time. The vote of the majority of the band present decided in fa,vour of the surrender, and in accordance with that vote the surrender was made. After the surrender had been made, after the arrangements had been made for transferring the Indians to the new reserve, the Government of Manitoba stepped in and refused to register under the Land Titles Act of that province the transfers of land from the Indians to the parties who had bought from them. From that time to the present those transfers have not been registered, the responsibility being upon the Government of the province of Manitoba. The Government of the Dominion of Canada had bought the land from the Indians; it had paid the Indians for the land; the transaction was absolutely in accordance with the practice relating to such transactions in the past, and there was no reason or ground for the action of the Government of the province of Manitoba except a desire and intent to use not its right but its power as a means of blackmailing the purchasers of those lands. The Government of Manitoba saw fit to appoint a commission to inquire into the validity of the transaction on the part of the Dominion Government. That inquiry could have no possible effect except as an academic inquiry; but the commission made the inquiry, and the result of it was a finding that the transaction had been regular throughout, except that one part of the commission held the belief that the vote of the Indians for the surrender should have been a vote of an actual majority of the band and not a vote of the majority of those present.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: Which commission was that?


Frank Oliver: A commission appointed
by the Government of the province of Manitoba. I do not know which commission; but there was a commission appointed that brought in that report.
As regards the validity of the surrender, if the vote of a majority of the band is necessary to a surrender, there has
been no surrender taken from the Indians in Canada which would be valid under that ruling; or if there is such a one, it is an exception. Therefore, if the suggestion that the surrender was illegal is correct, then the titles of land bought from Indian reserves throughout the Dominion of Canada are to-day invalid. Any one knows that if such a condition does exist, this Parliament will of necessity have to pass an Act validating those titles. Therefore there is no foundation in any way, shape or manner for the Government of Manitoba refusing the transfers, except as a means of enforcing blackmail upon the purchasers of those lands.
Without going into details, I may say that the position of this reserve was peculiar in many respects, and that it was necessary to make special arrangements in order to secure a surrender. Many unsuccessful attempts had been made to secure that surrender in times past. We made a further attempt and we were successful. It was believed that, although the terms granted to the Indians were extraordinary-and there is no doubt that they were extraordinary- it was in the interest both of the Indians and of the people who lived in that part of the province of Manitoba that the surrender should be secured and that the Indians should be removed to another reserve. Owing to the action of the Government of that province, owing to the suggestions that have been made to the Indians that under this, that, or the other set of circumstances they would be able to secure a larger payment for their land, all of them have not yet removed to this new reserve, and the reserve is to-day in very much the same position as it was when the surrender took place, the Indians being in a position that is entirely contrary to their welfare, and the surrounding locality including the town of Selkirk, is suffering very seriously and having its development retarded because of the failure of that surrender to be carried out.
On that point I have some information which 1 wish to place before the House, seeing that the matter has already been before us in so many ways.
I have here a copy of the Selkirk Weekly Record, a Conservative newspaper published in the town of Selkirk. This is the issue of January 22, and I will read from it a short article on the subject of this St. Peter's Indian Reserve:
St. Peter's and Selkirk.
The Record has repeatedly expressed its views on the above subject so vital to this district as


Frank Oliver: When the committee rose at one o'clock, I was reading an extract from the Selkirk Record of January 22, dealing with the subject of the St. Peter's Reserve. I wish to read another article on the same subject from the Record of January 29. It is headed:	" St. Peter's Reserve Question,"
and is as follows:

The public of this town and district are anxious to know what developments there are in the St. Peter's Reserve case. Several months ago it was officially stated that an action to annul the surrender had been commenced; that the writs were being served, and in twenty days the case would be brought to trial. From information that we have gathered as to this latest phase of the question we are forced to conclude that this announcement was deliberately made to deceive the public. There are over six hundred defendants in the action, all of whom must be served. Bach defendant has four weeks from the time he is served to reply. The trial can, therefore, not be reached until the last defendant has been served, and he has had time to reply. We leave it to our readers to figure out, from their knowledge of the speed with which our courts proceed when judgment may be expected.
To the authorities we would say: Stop playing with this question. Confirm the titles. The Indians are satisfied. While they realize that some of them made improvident sales, still the surrender contract was to them highly satisfactory alnd beneficial. The moral a,nd material advantages that followed the removal of the Indians from the old St. Peter's Reserve have far outweighed any wrong that the Indians may have sustained at the hands of unscrupulous land buyers. It is a well-known fact that Indians and half-breeds are prone to make improvident bargains, and quite frequently get the worst of the deal, and it may be taken for granted that many of the sales made by the St. Peter's Indians were no exception to the rule. Even if such were the case the cancellation of the surrender would instead of righting a wrong, result in a far greater wrong against many who are guilty of no wrong-doing.
The government would be rendering far greater assistance to the Indians if it would engage counsel, for those that have been cheated by individual buyers, to prosecute their case before the court of the province. It is now almost eight years since the surrender was taken. Does the Government now propose to give us another eight years of litigation? The public is-long suffering, but the limit has been reached.
I read from the Record of February 5:
It is safe to say that at least seventy-five per cent of the members of the St. Peter's Band of Indians wish the surrender to be confirmed. They realize that they made a good bargain with the Government and received very liberal treatment at its hands. A number of Indians have disposed of their lands at prices satisfactory to them but have not received payment in full because of the unsettled state of affairs now existing, and are suffering for the lack of these funds. The Government owes these a duty to ratify the surrender.
The present reserve is much more suitable for the purposes of the band than the St. Peter's Reserve, because the more isolated they are the easier it is for the chief and council and parents to control and guide the younger generation, and the evils which very often follow the intermingling of whites and Indians are cerrespondingly decreased.
Many fathers when voting for the surrender did so, no doubt, solely for the reason that they wished to get their children away from

the vicinity of the liquor traffic, and to avoid if possible the debauchery which so often follows in its trail, and because they hoped that the moral atmosphere of the new reserve would be more healthful than that of St. Peter's. This, we think, all will admit, is an important factor in the future welfare of the band. Are these fathers not entitled to as much consideration at the hands of the Government as some few members of the band, who imbibed too much whisky and then sold their lands for a song? The duty of the Government to its wards is as a strong in moral matters as in material, if not stronger.
If then the majority of the band wish to remain where they are and to have the surrender confirmed, why should the Government compel them, against their will and judgment, and to their decided disadvantage, to come back to St. Peters?
As has been pointed out in these columns cancellation of the surrender might benefit a few .individuals, but would harm a vastly greater number.
In the same issue, under the heading: " Public Meeting Needed/' I find the following:
The most important question now being discussed in Selkirk, next to the war, is the settlement of the St. Peter's land dispute. It is felt that the time has arrived for united action on the part of our citizens in demanding a speedy settlement of this long delayed matter, and it has been suggested that the Selkirk board of trade call a public meeting at an early date to discuss this question. The idea is a good one, and The Record hopes it will be carried out. The St. Peter's reserve question has too long been used as a political football to the detriment of our town, and it is high time our citizens made a vigorous protest. The Dominion Parliament is in session, and if a public meeting was held and a strong resolution passed, irrespective of politics, pointing out the great loss sustained by Selkirk, financially and otherwise, owing to the long delay in settlement, and a copy of such resolution forwarded to Premier Borden, some good might be accomplished. Since the surrender of the reserve, time and again we have been told that the matter in reference to the lands would be quickly settled, but the years have come and the years have gone and nothing has yet been done. Is it any wonder that the patience of our citizens is getting exhausted? The whole matter could be equitably adjusted in a short time if politics were not allowed to intervene. This question is not a political one, but a local one of vital interest to the welfare and progress of the town of Selkirk and district, and in this light it should be considered by the government. If any of the Indians have been defrauded there is a remedy, but justice should also be done to those who purchased the lands in good faith and have been deprived of their titles for years. Owing to the non-settlement of this question, some of the best land in the district has been lying idle for years, which, if a settlement had been made, would now have been occupied by good settlers and the town and district greatly benefited. By all means let a public meeting be called, and some definite action taken in an endeavour to have this hindrance to the prosperity and development of our town speedily removed.
Hon. gentlemen will observe that in the article that I have just read, the Record called for a public meeting and asked the Board of Trade to take action. The Record of February 12, under the heading: " Board of Trade, Annual Meeting," has the following:
The annual meeting of the Selkirk Board of Trade was held in the town hall on Thursday evening, February 4th. The report of the retiring council, presented by the President, F. A. Gemmel, dealt with the many matters that had come before the board during the past year, and concluded with a vigorous statement of the Board's portion with respect to the dilatory St. Peter's embrqglio, and an arraignment of the political tactics that had held up the settlement for eight years, ''eight years" in the language of the report, "of Western Canada's greatest development", eight years lost to Selkirk forever."
Before the annual meeting adjourned, a motion offered by mayor Ross and seconded by Bruce Campbell, was unanimously passed, congratulating The Selkirk Record upon the vi-goious and praiseworthy stand it has lately t .ken upon the St. Peter's question.
There is another article in this issue of the Record that I desire to read. I said that the Record is a Conservative paper. It is not and never was a Liberal paper; it is essentially and always has been a Conservative paper. In the article I am about to read it finds it desirable, in pursuance of its belief that nothing good can come from the Liberal side, to call in question the actions of the Liberal Government and myself, so that I think it is fair that the House should have the benefit of all that the paper has said on the subject, whether it reflects' on the Liberal Lrovernment and myself or not. The article is a retort to an article appearing in the Manitoba Free Press:
Playing Politics.
The Fress Press convicts the premier, and Mr. Bradbury of " playing politics " on the St. Peter's question.
That refers to the Premier of Manitoba.
The public know the facts. It is up to them now, but what about the Hon. Frank Oliver, who had most to do with this matter? Was he not warned by competent solicitors that there was a legal question demanding the attention of the Government as to whether the statutes required only a majority of the votes of the male members of a band over 21 years at the meeting, or whether it required a majority ol all the male members of the band over 21 years of age? His reply was that the St. Peter's Reserve was surrendered the same as all other reserves in Canada, and while this statement stands undisputed it is not a sufficient answer, and leaves a shadow not only on the titles of St. Peter's Reserve, but all other surrendered Indians in reserves in Canada. This was made very plain to him, and he was earnestly entreated to remove this possible technicality, and not hand out the title with a shadow or pos-

sible question mark on it But no, he and his party, must be sustained, and instead of giving: the relief asked for he proceeded to " play politics," and so the game goes on back, and forth while the interests of Selkirk and district are ground to dust under the feet of politicians. Now we are told with all seriousness that the case is in court. What is there to try? Nothing but the legal quibble just referred to that is common to all surrenders.
Newspapers and politicians may talk glibly with this surrender, but they are just " playing about fraud, and make sinister expressions about the dock doings in connection with this surrender, but they are just " playing politics," and they know it. Ask any of the solicitors who appeared before the St. Peter's Commission which sat so long in Selkirk, and they will tell you, unless they too " play politics," that with this quibble removed, there is not a leg for this long drawn out St. Peter's question to stand on.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the hon. member
reading from an editorial?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Hampden Burnham: Is he aware that an editor- is paid to write upon one side as a lawyer is paid to advocate one side, and that he can -sit down with a clear conscience and write absolutely contrary to what he thinks? As a matter of fact, there is no basis whatever for an argument in this case.


Frank Oliver: Is the hon. member a
member of the legal profession?


John Hampden Burnham: I am.


Frank Oliver: Then he-


John Hampden Burnham: I was also an editor.


Frank Oliver: Oh, well, that settles it.


John Hampden Burnham: I know what I am talking about.


George Perry Graham: He has both disqualifications.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman in
making this suggestion speaks whereof he knows-and we will accept him at his own valuation. I wish to point out that this is not a question of what the editor thought, this is a question as to what the facts are; and whether the editor who wrote that was paid or not, tne statement that he makes is or is not true irrespective of what he thought. The verity of his statement does not rest on his unsupported statement; he has the formal endorsation of the Selkirk Board of Trade for the position he has taken and the arguments that he lias used.


Mr. BRADBURY:: What authority has
the Selkirk Board of Trade?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend knows better than I do what weight to attach to the opinion of the Board of Trade of Selkirk. The article continues:
If there is a blunder, who made it but the Government, and if the Government should succeed, after keeping the land and Selkirk and district tied up ten or fifteen years, in breaking this surrender over this question, which is their own error, what will it mean? It will mean they have wronged innocent buyers out of the property they were justly, and honorably entitled. To illustrate: Nearly one-half of the reserve was sold at Government auction sale, and citizens of Canada, relying upon the good faith of their Government, bought this land and the last of their money was paid to the Government years ago, both the Liberal and Conservative governments receiving these funds, and long after this question of the legality of the surrender had been fully discussed. Not only have they received these funds, but year after year with the greatest deliberation have paid them over to the Indians. Now with the overshadowing power of the government, and the strong arm of the law they purpose to wrest these lands from these buyers. And why? Simply in the interest of this great " game of politics."
Fellow-citizens of Selkirk, we have stood quietly by in the shadow during about a decade of great progress and opportunity while this game was being played. Just following the close of the present war will doubtless be another era of great opportunity. The court proceedings will probably carry us safely past this, when our griping, and disappointments will be less^ keen because the spur of opportunity will again be gone. Then the government may win, and bring the Indians back, and then the politicians may be good enough to play this great game all over again. Inspiring, is it not?
My friend from Peterborough and my friend from Selkirk have both made suggestions to discredit the writer of the article.


John Hampden Burnham: I did not.


Frank Oliver: I am glad to give my hon. friend the opportunity to make any further explanation he pleases; but my understanding was that he desired to discredit the writer of the article.


John Hampden Burnham: Not the writer. A man may be -a very eminent writer or a very eminent counsel and a very truthful, honourable man and yet fulfil the requirements of his brief and argue accordingly. I am making no imputation whatever against the writer, I am arguing against the credibility of his editorial and the hon. member is trying to hack up the editorial by the personality of the writer.


Frank Oliver: No, I am not trying to back it up by the personality of the writer, I am backing up the editorial by the fact that the writer is present in the place, cognizant of the facts and dependent upon public opinion

for his continuance in business in that locality.


George Henry Bradbury: Does the hon. gentleman know the writer of the article?


Frank Oliver: No, I do not know who wrote the article, but I know the editor of the Record and have known him since he was a boy and I think that both the man himself and his family connections will compare favourably with thbse of any ordinary citizen or even with any member of this House in regard to standing and credibility. However, that is not the point I wish to make. The point is that the man who is on the ground and directly responsible to the people living in that locality for his continuance in business makes these statements and uses these arguments, and is supported in doing so by the Board of Trade of the town, and further supported by a public meeting, a report of which I will read to the House. I quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 30, 1915:
Fully 250 citizens of Selkirk and adjoining municipalities attended a public meeting held last evening in Pearson's hall to consider the situation with respect to the St. Peter's Indian reserve surrender.
It was the largest meeting ever held in Selkirk and for once in the history of the town all differences and dissentions, political and otherwise were sunk in order that one unanimous, supreme effort might be made to induce the government at Ottawa to confirm the surrender and issue titles for the lands purchased from the Indians by private individuals.
J. H. Grisdale president, and speeches strongly condemnatory of the manner in which the matter had been treated by politicians for party purposes were made by Dr. Ross, mayor of Selkirk; Bruce Campbell, secretary of the board of trade; George Frank, reeve of St. Clement's ; Councillor Harriott, of St. Andrew's; D. Morrison, Selkirk; Arthur Clair, St, Andrew's ; F. A. Campbell Selkirk; G. T. Blakert, president of the board of trade; Ex-Councillor Muckle, St. Andrew's; and B. E. Benson.


George Henry Bradbury: All first-class Grits.


Frank Oliver: It goes on:
All the speakers were enthuiastically applauded.
Mr. Benson moved the following resolution, which was seconded by F. W. Hooker, and carried without a dissenting voice with great enthusiasm :
" That this public meeting of the citizens of Selkirk and district, assembled without personal interest or political affiliation, actuated by the acute realization of the great injury that has been and is still being done in the district through the non-settlement of the St. Peter's reserve surrender over a period of eignt years;
" Hereby resolve, that as a body representative of the entire community and district, we 119
are firmly convinced that the common injury and injustice being wrought by the hold-up of these lands from occupation, has created a situation, the continuance of which would he intolerable.
" Further, that the Indians, as a body, are and have always been, satisfied with the surrender and its terms ;-


George Henry Bradbury: That is absolutely
untrue.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend can settle that with the 250 of his constituents who supported this resolution. It goes on:
-and Anally, as the only solution of the present deadlock without still further delay, loss and expense, we hereby demand of the Government the confirmation of the surrender and the immediate issuance of titles to the lands."
The meeting was closed with a vote of thanks for the chairman and the singing of the national anthem.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: The hon. gentleman was not there, then.


Frank Oliver: Why does my hon. friend make that remark?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I simply said you were not there.


Frank Oliver: Did my hon. friend say . it because he wishes to be insulting, or because he is silly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not for a single moment be insulting, and as to being silly, well, one might really get into the hon. member's class.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will be,
well advised not to make such remarks when they are not called for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought they were.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will remember that he is not in Calgary in A1 Hazar hall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is a Turkish name, and that they changed it since the war began. I think they call it Belshazzar now.


Frank Oliver: 

(Mr. Bradbury), who has taken a very deep interest in the matter of the surrender of the reserve, has from time to time laid great stress upon the injustice that was done the Indians in this transaction. That injustice was in paying them for the land that they had, and giving them in the place of it a greater area of better land. My hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) shakes his head. He is inclined to deny the latter part of my statement. I propose to read to him the opinion of the Indian agent as to the benefit to the Indians of their removal to the new reserve. In the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1914, he says:
The movement of the people from St. Peter's continues, it has not been as rapid as I hoped it would be. Those who are still in residenec at St. Peter's have been advised that the time for receiving assistance from the department for moving- and building has about expired, and it has been pointed out to them that the advantage gained in this way is too valuable for them to'run any risk of losing it; there is now a pretty definite intention to move, one or two of the leaders have gone, and I hope to see many others arrange to do so during the coming season. Arrangements have been made to assist them in building, when they arrive at Peguis; a sufficient quantity of lumber and other building material has been placed there with Agent Carter, during the past winter, to meet any demands made for this purpose. It iy realized by them that they will be acting in their own best interest, if they move, as they find that those who have moved are doing well at Peguis.
I think I may rest the case there for the present. We now have the evidence as to the benefit the white people derive from the taking of this surrender, and it is given by those who are in a measure entitled to speak for the white people. We also have the evidence of the officers of the department as to the benefit to the Indians of their taking advantage of the arrangement that was made. I think under those circumstances my hon. friend from Selkirk will have to consider that he is in a minority on this question.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. member for Edmonton, the ex-Minister of the Interior in the late Government (Mr. Oliver), the man responsible for this transaction, speaking before the House rose at one o'clock, made some statements in my absence which I deem it wise to refer to. But before doing so I wish to refer to one or two things that [DOT] he said just before he resumed his seat.
Speaking of the advantage that has accrued to the St. Peter's Indians from the surrender, the hi n. gentleman would seek

to leave the impression on the people that the surrender was a good thing for the Indians. Let us examine for a moment that feature of the matter. St. Peter's Indian Reserve was adjacent to the town of Selkirk; in fact, it formed a part of that town. It comprised 48,000 acres within 26 miles of Winnipeg. That land is worth to-day $2,500,000 if it is worth a dollar. On the evidence of some men that the hon. gentleman has quoted as bet ig present at that meeting, and asking that these titles should be validated, this land was worth at the time of the surrender on an average of $25 an acre for the 48,000 acre;. The hon. gentleman seeks to leave the impression that it was a good bargain for the Indians that this change had taken place. The Government and those who desired the surrender of this 48,000 acres of the most valuable land in Manitoba, selected a site 90 miles farther north, along the west shore of lake Winnipeg, and gave the Indians 70,000 acres of land there in lieu of the 48,000 acres they had taken from them. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that this land compared in value with the 48,000 acres taken from the Indians? Every man who knows anything about wild land in that part of Manitoba knows that from $3 to $4 an acre would be a good value to place upon this 70,000 acres of land. He acquired land from the Indians that was worth at the time it was taken $25 to $50 an acre. He took an estate from the St. Peter's Indians which is worth at least to-day $2,500,000. I ask if that is considered fair treatment of the Indians of this country.
The hon. gentleman says that I have taken a great interest in the Indians. I have. And why? It is not because I have any personal interest in them, not because there was any political kudos to be gained from it; the Indian has no vote, he has no influence, he has no money. I was in the town when this outrageous transaction took place and I would have been lass than a man, I would have been unworthy of the position which' I occupy in this House if I had not attempted to rectify that shameful transaction and expose it to this country. I thought that when I appealed to the minister of the Interior of that time, the present hon. member for Edmonton, and, when he became seized of the facts, that I had laid before this House, he would take action and do some-.-thing to rectify the great wrong which had been perpetrated on the St. Peter's Indians. But the hon. gentleman satis-

fled himself with taking up three hours of the time of the House in an attempt to 'dispute the charges which I had made and when he sat down he left every charge unanswered and the charge made by me against the Indian Department just as strong as it was before he rose to his feet. During every session from 1907 to 1911, I appealed to the hon. gentleman across the floor of this House to do something to relieve the situation and to see that a modicum of justice was done to the poor unfortunate Indians, but I appealed in vain. The hon. gentleman made no attempt to settle the question. The late Government should have settled that question immediately, but when their attention was called to the matter in this House the present hon. member for Edmonton, the man who is responsible for this transaction, sat tight in his place and allowed the matter to drift year after year without making any attempt to settle it although he was appealed to time and time again across the floor, of this House and appealed to by residents oT the town of Selkirk in just as strong articles as he has read from the Record to-day. Yet he made no attempt to settle the matter. He said: What we have done, we have done, the surrender was legal and it must stand. That is the position he took. The statements I made when I opposed the trms-action I made after the most thorough investigation, I made with a full knowledge of my responsibility as a member of this House, and six or seven years having elapsed since that time, I have not one word to retract of what I said on that occasion.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: Would the hon. gentleman briefly state what were the charges that he made?


George Henry Bradbury: I will state some of them briefly. It would take too long to recite all of them.


William Melville Martin: I do not want the hon. gentleman to take too long.


George Henry Bradbury: The charges were that the Indians had been fraudulently deprived of their very valuable estate, that the meeting called for the surrender had been manipulated by the Indian agent and by the officers of the Indian Department, that the meeting where this surrender was declared to be carried was advertised for but one day, that twenty-four hours' notice was all the time that was given to the band of Indians to gather and decide as to the surrender.
119J


Mr. BLAIN:: What year was that?


George Henry Bradbury: That was in 1907.
This reserve is about ten miles square. Many of the young Indians, at that season of the year, were at lake Winnipeg fishing. There must have been thirty or forty of the young members of the band who never heard of this meeting. I have under my hand now the testimony of men living within a mile of the place where this surrender was voted on, and these men swear that they never knew that the meeting was being held. Another charge was that the Indian Act had been violated, that clause 49 of the Act provided that a majority of the male members of the band of 21 years of age at the meeting must vote in favour of the surrender or the surrender would not be valid. That is a point in regard to which my hon. friend from Edmonton and I differ. I remember that when we were discussing this point, he was arguing in favour of the clause, and I asked him if a meeting was called where there were two hundred and some odd qualified voters, and if only twenty voters attended that meeting, could those twenty Indians legally alienate the interest of all the rest of the Indians? My answer to that question is that they could do it legally hut perhaps not morally. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that in the opinion of two of the most reputable judges we have in Manitoba the position that the hon. gentleman had taken is utterly unjustifiable. A report was made by a Royal Commission appointed by the: Manitoba Government and composed of three county court judges-Judges Prudhomme, Myers and Locke. Every hon. gentleman who comes from the West knows' the reputation of these men. After a thorough examination of the whole case, two reports were brought in, a majority report and a minority report, but Judge Lc-ke, speaking for himself and Judge Prudhomme, says:
The surrender was not only voidable but void, and could not be ratified and should not be ratified.
That is the decision of those men at that time. Still the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who was responsible for the transaction, for three long years while he was minister of the department that perpetrated this transaction, made no attempt to rectify it. The consequence is that it has been handed down as a heritage to the present Government. I have not argued out of the House and I am not going to argue. in the House that the matter has been expe.


Mr. MORPHY:: Who is Mr. Pedley?


George Henry Bradbury: He was the Deputy
Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is he in office now?


George Henry Bradbury: No, he has been re- moved, or he resigned, I understand. I am not going to say that Mr. Pedley was to blame, for that would be taking an unfair advantage of an official of the department. The minister of that time must take the blame and so must the Government of which he was a member. I do not think, for a moment, that the deputy minister went out and negotiated and secured that surrender without the full consent of his minister. 'Consequently, what was done in securing the surrender, was done, I take it, with the full knowledge of that minister. But I must say that as hon. members who recollect the defence that that gentleman put up for that transaction will know, he displayed such utter ignorance of what had taken place that I should hesitate, to believe, even now, that he really did know what was done in this matter, though, as head of the department, he is responsible.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) made the statement that if this surrender was illegal, every other surrender taken up to the present moment, was equally illegal. He is not well informed. The present Government composed of men who, when in Opposition condemned what the late Government did in this connection, took precautions to settle this matter, and not one surrender
has been taken since this Government came into power in which the Indian Act has not been lived up to scrupulously. That there may be no misunderstanding let me quote clause 5 which takes the place of clause 49 of the Indian Act:
A surrender must be assented to by a majority of the Indians whose names appear on the voters' list, who must he present at the meeting or council summoned for the purpose as hereinafter provided.
This makes plain what interpretation should have been placed on section 49. When the hon. gentleman made the statement that if the St. Peter's Indian surrender was illegal every other surrender in Canada was illegal, he is quite in error. Other surrenders taken before this matter was exposed in the House may have been as illegal as this, but I do not believe that there is anything in the records of Canada to show such a brazen attempt made to defraud the Indians as in the case of the St. Peter's Indian Reserve.
As to the matter published in the Selkirk Record and the Winnipeg Free Press, let me say this to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver):	He is proprietor of a newspaper and knows a good deal about editing a newspaper, and a good deal 4 p.m. about what reliance can be placed, sometimes, on the actions of a newspaper. There has been, during the last six weeks, a campaign to stampede the present Government into a settlement of this question, not only against the interest of the Indians, but against the interest of the people of Canada and against the interest of the town of Selkirk. For I say now from my place in Parliament, and with all due deference to my friends, some cf whom are connected with these resolutions, and with all due deference to the Record, that, so far as the town of Selkirk is concerned, to my mind the greatest crime that could be committed against the town v.culd be to validate the titles of the St. Peter's Indian Reserve and hand this property over to a bunch of grafters, men who will hold the land at exorbitant prices for years to come and prevent the very result that the people want, viz., the settling up of that district. The late Government professed that they were working in the interests of the people, that they held the land in trust for the people and believed in the policy of " the land for the settlers and not lor tue speculators." Had they lived up to this policy they could have purchased from the Indians at a reasonable figure, and that

would have satisfied the Indians, forty-eight thousand acres of the best land in Manitoba. Then we should have had every acre of it settled by bona fide settlers to-day, but instead of that the Government of that day chose to play into the hands of a few speculators and only certain men could purchase these lands. A Conservative in the town of Selkirk at that time was told by the Indian agent that he need not attempt to buy the lands, that the department could give him no protection, and that he would be buying at his own risk. But Mr. Heap, a leading Liberal, Mr. Funk, a brother of Senator Funk of the United States, a very wealthy man, Mr. Frank of Winnipeg, another strong Liberal, and Mr Tracy of Se'kn-k, another strong Liberal- these were the men who bought from the Indians the lands all the way from one d far to five dollars and six dollars an acre. God knows how the Indian was paid, for the Indian himself does not know. When he went in to make a payment, he got, perhaps, a ten-dollar bill, and was asked to sign a receipt for it, and that receipt was a deed for the man's property, and nobody knows what he got afterwards. There is a letter on file from the Indian agent himself, who was in this transaction, who told his minister that after the first payment was made it depended entirely upon the honour of the purchaser what the Indian got. That is a sample of what was done and of what the hon. member for Edmonton would urge the Government to legalize. Why, if the Government of Canada were to legalize an action of this kind which has been exposed and proven, all I say is that there is very little justice for the poor unfortunate Indian.
I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House in dealing with this attempt made by my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) to revive this case in the House. His advice to the Government is, practically, to validate these titles. Let us see how that would work out. Does he mot know-I am sure he does-that the Registrar General of Manitoba has refused to issue a Torrens title on these patents issued by the Government and that before a Torrens title can issue some action must be taken by Parliament? Now, if that is true is that not evidence that the transaction was illegal in the first place, and if it was illegal why shouiu it be legalized. I want to say, in passing, that I regret as much, and more, than the hon. gentleman rrom Edmonton, that this case was not settled years ago. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) ought to

have settled this question before he went out of office-, but he let the matter rest for three years without taking action. It may be said that that does not justify the delay on the part of the present Government. I am not going to argue that it does. This matter ought to have been settled, and those who had been in authority will bear me out when I say that no one has been more persistent than I have been in attempting to secure a settlement of this case year after year. I did not suggest the settlement that the hon. member for Edmonton wishes; I urged that the matter be taken to court and, if the surrender be proved legal, that the registrar general of Manitoba should recognize the patents and settle the matter for all time to come. The case is now, I understand, ready for trial in the Exchequer Court. It is worthy of remark that the very men who have been clamouring for a settlement of this case for the last four years have been making every effort possible to block the proceedings which have been taken to make it possible to secure an early settlement. What have these men to feaT? If their conduct has been free from blame, why should they hesitate to allow this matter to go before the Exchequer Court for the opinion of the judge as to its legality? It is like the Irishman who went to an eminent lawyer when he was in trouble, and asked for his assistance. The eminent lawyer assured him that he would secure justice for him. "Well," said Pat, "it is not justice I want; I want to get out of this difficulty." And I think that some of the men who have obtained these lands do not want justice; they want to get the titles to the lands. This .question ought to be settled, and the men who have secured these lancts-some of which, I have no hesitation in saying, were literally stolen from the Indians-should not be allowed to retain them without recompensating the Indians in some way. Six of these men secured 35,000 acres of lands at less than $5 an acre: land which is the most valuable in the province of Manitoba, and which without any doubt, is worth to-day from $50 to $60 an acre. It is not too much to ask these men, even at this late date, to do justice to the Indians? My hon. friend stated that about half of this land was sold by public auction. That, of course, is in line with many other statements made by the hon. gentleman; it is not quite in accordance with the facts. Only about 15,000 acres out of 48,000 were sold by public auction. And how were they sold? The auction sale was manipulated just as skillfully as the

land itself was manipulated. The Department of Indian Affairs advertised the sale in six different issues of the Toronto Globe and the Winnipeg Free Press. The sales took place, I think, on December 16. There was a foot of snow on the ground; the advertisement had been withdrawn eighteen days before the sale took place, so that the public did not know anything about the sale when it did take place. The men who attended the sale were largely the same men who negotiated with the Indians for thieir little holdings; these are the men who got the land. No attempt was made by the Indian Department to secure a fair price for these lands.


William Melville Martin: How many people were at the sale?


George Henry Bradbury: I did not attend the
. sale, but I am told that in the morning there were present from five to ten men who represented these big holdings and fifteen or twenty Ruthenians who were anxious to obtain cheap land. These Ruthenians, by their bidding, made the other men bid up, and I understand that some of the land which was sold in the morning realized a price as high as $7 or $8 an acre. At lunch time an arrangement was made whereby a man was paid to take these foreigners into a barroom and keep them there until after the sale was finished. This is history; it is common knowledge in the town of Selkirk.


William Melville Martin: What did the department have to do with that?


George Henry Bradbury: Nothing at all; but
the department should not have allowed the sale to take place under the conditions that it did. Imagine the trustee of an estate selling a valuable piece of land in the middle of winter.


William Melville Martin: The hon. gentleman referred a few minutes ago to a report of the commission of judges appointed by the local government of the province of Manitoba. As I understand the matter, the two judges based their decision not upon the existence of fraud in connection with the sale of these lands, but upon the question of the interpretation of section 49 of the Indian Act.


George Henry Bradbury: To some extent that
is so, but not altogether. When the case was referred to these judges, the public understood that they were going to investigate not only the question of legality, but the question of alleged fraud as well. Judge Locke and Judge Prudhomme, in making their report, said this:
One phase at a time. However, we thought it would be desirable to report on the validity of the surrender first and leave it to the Government to decide as to whether or not it is necessary for the commissioners in view of this finding proceed with the other branch of the duties entrusted to them.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
They gave the Indians distinctly to understand that further investigation would be made into the fraudulent transactions between the purchasers and the Indians. This has never taken place. That is where I think the present Government have been entirely too lenient; they should have pushed the matter home more fully than they did.
I realize just as the men in Selkirk and all over the country' realize, that this case ought to be settled and I am just as anxious as a.ny man could be that it should be settled. I believe that the proper way is to settle this thing in court. There can be no question that if the surrender is legal the men who have got the land should be willing to allow the matter to go to the Exchequer court where it could be settled in a week. I made an offer five years ago to these men. I had authority to do it from the Registrar General of Manitoba. I was trying to gat a settlement then and urged upon him to point out some way of settling it. He said: Get these men to take an action in court to force me to issue a Torrans title to any one of these properties; and if they make good, if they can get a judgment in their favour, I shall issue the title. That was a fair proposition, and if the men who had the land were satisfied that they were right and had nothing to hide or fear, would it not have been easy for them to take the case to court and ask the decision of the Manitoba court, where they had all their friends, Chief Justice Howell, who was a party to securing the surrender, being Chief Justice of Manitoba at the time. They did not dare take it to the courts because they knew that they had not a leg to stand on; and they have been working ever since trying to secure from the Government some legislation that will validate those titles.
During my last election, in 1911, these men spent thousands of dollars frying to defeat me in my county on account c* what I had done in this transaction. No man in this House or out of it has ever insinuated or dared to insinuate that 1 had any personal interest in this matter. My action was dictated entirely in the interest of justice to the Indian who could not defend himself and the best interests

of my own town of Selkirk to make it impossible for 48,000 acres adjacent to the town, some of it within the limits of the town, to be tied up in the hands of speculators. I hold yet that I was justified in everything I did in trying to prevent these speculators from getting control of these lands.
The case is now in the hands, as I understand, of the Exchequer Court, and I hope it will come to trial very soon and that it will not stop there. I hope action will be taken to punish the men who have fraudulently dispossessed the Indians of their lands. There are men who have secured these lands as I have said before, who have literally stolen them from the Indians. These men ought to be prosecuted and punished, and it is up to the Indian Department to see that this is done.


William Melville Martin: On several occasions when this matter has been discussed in the House I have taken some part in the discussion, and that is my reason for rising to-day. I have no concern about the quarrel the hon. member for Selkirk has with some of his constituents in regard to this question, the only interest I have in the matter is the question of whether or not the administration of the Indian Department under the late Government was properly carried out in connection with the surrender'of the St. Peter's Indian Reserve. There is no question that for several years prior to the surrender in 1907 the people of Sel.urk and the surrounding country were continually asking that this surrender be obtained.


George Henry Bradbury: That statement was made, I think, by the then Minister of the Interor, now the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). There is not a line of evidence to justify that statement. The people of Selkirk never asked that the surrender should be made, nobody ever asked for it except the late member for Selkirk, Mr. Jackson. That was brought out in evidence.


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend may be better informed in that regard than I am, but I always understood that in and around Selkirk, as in the case of the surrender of other reserves in Canada, there was a movement on the part of settlers for the surrender of the reserve. I understood when the matter was discussed previously in the House, four or five years ago, that that was the case, and it was on that basis that I made my statements.' The surrender was

arranged for in 1907 and, in so far as I have been informed, no objection was taken by any residents of that district to the surrender being made provided it was made properly. I think my hon. friend himself was in favour of the surrender.


George Henry Bradbury: So far as the town of Selkirk is concerned and myself personally, I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton, and I think it a good thing that the Indians have been moved; it is a good thing for themselves. But that does not justify robbing them.


William Melville Martin: The charges that were
made repeatedly by the hon. member for Selkirk and other members on that side of the House some years ago, and the charges repeated by him to-day, are that, first, there was fraud in connection with the surrender of the reserve, either on the-part of the department or on the part of men who subsequently bought these lands from the Indians, or on the part of both. A general charge was made that the Indians were fraudulently deprived of a very valuable asset. That is the main charge I have ever heard made, but, I have never seen an iota of evidence to support it. It is easy to talk about fraud, but when you come down to the basis of things and get to facts it is difficult to prove the existence of what is really meant by fraud, and I would point out that apart from departmental fraud altogether if my hon. friend refers to fraud on the part of individuals in the province of Manitoba in getting lands from the Indians or from the department in connection with this reserve, they have their remedy. Why does not the Attorney General of Manitoba prosecute these men? Then we will have the question disposed of once and for all. That would not, it is true, dispose of a charge of fraud on the part of the department. As to the charge of fraud on the part of the department or on the part of Mr. Pedley, it all comes down to this, that Mr. Pedley had $5,000 in a little black valise, and said to the Indians:	If this surrender goes through
to-day I can make a part payment on the purchase price. That is all he meant, he did not pretend to buy the Indians. What benefit would he or any other officer get by bribing the Indians to hand over their land, to give the surrender? That is the whole question.


George Henry Bradbury: I know the hon. gentleman wants to be fair. The facts are

these. The hon. member knows the Indian pretty well, probably as well as I do.


William Melville Martin: I do not admit that.


George Henry Bradbury: And he knows the effect of making a statement such as Mr. Pedley did make to the effect: I have $5,000 here, and if this surrender goes through this will be divided among you, and if it does not go through, you will not get anything. I do not for a minute dispute that the money was supposed to come out of the sale of the Indian lands.
I believe that myself, but the poor Indian did not understand it that way. He understood he was getting part of that $5,000.


William Melville Martin: Everybody who
pays any attention to Indian Estimates knows that there is a vote every year for the purpose of obtaining the surrender of Indian reserves. Only the other night there was one for $25,000. I understand that it has always been customary to pay the Indians a small sum of money when the surrender is arranged for. I do not know what words Mr. Pedley used. My hon.' friend knows, and I have no doubt he repeated the words correctly this afternoon. But considering the position Mr. Pedley occupied in the Indian Department, and that neither he nor any other Government official profited by this surrender, how could any reasonable man put the interpretation on these words that the hon. member for Selkirk has; namely, that Pedley wanted to bribe these Indians and led them to believe they would get this money, in addition to whatever price they got for their land. I know a little about Indians; I have seen some of them, although I am not so familial with them as my hon. friend from Selkirk, who is particularly familiar with the St. Peter's Reserve. But the Indian as a rule is a pretty shrewd man, and I have no doubt the Indians knew perfectly well that that $5,000 was a payment on account of the purchase price for the lands being surrendered, and that it was not in addition at all. The hon. member for Selkirk knows that perfectly well. That is the sum and substance of the charge of fraud, in so far as the deartment is concerned. With the exception o this $5,000, I have never heard of any ot: [DOT][DOT] charge being brought against the depart:, mt. I venture to say that not a court in the 'and would hold the officials of the department guilty of fraud on the evidence that has been produced by the hon. member for Selkirk from time to time. What is the
other charge he makes? He says the meeting was only advertised for a very short time.


George Henry Bradbury: Twenty-four hours.


William Melville Martin: I cannot lay my finger
upon it, but I understand the provision is that the meeting shall be called in accordance with the regulations of the band. What were the regulations of this band? I do not know, my hon. friend has not told us. In looking over this report I find that the judges expressed the opinion that sufficient notice of the meeting was not given, but they distinctly say that, so far as the evidence was concerned, they could not say that it was not called in accordance with the regulations of the band. Further, to substantiate the belief that the Indians were notified, there Is the fact that, at the meeting, out of 223 men who were entitled to vote 205 were present.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman has not got the vote right. There were 289 qualified votes in St. Peter's band at the time, and 205 were present.


William Melville Martin: Two hundred and twentythree are the figures I have but I may be mistaken. At any rate 205 out of 289 is a fairly good representation. In so far as any proceedings in court are concerned, I venture the opinion that the whole matters simmers down, not to a question of fraud at all, but to the question of the interpretation of section 49 of the Indian Act; and in the report that was presented to the Manitoba Government by the commission of judges appointed by that province, one of the three judges puts an altogether different interpretation on that clause from the other two. Two of tire judges say that a majority of the whole Band must vote at the meeting. The other one says that the proper interpretation is that the vote must , be supported by a majority of those present at the meeting. Let me read the clause to the House:
Except as in this Parliament otherwise provided, no release or surrender of a reserve, oi a portion of reserve, held for the use of the Indians of any band, or of any individual Indian, shall be valid or binding-, unless the release or surrender shall be assented to by a majority of the male members of the band of the full age of twenty-one years, at a meeting or council thereof summoned for that purpose.
As I said, one of the judges appointed by the province of Alanitoba saw fit to interpret the section to this effectr that a majority of those present was all that was required. The other two say that that is not correct. So there we have at least a

difference of opinion among judges who are eminently qualified to express an opinion upon the interpretation of that clause. When you consider that every surrender of a reserve has, up to the time of the surrender of the St. Peter's Reserve, always been carried out on that basis, I think we are justified in coming to the conclusion that a proper interpretation was. placed ixpon that clause, especially in view of' the fact that three judges of the land disagree on the matter.


George Henry Bradbury: If that is right, would it not have been a very easy matter for the Indian Departmnt to submit the case to the courts for decision? But they would not do that.


William Melville Martin: I am not here to
criticise the old Administration, but I would say this to my hon. friend: he has spent, and to my mind wasted>
a tremendous amount of the time of this House and of his own time during three or iour years. If the interpretation placed upon that Act by the ex-Minister of the Interior was not correct, why did not my hon. friend's friends rectify it as soon as they came into power?
Mr. BRADBURY. They should have done so.


William Melville Martin: The matter appears to
me'to be this way. There are a great many innocent purchasers of this land. My hon. friend does not mean to say that all the men who purchased this land from the Indians were guilty of fraud. No; a large proportion of them are innocent purchasers. That being the case, it is very difficult for ine to understand how the Provincial Government can step in to the Land Titles Office and say:	You shall not issue patents to
the hundreds of men who have purchased the land quite innocently. In order to make political capital out of this matter against the late Government, and in an endeavour to show that the late Governmeent did not deal fairly with the Indians and the natural resources of this country, my hon. friend resorted to the Roblin Government for the purpose of creating a political furore about this particular surrender. And now the chickens are coming home to roost.


George Henry Bradbury: As I understood it
from the Registrar General, the Manitoba Government had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was the Registrar General himself on his own responsibility, because he is responsible to the Government for every

title he issues, and my hon. friend as a lawyer knows that.


William Melville Martin: I do not know anything
of the kind.


George Henry Bradbury: It is absolutely right.


William Melville Martin: The Government of Manitoba is responsible.


George Henry Bradbury: The Government of
Manitoba is responsible to the people, and the Registrar General to the Government. The consequence was that when the Rigis-trar General refused to issue those titles, the Government in its own defence appointed this commission to demonstrate whether 'the Registrar General was justified in what he was doing. That explains the situation if I understand it correctly, and I think I do. That is the only attempt the Manitoba -Government made to get this matter settled, and if the commission had found out that the patents had been issued properly and the surrender taken legally, there would have been no question about it.
Air. A1ARTIN:	The Manitoba Government and the hon. member for Selkirk, for the purpose of making political capital out of this question and throwing discredit on the late Government, got the Registrar General to refuse to issue the patents.


George Henry Bradbury: No man can dictate
to Mr. McAra, the Registrar General of Manitoba.


William Melville Martin: The Government of the
province of Manitoba appointed a commission of three judges for the purpose of see-* ing what kind of a surrender this was, and to investigate the charges of fraud. The judges all expressed the opinion that there was no fraud at all on the part of the Indian Department. You can read the report from one end to the other and you will not find a word as to fraud on the part of the Indian Department. So it is a question of the interpretation of section 49 of the Indian Act, and that is all there is to it, and that seems to me a very small question to have taken up so much of the time of the House in the last six or seven years. There was a time, when, listening to the remarks of my hon. friend at such extended length, I began to think that there might be something wrong. Having taken occasion to look into the matter I came to the conclusion then, as I believe to..-day that section 49 is absolutely the only thing that is at issue in connection with this whole matter. I venture the opinion that

in the ease that is before t'he Exchequer Court to-day, unless some fraud can he established against some one or more of these purchasers, every one of them will get his patent.
Now let us consider for a moment what took place in connection with the sale. My hon. friend- says that this land is worth $2,500,000. He knows that when he says that he talks rubbish. It means $50 or $60 per acre for ordinary farm land. Does my hon. friend say that that land is as valuable as land on Portage Plains or in the Neepawa district?


George Henry Bradbury: Yes, I mean to say that no land in Manitoba is as valuable as the St. Peter's Reserve land.


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend calls into question the genuineness of the auction sale and casts aspersions upon the conduct of those who had to do with it. It is a difficult matter to carry out an understanding between an auctioneer and 200 or 300 purchasers at an auction sale. My hon. friend says that a great many foreigners went to this sale expecting to be able to get some farm land.- How did they expect to get cheap farm land at St. Peter's Indian Reserve when, according to the hon. gentleman, that land was worth $50 or $60 an acre? In any event, in so far as the Indians were 'concerned, they got 25,000 acres of land. I do not know how many acres were sold; I understand that 25,000 acres were sold, but my hon. friend says that there were only 15,000 acres sold. If there were only 15,000 acres sold then there are 10,000 acres left to the credit of the Indians. At all events they got the benefit of the sale of 15,000 acres of land and the proceeds of that sale go to their credit in the Indian Trust Fund. In addition to that the Indians' got 20,000 acres in severalty. At the- auction sale 15,000 acres of farm land were sold. There were over a hundred people at that sale, there was open bidding, 15,000 acres of land were purchased and the average price paid was only $5.76 per acre.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to correct my hon. friend when he makes the statement that there were over a hundred people at the sale because he is stating something that is absolutely contrary to the fact. There never were more than twenty people at the sale and more than half of them were foreigners.


William Melville Martin: The information I have is altogether contrary to that. I was not
present, of course, and my hon. friend was not present, and he does not know anything more about it than I do.


George Henry Bradbury: It took place in my town.


William Melville Martin: My information is that the sale was largely attended and my hon. friend's information is that there was a very small attendance. However, we will not delay over that question. As a matter of fact school lands sold in Manitoba in that very same year did not produce any more per acre.


Frank Oliver: And the school lands were offered on more favourable terms.


William Melville Martin: Yes, under a ten-year term. We know that in the West, where a large quantity of land is put on the market at once, it is not an uncommon thing for ordinary farm land to go fairly cheap at an auction sale. Sometimes cases occur where a piece of land close to a town is offered for sale, a lot of people living in the town want to buy it and the price runs up far beyond the value of farm land. But the fact is that at this auction sale 15,000 acres of land, notwithstanding the fact that every person who dealt in real estate in Winnipeg knew that the sale was going to be held, sold for $5.76 per acre. The people of the town of Selkirk knew that this sale was being held. My hon. friend knew it; why did he not go to the sale with some of his friends and see that the Indians got their just due? In addition to that, the portion of the 20,000 acres that the Indians got in severalty realized from $3 to $20 per acre: It does not appear to me that in connection with this sale the Indians were defrauded. In so far as the question of the Indians being defrauded by purchasers is concerned, if what my hon. friend says is true, it is the duty of the Attorney General's Department of the province of Manitoba to immediately prosecute those men who have defrauded these Indians out of their lands.


George Henry Bradbury: Do you not think it is the duty of the Indian Department as the guardian of the Indians?


William Melville Martin: Well, then my hon. friend has influence with the Indian Department; he might exert it. He has taken three and a half years to get nothing done. The late Government did not do anything on his representations because they did not believe that there was anything whatever in the charges that the hon. gentleman made. When the judgment of the Exchequer Court

is given, if these cases ever come to trial, I venture to give my opinion that he will find that there is nothing in them. The Indian will be exactly where he was seven or eight years ago and the town of Selkirk, and the purchasers who have been held up for their patents, will be exactly in the same position as they were in seven or eight years ago. In one of the articles quoted by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) the statement was made that the town of Selkirk has lost seven or eight years of its development by reason of the agitation which has been carried on.
My hon. friend says that the Indians were further defrauded in that they were not given a chance to get their patents direct but that somebody else got them. My information is that there were 400 patents issued for each one of which the Indian Department obtained a receipt and that these receipts are in the Department of Indian Affairs to-day. The department refused to recognize the assignment of an Indian's rights to another and they insisted on forwarding the patent directly to the Indian and getting his receipt. For that purpose the patents were sent to the Indian agent at Selkirk, he got the receipts immediately and the receipts are on file here. What fraud is there in that? In connectipn with the surrender of the St. Peter's Indian Reserve, the only question that has ever come before the committee at any time is the question as to whether or not the word "majority" in section 49 of the Indian Act means a majority of the men present at the meeting or a majority of the men who are entitled to vote in the trjbe.


Mr. KYTE:: Has the minister had any recent correspondence with the authorities in Sydney relative to the proposal to remove the Indians from the reserve near that city?


William James Roche: I do not think there is any recent correspondence. The last I remember was received during the last session of Parliament.


George William Kyte: No action has been taken?


William James Roche: No.
British Columbia-to provide a further amount for the relief of destitute Indians, $10,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the present condition of the Indians of the Kitsilano reserve, where are they located and what reports has the minister as to their present financial condition?


William James Roche: ' There is no change in the situation as compared with what it was when we were discussing this question a year ago. The Indians were removed from the reserve and they went to other reserves, I understand. I have not heard that there has been any bad effect from the payment to the Indians to secure the surrender any more than there was in the case of the Indians in the neighbourhood of Victoria on the Songhees reserve. The case at the present time is before the Royal Commission. They have not adjudicated yet upon the case 'and that is the reason why I have nothing further to report than I brought to the attention of the House last session.


Frank Oliver: The reason I ask in regard to the condition of these Indians is because of the difference in their situation from that of the Songhees Indians. The Songhees Indians were paid fox one reserve and given another. The Kitsilano Indians were paid by the British Columbia Government, and they were not given another reserve. I was anxious to know exactly what had become of them, where they were located now and what their financial circumstances were. The minister will bear in mind that there is a very radical difference between the two conditions. The Songhees have a definite reserve to which they have clear title and which they are now in occupation of, whereas the Kitsilano Indians, so far as I know, have no reserve.


Mr. STEVENS:: I think I can explain the matter if the minister will permit me. The hon. member is mistaken in the statement that the Kitsilano Indians have no reserve to go to. There are about half a dozen small reserves around Vancouver to which the Squamish band belongs, and I think that is the general name of the band. Only a very few of the Indians who claimed a right in the Kitsilano reserve, actually live on the reserve, and the rest are nomads so far as that reserve is concerned. Sometimes they go up the north sbc"e of Burrard inlet to the Squamish mission, sometimes to the Kapilano reserve or the Seymour reserve, iso that they are not homeless in. any sense. They have the other .sections of the district to which they go and where they are now living, and they are, as far as I know, living in very good circumstances. I do not know of any evil effects having come to the Indians from the transaction.
[Mr. W. M. Martin. 1


Frank Oliver: The hon. member's explanation is hardly adequate. If all the small reserves belong to the one band, the whole of the band had a right to share in any distribution of money in regard to one part of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That would not follow.


Frank Oliver: It does follow then that
those of the Ritsilano band who received the money on account of that reserve have no equal rights with the Indians occupying the other parcels of land said to be under the control of the Squamish band. My hon. friend cannot have it both yays. Either the band as a whole should have been. paid for that reserve, or those of the band who were paid have not equal rights with the other members of tne oand in the other reserves, and as a matter of fact they are either trespassers on the other smaller reserves or they are there on suffrance by the members of those bands. It is quite likely that Indians who have received large payments such as they did are very welcome amongst their fellow's, and very likely their circumstances are entirely satisfactory; but their condition is not parallel lo that of the Indians of the Songhees Reserve. Has there been any assumpu-on of occupation or ownership on the part of the Government of British Columbia in the Kitsilano Reserve?


William James Roche: No.


Frank Oliver: Does the Department of
the Interior assert and exercise supervision and control in the matter of necessary protection of property and so on upon that reserve at the present time-	[DOT]


William James Roche: Tne position of the Department of the Interior is exactly as it was prior to the surrender of that reserve - to the Provincial Governm nt. We have not recognized that surrender in any way, shape, or form. Our position is exactly the same as tnougn the surrender had not taken place.


Frank Oliver: 
William James Roche: As j say, there has been no change. No instructions have been given other than those which the agent received and was exercising prior to the surrender. As the hon. gentleman has stated, what few houses there were have been burned. The Indians have left the reserve. There is practically no jurisdiction to exercise; that is, there are no Indians to supervise; there is no property to protect, and the duty of the agent there would not be of a very onerous character.


Frank Oliver: The question that I
wanted to ask and that I think I may consider has been answered by the minister is whether the Indian Department of the Federal Government, or the Government of British Columbia exercises proprietary rights in the reserve. I would be bound to conclude that it is the Government of British Columbia which exercises those proprietary rights at the present time, and not the Department of Indian Affairs.
Department of the Interior-Scientific institutions-construction and installation of a large reflecting telescope for the Dominion Astronomical Observatory (Western branch)-Further amounted required, $4,939.80.


Frank Oliver: How much is this excursion of ours to the stars going to cost?


William James Roche: The land on which this
telescope is to be erected is to cost rather more than was estimated. The British Columbia Government promised- to pay $10,000 towards the purchase as well as build the roads which are estimated to cost over $30,000. The land cost $14,939, and it is this excess of cost that we are now asking for. The telescope itself cost in the neighbourhood of $90,000.


Frank Oliver: And how much will the
building and installation cost?


William James Roche: We are not going on except by piecemeal. We are not now building any buildings except such as are absolutely necessary. We estimate that the cost of buildings and telescope will be in the neighbourhood of $100,000.
Commons
Dominion lands and parks-to pay the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company, successors to the Canadian Northwest Irrigation Company, compensation for deficiency in area, $43,439.34, and interest at 5 per cent per annum on over-payment of $36,707.43, from 12th June, 1909, to 31st August, 1914, $9,579.13, $53,018.47.


Mr. EOCHE:: The Government had made an arrangement with the Canadian Northwest Irrigation Company for the sale of 500,000 acres of land on irrigation conditions ' at $3 per acre, with a rebate of $2 per acre on the works being completed. Their interests were transferred to the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company, but it was found that in the area set aside the requisite number of acres were not to be had, as they had not taken into consideration that there were school lands which can only be sold by public auction. Therefore, the company got only about 467.000 acres, and they applied to the late Government for permission to select elsewhere, but were refused. They had considerable negotiation both with the late Government and with the present Government for a refund, and this vote is for the refund.
Dominion land and parks-Canadian national parks-further amount required, $32,000.


William James Roche: This is to pay several items. There is a balance of the amount of extras on the bath-house at Banff. It was estimated at $100,000, but will cost $117,000. The contract was $110,000, and there are extras of $2,219, plus architect's fees, $5,610, or a total cost of $117,829, leaving a balance over the estimate of $17,829. Then we 'had to provide for expenses in connection with a very large forest fire at Yoho park. We had also to undertake works in connection with the Banff water supply. The Banff hotels have in the past paid on a fixed basis.
-The use of water has largely increased, and on the expiry of contracts, it has been deemed advisable to install meters in hotels, livery stables, etc., and to charge on the basis of the water used.
Immigration-relief other than seed grain for settlers in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, $1,275,000.


William James Roche: This is to cover the months that run into the fiscal year 1916. We have provided for relief for April, May and June.
Dominion lands and parks-to pay the balance of expenses connected with the moving of the residences of the people of the town of Frank, Alberta-revote, $13,839.32.


William James Roche: The Dominion Lands and Park.


Frank Oliver: Has the town been entirely removed?


William James Roche: Not yet.


Frank Oliver: Is it in contemplation to -provide for entire removal?


William James Roche: Yes, I understand so.


Frank Oliver: Does the removal progress at the option of the citizens or how?


William James Roche: Some of the citizens requested the Government to have it removed. The provincial authorities and the owners have been contributing towards the expenses. The total expense has been $69,200, of which the Provincial Government provides $20,000, the owners $19,200 and this Government $30,000.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals) Bill No. 119, to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Progress reported.

Mr. GEORGE McCRANEY (Saskatoon) moved:: That the Bill from the Senate, for the relief of Charles Isaac Alexander, be referred back to the Committee on Private Bills for further consideration.


George Eulas Foster: Would my hon. friend explain why this motion is thought to he necessary?


George Ewan McCraney: This is a Divorce Bill which stands in my name. The evidence has been taken, it has passed the Senate, and it came before this House this morning and received the first and the second reading. It was referred to the Committee on Private Bills. The Committee on Private Bills considered it this morning, and I understand it was thrown out by a vote of 7 against the Bill to 6 in its favour. On behalf of the petitioner in whose interest the Bill is before the House, I would like the Bill to have some further consideration from the committee, which was small and which might on another occasion come to another conclusion.
[Mr Roche.l


George Eulas Foster: The sum of it
seems to be that the committee did meet and met properly and did consider the Bill and gave it proper consideration and passed upon it. This action, if it were carried out, would make these committees continuous according to the wishes of members on either side of the House. What I mean is that it seems rather a strong proceeding, just after the committee has met and come to a conclusion and reported, that the matter should be referred back to it. Perhaps my hon. friend would let it lie until Saturday and bring it up then.


George Ewan McCraney: I am in the hands of the House, because what I ask for must be done with the consent of the House. I did not wish to he here on Saturday.


George Eulas Foster: If some hon. gentleman would take it up for my hon. friend on Saturday, I think it would be better to leave it over until then.
Motion stands.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 110, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1, section 61-Dominion Elections Act amended:	-
William Pugsley: Perhaps the minister
would explain the purpose of the Bill and what the changes are?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is the Bill reported by the committee that was appointed to inquire into the Dominion Elections Act and the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, and to suggest amendments to them. The Bill is the result of the considerations of the committee, and has been unanimously submitted to the House. I do not wish it to be understood that the committee was absolutely wedded to the provisions of this Bill, although those provisions commended themselves to their judgment. We placed the Bill before the House, of course expecting that it will be considered, and we are quite open to receive any suggestions. The first section of the proposed Bill repeals or amends section 61 of the Dominion Elections Act, which is a section which provides the oath to be administered in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, there being special provisions for the method of carrying on an
election in these provinces. The substantial effect of this clause is that the provisions of section 62, in so far as the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are concerned, are repealed, and it is the repeal of those sections that leads to the other provisions that are contained in this particular section. Under the section repealed there is a provision whereby a voter presenting himself at the poll, even although his name be not upon the lists that have been prepared by enumerators under the special provisions for those provinces, may he sworn by the deputy returning officer as to his qualifications, and may, upon his swearing' to his qualifications, be permitted to vote. The present provision would repeal that, and the consequence of repealing that necessitates an alteration in the oath to be administered to the voter in those provinces, making applicable the oath administered in other provinces where there is no such provision.


William Pugsley: It does not repeal this, it only amends it by providing what oath may be administered.
Mr. DOHERTY, So far as the oath is concerned, it is amended by providing that the oath that may be put to these persons by reason of the fact that there was a provision that a man might be allowed to vote on his merely taking an oath of his qualifications, not being on a list at all, being repealed, then, instead of prescribing the oath "x", which is the oath of qualification, the prescription is that he shall take the usual oath as taken in the other provinces; but the provision of the Act under which he may be allowed to vote, although on no list, merely by taking an oath that he is a qualified person, is repealed.


William Pugsley: What section repeals that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 62 is amended by striking out "provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta." Section 62, as it reads now, provides that in the Yukon territory and in the provinces of Saskatchewan, and Alberta, a man will be allowed to present himsell and to vote upon taking the oath of qualification. We repeal it as regards the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta by striking out of that section the words "the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan," leaving the provision standing, but only as applicable to the Yukon territories.


John Gillanders Turriff: In repealing those
clauses as they apply to Saskatchewan and Alberta, is it the intention of the Govern-

ment to adopt the provincial list in connection with Dominion elections?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision in the Bill altering the other provisions of the Act as they now stand.


Mr. ROGERS:: Is the report of the committee making the recommendations upon which the Bill is founded a unanimous report?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I explained before my colleague came in, while the committee was unanimous in submitting the Bill, we did not wish it to be understood that we were absolutely wedded to these provisions. We present them to the House with perfectly open minds as to any suggestions that may come as to their desirability. While I think the provisions commended themselves to the judgment of the committee, upon such examination as we were able to make and with such information as we had, we shall of course be glad to profit by the possibly greater knowledge of hon. gentlemen from the provinces concerned, who are certainly in a better position to judge of the conditions there than at least I should he.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was one of the members of the special committee which had under consideration the Controverted Elections Act and the Dominion Elections Act. In considering the Controverted Elections Act it became necessary, of *course, to give some consideration to the Dominion Elections Act, and, as the minister has stated, the first three or four clauses were unanimously concurred m for presentation to the House. As the first two clauses of the Bill have oecas-sioned some little comment from hon. members from the Western provinces since being brought down to the House, I might say that these amendments came up accidently and incidentally, and we gave very little consideration to the matter indeed. During our consideration of the several clauses of the Dominion Elections Act, one member of the committee pointed out that in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon, additions might be made to the electoral franchise list up to and including the very day of polling. Although I believe that is a provision of the Act, it was a revelation to me. It struck me as being an' absurd provision in these days, and particularly as regards the old provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and I still say that it is a misfortune that such a provision should be in the Act. Further, I have since re-

cognized that we failed to give consideration to other sections of the Bill relative to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the Yukon territory. That is Part II of the Bill. Under the system of electoral registration prevailing in those two provinces and the Yukon, provision is made for the registration of electors, but they have to register within a period of eight days. There is a further provision that on election day any person claiming to be an elector may enroll and poll his vote upon taking the oath. When we were considering this Bill in the committee I myself was under the impression that these provisions were supplemental to the provincial e'ec-toral lists, or that there was a more comprehensive method of enrolling electors, and I was not sympathetic towards the continuance in the statute of a provision enabling electors to enroll on election day. I would consider that an unfortunate provision in the law of any country, unless there were very good reasons for it. Since my attention has been called to it, it is quite apparent to me that these amendments would be unfair in the circumstances, unless the provincial lists were adopted, or a more comprehensive system of enrolment of electors w.as contained in the statute. I think that the members of the committee failed to take that into consideration. I should very gladly vote for an amendment tp the Dominion Elections Act, if that could be done easily, making the provincial lists applicable for Dominion purposes, or adding further provisions providing for a longer time during which to enroll. But I recognize that in order to make both these amendments or either of them would take a great deal of time, and delay the Bill unduly. I would therefore suggest to the minister the withdrawal of sections 1, 2 and 3 of Bill 110. It is quite true that the committee were unanimous in recommending these sections to the House, and no one more than another was responsible for that. As soon as it was suggested I readily concurred, together with my colleague from Carleton (Mr. Car-veil), who was on the same committee. I do trust, however, that in the circumstances it will be agreeable to the minister to withdraw these provisions from the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understood it in
the committee, these sections were adopted principally by reason of the hearty approval of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), and I think likewise of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). *


Mr. CARVELL:: With a slight reservation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Possibly. Personally
I confess I relied largely on their view of the matter. However, if it appears that those who come from the western provinces directly affected, and who are much more familiar with conditions there than I and the majority of the members of the committee pretend to be, look upon these provisions as undesirable, I would not for a moment insist on pressing the suggested amendment. I may point out that I do not think it would be proper to drop entirely the section, because part of its purpose was to amend an error that is evidently in the present statute, in so far as it refers to the oath that is to be taken by persons who are not on the list. Sec-ton 63 of the present Act provides:
Every person whose name is on the voters' list, unless sworn as in the next preceding section provided, shall before being permitted to vote, if required by any candidate, agent or elector, take the oath No. 1 in form Z.
On turning up oath No. 1 in form Z it will appear at once that what it was intended to say was oath No. 2 in form Z, and I think the statute ought to be amended so as to meet that requirement. Oath No. 1 in form Z is the oath that would be required of a person who was not upon the list at all, whereas evidently the oath that is intended is oath No. 2 form Z-the oath against bribery-because it is applicable to a man whose name is on the list. We retain that in any event. We do not interfere with the law which permits a man to swear his qualifications there and then. We are retaining section 62 of the Act, but subsection 2 of the Bill provides that section 62 is to be amended by substituting the word " two " for the word " one " in the fourth line thereof. The rest of that subsection might very well be dropped.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Would the minister please read the oath of the voter whose name is not on the list?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The oath to be taken
by the voter whose name is not on the list is as follows:
You do swear that you are of the male sex and a British subject, that you are not an Indian, you are of the full age of twenty-one years, and that you have resided in the province of Saskatchewan or Alberta or the Yukon territory (as the case may be) for at least twelve months, and (in case of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta) in this electoral district for at least three months, immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election, and 120
that you are now resident in this polling division, (the last ten words shall be omitted from the oath in the case of a person voting under section 59 or in Yukon territory.) So help me God.
That oath is intended to be taken by a person who, not being on the list, not having been enumerated, is allowed to vote because he swears that he has the necessary qualifications, whereas section 63 deals with the oath which is intended to be administered to the person whose name is on the voter's list. It is quite evident that it was intended by this section to require the person whose name is on the voter's list to take the oath that he was qualified to vote and that he had not received any money or reward for his vote. That oath, I think we ought to retain.


William Humphrey Bennett: Speaking from memory, I think there is something in the general Act which provides that where a person has voted in the name of a voter, and the real voter comes along afterwards, the latter is entitled to vote. In that case the ballots are kept separate. May I ask the minister now how a case of that kind is dealt with in the West? Will the ballots of those persons who tendered their votes under these circumstances be placed in the box with the other ballots or will they be placed in a separate envelope?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think it is possible for that situation to arise. There is a provision under which track can be kept of two men each claiming to be the voter whose name is on the list. However, in this case the question does not arise of one man trying to represent that he is another man and therefore entitled to vote. The man whose name is not on the list simply takes the oath that he is entitled to vote.


William Humphrey Bennett: Ten or twenty men might go to a polling place, take the oath and vote whether their names were on the list or not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was at one time
such an Act in the unorganized district of Ontario but time proved that it was rather a bad Act and it was elminated from the statutes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would imagine that if the proposed amendment to the Act as applied to Saskatchewan and Alberta were withdrawn section 63a in the new Bill would also have to be either withdrawn or amended. I think that was the question



that the minister was speaking to. There is evidently a mistake in the law as it reads. This was all threshed out in the committee but it will be made plain to any hon. gentleman who will follow the section as it is. In the Elections Act there is a particular part called part two which applies to Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon Territory. Sections 31 to 65 apply exclusively to these provinces and this territory. Section 61 provides for the oath which may be administered in these two provinces and reference to form Z is in two parts. Part 1 is the oath that a person must take who claims to have the right to vote because he is a resident. That is the man who was referred to by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) a few moments ago. A man comes up and says I am a resident of Alberta, I have been here for a year, or whatever time may be required, my name is not on the list and I demand the right to vote. Then he would take what is called oath No. 1 in form Z. Then, if some other person wants to challenge him on the ground that he has been guilty of bribery, he takes oath No. 2 in form Z. Oath No. 2 in form Z is practically the same as the general oath in form Y. If you abolished the right of a man to swear in his vo^e you would abolish the whole of form Z and bring him under the general law by which a man might be called upon to take the bribery oath as prescribed in form Y. If you go back to the original condition of affairs you must leave in form Z. But there is a mistake made in section 63 because it says:
Every person whose name is on the voters' list, unless sworn as in the next preceding section provided, shall before being permitted to vote, if required by any candidate, agent or elector, take the oath number one in Form Z.
If a man's name is on the list he should not be required to take the oath No. 1 because No. 1 is the oath which the man takes if his name is not on the list. I do not think that is what it was intended to provide for. The man whose name is on the list has the right to vote provided he takes the proper oath which is Form Z 2. lou would have to change the word " one " in the fourth i.ne of section 63 to the word " two " and then it would provide that the voter should take oath iNo. 2 instead of No. 1.
Mr. Mc(jRANEYT:	Suppose a name is
improperly on the enumerator's list as far as qualification goes, may the man not be challenged and may he not be required to take oath No. 1 as well as oath No. 2 ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was not our idea.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think my hon. friend
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. var-vell) are in error in imagining that there is a mistake in the present Act because there is none. You must remember that the list made in Saskatchewan and Alberta has nothing m common with the list you have in other parts of Canada. This is simply a pen, and ink list which is made after the proclamation has been issued and it must be posted up eight days before the election. Any man may go to the enumerator and ask to have his name put on. The enumerator as a rule does not swear that man or make any particular effort to satisfy himself that the man is entitled to vote and the name goes on the list whether the applicant is entitled to vote or not. Many a name is put on these individual lists. There is a special list for each polling division. In my own constituency last election there were 111 enumerators appointed. The idea of the oath is all right. Many names may be put on the list of persons who are not entitled or qualified to vote, men who may not be British subjects, may net have resided a year in the province .and may not have resided three months in the electoral district. It is very necessary to keep that oath as it is. If you want to provide further that, in addition to taking that oath of qualification, each voter who is not on the list, should also be sworn as to bribery, there is no objection as to that. That could be done as it is; but if it cannot be done, there will be no objection to having a man whose name is not on the list take both the oaths. I can quite understand my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and other members of the committee who are not from either Saskatchewan or Alberta not realizing what they were doing when they proposed to put in these amendments, which would put the elections simply into the hands of a large number of enumerators who might be good enumerators or who might be bad ones. I do not like the present system of making the lists that we have in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The time has come when there should be a better system. Those provinces are old enough and settled up enough now to have the same system as is followed in the other provinces. It is very awkward for a candidate to come up on the day of an election and have no idea as to who is on the voters' list. If you are to do away with the right of a man to vote by coming up on election day and putting his

name on the list, then you must have a proper provision for the making of the list and the revision of the list. There is at present no provision for the revision of the list by the enumerator at each polling division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there is.


John Gillanders Turriff: I beg your pardon. Any one can go to an enumerator and ask him to put on or to take off certain names, but he does not need to do so. Until you have a proper list, of which there would be a proper revision, you must leave in the statute that provision by which a bona fide voter, who is perfectly entitled to vote but whose name is left off the pen and ink list inadvertently or by design, may go up on election day take the oath that he is qualified and that he has not been bribed, and register his vote.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there any provincial list?


John Gillanders Turriff: There is a provincial list in the province of Saskatchewan, but not in the province of Alberta.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member for Assinitooia contends that under section 62 new names may be added to the voter's lists up to and including election day. Before a vote is registered, the oath must be put to the voter under section 63.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The proposed
change in this Act was probably made by the committee in consequence of certain conditions that I pointed out to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and subsequently to the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). During all the elections that I have seen in western Canada-and they have all been conducted under the auspices of hon. gentlemen opposite-the conditions now imposed by the statute have tended to two things: first, to a limitation of the exercise of the franchise by those who should exercise it, and, secondly, to corruption of the worst type. The hon. member for Carleton, N.B., was very much impressed with the fact when I went over the Act and showed it to him, and for that matter so was the hon. junior member for Halifax. I then directed the attention of the committee to the matter without having consulted any of my colleagues on this side of the House, and without having discussed it with them in any way, shape or form. I have said frequently in elections 120*
that have 'been held in the West that, if I ever had an opportunity, I would endeavour, so far as I could, to have a list prepared that would be a final list upon which an election might be held. The primary reason for that was that I had observed during all the elections that were held while I was in the West, numbers of men brought in from the outside, in many instances gangs of workmen on railways and in some instances other men, taken to the polls, sworn in and their ballots put into the box, although their names were not on the list. They left immediately . after having voted, and to know exactly where they resided would be a somewhat difficult proposition. That condition of affairs grew up in the West, because in the first instance, as in all other unorganized territories, all that was necessary for a man to do to enable him to vote was to go up and swear his-vote in. In the early days in the Northwest Territories, all a man had to do was to swear that he had lived twelve months in the Northwest Territories and three months in the particular electoral district, and his ballot was put into the box and he went away. I will give a well-known case. It occurred before I went West, but it has been authenticated. Certain people gathered together a couple of hundred men and they voted them four times at four different polls. This happened before 1896. They put the men on a train and took them to one poll and voted them there. Then they put them on the train again and took them to another poll and voted them there, and so on, so that there were between 700 and 800 votes polled at four different places, but the voters were all the same 200 men. All they had to do was to swear their votes in and drop their ballots into the box. In due Lime enumerators were appointed. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) is wrong in his statement. The enumerators do sit as a court of revision. Under the law as it now stands, as soon as a writ is issued, the returning officer under certain conditions appoints enumerators; but if he does not do that, prior to the date of the issue of the writ, the Governor in Council may appoint enumerators. An enumerator may sit for one polling division or for three or four. What is his duty? Before commencing to discharge it, he has to take an oath that he will do his duty, and put on the list the name of every person in his polling district who has lived twelve months, say in the province of Al-

berta and three months in the electoral district. He is then compelled to post up a copy of the list in the post office and to put at the foot of it a notice saying that he will sit two hours a day, naming the time and the place, for the purpose of revising the list. He must certify to that list and send it to the returning officer for the district before the hour of eight o'clock on the morning of the election, in order that it may be completed. I think it was not the immediate predecessor of the present Minister of Justice who put section 65 into the Act. Section 65 reads:
Every voter shall be entitled to vote, whose name is on the voters' list and has not been erased therefrom, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Part.
In other words, as the law now stands, the list itself is to be taken as conclusive proof of the voter's right to vote. That section was put upon the Statute Book, I think, about 1903 or 1904. As regards this provision there is no man living in the West, who desires to have a clean, decent election who does not know that it means just the opposite of a clean, decent election. I appeal to my hon. friend for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). Has he not seen many men brought in to a district' and kept at a hotel overnight and taken up to a polling station next day and voted? That is a bad thing for the body politic and a bad thing for democracy. I directed the attention of the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. junior member for Halifax to these provisions, and they thought it wrong to have such provisions as those in the Statute Book.
Later, in consequence of what was said to them by their fellow-members from western Canada as to the inadequacy of proper revision of the list by enumerators without right of appeal to a district court or other judge, they felt they were doing an injustice to their friends from the West. So I say, as I said in the committee, I am not pressing it. If it is felt that it will work an injustice, and if it will prevent any man from having a vote who ought to vote, I am content that it should be withdrawn. But I do say this Parliament should not permit a Franchise Act of this kind to stand upon the statute book.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not any longer
than we can help.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has asked' whether there is a list. In Saskatche-

wan they have a provincial list. Alberta ever since the year after it became a province has had provision for a list, but the * law was not to come into force until after proclamation issued, and year after year no proclamation has issued. There could not be anything in election processes more disgraceful than that which takes place in a provincial election under the present law. There is an enumerator for each polling place, and members can imagine what takes place in a local or Dominion election. Writs are issued and a returning officer is appointed. That returning officer is immediately surrounded by the hungry seekers for some sort of office, and I am not speaking of one side more than of another. These people want to be appointed enumerators, and each presses his claim. Very often the man appointed is a violent partisan. He is the enumerator for a little district in which there are perhaps two hundred voters. He takes the oath of office, and very often proceeds to put on his list as many Liberals or as many Conservatives, according to his partisan leanings, as he can find. In my last election, by reason of that, I had to employ and pay a very large number of men to go from house to house throughout the city of Calgary to get the names of the whole population, and then go to the enumerators and see that the names that had been left off were put on. When I tell you that my own name was left off you will understand to what extremes this leaving off is carried. That may have been an accident, but I am stating what happened. Then, if in addition, you have a railroad gang brought in from British Columbia, after they have polled their votes there, to come to some particular poll in Alberta and vote there, as has been done-swearing in their votes and next morning being in British Columbia so that any attempt to pursue them for perjury-is utterly futile-you will see that conditions are bad.
One word more. In section 63 of the Act it is provided that the electors shall take oath No. 1 under form Z. Having regard to the provisions of 62 and 65-I have read 65-it is apparent that sections 62, 63 -and 65 are not consistent with one another. Originally, we started to make that little -change, and when the discussion took place we arrived at the conclusion that it would be wise to prevent them from swearing in their votes, a provision which is now not to be proceeded with. We shall never have proper elections in Alberta unless we get a decent election

law in the province. I was only seeking to show that in their anxiety to pass section 65, the committee omitted to make the amendments necessary to make sections 62, 63 and 65 consistent. Leave the law as it is and you will have an election on the same conditions as before, much as I regret it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman say that it is necessary to amend section 63 now? I wish to call his attention to the fact that apparently that section is to provide a penalty for refusing to take the oath of qualification when put to the voter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not say that it is going to make a very great difference. But sections 62, 63 and 65, read with section 61, show some little inconsistency, although I think it can be worked out in practice as it has been in the past.


John Gillanders Turriff: Will the hon. gentleman tell me under which sections he finds provision made for the proper revision of the list?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are two. Section 48 reads:
Each such enumerator shall complete, date at his place of residence, and sign the copies of the voters' list or lists as aforesaid, in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, eight days before the polling day... .
In either of the said provinces, one of the places where copies of the lists are to be so posted up shall be the post office nearest to the place appointed as the polling station for the polling subdivision, or, if there is no such post office, a conspicuous place outside and adjoining the main entrance to such polling station.
That is the provision about revision of the lists.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section I-repealing provision to enable person not on list to vote in Saskatchewan and Alberta and making form Y apply to those provinces:


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that the Bill be amended by striking out section 1.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 2-changing list of places in which deferred elections may be held:
Edmond Proulx: I move that this Bill be amended by inserting therein the following as section 1:
1. Section 70 of the Dominion Election Act, chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection :
(h) Any person during the time he is a director of or holds, either directly or indirectly, a controlling interest in any incorporated company having a contract or agreement, expressed or implied, or any unsatisfied claim arising therefrom, with or for or against the Government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for or against any of the officers of the Government of Canada for which any public money of Canada is to be paid.
Paragraph (d) of section 70 of the Dominion Elections Act says:
Every person directly or indirectly, alone or with any other person, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, express or implied, with or for the Government of Canada, on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, during the time he is so holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing.
Any person, therefore, having a contract with the Government, is ineligible as a candidate for election to the House of Commons, but he may be a shareholder or have a controlling interest in an incorporated company which has a contract with the Government, and still be eligible for election. When the Elections Act was first passed, business was not carried on. as it is to-day. There were very few incorporated companies then, but now business is carried on mostly by joint stock companies.


Mr. HENDERSON:: Is this proposed
amendment part of the Bill which the hon. member introduced a few days ago?


Edmond Proulx: Yes.


David Henderson: Then I submit that the hon. gentleman is out of order in moving an amendment which embodies provisions contained in a Bill already on the Order Paper.


Edmond Proulx: If the hon. Minister of
Justice wants to adopt my amendment, I shall be glad to hand it over to him, or I can have the order discharged for the second reading of the Bill standing in my name. I do not think the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) should take advantage of a technicality in order to rule out an amendment which I think is a proper one.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think the point of OTder raised by the hon. member for Halton is well taken, because the hon. member for Prescott admits that there is on the Order

Paper a measure standing in his name, which is the same as the amendment which he proposes to this Bill.


Edmond Proulx: There is a provision in the Senate and House of Commons Act which secures the independence of members of this House; I think the independence of candidates for elections should be secured also.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not understand that in the Senate and House of Commons Act there is at the present time any provision analogous to the provision which the hon. gentleman wants to introduce into this Bill.


Edmond Proulx: A few days ago I presented the Bill standing in my name, but as hon. gentlemen opposite have control of the proceedings of this House I suppose it will be impossible for my Bill to reach its second reading this session. In order to put this provision into effect, however, the Elections Act could be amended first, and the Senate and House of Commons Act afterwards. I would point out that the hon. Minister of Justice adopted the principle of two Bills, in the names of the hon. member for Guys-borough and the hon. member for Saskatoon respectively, having in view an amendment of the Criminal Code, while these Bills were on the Order Paper.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member is mistaken in that respect. The two Bills to which he refers were referred to a special committee to consider proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, and they came back inserted in a Bill which that committee reported to the House as the result of their deliberations. In this case we are dealing with a Bill that 'has been reported by a special committee also, and I do not at the moment quite see how I can come to the assistance of the 'hon. gentleman in what he is endeavouring to do. If he is out of order in proposing this amendment, I should be equally out of order in supporting it. The other Bill, which he says is the same as the proposed amendment, being on the Order Paper, and the Chairman having ruled that that puts this proposal out of order, I do not very well see how I can remedy the situation.


Edmond Proulx: It could be remedied in this way; before this Bill is read the third time, the order for the second reading of the Bill standing in my name could be discharged.
[The Chairman.]


Wilfrid Laurier: The Chairman has ruled that this amendment is out of order. I am not prepared to say that the ruling is wrong, but I suggest to the hon. member for Prescott that he look the matter up and, if he is right, then he can move his amendment on the third reading of the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps it might be well for us all to accept the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman and look into it more fully.


Edmond Proulx: Then the hon. minister will not press the third reading of the Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. The second section is rendered necessary by the fact that the Representation Act has changed the designations of certain constituencies. Under the Elections Act as it now stands, the constituencies of Comox-Atlin, Kootenay and Yale-Cariboo are enumerated among those constituencies in which elections may be deferred, These three constituencies have been subdivided so as to each form two constituencies. It is not proposed that in all of these new constituencies deferred elections may be held, but simply in three of them, Skeena, West Kootenay and Cariboo.


Frank Oliver: It did not appear to me to be necessary to have a deferred election in the old constituency of Kootenay. Then why is it necessary in West Kootenay?


Henry Herbert Stevens: West Kootenay includes the Big Bend country, away to the north of Revelstoke and Golden, where it is difficult to get about, and it was probably that part of the old district that made it necessary to have a deferred election in Kootenay. Of course the conditions have not changed in that respect in West Kootenay.


John Gillanders Turriff: Are the three constituencies named the only three in the Dominion in which there may be deferred elections?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No; under section 86 there may be deferred elections also in Chicoutimi and Saguenay, and Gaspe, in the province of Quebec.
On Section 3-extending provision re death of candidates to Alberta and Saskatchewan :


William Melville Martin: Why is that necessary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose is to
assimilate the law in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan to the law as it prevails throughout the rest of the Dominion, in the event of a candidate dying

after nomination and before the close of the polls.


Charles Marcil: Did the committee give any consideration to the case of Gaspe? Mr. Monk, the late member for Jacques Cartier in this House, gave many facts in support of bringing Gaspe in line with other constituencies. Gaspe now has railway communication, and for the provincial election of 1897, when I had the honour of being a candidate, the nomination was made a month earlier, but the vote was taken on the same day as in the rest of the province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have to admit that the question of Gaspe did not come before the committee. As I pointed out, the way in which the question presented itself to us was that we were bound to do something to make the description of the British Columbia constituencies correspond with their new boundaries, and we found it was not necessary to defer the elections in the whole six. It was not suggested to us that there was any change in conditions in Gaspe from those which prevailed when the present law was enacted.	,


Charles Marcil: The conditions are very much changed there. We have a daily train service right down to Gaspe Basin, and there is now telegraphic communication with the Magdalen islands. There is provision in the law for a telegraphic proclamation. But if the committee have not considered the matter I would not be prepared to make a suggestion.
On Section 4-hours of polling extended- 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.:


Charles Marcil: In so far as the rural constituency of Quebec are concerned, this change is not at all necessary. By five o'clock all the votes have been cast, and I have heard members from Nova Scotia say that election day is the longest day in the year.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I want to endorse what has been said toy the hon. member (Mt. Marcil). It may be advisable to extend the hours in the cities, but I certainly think they should not be extended in the rural districts. The hon. member for Bona-veature (Mr. Marcil) has expressed my views precisely.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In justice to the special committee, I must say that this clause, as printed, is really not the recommendation of the committee. During the sittings of the committee, we were approached .by representatives of railway organizations, who asked us to make amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, if it were possible, whereby greater facilities tor voting could be afforded to that class of electors. Many suggestions were made and considered, tout the committee found difficulties attaching to them all. We did consider last session the propriety of affording railway men an opportunity to vote during 24 or 48 hours preceding the day of polling. The idea was that polling booths should be placed at divisional points, hut eventually we considered that impracticable. We also considered the suggestion of having the polling booths in cities open for a greater number of hours than is now provided by statute. There were difficulties connected with that suggestion too, although it might possibly be worked out. Then it was thought that we might meet the requests of a great number of railway voters by extending the hours of voting from eight in the morning until a later hour than five in the afternoon. The committee were not at all agreed upon the matter, and at last we concluded to put this section in the Bill, leaving it open to the House to consider. So this clause is not the recommendation of the committee, hut was put in more for the purpose of securing an expression of opinion from the House generally as to What should be done.


Mr. NESBITT:: In what way would it
assist railway men to extend the hours from eight in the morning .until after five in the evening? It is very seldom that any votes to speak of are polled in the small cities after four o'clock. In towns like that in which I live, we generally have the vote all polled before five o'clock.


Isidore Proulx: I think this provision
will be a good thing in certain parts of the country. For instance, workingmen may work during the noon hour and get off an hour earlier in the evening. If they got off at five o'clock they would be able to vote between five and six. I .think that would accommodate a certain number of people.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL:: I was one of
those who. appeared before the committee and suggested this, or some similar amendment. When we look at our law, we find that in the matter of polling we are very many years behind every other country situated as we are, especially as regards affording facilities to the people who live in cities or urban districts to poll their votes. Our law in that respect has never been changed, and the hours have always been

from nine in the morning until five at night. Other countries have responded to the requirements of civilization in congested districts, and extended the polling hours so as to give everybody a fair opportunity to poll his vote. Those who have ample time under the present law to poll their votes, should have regard to other people differently situated in different parts of the country, and should be willing to let the polls remain open an hour or two longer than they themselves need, in order to give their fellow citizens an opportunity of polling. England, in 1872, changed the hours to from eight in the morning until eight at night, and that is still the law in England. I have at some trouble gone through, the legislation of all the states of the American Union and I think they are almost uniform in keeping the polls open for about that length of time. Australia, since 1903, has had the polls open from eight in the morning until eight at night. There is not only the difficulty about polling votes, but a more far-reaching difficulty than that. I think one-half of the corruption that takes place during an election in a city district is due to the endeavour to poll the vote between the hours at present assigned. To-day, the polls open at nine in the morning; but long before that hour mechanics and artisans, and all working people in fact, are at their work. The ordinary business man, the clerk in the bank or in the insurance office, all the assistants in the 'down town offices are at work by nine or thereabouts. We must not forget that to-day the urban population of Canada is very large, and I submit that those who are living in country districts should give their fellow-citizens in the cities an opportunity to poll their votes. Under the usual provincial law, a man votes in the district where he sleeps. In the city of Toronto, for instance-and I do not desire to parade Toronto before this House particularly-the great majority of people reside anywhere from two to four or six miles away from their work, and consequently have to leave their homes, close to which they vote, half an hour before they wish to arrive at tKeir place of work. The result is that when the polls open many people have left their homes and gone to work, for they do not desire to lose part of the day, and those who go to the polls see this spectacle: ten, fifteen or thirty men lined up outside the booth, waiting on the convenience of the deputy returning officer, who does not let them in until nine. Are elections held for the 
convenience of the people or for the convenience of the deputy returning officer? I think the time has come when the polling booths in cities should be open from eight in the morning until eight at night. The ordinary man does not leave fils work before five oclock, the working-man at all events, and at five the polls close. If the man is going to get in his vote, he has to rush back to the neighborhood in which he lives, and that takes some time. That is the condition in Toronto and other cities throughout Canada, and I leave it to the judgment of the House whether I am correct or not. In thickly-congested districts, there is one rush to get the vote out. In large cities there is a line of motor-cars waiting at the factory doors to carry voters to the polls. We can form our own opinion whether these are all volunteers or not, but there they are, waiting to take the voters to tne polls, and all sorts of influence is used with the proprietors of factories to get them to let some of their men out and to keep some of them in, according to what their political complexion is supposed to be.
Take the example that was mentioned by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). Railway people, commercial travellers and men of that kind are given no opportunty in the morning to poll their votes because they are put on trains, they have to go outside and make their daily runs, they do not, as a rule, come back until after five o'clock, and then the polls are closed against them. An election only takes place one in three, four or five years. Every civilized country I know of keeps the polls open very much longer than we do here. The present condition is wholly unsuited to cities. It leads to corruption, it leads to the bribing of men to go to the polls or to remain away, and tends very greatly to increase the corruption arising from the employing of teams and vehicles to drive men to the polls. The matter contained in this amendment is a subject that I have introduced in this House on many occasions. I have not succeeded in accomplishing anything as yet, but as the country grows, and as we find city people becoming the higher percentage of the whole, so grows the need of legislation of this kind. It has been asked for by the labouring classes of Canada. I do not want to burden people who do not want the polls kept open until later. It might be arranged by the committee that in rural districts the polls shall remain open during the present hours,

but that as far as cities are concerned, and ridings of which cities form a part, the polls should be kept open at least from eight in the morning until six at night. These hours are short enough. In the Old Country they find it necessary to close the polls at eight o'clock at night, but as recently as 1913 an amendment was made in the . election law extending the time for closing the polls to nine o'clock at night if either candidate or his agent so asks. It is found there that even eight o'clock is not long enough, and the polls are to remain open from seven a.m. until nine p.m. if either candidate or his agent asks for it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Where is that?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Chapter 6, Imperial
Acts, 1913. Since 1872 they have had the polls open from eight in the morning until eight at night. In 1913 they passed an amendment permitting either candidate to request that the polls be opened at seven o'clock and be kept open until nine o'clock at night, showing the growth and tendency of the present age to offer every facility for a man to poll his vote. I think there is nothing more that I could say that would be new on the subject. The matter is before the committee. As I say, this change is needed in cities. If our friends in the rural districts do not want this amendment to the Act, doubtless the committee might think it well to permit the polls in the rural districts to remain open in accordance with the present hours and to remain open in cities at least from eight to six.


Mr. HAZEN:: Would the hon. gentleman tell the committee if in Australia they have plural voting?


Angus Claude Macdonell: They have proportional representation and several classes of voting there.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: The riding from which I come has a very large railway vote and the inadequacy of the present law to enable the railway vote to be polled has repeatedly been brought to my attention. I certainly am in favour of the extension of the hours of polling. If I could make a suggestion based on my experience, it would be to open the poll as early as six o'clock in the morning in these districts even if it were closed somewhat earlier in the evening. If the poll were opened in cities at six o'clock in the morning voters could go to the poll before going to the work. Another thing that I think would ease the
situation is this: Saturday is becoming more and more a public holiday in this country especially for artisans and those who work in factories. If we had the election on Saturday or Monday the great bulk of the voters made up of commercial travellers would get their votes recorded. Many of them now miss the opportunity of voting. They are very sore about that and they have repeatedly called public attention to the fact that they are - deprived of their vote. Another thing that could be done would be for the Railway Commission to take charge of the running of all trains,-perhaps some passenger trains-delay them for an hour at the point of starting, and allow the men who wish to do so to vote. In that way a great many votes might be recorded. We must do something in the way of giving these people who are not able to vote now an opportunity to vote. The selection of Saturday-Saturday preferably-or Monday, as the day of voting would do a great deal to remove the present inconvenience. There is no reason why election day should not be the most sacred day in this country. I admire what the French people do in making the recording of their votes practically a religious duty with the people and they vote on Sunday because every person has an opportunity of voting on that day. It might not suit the genius of our people here to have a law such as that but it would be in the line of progress and in line with what they are doing in other countries if we had at least a half holiday on election day and in cities the most convenient day for that half holiday would be Saturday or Monday. If we laid down the principle that we would have our election day either on Saturday or Monday a great many railway men and commercial travellers would . have an opportunity of voting for they could go to the polls early in the morning and record their votes.


William Cameron Edwards: Would my hon. friend delay trains an hour?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Passenger trains?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not say passenger trains. I said that I would like the railway commission to take charge of divisional points, and the despatch of freight trains from divisional points and delay them probably for an hour or hasten them so that the men would get their votes polled. It is easy to speed up trains, it is often done and the men would get their votes

polled in that way. But the biggest relief, without any great widening of the law, would he to open earlier in the morning and have the election on Saturday preferably to any other day in the week. It is now largely a half holiday and if we had the election on Saturday the people could go to the polls and have their votes recorded. It is the desire of a great many people to see a change in the law inasmuch as they now lose their votes. Anybody who has been identified with elections, and who has taken part in them, must see that, especially in the larger cities, there is a substantial grievance among large sections of the voters that they are not able to record their votes because of the limited time in which the polls are open, and also the inconvenience caused by the particular day selected.


Richard Blain: I think it will be a surprise to most of the members of this House that any suggestion should be made to extend the hours of polling in rural districts. For my part, I have had some experience in elections and I do not recollect one suggestion from any voter in a rural district that the time should be extended for the opening or closing of the polls. I think a good deal can be said, and already a good deal has been submitted to the committee for consideration, in favour of the proposition that in the larger cities, such as Montreal, Toronto, and possibly other cities in the Dominion, longer hours for polling would be better but for the great mass of the constituencies, which are rural constituencies. I do not think that there has been any suggestion by any of the rural members in support of a proposal of this kind and I was very glad to learn from the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that this was not the matured judgment of the committee, but rather that they were reporting it to the House for its consideration. I would be disposed to think that if such a change in the law were made universal in Canada, applying it to rural districts as well as to cities, the people would be very much opposed to it and feel that it would be a change for the worse rather than for the better.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I was a member of the committee, perhaps it might be wise for me to give this committee some idea of the many propositions brought before us from time to time. Many claims were advocated, especially by railway men. We had representations from, ' I think, the Trades and

Labour Council, or at any rate, some body representing railway men, and they presented this proposition in a very strong light. There was a proposal that we open the divisional points the day before an election. I was very sorry the committee did not see its way clear to accept that proposition and work it out. Possibly my personal experience may have led me to be particularly sympathetic along that line, because I had the unpleasant experience of seeing many men put out of my constituency on election day, so that it was impossible for them to register their vote. Possibly other hon. members here have had a like experience. A large number of railway men are not able to cast their votes on election day. It was suggested that, if a box could be arranged for at each divisional point and kept open from noon of the day prior to the election until the close of the election, 90 per cent of the railway men would have the right to vote. An objection was raised to that. Suppose you had only a dozen railway votes at a particular railway point, and the majority voted one way, you would eliminate the idea of secrecy of the ballot. The railway men themselves, however, did not consider that an objection. They were willing to accept all the burdens provided that they had the right to vote.
In justice to myself I may say that I was not able to be present at the last three or four sittings of the committee, being engaged on other committees. The last time I was present at a meeting of this committee, a suggestion was made that seemed a very reasonable one. It was that there should be a provision that the Governor in Council shoulu nave the power to decide whether or not the hour should be extended from six o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock in the evening in all cities of Canada having a population of a given amount, I think 100,000.


William Findlay Maclean: And railway divisional points.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am told that the committee at a later session turned that suggestion down, because they felt that in some way the Governor in Council might be charged with not exercising the best discretion. It was perhaps putting an unfair discretion on tire Governor in Council.
I could not see any harm in that suggestion, because it would give Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver the right to take advantage of that provision. If 100,000 ' was thought too great, the minimum might

be lowered to 75,000. We also discussed the question of giving the right to towns of 50,000; but there are a great many towns in Canada which have a population of 50,000 and which also have country districts incorporated with the cities. Take the city and county of St. John. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) knows that in his constituency there are voters living very nearly 100 miles away from the city of St. John. In the county of Halifax there are voters living some forty or fifty miles away from the city. Therefore we found difficulties in all those cases. It seems to me that some scheme might be worked out by placing the limit at 75,000, and giving the Governor in Council the right to state the electoral districts in which the hours of polling should be extended. I am very much in sympathy with the statement put forward by my hon. friend the member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), because from my experience of a little town of 4,000 or 5,000, I can quite realize the difficulty of polling a vote in a large city. I can also realize some of the expense entailed on candidates and committee men in getting people from great distances to the polling stations. That difficulty is obviated to some extent in section 5, which reads as follows:
Every employer shall on polling day give every voter in his employ at least one additional hour for voting other than the noon hour.
That would get around the difficulty to some extent, but still I realize that it does not obviate the difficulty altogether, and that there is a great rush to try to poll the labour vote in big districts within the prescribed time. We discussed another proposition, that in all the cities of say 25,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 or upwards, we might extend the time of polling in the city portion of the constituency to seven or eight o'clock, and allow the country portion of the constituency to close its polls at five, as at present.


David Henderson: Hear, hear.
Mr. CARVELL; My hon. friend says "hear, hear"; but let us argue the other side of the question. Let us take the city of Halifax as an illustration. The poll closes at five o'clock. There are telephones throughout the country. The consequence will be that at six o'clock you will know the results of the polling in the whole county of Halifax, and we shall say it is a tie or practically a tie, and that there is one or two hours left to poll the remainder
of the votes. The number of votes left would not be very great, and we were afraid -and it is the experience of every man here, and we have all had experience of elections-that there might be redoubled efforts on the part of committee men to poll the votes in the last hour or two. All these matters were considered very carefully by the committee, and we could see some strong reasons against them all unless we made them general. I quite agree with the decision come to by the committee to make a recommendation to the House in order to bring the matter up for discussion; but, personally, I would like to see something done by which the Governor in Council would have the power to extend the time in big cities and allow the remainder of the districts, both rural and urban, to vote within the prescribed hours as at present provided. Certainly in all rural constituencies from eight o'clock in the morning until five o'clock in the afternoon is ample time. In some cases the people, long before five o'clock, are waiting for the hour to come.	-


John Hampden Burnham: My instructions are quite different, and they are to ask for an extension of the hours for polling. I listened to the discussion with a great deal of interest, in fact, I might say, curiosity, because I wished to find out the objections to the great general principle of extending the hours of polling and enlarging the opportunity of exercising the franchise. Surely it is incumbent upon those gentlemen who object to state forcibly and clearly why they wish to restrain the opportunity of the people to exercise the franchise.
We are not discussing an Act for the suppression of corruption, but an Act permitting the exercise of the franchise, and therefore it should be as wide as possible. I am amazed at the suggestion of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). The Saturday holiday is earned by . the workingman who works an hour longer each day during the week in order to get it, and I have been told by workingmen that if I thought they were going to give up that half holiday for the purpose of electing any politician, I had another think coming. That seems entirely reasonable to me. I am grieved when I think of the personnel of this committee, that they were not able to hatch up something better than this Bill,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You are on the
committee yourself.


John Hampden Burnham: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You were called before
the committee.


John Hampden Burnham: That is different. It
seems to me that if we are in such a bad state in this country that we cannot allow an extended number of hours to the people -who, so far as I know, want that extension-in order that they may reasonably exercise their franchise, then we are in a bad state indeed, especially if we believe that the demon of corruption is going about like a roaring lion. If the railway people cannot vote becausp they cannot get to the ballot box, let us provide more ballot boxes, but to hang up these necessary reforms because of all sorts of little tupenny ha'penny objections seems to me inconsistent with the dignity of this House.


Mr. KEMP:: In the last elections held in the province of Ontario for the legislative assembly the polls were opened at eight o'clock and closed at five o'clock in the afternoon in cities of two hundred thousand population and over. That amendment was adopted, I understand, because of the growth' of Toronto, which is the only city in Ontario having a population of two hundred thousand. In this country, where our cities are growing up so rapidly, and where the desire of the people is to get out into the suburbs where they may have cheaper rentals, a great many people-clerks, labouring people, employers and others-live	at a distance
from the centre and must spend perhaps three-quarters of an hour or an hour in going from their place of occupation to the poll where their votes must be cast. I think the time has come when an exception ought to be made in respect of cities of say two hundred thousand population or over. I would not think it desirable to extend this to rural places; but in view of the great growth of our cities and of the precedents that have been read by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) of amendments to the election laws in other places, we might very well extend the time of polling in these cities by one hour in the morning. The request was made of me that I should advocate the keeping open of the polls until six o'clock instead of five, But I would not go so far as that even with respect to cities of two hundred thousand population. If a man could vote before he goes to his place of occupation in the morning and get there by, say ten o'clock, it would be a great convenience and many
[Hr. Burnham.]
more voters would cast their ballots than under the present system.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. gentleman think that opening the poll at eight o'clock would be a benefit to the labouring man? I can understand how it would help clerks and others, but when it comes to the labouring man, I am afraid it would not be of much use to him.


Albert Edward Kemp: In the section which follows it is provided that on polling day the employer is obliged to allow the employee an hour without deduction from 9 p.m. his wages. For the man whp does not start work until eight in the morning in the regular way, it seems to me it would be a great convenience to be able to vote before nine o'clock.


Mr. GRAY:: For many years there was great complaint on the part of the commercial travellers regarding the days chosen for elections. There are in the neighborhood of twenty-five thousand travellers in Canada, and probably twenty per cent of them lose the opportunity to exercise their franchise.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN And they are the keenest politicians in the country.


William Gray: Yes. It has been suggested to me that if Friday could be set apart as the day of polling it would be acceptable to the travellers. The light-sample men who carry grips leave their homes on Sunday so that they may get upon the territory they have to cover on Monday morning. As to heavy sample-men, with trunks, it does not make so much difference, b,ut they would work a little harder and a little later in order that they might get in on Friday to poll their votes. I am in accord with the hon. member for Toronto that if the polls were open at 7 o'clock, a.m., it would be of advantage to those who want to leave by an early train.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite agree with the views expressed by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) that there has been no request from any part of the country to change the hours of polling in rural constituencies. I am rather at a loss to appreciate the argument of my hon. friend from South Toronto. It is urged that in large cities railway men and commercial travellers do not have a chance to vote, but I do not see that the proposition contained in this section offers any solution of this problem. If the commercial traveller is away from home the extension of the time of poll-

ing by an hour in the morning is of no use to him; if he is at home, he can vote as well between nine and five as he can between eight and six. So we can eliminate their case from those to be considered in this connection. As to the railway men, surely my hon friend from South York will agree that his proposal that trains be stopped to allow railway men to vote is impracticable. You cannot work out a law in regard to the operation of voting that is going to satisfy everybody. There must always be some people who have to work on that day. The idea is to have as few people as possible deprived of their franchise. The proposal of the hon. member would stand in the way of those who desire to use the trains to reach their polling places. A man may have come hundreds of miles to vote in his home constituency only to find that by reason of the dislocation of the train service through delaying trains for an hour in the morning he could not reach the poll at all. During elections the movement of voters in the country is very great, and the prompt arrival and departure of trains is of great importance. By reason of delay or disarrangement of train services, a great many people might be unable to reach the polls before they close.


William Findlay Maclean: My suggestion
was with regard to freight trains starting from divisional points, where the bulk of the voters live.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: After all, the idea is to reduce to the minimum the number of persons who are deprived of the privilege of voting. I do not believe that public sentiment favours a wholesale change in the law. In Nova Scotia-I speak of provincial elections-the polls open at eight o'clock in the morning and close at five in the afternoon; it has never been complained that the polls are not open as long as they should be. There are many railway men whose regular rounds take them from one divisional point to another point perhaps 100 miles distant, and unless the whole system of voting 'is disarranged, there is no way in which these men can be given an opportunity to vote. Certain people must of necessity, therefore, be debarred from the franchise. I do not say that in the case of cities the conditions could not be improved by lengthened hours of polling, but we must not confuse that phase of the matter with the proposal contained in this section, which, although put forward as a remedy, is really not a remedy for these conditions. Two hundred
men can vote at any polling subdivision with the greatest ease, provided they live anywhere within ten miles of the poll. If this is done, and if every employer is required to give his employees an hour to vote, it does seem to me that whatever practical difficulties there are will be obviated. I would not favour extending the hours of polling in rural constituencies past five o'clock. The experience has been that in general elections every vote is polled in rural constituencies long before five o'clock. It is my opinion that if the polls were kept open longer, the door would be opened to drunkenness and corruption. My hon. friend's suggestion about the English election laws is not apropos of the case. In England there is no simultaneous polling.


Mr. MACDONNEL:: Practically so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all; a general election in Great Britain occupies a long period of time. Only one or two constituencies vote in the same day. If simultaneous polling is good, then Great Britain is very much behind us in that respect.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I do not quite catch my hon. friend's meaning. What bearing has the question of simultaneous polling upon the hours of voting?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was simply discussing whether we should go to Great Britain for instruction as to how to run elections. I was suggesting that because they have simultaneous polling over there, which most people regaid as a rather retrograde condition, they are not ahead of us in this matter. Another consideration is the crowded population of the British Isles, which gives rise to a condition entirely different from that which exists in this country, comprised, as it is, of huge areas of land and a scattered population. Then again, take the conditions that exist in Great Britain in reference to the counting of the votes. Would it be practicable in this country to take all the ballot boxes from the country districts, bring them to a central place, and there count the ballots? They do that in England, and I hardly think it would be suggested that we should do that here. This only goes to show that in matters of this kind the peculiar conditions of the country concerned must be carefully considered. I do submit that there is no crying need for any radical change in the present law. Anomalies do exist, and, perhaps, can be remedied to a

certain extent, but the minority must always give way to the majority in the matter of convenience and the public interest. Personally, I would support no change in the law except the proposal to have the polls open at eight o'clock in the morning.


Mr. GLASS:: Representing *a rural constituency, I am opposed to any further discrimination in the matter of the franchise as between rural and urban municipalities. There is a distinction in the matter of registration in favour of the cities that is, to some extent, objectionable. The difficulty in connection with this whole matter is not so much with reference to the hours for voting, because cities, no matter how large, are subdivided into a certain number of polling subdivisions, just as the rural sections are, and if the employer assumes an attitude of fairness towards his employees and gives them an opportunity to vote, the conditions are quite in favour of their being able to register their vote. I think the best solution of the difficulty would be to provide for a half-holiday, or at least a quarter-holiday, and thus put the voter in a position where he will be absolutely untrammelled by any restrictions in the matter of exercising his franchise. It is my experience that while many employers of labour are willing to allow their employees who are favourable to their views to exercise their franchise, a veiled threat is held out to those who are not favourable to the employer's political views that if they do exercise the franchise they take the consequences upon themselves. The extra hour is absolutely of no use to the workingman where his employer wants to put restrictions on him.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Why? It is the law of the land.


Samuel Francis Glass: I know it is the law of the land, but the man is afraid to go out to exercise his franchise.


David Henderson: Oh, no.


Samuel Francis Glass: I know it, I know it from personal observation. My reason for speaking of this is that I think the section following this is very closely related to the present one. It is not so much the extra hour for polling that is important as to have a fixed time when employees shall have the right to go untrammelled to exercise that franchise. It is suggested that a certain number of men be allowed to go at one hour and a certain number at another hour in order not to inconvenience the

management of the factory. I would favour having the hours for voting, if 8 o'clock is too early, from 9 until 6 p.m. I would approve of the extra hour at the latter part of the day. But I think that by closing places of business at 3 o'clock every employee would be given the opportunity to go out and vote, and I think that would overcome the whole difficulty. The hon. member from South York has suggested voting on Saturday, and the hon. member for London (Mr. Gray) has referred to the convenience of commercial men in relation to voting. We know that in municipal elections in London and in Toronto and some other places arrangements were made whereby the vote was taken on New Year's day, and the experience in our city has shown that there has been a smaller percentage of votes cast at the polls since that innovation. Consequently, voting on the holiday has been of no advantage. As to extending the hours in rural constituencies, I agree with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) that there is no demand from rural constituencies to have extended hours; but I do not think there would be any objection to it if it were found necessary. I would much rather see the same hours exist in rural communities as in cities, so as not to have any discrimination between them. Then how are we to determine what is strictly a rural municipality? My own is a rural constituency, but I have 8,000 people from the city of London who live in the township in my constituency, mechanics and employees in the different shops and factories of London. If that were considered a rural constituency and the hours limited, the workingmen who live there would not have the same opportunity of exercising the franchise as men who live in the city. I think it would be very objectionable and I would resent it if any difference were to be made between the hours of voting as between rural and civic municipalities. I think the difficulty would be overcome if a quarter holiday or half holiday were declared and it were made a sacred duty for every man to exercise his franchise on election day.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would suggest
that the chairman read clause 5 so that both clauses may be before the committee.
Section 5 read:
The following section is inserted immediately after section 136:
"136a. Every employer shall on polling day give to every voter in his employ one additional hour for voting other than the noon hour, and shall make no deduction in the pay

of such employees nor impose or exact any penalty from any employee by reason of absence during such hour.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: In connection with section 5, is there any penalty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no special penalty provided by this Bill. There is, as I have no doubt the hon. member is aware, a penalty provided under a general disposition for a violation of the obligations imposed under any statutes for which no particular penalty is prescribed; and I suppose that the enforcement of this, unless we inserted a special penalty, would have to depend on that clause.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would it not be clearer it there were a penalty attached to that section. I am in favour of section 4 if no better scheme can be devised. I am in favour of giving everybody a chance to vote. I understand that in the cities the labouring classes cannot conveniently vote between the hours of 9 and 5. I would even like to see an hour earlier in the morning if that were possible, but if not I would favour the hours from 9 to 6. I would very much prefer the idea given out by the last speaker of having voting day declared a half holiday. That would serve every constituency, and in default of voting day being declared a half holiday, I would prefer to have section 5 read that instead of one hour every employer shall on voting day give every voter in his employ at least two additional hours. In some cities we know that the factories have many employees voting at one poll and that it would be practically impossible for them all to vote at the one hour.


John Gillanders Turriff: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to extend the hour by commencing at 8 o'clock in the morning would to my mind be the most objectionable one of all, so far as the rural constituencies of the West are concerned. It must be borne in mind that in the western provinces, during the winter months, at 8 o'clock in the morning the sun is just rising, and in stormy weather it would be dark in many parts of the West at that hour. Then very often the officers of the polling division, the deputy returning officer, the poll clerk and the scrutineers of the various candidates, may have to travel 7 or 8 or 10 miles from their homes to reach the polling booth, and therefore it would be a very great hardship to compel them to open the poll at 8 o'clock in the morning. The present hour, so far as rural constituencies are concerned, is very satisfactory; there is no demand from any part of the country for a change, and a change would be resented.
I think that my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Maedonell) has made out a very good case on behalf of the cities. The suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Ross), that there should be a quarter or a half holiday, seems to me the most reasonable one, although I am not prepared to say just which would work out best. Election day comes on an average only once in four years, and it would be no great hardship if workingmen were allowed to go to work at ten in the morning, or to quit at three in the afternoon. It seems to me that as the polls usually cover only about 200 voters, you would in that way get over the difficulty with as little inconvenience as possible. It will be admitted, after the 'discussion we have had for the last half hour, that there are a great many difficulties in the way, and that it is not easy to makq a law that will be absolutely satisfactory. But I think we should leave the rural constituencies alone. Personally, I am in favour of giving the workmen a quarter day's holiday, rather than of extending the time of polling by one hour. I think the holiday would overcome the difficulty with as little friction as possible.


Charles Marcil: This was a very live issue in Montreal two years ago. It was taken up by all the labour bodies of the city, and discussed by the city council for several weeks, and finally taken up by the Quebec Legislature, which enacted that during a municipal election in the city of Montreal the polls should open at nine in the morning and remain open until eight in the evening. I think that has given general satisfaction in the city of Montreal.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Representing as I do a rural constituency, with seven townships and ten towns, I feel I shall be carrying out the wishes of my constituents in supporting this proposition. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) is opposed to the polls opening at eight in the morning, and there may be something in his objection, but certainly no good reason has been given to-night why the polls should not be kept open until six o'clock. It is ' true that in in the	rural districts the vote is
largely polled by five o'clock or before, but what serious objection can be made

to the suggestion that the deputy returning officer and the clerks should remain at the booths for an extra hour, in order to give workmen and railway men in large cities an opportunity of polling their votes? And it is not only in the large cities that men are not able to poll their votes. Cities like Chatham, or Sarnia, or Windsor, which have a large number of men at work on the railways or in the shops, would be very glad to have this law enacted, so that the men might have an opportunity of polling their votes up to six o'clock at night. 1 sincerely hope that clauses 4 and 5 will receive the unanimous support of the House.


George William Kyte: I do not understand how the suggestion of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. J. E. Armstrong), that the-polls be kept open until six o'clock, will enable railway men employed on trains to poll their votes. The trains do not necessarily arrive at divisional points at, six o'clock; very often not until midnight. The express trains and the freight trains, particularly arrive at the different stations at different hours, according to the schedule on which they run.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This would
give them an extra hour.


George William Kyte: But that extra hour does not necessarily give them an opportunity to vote, because if the trains do not arrive until seven the train hands will have no more opportunity of voting than at present. With regard to the suggestion that a halfholiday be proclaimed on election day, I think it would lead to congesting the voters in the later-houi's of the afternoon, and this congestion would make it more difficult for them to poll their votes during the afternoon than if they had the whole day in which to vote. It does appear to me that if there is to be a holiday declared on election day, it should be the whole day. Or the holiday should be given in the forenoon, so that the men could record their votes in the morning. There is always a certain number of electors who will not poll their votes in the morning. They prefer to come to the poll in the afternoon, and then they remain at the booth and get the results before they leave for home. If in addition to these men who naturally postpone their vote until the afternoon, we are to have all the labouring-men who are employed in the district where the votes are to be recorded, we shall have a congestion of votes

in the afternoon, which will render it quite impossible for them all to record their votes, even before six o'clock. It is quite true that some voters are debarred from the opportunity of voting by reason of the fact that the polls close at five o'clock in the afternoon. Still, I am quite aware of the fact that if the polls remained open until midnight, there would he stili some two or three or more voters who would be late in recording their votes. When they have all day to record them they take their time about it, and I do know that in rural polling subdivisions where there is only a small number of votes to be recorded, there are always two or three or more men who come just in time to see the key turned in the lock, and themselves prevented from entering to record their votes.
The committee which had charge of the revision of the Elections Act entered upon their duties with a desire to remove, as far as possible, all the difficulties tiiat stand in the way of a voter recording his vote. In addition to those classes which have been mentioned this evening, there is another class pf voters who very frequently are unable to record their votes. But the difficulty which prevents them cannot be met by any legislation that I can conceive of. I refer to the large number of deep-sea fishermen who are engaged in the prosecution of the deep-sea fisheries in Nova Scotia. There are in the county of Lunenburg, I am sure, a thousand voters who are employed in the deep-sea fisheries fleet every year, and when an election takes place at any time between the first of May and the first of November these men have not the privilege of recording their votes. They are an intelligent portion of the voting community .in the province of Nova Scotia, and we should all like to see them exercising tne franchise with the same regularity as the electors who are otherwise employed. I would not venture to suggest that this committee could think out any feasible scheme by which these men could be permitted to record their votes, unless there was some sort of a roving commission appointed, to go out with ballot boxes to the fishermen so that they could record their votes. But in view of a suggestion in another direction, which we have had from the committee, and which we shall be called upon to deal with before very long, I am still hopeful that perhaps we can arrive at some means by which the fishermen engaged in the deep-sea fisheries may also have an opportunity of Recording their votes:


Mr. PARDEE:: As long as I have had
the opportunity of looking into the various kinds of legislation regarding voting that have been proposed either in this House or in other legislatures, it has appeared to me that very many suggestions have come forward, but that after all you cannot get very much better results than you have under the present Act. Somebody is always bringing forward some new suggestion, like those contained in the present Bill. In regard to this section 4, which says that " the polls shall be opened at the hour of eight of the clock in the forenoon and kept open until six of the clock in the afternoon," I say that, so far as rural districts are concerned, there is absolutely no sense or reason for that amendment and that in so far as urban municipalities are concerned, there is still less sense.
Read section 4 in conjunction with section 5, which says that at least one additional hour for voting, other than the noon hour, shall be given by each employer without any deduction from the employee's wages. If you legislate that there shall be a 'halfholiday, that if and so shall be done in order to facilitate, and give longer hours for, voting, it simply means, when you get down to the last analysis, that you have less organization for polling your vote, and you do not do any better than if you had the shorter time.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That is from the politician's standpoint, not from the public standpoint.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is absolutely from the commonsense standpoint, and my hon. friend ought to know that. I think I have been in politics as long as he has and know as much about them.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am paying a tribute to the hon. gentleman's knowledge of politics.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I was trying to pay a tribute to my hon. friend's commonsense. If you have a half-holiday, what do you find?-men knocked out of work, congestion of voters during the last hour, or half-hour, at the polls, and the very thing that you have tried to guard against you are up against in a worse form than before. To the two hours to be given to employees on voting day I have no objection. If you give employees in the larger cities from 12 to 2, those who work ir wards a considerable distance from their own polling subdivisions will have a chance to go to the polls and 121
vote. It is easier to get there in two hours than in one hour. If you extend the hours of voting you simply reach the result that, while more time is given to bring in the vote, less organization takes place, everybody puts off what might be done that minute, votes will be polled during the last hour, or at the last minute, and you will be as far short as you were before. In the rural municipalities there is no call whatever for an extension of the voting hours. In urban municipalities I doubt very much if there is any demand for such an amendment to the law, and I believe that we can get along just as well in the future as we have in the past, and that the time between the 'hours of nine and five is quite sufficient to poll the votes, provided you have the necessary organization. You would be no better off with the extra hours and with the extra hours you simply have less organization to get the vote to the polls, and there would be as many votes polled at the last minute as there are now. For these reasons, it does appear to me that although this committee has considered this Bill, and I have no doubt considered it very carefully, we might very well leave the hours of voting as they are to-day, but if the House, or the committee sees fit we might set apart the hours from 12 to 2 for voting. Outside of that we had better leave the whole Act as it is, and not bring in these amendments.


Richard Blain: I do not understand the Act to mean what my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) has stated in so far as it requires the employer to give the employee an opportunity to vote. The Bill says:
Every employer shall on polling day give to every voter In his employ at least one additional hour for voting other than the noon hour, and shall make no deduction in the pay of such employees, nor impose or exact any penalty from any employee by reason of absence during such hour.
I do not understand this, to mean that the employee shall be free from one to two o'clock.	I do not think that would
be a very good thing. It means that the employer shall give to the employees some time during polling hours an extra hour to go to the polls. It does not mean that the employees shall have the right to the hour between one and two o'clock. We would have the same difficulty from congestion at the polls between one and two o'clock if that were the meaning of the section and that would not be in the public interest nor would it assist in polling the votes.	.


Edmond Proulx: It means any time of the day?	.


Richard Blain: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: I think that the hour between five and six o'clock would be a very convenient time for the working man.


Richard Blain: There is no fixed hour whatever; it means whatever hour will suit them.


Mr. BALL:: -1 come from a constituency which is partly rural and partly urban. Personally, and speaking from observation, I think that the hours from nine to five o'clock are very reasonable hours and that they are all right. I think a half holiday would be an improvement where labour is employed. It would be well for the men to be set free from all influences of the employer for at least half a day. In some places the men are let out perhaps in ones and twos and they go to the poll under very peculiar influences. It would be well if they were given a half holiday and allowed to do as they pleased. With regard to the day of the election, it has been the custom for some time past to hold municipal elections on Monday and I think that is a very good day. It would be a good day for Dominion elections also. Commercial travellers are at home over Sunday as a rule and they could remain at home and poll their votes on Monday before leaving. I think that every .man in this country who has a vote ought to be obliged to poll that vote. It would get rid of a great deal of difficulty in the matter of canvassing and that kind of work. I therefore would approve of a half holiday on the afternoon of election day and I would suggest that the hours continue to be from nine o'clock to five o'clock which I think are very reasonable and give a long enough time for the purpose of polling the vote. If the Government saw fit it would be well to have Monday set apart as election day.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Every hon. gentleman who has risen to oppose this measure admitted before he sat down that it was right in principle. I do not think there is any hon. gentleman who has opposed this Bill who has not at some stage of the discussion suggested something in the way of greater latitude in voting. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ball) goes farther than any of those who spoke before him. He says	that he is in favour of a
half holiday and of compulsory voting. I commend the hon. gentleman' for that

opinion. It is my opinion. I have introduced compulsory voting legislation into the House in other days for the sole reason that it would practically obliterate ninety-nine per cent of electoral corruption. If men have to go to the poll they will go and vote without being carried there, or without being paid to go there, and they will not remain away because they are paid to remain away. Nothing would purify the election atmosphere so much as compulsory voting, but I realize that is not a proposal which will find acceptance in this country at the present time. Every hon. gentleman who has opposed this Bill has said something in its favour. I commend the opinion of my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin). I think he is quite right in more senses than one. The hon. gentleman, without mentioning it, quoted the Ontario law which gives two hours during election day to enable employees to vote. He also commended the idea of giving a portion of the day as a holiday. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) did not seem to see any reason for this legislation. It is suggested that .he cannot see anything, but sometimes he is pretty wide awake. I w.ant to tell the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who is a very reasonable gentleman, that in the city of Toronto, notwithstanding what my hon. friend would call the herculean efforts of the great Tory party in that city, and notwithstanding the efforts made by both parties, we poll on an average of only from 60 to 65 per cent of the total vote. There are about 50,000 or 60,000 voters in that city. In the last election in the riding of South Toronto, which I have the honour to represent, the vote polled was only a little over 60 per cent of the total vote.


Robert Rogers: You had enough?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I had enough for the occasion.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: If you had needed the rest, you would have had it polled.


Angus Claude Macdonell: You never can tell, until after an election is over, how you stand. Very much the greater portion of that 40 per cent of the vote that is not polled is not polled because there are no sufficient opportunities or facilities given to the people to poll their votes. In the district of Toronto referred to, part of which is represented by my hon. friend the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), there is a population of three-quarters of

a million people, and it is impossible for them, residing as they do at very great distances from their work, to poll their votes during business hours. The section that follows is not sufficient to afford relief, because the one hour that is given is not enough. The experience of the Ontario Government has been that at least two hours are needed in cities to give men an opportunity to get back to their residential districts for the pnrpose of voting. The legislation has been progressive there; and as pointed out by my hon. friend the member for East 'Toronto (Mr. Kemp), the Ontario Government has recently enacted that, in cities of 200,000, the polls shall open at eight o'clock in the morning. Who is hurt in a city, if the polls are opened at eight o'clock in the morning and kept open until six o'clock -at night? Even in the country, people would not be hurt.


Charles Marcil: What are the hours for polling in municipal elections in Toronto?


Angus Claude Macdonell: They were changed
recently. I understand the polls are open until six o'clock now.


Charles Marcil: In Montreal they are kept open until eight o'clock.


Angus Claude Macdonell: And that is not too
long to keep them open. If men get an [DOT]opportunity to vote, they will vote, and the expense of taking them to the polls will not be necessary. I appeal to the committee to make reasonable and fair provision for people in the city districts, who number now quite forty per cent of the total population of the Dominion. If section 4 is allowed to pass with a proper amendment so as to exclude the country districts, the committee will be doing justice to all parties.
Section negatived.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I beg to move the following amendment to section 4:
Provided that in cities having a population of over 200,000, and in ridings formed in part by a portion or portions of such cities, the polls shall be opened in every polling place at eight o'clock in the forenoon and shall be kept open until five o'clock in the afternoon of the same day and the vote shall be by ballot.
This amendment amounts to practically nothing, and I hope it will be adopted unanimously by the committee. It is simply the Ontario law applied to cities of 200,000 people and upwards. It applies to only two or three cities in Canada, which are very congested districts. Relief will be given, and the ipoll-s will close uniformly 1214
throughout Canada at five o'clock in the afternoon.


Charles Marcil: The time is not the same throughout Canada and the results are known in Halifax while voting is going on in the West. It is no relief to the city people to open the polls earlier in the morning. If you want to give them relief, you will have to keep the polls open until later in the .evening. That is the mature judgment of the Montreal Labour Council and of all the labour organizations of the cities.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Why not say " in the
cities of Canada?"	[DOT]
. Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: If my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) carried that amending clause, a constituency partly rural and partly urban would incur a very serious difficulty. It might happen that 95 per cent of his polling districts within that electoral district would close at five, and the result be known before, say, halfpast five or a quarter to six.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. gentleman
has not grasped the purpose bf the amendment. It is that in all cities, or in ridings that are formed in part by city districts the polls shall open at eight o'clock and close at five o'clock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is what I am speaking about. I am pointing out the serious objection that 95 per cent of the polling stations of one electoral district close at five and the other 5 per cent at six.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The same closing
hour applies to any riding that includes in part or whole a city of '200,000 or over.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the first place, this amendment is going to make the law in two cities in Canada different from the law for the rest of the country. That is not an insuperable objection, but it is an undesirable thing unless, by the differentiation, you are going to get a very substantial advantage for some class of the people. Speaking for myself, I have very strong sympathy with what was put forward on behalf of the railway and the workingmen, and I believe that we ought to do what we can to make it possible for both these classes to vote absolutely independently, without any question of asking time and taking time and so forth. While my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) says that he regretted that the committee were not disposed to take up and work out the proposition of the railway men, I do not think that exactly describes the

action of the committee. The committee were disposed to take the question up, and my memory is that they took it up and that they endeavoured to work it out on a practical basis; but they could not find a method by which the railway men could vote the day previous to election day, which was the suggestion they put forward. It was considered that, failing that, a substantial advantage might come to them by opening the polls at an earlier hour in the morning, and the hour suggested was six o'clock or half-past six o'clock in the morning, so as to enable the men to vote before they went to the stations. This would also have enabled a large number of the labouring classes to vote before they went to their work. The reason given for lengthening the hours does not seem to me the important one. It is not that you want more hours of polling, but you want the polls open at the time when the people are best able to vote. From the point of view of the cities, if you are going to allow the workingman to vote before he goes to work in the morning, you would have to open the polls before seven o clock. I do not see how it is going to help the workingman to open the polls at eight o'clock.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But if he has two hours in the middle of the day, would not that do it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That comes under a different section. I was pointing out certain considerations in relation to this particular proposal. I do not know how it is in the rural constituencies, but in Montreal the workingman goes to work at seven o'clock. By opening the poll at eight you might help the clerks and others who go to their offices at nine, but the change would not help the workingman. The great difficulty in the cities is that if a man does not vote before he goes to his business, or finds the poll closed when he returns from his business, he must make a special trip over a long distance from his place of occupation to the place where he polls his vote in the subdivision in which he resides. It will be a great benefit, it seems to me, to provide. a time, what we may call a free time, for the voter when he can poll his vote, and thus obviate the necessity of conveying him to the poll.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It is only once in four years he is called upon to vote and he is not very seriously inconvenienced.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I know; but what I am pointing out is that the section as proposed
fMr. Doherty.]
does not fulfil the purpose for which it is intended so far as the cities are concerned.


William Findlay Maclean: It is for you to assume the responsibility of doing that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is for the House; I cannot impose my power upon the House; it is essentially a matter for Parliament to pronounce upon. I do not think it would be fair for me, even if I could, to impose my will upon the members of the House.
The effect of the suggested amendment of the hon. member for South Toronto is to make a different law for these two cities out of the whole Dominion. It
10 p.m. does not seem to me to gain the advantage which we wish to gain. My own constituency is substantially a workingman's constituency, and I have a large railway men's vote. It will not help these voters to give them an hour extra in the morning by making the polls open at eight o'clock. The workingman is at work before eight o'clock, and he will not gain by the extension of an hour. No doubt it would be of some advantage to the class of people who go to their offices at nine, but I do not see that that advantage is sufficient to make it worth while to differentiate between these cities and the rest of the country.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The minister criticises my amendment because it does not put the hour's increase of time at the end of the day. That motion was before the Chair and did not receive support.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am more or less sympathetic with the desire of the hon. member for South Toronto. I do not think that anybody, on the abstract question of whether the polls shall open at seven or eight in the morning and continue open until six in the evening, could make a successful argument against it. It is not an argument against the polls being open from seven o'clock a.m. until six o'clock p.m. that all the votes are polled by five o'clock. On the other hand, I admit there is no apparent necessity for this change, so far as the rural districts are concerned. I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Justice in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for South Toronto; it will accomplish very little if anything to open the polls at eight in the morning. If it were six o'clock-	_


Angus Claude Macdonell: I will change it to six if the hon. member will support it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have not suggested that. As the amendment would

appear to accomplish so little, I think we might as well have the section as it is at . present.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonell) negatived.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That section 5 be amended by substituting Hie words " two hours " for " hour."
He said: I am open for any suggestion so long as the facilities for voting are increased, and they have not been increased so far. I desire to call attention to the Ontario Act. This is chapter 8 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1914, section 112. It is well worded and has worked out well:
A voter entitled to vote within a city or town shall, on the day of polling be entitled to absent himself for the purpose of voting from any service or employment in which he is then engaged or employed, from the hour of noon until the hour of two of the clock next thereafter, and a voter shall not, because of his so absenting himself, be liable to any penalty, or suffer or incur any reduction from the wages or compensation to which but for his absence he would have been entitled, but this section shall not apply where a voter is by his employer permitted or allowed at any other period during the hours of polling, reasonable and sufficient time and opportunity to vote.
This is an exceedingly fair and just provision.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In what year was that introduced?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Seven or eight years ago. It amply protects the voter against unfair discrimination on the part of the employer, and it does not apply if the employer gives the employee ample time at any other time to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is that not the substance of the provision contained in this proposed legislation? We give the employee an hour in addition to the noon hour.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Nowadays, as the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) remarked, workmen work an hour more each day in order to get a halfholiday on Saturday, and the consequence is that in many cases they do not get an hour for lunch at noon. The Ontario legislation gives the employee two definite hours; I commend the language of this section to the consideration of the committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Ontario legislation gives two definite hours, but only if the employer does not give his employee sufficient time at some other hour of the day. We say simply that the employer shall give these two hours. Suppose I am an employer, and
I say to my employee you cannot get from 12 until 2 o'clock, but I will give you an hour at another time, then, if that is a sufficiently long time for him to go to vote, I shall be perfectly right, under the Ontario statute, and no complaint can be made. We are saying in effect, but in shorter form, the same thing, because we say: you shall give the employee an hour besides the noon hour. If the employee does not take the noon hour, that is his own affair. In drawing this provision we had the Ontario section before us, and we thought we had adopted the Ontario section, but in simpler form.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Only as to one hour.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When you say one hour in addition to the noon hour, that is two. hours.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That is not what the Bill says.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It says that the employer shall give to every voter in his employ at least one additional hour for voting, other than the noon hour. If any other words will make the meaning clearer, I shall be glad to adopt them. If the employee chooses to agree with his employer that he shall not take the noon hour, I do not see that we should' be called upon to say that he shall get some other hour than that. He makes his own bargain with his employer about the noon hour. Really I think there may be a question as to the desirability of fixing specific hours, but I only want to point out that the Ontario legislation does not do that any more than this does.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The object of this legislation is to provide that the voter shall have a chance to vote. I take it that everybody wants to make it just as easy for the voter to vote as it is possible to make it. Taking into consideration the fact that you must have in the first place, the voter's interest, and that it is desired to give the employee a chance to vote, irrespective of what his employer may think, would it not be well to provide that the hours during which the employee may vote on election day shall be from twelve o'clock noon until two p.m.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That might create a
situation in which many industries would have to close during the remainder of the day, because all employees would go out at the same time.


Frank Oliver: Will this hour be chosen by the employer, or by the employee?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The obligation of the
employer is to give the employee an hour other than the noon hour, and it would seem to be a fair thing that the employer should fix the hour that is most suitable. At all events, that is the effect of the section.


Angus Claude Macdonell: My apprehension
was that the hour that is mentioned here as the noon hour is referred to only inferentially; the provision is not as clear as the provision of the Ontario Act. The difficulty, which is rather more deep-seated than has been suggested by the minister, is that while the Ontario Act makes provision for a man's having two hours of his employer's time once in every three, four or five years, the hour spoken of in this Bill at the noon hour is a period of time contributed by the employee himself.
That is he is out a part of it; he is paid by the hour usually and he is out the time he is not working; so that all he gets, so far as . he gets anything gratis under this Bill, is one hour given to him in addition to his noon hour.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would that not be fair
after all?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think all he gets
by this Bill is the one hour. That seems to be the intention of the committee and of the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: One hour besides the
noon hour.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Francis Cochrane: We could not hold up our trains for an hour; in the case of any employees not operating trains there would be no objection.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I save that by the
proposal here. The law now applies to the company railways and I propose to apply it to the Intercolonial or Government Railway system with the saving clause that it shall not apply to those the performance

of whose duties is necessary to the operation Of the regular trains.


Mr. FOWLER:: Have you a similar
clause with reierence to the other railways? ,


Charles Joseph Doherty: As our section reads
without any exception at all, applying to every employer and employee, I suppose it would so operate that the railways would have to stop their trains and let the men go out and vote and that certainly ought to be provided against.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Inasmuch as no special hour is fixed at which the company railways are to accord an hour to the employees for voting I uo not think the amendment is necessary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the difficulty to be met is that a railway conductor who goes out on a train at 8 o'clock would be a great many miles away in a very short time.


Mr. J. D. REID:: Has there been any
difficulty in the past on account of Government railways in this respect?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is proposing an
amendment which applies to all railways, and I understand that the minister accepts the proposition, as one that should apply to the Government railways as to the others.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We might insert this
addition:
This section shall apply to railway companies and to Government railways and their employees with the exception of employees engaged in the running of trains and to whom such time could not be given without interfering with the running of the trains.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What would be the effect of that amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the first place to
make it applicable to Government railways and in the second place to make it clear that with regard to all railways they would not be under obligation to give an hour to men engaged in the running of trains, to whom they could not give an hour without stopping the trains.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Could not the minister go a little further and say the running of regular trains?


George William Fowler: The runmg of a special
train might be of much more importance than the running of a regular train.


William Pugsley: Would the minister's
amendment apply to street railways? Because if all men on street railways were entitled to a couple of hours it might disorganize transportation in cities.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman think it would? As they would not all have to be given their hour off at the same time it would surely be possible to arrange the schedule so as not to interfere with the working of the system.


William Pugsley: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I presume that street railway employees, like others, have a dinner hour. We aire not making them give two hours. I assume that these employees already have an hour for their dinner. Personally, I am not in a position to say how it will affect the running of a street railway system in a large city.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do I understand that the minister moves that amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: To be absolutely frank, I am not perfectly satisfied with it, because when one comes to look at it, we have other systems of transportation besides railways. During the period of summer navigation there may be many voters employed on steamboats.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You could not make it apply to vessels unless they were in port.


George William Fowler: Has there been any
request for this legislation? I have not heard of a case where an employer refused to let an employee go out and vote, whether he was on the opposite side of politics or not. It seems to me we are passing legislation that has not been asked for, and that there is no public demand or necessity for. It is imposing an obligation which is not at all necessary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry the hon. gentleman was not in the House when we were considering it. A section has been passed as part of the Dominion Elections Act that employers shall on polling day give to the voters in their employ at least one additional hour beyond the noon hour for voting purposes. That was passed some time ago, and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was simply moving an amendment that it should apply to employees on the Intercolonial who would be exempt from the provision of that section
unless it were specifically stated otherwise by Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as the demand for it is concerned, we have had very numerous and clearly representative delegations from workmen's organizations asking that we should give a whole day or a half-day's holiday in order that the men might vote. Since I have had the honour of being in the House I know that the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) has on several occasions proposed a measure to that end, and I think a great many of us have received very strong representations on the subject from representatives of organized workmen in the big cities. So whether the demand ought to be met or not, I do not think it can 'be said that this legislation was not asked for.


George William Fowler: It is imposing a fine on an employer of labour. If a man employs 200 men and lets them off for an hour, he will lose 200 hours' work. If he had 500 men, he would lose 500 hours' work. This will make election day an expense to every employer of labour in Canada, and it does not seem to me to be right.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Before this Bill is finally disposed of I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to some very desirable amendments to chapter 26 of the Revised Statutes of 1908. This chapter provides for the preparation of voters' lists in those portions of Ontario that are not under municipal organization. At the time it was passed it was no doubt veTy carefully thought out, but in practice it does not work out as well as it .should. For instance, these lists have always been revised after the proclamation for an election, or within the last thirty or forty days before polling day. During that time the judges have to select the polling subdivisions, and the voter must necessarily be an actual resident within the polling subdivision for which the revision is being made. In other words, a man who has 'been residing in an unorganized township takes a few steps across the road into an organized township, and he is absolutely debarred from voting. Simply because he was not an actual resident of the unorganized territory he is not allowed to vote in the organized territory. Since the passing of this Act two thousand voters in my district have been deprived of the privilege of voting. The Act is also very cumbersome. For instance, why should it be necessary to have in an

unorganized district a board of three judges to consider appeals that might be made against the voters' lists, when in a large township with five or ten times the population the work is done by one county judge. Surely if one county judge is able to do this work in the larger cities he ought to be able to do it in districts where the population is sparse. I am calling these matters to the attention of the minister because they are somewhat important to me. I have forty polls of this nature with probably a voting population of 5,000. I think this state of affairs should be remedied. If it cannot be done on this particular occasion perhaps before the Bill is finally passed some way can be thought out for giving these men the right to vote. Let me point out further that the Ontario law makes matters a lot worse, because the province has separate voters' lists. These lists are posted up in the post office, and a man may see his name on them and not pay sufficient attention to see that it is only a provincial list, not a Dominion list. Then when the Dominion list is printed by the King's Printer he finds he is not in for that section at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no doubt there is a great deal in what the hon. member says, and no doubt the question is important. But I am afraid that for us to enter upon an examination of the law with regard to the making of lists with a view to remedying it, would be rather difficult at this stage of the session. However, I do not expect the Bill to have its third reading this evening and before it comes to third reading I will look into what has been said, and see if it is possible for us to deal with the situation.
I beg to move that section 5 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
This section shall apply to railway companies and to the Government railways and their employees with the exception of employees engaged in the running of trains and to whom such time cannot he given without interfering with the running of the trains.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What penalty is provided for failure to comply with this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This particular section does not provide a penalty for failure to comply with it. It was thought that it might be left to the application of the general provision which does provide a penality for the violation of a statute where no specific penalty is prescribed.


Mr. MURPHY:: Section 269 might apply.
tMr. Arthurs.]


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In regard to the Government railway proposition, we would not want- to take proceedings against my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), because that would be a very drastic procedure and probably he would not know anything about the violation of the Act. If there was some local official who transgressed the law there should be some way by which he could be reached.


George William Kyte: I nominate Mr. Gutelius.


Robert Rogers: I think you had better leave the Act alone unless you know what you are doing.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that section 269 would apply, but I am quite satisfied that there is a penalty for the violation of any statutory disposition where no specific penalty is prescribed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the Election Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, in the Criminal-Code. I have sent for the statutes to find the clause.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps we might let that section stand until the minister looks into it and comes to a conclusion in regard to it.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 7-form of nomination paper amended to require address for service of papers:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only change in the nomination paper is that in the new form the candidate is required to insert his address. That is in view of the provision in the Bill to amend the Controverted Elections Act that service in any contestation shall be validly made if addressed to the candidate at the address mentioned in his nomination paper.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That would mean simply his post office address?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, we are suggesting to the House to provide in that Act that mailing to the address would be sufficient
service.
Progress reported.


CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty, Bill No. 109, to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, was read the second time,

and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-names of courts:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of the repealing clauses i and vidi of paragraph J of section 2 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, chapter 7, Revised Statutes, 1906, is to make the names of the courts mentioned in the Act correspond with their present names. In Ontario the name of the court has been changed and likewise in Saskatchewan and Alberta they now have the Supreme Court of the province. In the Act as it stands the court is referred to in this way:
In the province of Saskatchewan or Alberta, the Supreme Court of the Northwest territories pending the abolition of that court by the legislature of the province, and thereafter such Superior Court of justice as, in respect of the civil jurisdiction of the said court, is established for the province in lieu thereof.
The court now established is the Supreme Court of the province.


William Pugsley: What are subsections 3 and 4 of section 2 which are repealed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Subsection 3 of section 2 of the present Act is as follows:
In respect of proceedings relating to or affecting an election for an electoral district partly in the province of Saskatchewan and partly in the province of Alberta, the court shall he the Supreme Court of the Northwest territories pending the abolition of that court by the legislature of the province of Alberta, and thereafter such Superior Court as, in respect of the civil jurisdiction of that court, is established for that province in lieu thereof.
I understand that there is no constituency now that is partly in each province and there is therefore no need for that provision. Furthermore there is no long-or any Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. Subsection 4 was a provision to cover a transient condition. It was as follows:
Proceedings under this Act which are pending in the Supreme Court of the Northwest territories in the province of Saskatchewan or the province of Alberta at the time of the abolition of the said court in the province may be continued in such Superior Court of justice, as, in respect of the civil jurisdiction of the said court, is established for the province in lieu thereof in all respects as if such proceedings had been instituted in such latter court.
The section ceases to have any operation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-proof of right to be a petitioner:
William Pugsley: This section is very drastic.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is intended to be drastic. In the view of the committee, it was not of material importance who presented the petition. The provisions of the Act with regard to security and so forth were looked upon as a sufficient protection to the party whose election might be attacked. Experience has shown that discussions with regard to the exact proof of the identity of the person who is the petitioner, .and that he is a person whose name is upon the list, have been such a productive field for preliminary objections and discussions of no material bearing upon the substantial question as to whether the respondent was illegally or corruptedly elected, that it .appeared to us that we would be justified in making the proof sufficient that the petitioner's name appears upon the list that is produced. This will apply to the great majority of cases, because in the bulk of cases there are lists. Where there are no lists, or where the petitioner is petitioning in his quality as candidate and his name might not be on the list, it is thought that an affidavit should be sufficient. There is ample protection in the affidavit, in the great facility with which it would lie within the power of the party whose election was attacked, to ascertain and prosecute for perjury, if any one who was not a candidate, swore that he was a candidate.


George William Fowler: A man, who nas a minor and who might not be entitled to vote at an election at all, might be a petitioner; simply because his name appears on the voters' list by fraud or inadvertence. You cannot go beyond the list and have the petition presented by a person who has a right to present a petition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the difference?


George William Fowler: Why not use any one's name? Why say that the petitioner shall be a voter?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is quite true, but you must have' designated by the statute some class from which the petitioner can be drawn.	.


George William Fowler: If you permit any class to come in, then why make any condition at all?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The electoral lists
practically include every one who is 21 years of age and a British subject within

an electoral division. That is pretty wide, and any one who is on that list can be a petitioner.


George William Fowler: He might not be a qualified person, and yet be on the list.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As the law stood before, it was open to the respondent to come into court and say that the petitioner, while his name was on the list, was disqualified as a petitioner. It was very anomalous.


George William Fowler: Why?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Because the point really at issue should not be affected one way or the other by who the petitioner is.


George William Fowler: Then why have a petitioner at all?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the hon. gentleman can provide some machinery by which he can try out a petition without a petitioner, all very well.


George William Fowler: Who has a right in the ordinary course? There is something due to the candidate as well as to the petitioner. Why should the candidate be harassed by a. man of straw? Why should not the petitioner be responsible for costs?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He gives security of


George William Fowler: And the costs may go to


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When the hon. member sees the remaining provisions of the Bill, he will see that the trials of election petitions are very much expedited, and that there will be less costs because there will be fewer appeals.


George William Fowler: If the remaining provisions are as bad as this, they must be very bad.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-repealing sections 6 and 7:
George William Fowler: Is section 2 passed?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


George William Fowler: I wish to register my objection.


Mr. McKENZIE:: There is a provision in the Dominion Elections Act by which a man whose name may be on the list becomes disqualified by his own act. Perhaps that provision in the law is repealed somewhere here, but there is a section of the law as it stands to-day which says that any man who hires a team to take an elector to the poll is ipso facto disqualified. That man

can not file a petition. There is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to that effect. Unless that section is repealed, it will be in conflict with this proposed legislation.


Edmond Proulx: This dispenses with the
need of an affidavit on the part of the petitioner?


George William Fowler: It dispenses with everything.


Edmond Proulx: The affidavit should remain. If a petitioner alleges charges against a member of this House, he should substantiate them by affidavit.


George William Fowler: The petitioner under this proposed legislation might be a minor; he might be an alien enemy; he might not have a vote at all, his name might be on the list by fraud and misrepresentation; yet he could be a petitioner. He might be even in that delectable institution known as the Kingston penitentiary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He would not have an opportunity to file a petition.


George William Fowler: You might let him sign.


William Pugsley: I do not wish to oppose any strenuous objection against the work of this committee being approved, but I am inclined to think that unless some serious objection can be pointed out to the present statute it would be better to leave it alone. Practitioners have become familiar with the present statute, and they get along pretty well with it. If we change the law, it will take twenty years to have the courts interpret it and find out what it means. There will be more trouble, more litigation and more delay than will take place if we continue to act under the present law. I would leave the Act just as it is. It seems anomalous to declare that the petition shall be presented by a voter and then provide that even if his affidavit is absolutely false, it shall be conclusive evidence that he is a voter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt about the fact mentioned by the hon. member that the courts have a jurisprudence on the law as it now stands, and that the practitioners have become familiar with it; but what we have become familiar with is the fact that under the law as it now stands, and its practical application under that jurisprudence, and the way in which cases may be conducted, a party petitioned against may

sit through the Parliament to which he was not legally elected.
The purpose of this Bill is to remedy in this instance what seems to us a serious evil. As the law operates it practically comes to this:	that a party who is protested sits through the greater part of a Parliament without any determination being reached as to whether he is lawfully elected or not. Looking at this section alone, it may appear that the Bill takes up a hostile attitude, if I may use that expression, to the party whose election is attacked, but I think that before we get through the Bill it will be seen that there are provisions that operate also to protect the party rightfully fighting a contestation.


George William Fowler: Why not let this clausestand?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection, if
hon. gentlemen wish time to consider the provisions of the Bill, to let the whole Bill stand. I may point out that the committee gave a good deal of time to this measure and it seemed to us that it was a desirable measure. Of course, if the House thinks it is not a matter of sufficient importance to call for the attention at this stage of the session, or if the House thinks that it is so important that further time is necessary, I have no objection to allow it to stand.


George William Fowler: I would suggest that
tne committee go through the Bill now, allowing controversial sections to stand. Surely, there are some sections that would meet with the general approval and in going through the Bill we will get a better understanding of the whole measure. To meet my view the Bill would have to be considerably modified. I do not think we should encourage petitions, because usually the sitting member obtains his election in the proper manner.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Fowler: I am surprised at the
ribald laughter of some hon. members. They evidently think otherwise.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The matter of
improving the Controverted Elections Act has been under discussion in this House for a great number of years, and I am surprised to hear the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Pugsley) say that nothing should be done. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has given the subject consideration or not, but unless he has I think he should not make a suggestion
that the Bill should not be considered. It is not a very lengthy measure, and will not take very much time to consider. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has pointed out, the fact is the Controverted Elections Act is a nullity, and
11 p.m. every member of Parliament should consider himself bound in duty to make that Act a living force.
I do not like to hear any hon. member suggest that we should abandon the whole Bill. I would rather entertain the suggestion that we should repeal the whole Controverted Elections Act.


George William Fowler: Is it not attempted by this Bill to make the Controverted Elections Act a living farce instead of a living force?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I fancy the hon. gentleman has not read the Bill and cannot tell-


George William Fowler: I have read one section, and that is sufficient.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps the hon. gentleman's reading and understanding of the Bill is not quite complete; perhaps the measure would stand a little further consideration on his part. I do not think there is anything unfair in section 2. The whole purpose of the Bill is to expedite the trial of election petitions. It eliminates preliminary objections and it provides a simpler method for the service of petitions and any process under the Act, and I think that is, in the main, a just provision.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How does this clause carry out, or assist to carry out, the proposal the hon. gentleman has spoken of?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. gentleman
knows, I suppose, that a great difficulty of petitioners under the Controverted Elections Act is in effecting service. Respondents leave the country, and when service has been attempted to be made in foreign countries the courts have held it back. Why should not service of the petition be made-


George William Fowler: That has nothing to do with section 2.


Albert Sévigny: We are on section 3.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know that
I can say anything .further than has been said by the Minister of Justice. Anybody whose name is on an election petition is presumed to be a voter having the right to petition against the person elected. I think that should be prima facie evidence of his ability to petition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does not that make it
possible for irresponsible parties through a solicitor to file petitions merely to cause annoyance to a person elected?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No more so than to-day -there is no more opportunity for irresponsible persons to be petitioners than today.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was on the
committee that considered this Bill. I was not on it originally, but took the place of the former member from Prince Albert, Judge Mackay. I am free to say that these other gentlemen would not say, that the chairman of the committee, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) gave this matter much more attention than is usually given by committees to the matters referred to them. The sole desire of the committee was to find an expeditious and efficient method whereby elections that had been fraudulently contested should be .set aside and those responsible for the wrong-doing in those elections quickly brought to justice. It may be that the legislation is disputatious in the broad sense of the term, but in a still broader sense it is legislation that, if placed upon the statute book, will help to improve public life and possibly do away with some of the stories we read from time to time in the press-not confined to one party but the common heritage of both-with relation to elections. If we can legislate to improve the conditions of public life, to make it possible for elections to be run without having recourse to money and to corrupt practices which are too often had recourse to in Canada, it would be a good thing. Of course, this cannot be done in a day. Walpole, in his time, declared that every man had his price. It took a long time to bring about the conditions that exist in England to-day. I think too much can not be said for the work given to this measure by the chairman of this committee .and the junior member for Halifax-to single these gentlemen out among those who were deserving. I think this should be treated as a serious matter by this House. If we can do something to make it a little harder to get away with corruption and corrupt influences and the destroying of the body politic, I think we shall have done a good thing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was thought by every member of the committee that the law in respect of election protests as it now stands 
is practically a nullity; the only purpose which it serves is that of a club, to be wielded by a political opponent in order to protect himself or to arrange a saw-off. I take it that the hon. member for Kings and Albert does not take kindly to the provisions of this Bill. If the hon. gentleman accepts the principle that a simpler and more concise method of getting after corruption in elections is necessary, then this Bill will commend itself to his judgment. If, on the other hand, he takes the ground that the law is all right as it is, the provisions of the Bill will not appeal to him. It is provided, in the first place, that any person may file a petition so long as he puts up $1,000. The real fact of the matter is that the $1,000, not the personal standing of the petitioner, is the protection to the respondent. The meanest subject of the realm has the right to lay information in the courts of the country if he thinks a crime has been committed. If it is the honest intention of Parliament to provide machinery by which corruption at elections may be put down-my hon. friend and myself could, perhaps, give a good deal of information on this subject.


George William Fowler: Speak for yourself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I speak for my hon. friend as well. If any person has the right to lay an information in a court of law, then any person has the right to sign an election petition, provided his name is on the voters' list and he complies with the requirements of the law. I would have gone further and reduced the deposit to $500, but it was thought best to leave it as it is. We all know, too, that one of the great bones of contention in the past has been the matter of the service of election petitions. Let me give the hon. member for Kings and Albert an illustration, one with which he is probably familiar. The law of New Brunswick provides that the service of the writ must be made in a certain way; that it must be published in a newspaper, served on the respondent and posted in the registry office. The officer to whom the paper was given posted it on a bill-board in the lobby of the court house; the registry office was in the court house. I was counsel for the respondent in that case, and I contended that the publication had not been carried out according to law. I took the ground that posting the notice on a bill-board in the lobby of the court house was not posting it in the registry office. It may surprise my hon. friend to know that the Supreme Court of New Brunswick held that I was right.


George William Fowler: It does not surprise me
at all


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This kind of thing has a tendency not to facilitate the trial of election petitions, but to put all kinds of technical objections in the way. The question resolves itself into a consideration of whether we shall have election petitions, or whether we shall not have them. If we are to have them, then it is well to provide simply that a copy of the petition shall be mailed to the address given in the nomination paper.


George William Fowler: I am not finding fault
with that, I am in favour of that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad we have converted my hon. friend to that extent.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for
Carleton evidently thinks that he is the only person who desires fairness and purity in elections. I am just as anxious as he is that a man should be properly elected, and that if he is not properly elected he should be punished by the loss of his seat. But I want the Act to be a proper one. I believe in fair-play and protection, both for the man who is elected and for the man who is defeated. One would almost think, from the remarks of the hon. gentleman, that a man has committed a crime because he is elected; that because he happens to be elected, it is his duty to be unseated. I do not look at it that way at all. The man who is elected has a right to the protection of the law; yet everything is done to harass him. Even an alien, it is contended, should have the right to file a petition against him. Let the service be as simple as. possible; send the paper, if you will, to his known place of residence. 1 care not how simple you make the service, but I do say that you should provide that the man who files the petition shall be a duly qualified voter. Why should he not be a duly qualified voter? What right has he to object if he is not? [DOT]


John Hampden Burnham: Did the hon. gentleman not say a few moments ago -that he would have no objection to the ordinary process of issuing a writ?


George William Fowler: Yes.


John Hampden Burnham: What about the alien who puts up security?


George William Fowler: The point is that he does not put up sufficient security. If he should put up a bond for the costs, then it would be all right; I would not care who filed the petition. I am sure that
every member of this committee 'is just as desirous as the hon. member for Carle-ton is that elections shall be properly conducted. The hon. gentleman has said that he knows a great deal about corruption; perhaps in his zeal to be elected he did transgress, but I do not propose that he shall plead guilty for me to that charge. I am always very careful to amid even the appearance of evil, so anxious am I not to do anything wrong in connection with elections. I do not see why it should not be required that the person who files a petition shall be a legally qualified voter. All he has to do is to prove that he is on the voters' list; that he has the necessary qualifications, that he is a British subject-surely he can prove these things easily enough. Where is there a chance for any preliminary objection in connection with that, if he is Teally a duly qualified voter, if he has the qualifications and is a British subject?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There have been very serious contests as to the qualification of the petitioner.


George William Fowler: Because the conditions have not been fulfilled. My hon. friend speaks of the case in Carleton county. I do not know why he drags that case in because it has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. The Supreme Court of New Brunswick was absolutely right, in my opinion, in holding that the lobby of the court house was not within the registry office. I do not see how they could have held anything else; I think that is good law. Therefore it has nothing to do with this matter. By changing the Act as is proposed you are not going to avoid questions of that kind occurring; if you do not follow the conditions here, your petition will be set aside. There are certain conditions to be observed and if you do not observe them your petition will be set aside as in the other case. Perhaps you are making the conditions less onerous, but why can you not make this law simple in its action and yet require that a man filing a petition shall have some status in the community, that he shall be a legally qualified voter. That is all I ask.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is hard to determine at times.


George William Fowler: I do not think it is hard to determine. It depends simply on his being a British subject, on his having the residence, being of the proper age and being on the voters' list.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would not prove him a legally qualified voter.


Charles Marcil: Suppose he is disqualified.


George William Fowler: But the burden of proof is on the other side to show that he is disqualified. If he has these qualifications he is a qualified voter legally, prima facie.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does not my hon. friend see he is getting back to the very condition of affairs that we are trying to eliminate, to the preliminary objections. I know enough about elections to be aware that one of the principal causes of objection is the question of the qualification of the petitioner. In very many election trials the petitioner has been brought up and examined from time to time prior to the trial and the question arises has he been disqualified by bribery, has he committed a corrupt act? If so he would not be qualified. Many petitions have been knocked out on that very matter; you raise a preliminary objection and get into the Supreme Court of Canada and lose a year or two of time. I ask the hon. member if he is not arguing for the continuing of the system of preliminary objections.


George William Fowler: Does my hon. friend
think that a man who has violated the election law and disqualified himself is the person to go into court? He should be like the complainant in any other case, the man who goes into court should have clean hands. But he goes in a disqualified person. I do not think that a man who is disqualified should be permitted to file a petition, and the onus of proof of the disqualification is on the respondent because if the petitioner shows he has fulfilled the conditions, that is all he has to show, and it is up to the other side to prove that he is disqualified.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But he is petitioning
not on account of himself alone, but of a large element of the public.


George William Fowler: But the man who petitions on behalf of a large element of the public must have a right to do so and that right lies in his being a qualified voter; he represents the qualified electors. They are the only ones who Can say who should be elected. Does he not belong to that class? There are very few constituencies with less than 4,000 or 5,000 qualified voters, and surely within the half or one-third of that number who support the minority candidate there must be enough duly qualified electors to file the petition. If there are not 
the petition had better go unfiled. It seems to me that from every standpoint we should require that the man should be a qualified voter. Simplify procedure as much as you like, but let the individuals who are parties to the trial-because, after all, the petitioner is the party, although he represents a considerable portion of the electorate-let these be the proper persons and then simplify your procedure as much as you like, and I am with you, but I am not with you to permit any sort of straw-man to be put up for the purpose of annoying and putting to trouble a person who has received, according to the electoral returns, the majority of the votes" in any constituency.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand that my
hon. friend's principal objection is on the question of the petitioner. When he interrupted some time ago, as he had a right to do, I was pointing out the general purport of the Bill, and I had got over two points. The third principle which we tried to work out in this Bill was that the trial should be brought on almost at once. We all know that under the present law an election trial cannot take place until after all preliminary objections are decided, which sometimes takes two or three years, and it cannot be tried while Parliament is in session. We have tried to eliminate that and bring the practice very nearly to the ordinary practice in a civil suit in court. The petition takes the place of the statement of claim; provision is made that an answer shall be filed, and if it is not filed within fifteen days the clerk of the court files the answer and the petition is immediately at issue and the trial takes place regardless of whether Parliament be in session or not. That practically would be all the principles involved in the Bill that are different from the present law. We have left all the rest of the law as it is, we have left in the provision for preliminary examination of witnesses. We have provided also that a witness can be gathered in very early in the game, in fact you can apply to a judge almost at the time the petition is filed and have an order given that a certain person be examined. That prevents the witnesses getting out of the country.
These are the four cardinal principles involved in the Bill. I am very much in favour of the Bill, although I do not take credit for having originated the idea; I think it came from the Minister of Jus-

tice himself. The minister certainly has done all he could in order to make the Bill perfect. I want to say to the credit of the hon. gentleman (who occupies that position (Mr. Doherty) that I have never in my life seen in a deliberative body a gentleman who has more earnestly tried to work out a perfect scheme which would attain the object in view than has the Minister of Justice in working out this scheme. There has not been a move, there has not been a proposition put forward that appealed to his judicial mind as calculated to work out successfully and prevent bribery and corruption, but the Minister of Justice has adopted it. When it appeared to him, from his long experience as otherwise he was not at all afraid to say so. I do not think there has ever been a committee in the House of Commons that has been as thoroughly in harmony over the principles involved in any measure as this Election Committee in reference to this Bill.
To go back to the one poin-t that my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Fowler) has taken objection to; I am not wedded to the form of this section. If my hon. friend wants to make any other provisions than that a man must be 21 years of age and a British subject, I have no objection so long as it does not involve the question of preliminary objections.


George William Fowler: He may be the biggest
blackleg in the world.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That may be true, but
if he is a British subject and 21 years of age he is entitled to vote.


Edmond Proulx: Suppose there were preliminary objections, but no appeal.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The .preliminary objections wouild take up months and months of time if there were no 'appeals. The moment you bring in the principle of preliminary objections you are defeating the object of this Bill. I do not care what .amendments you have so long as they do not adopt the principle of preliminary objections.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I sug-
[DOT] gest that as it is nearly 12 o'clock it is pretty far advanced to take up the discussion of such an important measure as this. We had better sleep over it, and then when we come again to stuay the Bill we shall perhaps be in a better frame of mind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am quite willing to
agree to the suggestion of my right hon. friend. I think we have gained a great deal by this expression of opifiiori from both sides of the House. But before moving that the committee rise I should like to point out one thing, and that is this. It is required that the man shall be upon the list. Now the fact that he is upon the list shows that the question of his qualification has been tried out once and determined by whatever machinery is provided in the different provinces for ascertatining whether a man ought to be on the list or not.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: In my province we have no voters' lists.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Tnat is provided
for.


Angus Alexander McLean: All that is required
is an affidavit. A man who was irresponsible could put up $1,000 and the cost of the trial might amount to $5,000 or $6,000.


George William Fowler: Perhaps the minister does not understand how the voters' lists are made up in some of the provinces. In the province of New Brunswick there is no contest whatever in many cases. Names are put down on the list of men who may be disqualified by reason of non-residence, non-age, or something else. Of course there are contests in some districts of New Brunswick, but the practice varies in different provinces. But because a man's name is on the voters' list, it does not necessarily follow that the matter has been tried by some tribunal. His name may have been placed on the list simply because he happens to be on the assessment list, and without any trial whatever. It seems to me that the consideration that should apply is that, before a man can challenge the election of any man who has been ohosen as the representative of qualified voters, he should himself be of that class. It seems to me that is a reasonable proposition. I shall probably not be here when the Bill comes up again, but I appeal to the sense of this committee to insist that the man shall be a qualified voter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What I was proceeding to point out was that the fact that a man was on the list shows that at some time it had been decided by somebody, however imperfect the machinery-I do not wish to discuss that-that he was a qualified voter. Under the provisions of the Act he is on the list. That entitles him to vote. He may

be called upon to swear that he wa3 not bribed and so forth, but as to his qualification to be a voter he is, as I understand the Act, on the list and qualified to vote.


George William Fowler: Could he not be called upon to swear that he was a British subject and a qualified voter?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member will allow me, I did not intend to conclude bysaying that he is entirely wrong, or by saying that what he says should not perhaps be acted upon. I was just pointing out that the fact that he is on the list shows this much, -that by such machinery as the different provincial legislatures thought was sufficient-and we are proceeding on the basis that we are willing to accept that as our present system of regulating our franchise-that man has been found to be a qualified voter. Now what we propose to do is to take that a step further. It is suggested that manj awfully	evil	things will follow
from it. The hon. gentleman says that an irresponsible person may make a petition. That is absolutely true. But I wonder how many of us have ever come across an election petitioner who was a responsible person! I should be glad to meet any hon. member who has met such a one, because he had an exceptional experience, I think.


William Pugsley: I have known very many responsible petitioners in the province of New Brunswick.


George William Fowler: And so have T. Some of them are candidates.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has not been my experience. Those that I have had occasion to come in contact with were so highly irresponsible that they seemed to me to be invisible. I never was able to get in touch with them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are a few like that in the province of New Brunswick.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At all events it is perfectly possible to happen, and I do know that it does happen in some cases. So that after all the evil may not be so terribly serious. Technically, of course, it looks a very awful thing that a man who is not a voter may make a petition. It is said that blacklegs and scallawags may make a petition. Unfortunately blacklegs and scallawags may vote. Unfortunately there are such people on the voters' lists. I am

quite prepared to give consideration to what has been said. I am always prepared to do that. If the hon. gentleman had said that we should have prima facie proof and not conclusive proof, always provided that by that we do not open the door to any preliminary trial on the subject of the man's qualifications, I should be perfectly willing to consider that. That is what we want to get at. It is not so very material whether you have conclusive proof or not, provided you do not interfere with this provision of the Bill that there shall be only one trial, and you will try everything at that trial. So long as we stand to that, I do not know that it is very material whether at that trial you allow the respondent, if he wants to, to start in to prove that that man who was on the list was not qualified. But we must have no two trials. There must be no issue to be separately tried, on the question whether or not the petitioner is qualified. That issue, if there is to be such must be fried simultaneously with the merits of the petition. There must be but one trial, that trial should go on as speedily possible. If we can secure that, for my part I shall be satisfied, and I fancy that any colleagues upon the committee will be satisfied too. I am quite prepared to consider whether making it prima facie proof would not do just as well as making it conclusive proof, as long as whatever the defendant wants to say on qualification is heard at the same time as anything else he wants to say in answer to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Or that he may be twenty-one years of age and a British subject.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. Now, I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Perhaps we will be better able to deal with this measure after we have slept over it, and therefore I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.35. p.m., until Saturday, April 3, at 11 a.m.
Saturday, April 3, 1915.