1915-04-09

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the table of the House my recommendation and his report on the subject of the retirement of Mr. D. C. Chamberlain, Accountant of the House, and of the promotion of Mr. D. W. Cameron, Assistant Accountant, to the position of accountant.



SOLDIERS' VOTING BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into committee on Bill No. Ill, to enable Canadians on active military service during the present war to exercise their electoral franchise; Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-soldiers entitled to vote:
Mr. H. H. McLEAN:: It was suggested by the Prime Minister that all British subjects who are enlisted in the Canadian forces should be entitled to vote, whether or not they have attained the age of 21 years. I suggest that this section be amended by striking out the words "of 21 years of age or upwards" after the word "subject" in the first line. All those who have enlisted are doing men's work, and I think that they should be entitled to vote.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: As the lion.
member knows, this Bill did not come down originally as a Government measure, but was reported by a committee to whom certain of the laws relating to elections were referred for amendment. Conse-iquently, the Bill has not received the consideration of the members of the Government as a whole which such measures usually do receive. I expressed an opin-tion which has just been made by my hon. friend, and I am still of that opinion.
I 3hall be glad if the section is allowed to stand until the afternoon, in order that it may receive a little further consideration at our hands. I think there is a great deal of force in the hon. member's suggestion,


Mr. OLIVER:: It seems to me that this provision does not adequately define where the soldier shall vote.


Robert Laird Borden: You mean where his vote shall be counted?


Frank Oliver: Yes. I think that should be made considerably more definite than it is. As I read the section, it would seem practically to permit the soldier qualified to vote in two places to vote in whichever place he chose. I am aware that the section does not say that, tout I do not see how he is prevented from making whatever choice he pleases. I would toe very much better satisfied' if the section said the soldier should vote in the place where he resided for thirty days toefore his enrollment, and let that toe his definite qualification. Then we would know where we were at; tout toy the proviso the qualification is shifted from one leg to the other, and it is a most undesirable situation in which to find the law.


Mr. DOHERTY:: It seems to me that the proviso makes it perfectly cleaT that if a man, irrespective of 'being a soldier, is a qualified voter in any particular electoral district, he shall vote in that electoral district only. He does not have a choice; he is, under the proviso, to vote in the elec-

toral district in which he is qualified'. It seemed to us in the drafting of the Bill that, as far as possible, we ought to leave things in the constituency in their normal situation and interfere with the normal situation only to such extent as might toe absolutely necessary in order to carry out the provision that gives every soldier a vote. Under the clause as it stands the soldier who is a qualified voter in any particular electoral district remains a qualified voter in that particular electoral district just as though this Act had not been passed, and all that he gets out of this Act is the method furnished to him toy which he can exercise that right. It seemed to us more proper that the man who is a voter in a particular electoral district ought not to be allowed to transfer himself to another electoral district. If, as the hon. member suggests, you make it imperative that all soldiers shall vote in the places in which they resided 30 days before enlistment, you make a situation where, in some particular place, where enlistmetnt was carried on upon a large scale, you will have transferred into that electoral district from a number of other electoral districts a very large number of votes which may, under conceivable circumstances, override the vote of the ordinary voters in that district; and, on the other hand, you may take out of the electoral district to which each of these soldiers as voters belonged' under the general law, a very large number of persons entitled to vote in that district. The' effect of doing these two things might be to entirely modify the complexion of one or more constituencies. As far as it was possible to do so consistently with giving the soldiers a vote, we sought not to disturb the conditions in the different constituencies; and, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman has pointed out, it seems to me that the policy of the section, if I may use that term, is very much preferable to a system that would make this law operate to take all soldiers who are actual voters in a particular electoral district forcibly out of that district and transfer them to some other district where they might happen to have been residing before enrollment. The clause as it stands, with the proviso, seemed to us to so operate as to cause the least possible disturbance .of existing conditions, and that seems to me to be a very desirable thing.


Mr. GERMAN:: It seems that the Minister of Justice has just now struck the crux of this situation which makes it bad. All his suggestions imply that an election is to

be held on the voters1 list as it is at present constituted. But supposing an election is held, not this year, but on the voters' list which is prepared this year, what does he [DOT] say about these absentees from each electoral district who may be on the voters' list now. but who, when the lists are revised this coming summer, will be struck off in consequence of their absence? Do these parties remain on the voters' list because they are soldiers abroad? The Bill does not provide for that. If the Bill provides that because a man may be nonresident in a district through being abroad on war service he is to be considered an elector in that electoral district, you may then possibly overcome this difficulty; but these votes will be counted on the evening of polling day, after the other votes throughout the whole electoral district are counted.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: They would all
be counted at the same time, after the poll closes.


William Manley German: They cannot all be
counted at the same time because the Bill provides that the returning officer is to fix a time after the poll is closed to count the vote. Every one knows that the vote is counted in each electoral polling subdivision as soon as the poll is closed. The return is immediately and as quickly as possible sent to the county town or wherever the central office happens to be. These returns would show that one candidate was elected by a small majority. As I suggested last night, here is where one of the difficulties will come in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman misunderstands the Bill. Supposing there are twenty polls in an electoral district. Then the counting of the soldiers' ballots by the returning officer makes the twenty-first poll, and the return from it will come as quickly as the others, the returning officer himself being the person who counts the soldiers' ballots and not the deputies.


William Manley German: I may not have the superabundant ability of the hon. member for Calgary, but I think I understand this Bill and I feel very confident I understand the effect it will have. When the vote is polled the candidates or their representatives can be present and see the vote counted. When the returning officer opens the envelopes to count the votes, he sees the name of some man. What does he do? He must look over the voters' list to see whether or not that man is on the list and entitled to vote

in that district. He does not find his name on the voters' list; his name need not be on the list if he swears he is a resident. How do you know whether he is a resident there or not? There is where the great difficulty and uncertainty will come, and that is the very point that will create all the dissatisfaction in the event of the soldiers' vote changing the result of the poll in that particular locality.
That is my objection to this Bill. Of course, if an election were held on the present voters' list the difficulty would be overcome to some extent. I shall be very sorry if the Government do have an election this year-and it looks as if that is what they intend-but it will certainly overcome part of the difficulty. But, if the election is not held this year, the name of every soldier on the voters' list now for any particular district will be struck off, unless there is a clause in the Bill providing that their residence shall be assumed on account of their being away as soldiers.


Frank Oliver: I wish to follow the remarks of the Minister of Justice. While his statement of the intent of the section is, of course, to be accepted as a pious declaration, there are no means of insisting that that intent shall be carried out. The volunteer signs a declaration that he has not cast any other ballot paper, but there is nothing to show the elector in Saskatchewan or Alberta, where we have no voters' lists, whether he is qualified or not to vote in any particular locality. He could claim qualification to vote in a certain locality where he is not entitled to cast his vote, and he might do that quite conscientiously. If this is to be a legitimate attempt to count the soldiers' vote the way he gave it, there should be a definite knowledge as to where the soldier is entitled to vote, and his vote should be confined to that locality. I quite appreciate what my hon. friend said about the undesirability of unhinging the voting representation of an electoral district; but it is far better that the representation should be unhinged, and Chat we should know definitely what the rights of the voters are and with whom we have to deal, than that it should be unhinged just the same, and nobody should know the limitations of their rights, or how they can keep those rights within those limitations. If we have to go up against a proposition like this, in all conscience let us know exactly what we are going up against. Do not let it be a case of thimble and pea- maybe it is here, and maybe it is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I can make clear that provision has been made to meet the objection raised by my hon. friend; for I also was impressed with the necessity of making such a provision. This section was drawn with the intention of providing for two classes: it provided, first, that those who resided in the locality for thirty days prior to enlisting should have a vote in that locality; and, secondly, that those wh* had been continuously resident in some locality before they enlisted, should have their votes where they had always had them. I think that is what my hon. friend desires.


Frank Oliver: I am not urging one way or the other; but I say it should be one way or the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will pardon me for saying that that is what he desired, for he does not desire anything. The affidavit as drawn did not make clear the distinction to which he has directed attention. I happened to be out of the city when the Bill was finally drawn, but I have since submitted an alternative to the affidavit on page 6, by which it will be made clear that if the soldier has resided in a community for a longer period than thirty days his vote will be counted at that place where he would have exercised his franchise had be been home. Let me take a concrete case. One of the electors in West Calgary, we will say, is voting under this Act. He will vote in West Calgary. But if he happened to enlist in Edmonton, and had resided in Edmonton for thirty days prior to enlistment, his vote would be counted in Edmonton. I am quite as anxious as my hon. friend to meet the objection he has raised; and, as I have said, we are adding a paragraph to that affidavit which will meet that objection. I realized that one could not ask for a specific provision for our two provinces, but that such a provision should be inserted in the affidavits as would allow a residence vote to be counted in the constituency in which the soldier has lived, unless his residence at the point of enlistment qualified him for a vote at that place only. Have I made myself clear?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but the fact still remains that there is no possible means of checking the right of a man to vote in one place or the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are introducing this affidavit into the Bill so that when the clerk of the Crown in Chancery looks at the envelope in the first instance, he will be able to allocate the votes to West Calgary
or East Calgary or West Edmonton or East Edmonton as the case may be.


Mr. KNOWLES:: How will he know?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the back of the envelope there will be certain information to enable him to do that. When the affidavit is finally checked by the returning officer, in the presence of scrutineers of both parties, and it appears that a ballot has been improperly allotted to Edmonton, then of course it will be rejected and returned to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The very difficulty that my hon. friend has mentioned was anticipated by the committee, and dealt with in the manner I have indicated.


William Erskine Knowles: How does the envelope or affidavit show to what constituency the vote should go?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The voter has to make
in the affidavit a distinct statement of what his residence had been for the thirty days prior to enlisting, and also if he had only resided there for thirty days. He will have to say:	For thirty days prior to
enlisting I resided at such and such a place. And if it is a longer period than thirty days, he will have to say, for instance: I resided at 1210 Sixteenth street, Edmonton. Then it will be aparent that he resided in West Edmonton, and should vote there.


William Erskine Knowles: -Take people who are close to the line between two post offices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was traversed in
the committee, and it was felt that in such a case there might be a mistake in the ballots. In some cases men have lost their votes under the existing law. But this is not the average case.


William Erskine Knowles: I was speaking about
the definiteness of the information. There wdll be a multitude of people who have to come fifteen or twenty miles to a post office, and who do not know what riding they are in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was felt that on the
instructions there should be a note to give with as much definiteness as possible the residence, section, township and range. The very point that my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has mentioned was discussed in the committee. I myself brought the matter up, because in our western country men have to go sometimes

fifteen or twenty miles for their mail, and I thought that might cause confusion.


William Erskine Knowles: The Government ask a great deal of us when they -ask us to vote for a Bill of such a nature as this-I will not say of such a suspicious nature, because I want to be court opus-and trust to its being carried out properly because there will be a little note attached. I would as soon the note were left off, because no one knows what kind of a note it will be before it is done with. I would rather legislate in such a definite manner that notes would be unnecessary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The requirement of the Bill as it stands is that a man shall give his address. What we had in mind was his address as definitely as he possibly could give it. There can be no objection to inserting in the form that he Shall give his address as definitely as it is possible for him to do. We contemplated that if a man lived in a place where they had streets and numbers ihe would give these or that if he lived in a rural section, he would give the section and range, so as to enable the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to ascertain what electoral district that was in. Of course, notwithstanding all that, there might be cases where a man would not succeed in giving a sufficiently definite address, and unfortunately that man would lose his vote. Under any system there are men who, through errors and mistakes, lose their votes, and all we can do is to provide the best possible machinery to enable men to secure their votes. That there will be mistakes in connection with it by which some will lose their votes I suppose we will have to admit, but I am quite ready to specify as minutely as we possibly can the information that we want each man to give.


Mr. GRAHAM:: That course applies not only to the western provinces; it applies in a degree to the province of Ontario as well. In the constituencies in Ontario we have registration. There are scores of voters in many counties who are not on the list at all. They are not on the list until registration is called within thirty days of polling. Therefore, the same difficulty might arise in Ontario that arises in the West where they have no Tegular voters' list. If being on the voters' list is the qualification, there are plenty of young men who are not qualified in the province of Ontario. There are hundreds of young men in Ottawa from various ridings in Ontario. Does the Bill mean
[Mr. R. B. Bennett. 3
that these young men, unmarried, with no plane of .residence, whose residence is wherever they are if they are not living with their parents, will ibe added to the Ottawa voters' list if they have been here for thirty days?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It means prior to enlistment.


George Perry Graham: We want to be careful as to what constitutes enlistment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Taking the oath.


George Perry Graham: Several men went to the centres and were not formally enlisted until quite a while after they arrived there. Unless great care is exercised the result of the election in these Ontario constituencies may be altogether changed by soldiers' votes. My view is that men- particularly young men-who are at any centre ought to be compelled to have their votes registered at the place where they reside, or where they would be entitled to vote had they not enlisted at all. That situation is just as acute in Ontario as it is in the western provinces. In some of the other provinces it may not be the case, but where we have registration we have many voters who are not qualified if being on the list is their qualification. These should be protected in their right to vote.


William Manley German: Registration only applies to cities in Ontario.


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: Not to towns?


William Manley German: Towns of over 10,000 or something of that kind.


George Perry Graham: I think it is 9,000.


William Manley German: There are large towns in which there is no registration. In Welland, Which is not a city, there is no registration. In the city of Niagara Falls there is registration, and that is the only municipality in Welland county in which there is registration. Large numbers of young men have gone from Welland and other urban municipalities in the county of Welland to the war. These young men at the present time are on the voters' list, or a large number of them are. When the voters' list comes to be revised this present year, in August or September, what is to be done with these young men? They are not residents. The provincial Voters' Lists Act requires that they cannot be on the voters' list unless they are resident. Are you proposing by a clause of this Bill to say that there shall be a separate voters' list made out, Which

will be called a Dominion franchise list, and which shall contain the names of the soldiers? If that is not done the names of these young men will be struck off the provincial list and they will not have a vote for the provincial legislature. Why Should they not have a vote for the provincial legislature as well as for the Dominion Parliament? If these young men are at the war they are struck off the provincial voters' list, and if there is a provincial election they are debarred from voting for candidates for the provincial legislature. They have a vote in the Dominion election if they swear as to their residence.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Sections 157 and 158 of the Election Act as it now stands, I think, protect a man who is prevented from being present and getting registration because of his absence on military duty. Section 157 provides that:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of Parliament or in any Act of a provincial legislature, no person otherwise qualified to vote at an election of a member to serve in the House of Commons shall be incompetent to vote at such election by reason only of his having been absent from the electoral district in which such election is held, on account of his serving with or being attached to any corps despatched from Canada for military service, or performing military service within Canada, whether as an officer, a non-commissioned officer or a private, or in any other capacity, or while serving His Majesty in any military capacity, or acting as a war correspondent in connection with any war in which a Canadian contingent is serving.
Section 158 says:
From any oath which any person tendering his vote at such an election may be required to take, there shall, in the case of any person within the meaning of the preceding section, be omitted any statements as to residence which such person cannot by reason of such absence as aforesaid truthfully make-


William Manley German: That only gives him the right to vote if he is on the list. What about the fact of his being struck off the list in the revision? He would be struck off. He cannot stay on because he is an absentee. There is nothing in the Voters' List Act of Ontario which will allow him to stay on if he is serving at the front.


Michael Clark: Yes, there is.


George Perry Graham: They can vote if they are on, but it does not put them on.


Michael Clark: They will not be struck off, because they are in the same class as sailors, lumbermen and fishermen. Their absence as soldiers counts for residence.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there is a provision in the Ontario Act covering their case and providing that their names shall be kept on the list. I have sent for the Act.


George Perry Graham: It may be that in the Ontario Act they are covered, but not in the Dominion Act.


William Erskine Knowles: Ontario is not the whole Dominion; there are Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the other provinces.


Mr. NICKLE:: A man's name cannot be struck off the Ontario list by virtue of the fact that he is only temporarily absent. So long as he Tetains his domicile his name goes on the list. In the particular case under review his name would go on the Ontario list by virtue of the Ontario Act; he being a sailor or a soldier the assessor must still keep his name on the list.


George Perry Graham: I was not sure that the exception in the Ontario Act applied to soldiers; I know it does apply to sailors and lumbermen.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: What would happen in the case of a young man who, in the interval has attained the age of twenty-one years, but who has not been on any voters' list because while he was at home he was not twenty-one years. He could not be struck off the list by the assessor because he was not on the list, but had he remained at home he would have become a voter, in cities where there is registration.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I had the idea when I read this Bill first that it qualified every young man of twenty-one years, who is a British subject, but it appears it does not. - There must be thousands of our young men serving in the forces who would not be qualified under this Bill. For example, if one of my constituents goes to Haliiax and enlists at the barracks there, he may have been only one day in Halifax and not thirty days, and not being on the list in the constituency from which he came, he would not have the right to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He must have been in some constituency thirty days before he enlisted. He may have been only one day in Halifax but he was thirty days in Guys-borough, and he woulu be qualifaeu in that constituency. If you can conceive the case of a man who cannot locate himself anywhere for thirty days of course, he would not be entitled to vote.


Mr. MARCIL:: There has been a large
enlistment in the province of Quebec, which took place mostly in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, but in the eastern part of the province some of the men went over to New Brunswick and enlisted there. What will happen to men from rural districts who enlisted in Montreal and Quebec, and the Quebec men who enlisted in New Brunswick, who were not voters in their own ridings when they left home? Some of these men, for example, remained around Montreal for a long time, perhaps more than a month, waiting for medical examination and so on. What would happen under such circumstances.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The man who came to
Montreal, for example, was a voter in some other electoral district or he was not. If he was a qualified voter in some other electoral district he continues on the list, and his qualification as a soldier will be as a voter in that district. If he was not a voter in another district when he came to Montreal, and he resided in Montreal for thirty days before he enrolled, then, under this Act, he will become a voter in that electoral district in Montreal in which he resided during these thirty days. Anything he does after he has enlisted does not affect in any way the district in which he is to vote. The fact that he went to New Brunswick and enlisted there does not affect it at all, because he will be attached either to the electoral district in which before enlistment he was a qualified voter, or if he was not a qualified voter in any district his vote will be assigned to the place in which he resided for thirty days before he enlisted.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I assume from what
the minister says that if he was in Montreal for thirty days before he enlisted he would be placed as a voter in Montreal, but suppose he was in Montreal only twenty-eight days, would he be a voter in the part of the country in which he had formerly resided?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand it, he will vote in any electoral district in which he had resided for not less than thirty days before he enlisted.


Charles Marcil: There will be eleven ridings upon the island of Montreal next election, and supposing this man while waiting in Montreal to be enlisted shifted his residence around between different con-
stituencies during the thirty days. I suppose that one-half of those who enlisted were young men and were not voters at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If a man is so much ot a rolling stone that he cannot find an electoral district in which he lived for thirty days, I am afraid he will have to do without his vote.


Charles Marcil: He may have been in Montreal for the thirty days, but he may have lived between one constituency and another.	[DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he was in Montreal for thirty days and he cannot locate himself in one electoral district for thirty days, I fear he will have no vote.


Charles Marcil: Is not that an injustice to him?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would it be fair to an electoral district to allot to it a man who has resided in it only two days? We have got to get a limit of some kind, and you can conceive all imaginable eases such as are suggested where a man will not meet the requirements, but it all comes back to this: is it a reasonable requirement to ask that a man should be thirty days in an electoral district in order to look upon him as so attached to that district as to entitle him to vote there? The pointing out of the fact that persons who do not comply with this disposition will not get votes, does not seem to be an argument against this provision of the Bill. If the provision be open to criticism, I should have thought it would come from the direction that thirty days was not long enough, and not from the point of view that because a man has travelled from one electoral 'district to another during the thirty days he will not get a vote. Under the franchise law in the provinces generally, some period of residence much longer than thirty days is required for a man to get a vote in that district. A man may have lived in Montreal for years, but if he is like the supposed soldier of my hon. friend (Mr. Mar-cil) and has been flitting from one to the other of the electoral districts, so that he has not lived the precise period in any one district, such a man would have no vote. For the benefit of the soldier we have reduced the required period of residence down to what I think is a fair minimum.
I do not think we could be expected to meet the case of a man who has had no local habitation for a period of thirty days.


Mr. VERVILLE:: The Montreal lists are made, as the Minister of Justice knows,

every two years in December. Regardless of a man's length of residence in the district, if he has a domicile even for one day prior to the date when the lists are made out, if he registers he is on the list and entitled to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman say that he need not have any period of residence in the district?


Alphonse Verville: He resides in the city of Montreal. But suppose that the day before the 20th of December, when the lists are made out, he moves from one district in Montreal to another district in Montreal. He registers, giving his domicile at the number and street to which he has moved. He goes on the list, and in any election after that he votes as domiciled at that street and number, no matter where he actually lives.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is quite true. Everybody who is on the list to-day is a competent elector for the next two years in the district upon whose list his name appears.


Mr. BUREAU:: Suppose that a man is on the list in the city of Montreal, that list being good for two years. That man moves to a rural district where a revision takes place every year in September. He has his principal residence in the rural district. Will the minister tell me that that man has the right to vote in Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the law as it stands you have the principle of one man one vote, and a man is not entitled to cast two votes.


Jacques Bureau: Then, where will such a man vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman is putting forward something of a conundrum.


Jacques Bureau: But the law solves that conundrum. It says that a man votes where his principal place of residence is.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is that material to our present question? I did not come here this morning prepared to determine all the possible questions that might arise in all the laws of all the provinces. But, in answer to the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville), I would point out that, eliminating the case of a man who has become a voter somewhere else, and dealing with the people who live in Montreal, the man who is to-day on the electoral list of a particular electoral division of Montreal, is a voter in that 14-3	.
division for the next two years. If he presented himself at the poll, his name would be found upon the list, and, subject to objection that might be taken by reason to his being entitled to vote elsewhere, prima facie, he is a voter in the electoral district. Therefore, so far as the city of Montreal is concerned, and the flitting of people from one electoral district to another within the city, I do not think there is occasion to apprehend difficulty in the application of this Act. A man who has gone to the front has not gone to a rural district and acquired a residence. So, the case the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) suggested can hardly arise.


Jacques Bureau: The families of those who have families may move: the residence changes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend is
tackling a very large question now. There is a very material difference in meaning between domicile and residence.


Jacques Bureau: Well, I will use the word " domicile."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I must decline to enter into a discussion upon such very fine points as the definition of what constitutes domicile and what constitutes residence. If this Bill is to be dealt with, it must be dealt with realizing that after all it will have to operate under the law
12 noon, as it stands. I do not pretend to be able to indicate in advance just how, in exceptional and individual cases, it may operate. But, speaking generally as regards the city of Montreal, and the man who to-day is on the list and goes to the front, I am satisfied you will not find as many as one-half of one per cent of eases in which these men will not continue to be qualified electors in the electoral districts upon whose lists their names appear. So, with regard to the people moving from one district to another, which is the case presented by the hon. member for Maison-neuve, I do not think there is any practical difficulty.


Alphonse Verville: 

men be in? Are they to have the choice where they shall vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the hon. gentleman is speaking of men who, having enlisted, reside in different districts. I would point out that what takes place after enlistment has no bearing on the question. Thirty days after enlistment, or a year after enlistment, does not affect the matter: it is prior to enlistment.


John Howard Sinclair: What force does the hon. gentleman give to the word " immediately " in relation to residence? If a man is twenty or twenty-five days away from his ordinary residence, can he swear that he resided in a certain place for thirty days immediately before the date of his enlistment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Where does the hon. gentleman find the word " immediately "?


John Howard Sinclair: In the affidavit, page 6.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section does not
make the requirement that it should be immediate. The affidavit was apparently copied from a form in the present statute, and I do not think that that word " immediately " should appear therein. However, that will be a question to be considered when we come to deal with the form itself.


William Foster Cockshutt: The latter part of
this section reads:
Provided that if any person was, at the time he was so appointed, enlisted or enrolled, qualified to vote in any other electoral district in Canada, he shall vote in such other district only.
The question I raised was as to the position in which a young man would be, who, at the time of enlistment, was not enrolled or qualified to be enrolled, but who, between the time of his enlistment and the time of the election, qualified for enrolment. I have a son who, though he was not 21 years of age when he enlisted, is 21 years of age now and is away from the electoral district to which he belongs. How will this provision apply to young men between the ages of 18 and 21 who have enlisted-and there are many of them-and who may in the meantime have become properly qualified to vote if at home?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt that, under the conditions which the hon. member indicates, the young man in question, when he enlisted, was not qualified to vote in any electoral district. The proviso does not entitle him to vote in any particular

district, because he was not qualified to vote there at the time of enlistment. Under the section as it stands, that young man could become a qualified voter only in an electoral district in which he had resided for 30 days prior to his enlistment. I would fancy urat in the majority of cases the district in which such a young man resided 30 days before he enlisted would be the district of his home. There will be cases where that is not so, but hon. gentlemen will remember that the 30 days is a period not beiore leaving this country, but before enlistment.


William Foster Cockshutt: Immediately prior
to enlistment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It need not necessarily be immediately prior to enlistment; the section of the Act does not say " immediately." I think possibly it may require some little consideration as to whether that word "immediately" should stand in the form or not. Under the operation of this section, a young man in the position mentioned by the hon. member would not have the right to vote in his own home district, because he was not a qualified voter there -when he enlisted.


William Foster Cockshutt: If he should go
albroad, he would not be entitled to have a vote anywhere.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He will have a vote if he had resided for thirty days immediately before enlistment in some place in Canada, but if you leave out the word " immediately," which is a matter that I should like to have stand for further consideration, then a man who fulfilled this requirement twenty years ago would 'be entitled to vote.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am speaking now of young men who have just attained the age of twenty-one years, of which there are quite a number at the front.


Charles Joseph Doherty: According to the present provisions, a young man who has lived thirty days in Canada will have a vote. I do not think that we can secure that that young man's vote shall 'be in the district of his home, unless the district of his home be the place where he has lived during the required period. We have two classes to deal with: persons who, when they enlisted, were qualified to vote, and persons who, when they enlisted, -were not qualified to vote. In respect of the latter class, I do not think that we can do any better than

give them a vote in the place where they had their residence for the thirty days. The others will have the right to vote in the district in which they are qualified to vote. I think that in the majority of cases it will work out that the provision will give the young man a vote in the place which is his home.


William Erskine Knowles: The right hon. Prime Minister this morning [DOT]intimated that he is in sympathy with the suggestion that votes should be given to minors who are at the front. The reasons given for that are the reasons which were elaborated so fully yesterday afternoon and evening, namely that this Government has such a responsive and appreciative feeling for the boys at the front that nothing is too good for them. Hon. gentlemen opposite spoke in eulogistic terms last night of the lads who have gone to the front, in support of the view that any one who is fit to carry a gun surely is fit to cast a vote. If hon. gentlemen opposite accept the view that lads of 16 and 17 should be entitled to vote, I suggest that there is just as much reason for giving the suffrage to the nurses who have gone to the front as there is for giving it to lads under 21. Many persons believe that all women who have reached the age of 21 years should be given the suffrage. We heard hon. gentlemen on the Government side slobber over the soldiers last night; the Prime Minister pointed out how disappointed the fathers and mothers would be if this privilege were not granted to the soldiers. It is my belief that the Prime Minister cares not so much for the mothers as he does for the fathers and brothers, especially those who have a vote. I am not going to slobber over the nurses; enough slobbering was done yesterday. I contend that girls and women who risk their lives to perform work that men cannot do, for the good of their country and the honour of civilization, have just as much right to vote as lads of 16 and 17 have.
. I myself am not very far from being a supporter of woman suffrage, but I shall not raise that question on the present occasion. I do say that if you are going to give the vote to boys of 16, 17 and 18, you should give it to the girls who have gone out there to do this great work. Surely a cheap, slobbering desire to get votes is not all that is left to us; surely we are gallant enough and chivalrous enough to say that votes shall be given to these women 143*
as well as to the boys and men. If the Government are going to go ahead with this burlesque measure, they should take it into their serious consideration whether they should not give votes to these women who, in many cases at great sacrifice, have gone to the front to carry on this noble work.
We in the Dominion of Canada would then stand out before the world as showing our appreciation in a very unique way, not in a vote-catching way-because I think the women would not vote as the Minister of Public Works has suggested, but would vote pretty squarely, and I do not think you could monkey with their votes- and would do itself credit by thus showing its appreciation of the women who have gone out, especially in the Red Cross work, and would thus encourage others to enlist in that noble service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I gave credit to the hon. gentleman for not having slobbered over the nurses and also for a disinclination to monkey with the women's votes. I further take note of his request that the Government should take the suggestion into consideration, and beg to assure him that the Government shall give it its most serious consideration.


Alphonse Verville: While we are speaking on this question of giving votes to young men who have not reached their majority of 21 years, because they are going to the front, we should remember that there are other young men who have not gone to the front, but who are possibly as useful to the war as those who have gone. You will find many young men to-day who are supporters of families, who are working in different factories, making shells and other things that are necessities of war; and if you are going to give the right to vote to these young men because they are going to the front it is absolutely unfair not to give it to other young men here of the same age. You will find such young men in many industries to-day throughout Canada, even on the farm. I do not care where it is, these young men are producers of different things that are keeping our soldiers at the front, whether they are producing money to support the affairs of the country or manufacturing different articles that are necessary for the war. If we want to be fair we should not give the vote only to young men who are going to the front. Lower the limit to 18 years if you like, but give the vote to these other young men.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would ask the hon. gentleman to give a little further explanation of his position. The suggestion to give votes to young men under 21 years of age stands for further consideration this afternoon; but, because I would like in that consideration clearly to apprehend the view of the hon. gentleman, I would be glad if he would tell me whether I am correct in understanding that he does not consider that the alteration in the Bill withdrawing the requirement of 21 years should be made; or does he think that we ought to do it with regard to the soldiers and also with regard to the other young men he speaks of?


Alphonse Verville: My suggestion is that if we are going to grant the vote to soldiers of less than twenty-one years of age, we should also grant the vote to other young men in the country who are also working for the war.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I really would be glad to know what the hon. gentleman's view is as to the desirability of giving votes to soldiers who are under twenty-one years, because that is a matter that we have to consider practically. I understand he says if we do that we ought also to give it to other young men. But I would be glad to know whether he thinks we ought to do that.


Alphonse Verville: The Government can give the vote as much as they like; it makes no difference to me, provided they make no exceptions and are fair with everybody.


John Howard Sinclair: If there is to be any enlargement of the scope of the Bill to include parties not now mentioned in it, I think the minister ought to consider the case of. the sailors who are engaged in the mercantile trade of the North Atlantic. At the present time that is a very dangerous pursuit. Everybody knows that a ship cannot arrive at a British port to-day without risking the lives of heT crew. That service is almost as dangerous now as service in the navy or in the trenches. I know of many young men who are manning our ships which are carrying food and supplies to the Allies at the present time. They sleep with their clothes on, with the boats hung over the side of the ship ready to jump into them, .they are expecting the torpedo to strike their ship, all through the long night. It is a most anxious time with those men, and if the Bill is to be enlarged so as to take in parties not now 
included, 1 would suggest that the Government ought to consider the cases of those thousands of men engaged in the mercantile service on the Atlantic ocean.


Charles Marcil: What is the difference between enlistment and enrollment? A recruiting officer was sent from New Brunswick into my constituency. He visited different parishes and took the names of a number of people who did not actually move away with mim, but who ultimately left, and, when they had undergone medical examination and other formalities, were included in the forces. What is the difference between enlistment and enrollment? Is this to be reckoned from the date the recruiting officer first appeared in the constituency or from the date on which the engagement was completed in New Brunswick, perhaps some weeks afterwards. It would make a difference as to whether the voter would belong to his own county or to the new county.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The 30 days are counted as from the appointment, which I understand is the proper term for any person joining the force as an officer. I must confess that I am not absolutely clear on the terminology, but I understand that when a man first presents himself he is enlisted and takes an oath. After he has undergone medical examination and complied with other formalities he is then enrolled. It might perhaps have been sufficient to mention enlistment only, but I presume there might be a case where a man would be immediately enrolled for one reason or another and this was only to make quite certain that the 30 days is to date from whichever event occurred first.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I think it might be advisable for the Minister of Justice to take the opinion of the Militia Department on the use of these words. As I understand, as a practical man with some experience, a man is enlisted when he first signs. In order to complete his enlistment he has to pass the doctors and certain preliminaries. He has to take the oath of allegiance. Then he signs his name to the service roll and that completes his enlistment. The adjutant puts his name on the book and it is sent to headquarters. He then becomes a regular member of the militia, his term of service i3 three years and he becomes lia-able to military law. I rather think that the word " enrolled" should be struck out. It is superfluous and does not add to the meaning or to the strength of the section.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be very glad to act on the suggestion of the hon. member; I have no doubt his description is correct. Subject to the verification by the Militia - Department of the suggestion made it would seem to me that the word "enrolled" probably is superfluous. It was doubtless put in there as a result of too much precaution. Certainly the intention is that the 30 days should be before whatever is the first step in making him a soldier.


Charles Marcil: When he gives in his name.


Mr. TURRIFF:: I wish to draw the minister's attention to one class of men to whom it is proposed to give votes under this Bill. A British subject living in the United States may make up his mind to go home to England to fight with the British army. He has been some time away from England, and has no vote there. Although he has lived in the United States for a long time, he has not taken out his papers, and so has no vote there. Before he goes over to England he learns that the Canadian soldiers are paid $1.10 a day, while the soldiers in Britain are paid only 25 cents. So he crosses the border with the intention of joining the Canadian forces. But he is delayed for thirty days in this country before he enlists. This man is a British subject who had originally intended to join the English army. He has no particular interest in Canada exoept that it is a part of the Empire. He has joined the Canadian forces in order to get the better pay, which he is perfectly justified in doing. Now, because that man happened to live in Canada for thirty days before enlisting the minister proposes to give him a vote. I appeal to the minister whether that is a reasonable thing to do. The man knows absolutely nothing about Canadian politics.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Even if that be a very great evil, I hardly think it will happen in a large number of cases.


John Gillanders Turriff: Not in many cases.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have always Ito
make laws under which we are going to find hard cases that will come up. Almost any law it is natural though perfectly just in its application in the great bulk of cases is liable to give rise to anomalies in isolated cases; but I hardly think that that is a reason why we should not be prepared to adopt a law that in the great general sense will give a vote to the man who is a Canadian and a member of the Canadian forces.
After all, what we do is this. We assume that the man who becomes a Canadian soldier does so because he is interested in Canada; he gives the most tangible, prima facie evidence of interest in Canada. There may be an odd man who joins the Canadian forces to get $1,10 a day instead of the 25 cents which he would get in Great Britain; and if we could get at the motives of every individual man perhaps we ought to make a distinction and not give that man a vote. But I suggest that it is not a practicable thing to draw that distinction, and, after all, no material evil can result from a few isolated cases such as my hon. friend has: mentioned. After all, the hon. gentleman speaks of him as a man who wants to fight for Britain. Well, in this particular condition of affairs the man who wants to fight for Britain, and fights for Britain, wants to fight for Canada, and is fighting for Canada.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister given
any consideration to the hundreds of Frenchmen living in Canada who are nowfighting under the French flag? There have been hundreds of these men in Montreal. They are British subjects, but descendants of French parents. I could name hundreds who have been called back to fight with the French army; members of the Bar and of almost every other profession have gone back to France from Montreal. The city engineer of Montreal, Mr. Janin, who was through the whole campaign of 1870, is going back now at the age of 62. Has tlhe minister given any consideration to this class of men?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Consideration has been given to it. Although the gentlemen indicated may have become naturalized, they are undoubtedly people who, under the operation of the different laws in the different countries, find themselves with a double nationality; otherwise they would not be called upon to return to the colours of France. Finding themselves with that double nationality, and recognizing their obligations as citizens of the French Republic, it seems to me that we cannot do otherwise than assume that they have made their choice as between these two nationalities. I am not criticising them for having done that, but they have done it. Being entitlea to be French cittizens or British subjects, or both so far as they can consistently be both, when the time comes for action they choose to range themselves as French citizens.


Charles Marcil: The cause is the same.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The cause is the same,
but if we are going to give votes to all who are fighting for that cause we shall have to extend the Bill to all the soldiers in all the armies of the Anies. It seems to me that the action of these men has settled for the time being what is their national status, and while I should be glad to recognize in a proper way the fidelity that these men have shown to their original country by returning to take their places in the ranks of its army, I hardly think that the proper way of recognizing that fidelity would be to give them the franchise of the country which they have made clear that they consider, as between the two, the secondary country. There would be this further difficulty in the way. We do not propose to give a vote to the man in the armies of Great Britain who may have some connection with Canada. In dealing simply with members of the Canadian forces, we have the advantage that we are dealing with men who, while they are serving as a part of the Imperial army, are men organized as Canadians, and organized to a very large extent, though not entirely, under Canadian officers. We are dealing with organizations with regard to which it is more easy for us to create a system which we can hope to have carried out, than if we endeavoured to ask for cooperation on the part of officers of the armies of totally different countries- countries which, though our Allies, and though we respect them as such, are nevertheless absolutely distinct countries.


Charles Marcil: I should just like to say a word for the Belgian colony in Montreal.
I do not wish to add anything further to what I have said about the French reservists, except to say that these men are Canadians and will come back to Canada after the war is over. The same thing applies to the Belgian colony of Montreal, which sent over 1,000 men to Belgium. These men have taken part in the campaign, but they will lose their votes simply because they are not members of the Canadian forces.


Mr. THOBURN:: This Bill opens up a question that I have discussed with friends of mine for some time past. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if there is any clause in this Bill dealing with what might be called absentee voters. There are thousands of voters in the Dominion of Canada who are disfranchised, who have nd vote, simply because they do

not happen to be in the locality; they have left their homes where their names appear on the voters' list, they have moved away perhaps one hundred miles. They are bona fide voters who have lost their votes because they have moved to places where there is no registration, and there is no registration except in cities or towns of a certain population. A workman who is away from home, for instance, has no vote where he is located, he cannot afford to pay his way back to vote at	his	own poll,	and	the	candidateis	not	allowed to	pay	his	expenses.
The consequence is that the man is disfranchised. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice is putting into force machinery to record the votes of the soldiers who may be in the trenches, tout I am perfectly satisfied that very much more simple machinery would suffice to record the vote of the man who is still a resident of Canada, but who, from the fact of his being a distance from home, is unable to record his vote. There is another case even simpler than that to which I have referred, and that is the case of a man who moves out of one county to an adjoining county,
, and he happens to move out of the county in which he was a resident after the voters' list is completed. He moves into the new county too late to be placed on the list in that county, and when the election takes place he is disfranchised. I am satisfied that the minister could put a clause in this Bill to deal with the absentee vote, protecting the right of the bona fide voters who have not moved out of the Dominion. They have their residence in some part of the Dominion, but owing to their having moved away and not being able to pay their expenses toack home they are disfranchised. The same thing applies to the man who has moved out of one county into another and who, because he is too late to be put on the voters' list in the county into which he has moved, is disfranchised.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt that there is very much in what the hon. gentleman has pointed out. The adoption of his suggestion would result in the establishment in this country of laws similar to those which have been enacted in a number of countries providing special provisions for the absentee vote, or as it is sometimes called the postal vote. In looking into different matters in connection with the present Bill I must say that I have formed a very favourable impression of the possibility of such a provision being carried

out. The measure which is now proposed is the first step in that direction. Perhaps it might very properly be said that the reasons for providing for this method of voting in this particular case are stronger than they are in support of a general system, but this is one step in that direction. We are providing a method for the albsent voter, and if this should work out as satisfactorily as we hope it will I certainly would foe disposed to look very favourably upon some measure to remedy the evils which the hon. gentleman has mentioned.


Frank Oliver: Some time ago, when questions were put to the Minister of Justice as to the effect of this law as applied to the different voters' qualifications in the different provinces, he brushed the matter aside by saying that he was not going to undertake to describe the limitations or applications of the law under all possible circumstances.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that I
brushed it aside, or that I would not pay attention to it. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was rather refining the distinctions and I said that I did not come here, and that I did not pretend to be prepared, to deal with all the niceties and distinctions of the law. I said that I was endeavouring, of course in a general way, to make thi" iaw so operate as not to produce anomalies by reason of the conditions of the laws in the different provinces. I shall be very glad to have anything pointed out to me in regard to the law of any province which might call for a modification of any provision of this Bill.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the minister has misunderstood the point I was trying to get at. I do not wish to criticise what he said but I wish to take his expressions as giving the main reasons for the criticism that I find against his Bill and particularly against this section. It undertakes to define certain rights. It defines them, if I may say so, in a very indefinite way as will be found to be the case when these definitions come to be applied to the different conditions throughout the provinces. That this is the best that can be done, we admit, but that being the condition, the circumstances under which the vote is taken, absolutely preclude the ordinary safeguards that guarantee both to the voter who votes, and his fellow citizens, that his vote shall be cast according to the rights that he holds. On
these points the minister does not feel himself able to present any opinion to this House and therefore the individual voter is the sole judge of his action in regard to them. That is not a fair proposition. That is not right. It is essentially wrong that it should be the ease. In the ordinary circumstances of the election law, in the first place, the right of the voter is defined as definitely as words can define it. Beyond that there is a procedure laid down guaranteeing to the electors generally, as well as to the voter, that while he shall have the benefit of the rights conferred upon him by the Act, he shall not go beyond those rights -he shall be kept within those limits. That is not possible under the conditions set out in this Act; at any rate, there has not been provided that machinery, that procedure, to safeguard the public against the misuse of the right of the franchise. The voter himself is the sole judge as to where his rights shall rest. If the Minister of Justice finds difficulty in deciding on that point, how much more is the voter liable to take a view that is not warranted by the law and is not according to the intent of the law? My hon. friend may ask: What is the practical objection to it? The practical objection is this: In his earlier remarks, when we were discussing this proviso, the minister pointed out very clearly and very properly that it was the object of the law that there should not be an undue disorganization of the strength of the voting population, that matters, in so far as voting was concerned, should remain as much as possible as they were. That is perfectly right but by reason of the indefiniteness of the law in prescribing the exercise of the right of the franchise it will be entirely possible to mass the votes in this direction or in that in large measure and so produce that very disorganization which the minister stated was undesirable and which it was the purpose of the law to avoid. That is to say, the minister has undertaken to deal with a vastly important subject and he has not provided the machinery to deal with that subject according to the principle he himself has laid down. He may answer that it is impossible to provide that procedure, and that is the very point upon which we take issue. We say that if the rights of the franchise are not to be exercised with due regard to the right of the public as well as to the rights of the voter, then the right of the public should prevail.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the- hon. member's
own province, if one of these soldiers were

at home, he would walk into the polling-booth and he would swear to his own qualification, and to his qualification in a particular district, and he would then be allowed to vote.


Frank Oliver: Sure. '


Charles Joseph Doherty: Now, we are requiring
of that same soldier voter, who happens not to be at home, that he should swear to these very same things. The criticism of the hon. member of the sufficiency of the safeguards for the soldiers voting as proposed by this Bill, apply absolutely to the safeguards provided under the general law with regard of the votes of the voters in the province of Alberta. So far as that province is concerned, we require from the absent soldier all that would be required from him if he were at home and voted. As regards the other provinces where there is a system of lists established, there is a method of checking the statement of a man who is a qualified voter in a certain district. I do not think there is any less safety in the respect pointed out by the hon. member in the manner in which this soldiers' vote is to be taken than there is in the manner in which the ordinary vote is to be taken in certain parts of the Dominion. There was a suggestion made by the committee which had the consideration of these election matters that the law under which a man may give his vote in Alberta by merely swearing to his qualifications should be repealed, and when that provision came to the House we found that the opinion of all the members from that province, and a large number of others also, was that under the conditions in that province it would not be fair to repeal that law, and that in order that a man should be fairly treated there, it was essential that that principle should prevail which allowed men to vote upon their own affidavits as to their own qualifications. Surely the conditions under which our soldiers find themselves ought to be considered sufficient to justify that the same principle be applied in their case.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to prolong the discussion, but I am compelled to point out that in the case of the ordinary Alberta voter at the ordinary election there is only one question of his qualification, and all he has to answer to decide on his vote is whether he resided in a certain electoral district or whether he did not. Under this legislation the voter has two things to do; he has to decide as to whether 
he must vote under his term of enlistment, or under his former residence, and that is a radical and important difference. There is another difference, and it is that the voter who comes into the poll to cast his vote in an ordinary Alberta election does so under circumstances, and conditions, and procedure,1 framed especially for the purpose of safeguarding him in the exercise of his right, and of taking proceedings against him should he go beyond that right. There is no provision in this Act for taking the same measures of precaution in the case of the soldier voting, nor is there any possibility of such precautions being taken. The two cases are not by any means alike and the difference is so great as to warrant my suggestion that the minister has undertaken to do something that it is not possible to do. The minister has undertaken to give a right to a certain man to which he certainly^ is entitled, but he has to give it to him under such circumstances that he cannot protect the right of the body politic.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. McKENZIE:: As I understand it, the purpose of the section now before the committee is to provide that those of the active forces abroad who are qualified to vote at the time they enlisted shall be afforded means of casting their vote. But the form of oath provided in the Bill does not seem to apply to all cases. The form of oath is " that immediately before I was enlisted m the military forces of Canada I was qualified to 'be a voter." But a great many of the persons supposed to be enfranchised by that Act cannot take that oath. If this law is to become operative it will be necessary to make some slight change in the form of affidavit.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman will observe that there are two paragraphs in the form of affidavit given. The first is for the soldier who is enfranchised under this Act, the other is for the soldier who is already qualified to vote in a particular district.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand it, it does not say anything about the qualification in the first paragraph.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, because all that is required for his qualification is that he should be a British subject, twenty-one years of age, and should have resided for

[DOT]3273
thirty days in some particular location in Canada before enlisting. If, on the other hand, he was, apart from being a soldier, qualified s a voter in a particular district, he will swear to the second paragraph, leaving out the other.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It was hinted that we were able to legislate in this Parliament with regard to the men who would go to the front, but that once a volunteer goes from our shores and gets to the other side, he goes under control of the British War Office, which places him in such regiment or elsewhere as it may think proper. There is no such body known to the law as the Canadian military service. Our military forces, when they get to the other side, are scattered among as many Tegiments and battalions as is deemed proper. As I understand it, there is no entity in the army today which can !be called a Canadian contingent or Canadian military force. I submit that the term the minister used in the Act is somewhat speculative, to say the least. If this law were one to confer the franchise upon the militia force of Canada, there is such a body recognized by the Militia Act. But the force that we send out is a force of volunteers who, of their own volition and without compulsion of the Government, became part and parcel of the British army. Therefore, I submit, we have no jurisdiction to follow the volunteer into the position in which he puts himself; we can only leave him to the control of the British army, and the British army law, until such time as he is released and comes back. I submit that Parliament i'S asked to legislate for a body that does not exist at all. I do not hesitate to put anyself on record here-I dad not speak on the second reading of the Bill-as toeing opposed to the measure. I believe that it is not workable and that it will only add to the difficulties already existing at the front. The soldiers when they go to the front take upon themselves certain responsibilities, and we repose certain trusts in them. They are to do the fighting for us, and ive are to provide for them in every way that we can. Their minds are not to toe bothered about political or municipal affairs; they must have a free band to deal with the very arduous and important matters they have -before them. On the other hand, the soldier has to trust to the friends whom he leaves behind and to the people of the country that in his absence political matters shall toe kept on an even keel. As we trust them at the front,
they have to trust us here. The one argument put forward is that the soldier is entitled to exercise the franchise. There may be some argument in that so far as the soldier who had the right to the franchise before he left his home is concerned. It might be said: You are depriving the soldier of the right which he would toe able to exercise if he were at home. While it would, perhaps, be desirable to let the soldier who was a voter at home vote abroad, if that could be done in the right way, we are not called upon to create a new franchise in order to give votes to persons who could not vote if they were at home. I am opposed to this Bill because I do not think that it provides for a method whereby the soldiers may vote as they ought to vote. A person who expresses his opinion at the ballot box is in a somewhat similar position to the man who sits on a jury. If the minister were on the bench, and, as he was about to charge the jury, one of the jurors came in and took his place, he would say to that juror: You have not heard the evidence, and you are not in a position to give a verdict in this case. He would thereupon either order a new trial, or direct the juror, leave the box. This is what would toe done in a case where persons are called upon to decide upon the facts, and an election is the highest sphere in which the people are called upon to decide upon the facts. The men to whom if is proposed to give votes are away from this country, and will be away perhaps a year or eighteen months, or two years, before they are called upon to exercise their franchise under this Act. They know nothing about the changes that have taken place in this country since they went away; they know nothing about the conduct of the Government since that time. They are deprived of the privilege of voting for the representative. A strong and eloquent plea was made the other night against granting to the man who received the minority vote in a constituency the right to take a seat in Parliament, for the reason that he was not the choice of the people. I agree, to a certain extent, with that view; yet under this proposed legislation we are called upon to give the right to vote to men who are far away from home, who are out of touch with the issues that will be threshed out in an election, and who have no knowledge of the qualifications of the candidates. Without taking shelter behind the assertion that I am not opposed to voting by soldiers, or behind any other shelter, I say that I am absolutely opposed to this

Bill, and, so far as the soldiers who are my friends at 'the front are concerned, I take the responsibility of felling them that I do not think that this legislation is right or necessary. I am sure that the soldiers are not asking for it, and do not expect it.
Section stands.
On section 2-distribution of ballot papers:


George Perry Graham: The soldiers may be
divided into two classes, those who are in Canada and those who are outside of Canada. I see no reason why the soldiers who are in Canada at the time of an election cannot vote under the ordinary machinery and subject to the ordinary restrictions and regulations that are now in force. There is no reason why the deputy returning officer should not take the votes of the soldiers in the different localities in which they are stationed, and forward them to the constituencies to which they belong. Take the city of Ottawa: there could be one or two polls for the soldiers only. The votes could be recorded by the deputy returning officer, under the usual conditions and subject to the usual safeguards as now provided, and afterwards be sent to the proper constituency. There is another feature of this matter to which I think the attention of the minister ought to be directed. Several of the officers to whom these ballots will be sent for distribution and who, under this Act, will take the votes of the soldiers, are now or will be candidates for election to this House. It is not impugning their honesty, or anything of that kind, to point out the anomaly that will exist if men act as returning officers and handle votes that are cast for or against themselves. I imagine that no one of the officers to whom I refer would care to be placed in a position of that kind, and i mink that some provision ought to be made by which in no case shall an officer who is himself a candidate be a returning officer or have anything to do with the ballots. These are the two points which I wish to impress strongly upon the minister in connection with this section of the Bill.. First, there is no need for all this machinery for the casting of the votes of soldiers who are in Canada; they could be taken with our ordinary machinery without removing any safeguards; and, secondly, no man should be allowed to handle ballots who is a candidate in an election.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is much that
commends itself to one's judgment in the suggestion made by my hon. friend with
{Mr. McKenzie.]
respect to soldiers who are at home. In the committee we endeavoured to deal with the soldier vote as a whole and it is possible we did not give sufficient attention to the difference in methods necessary for those at home and those abroad. Would the hon. member contemplate that soldiers, say at Quebec or Halifax, whose votes would have to be sent to distant electoral districts should vote on the election day or sufficiently before the regularly appointed election day to allow of their ballots reaching their destinations by the polling day?


George Perry Graham: I did not think out the details, but personally I would see no objection to having a polling day for the soldiers which would be sufficiently early to permit of their ballots reaching their home constituencies before the regular polling day. Of course it would be all secret and no person would know anything about the ballots until the close of the general poll.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty
pointed out in that scheme is that in some cases it would be physically impossible for the soldiers to vote after nomination day and still have their votes reach their home electoral districts on election day. In most parts of Canada the matter could be worked out, but there would be great difficulty in regard to Vancouver troops who might be at Halifax, and it would be impossible for the votes of Victoria soldiers who might be at Halifax to be cast after nomination day and be received in the home constituency -..ore polling day. It could be worked except for constituencies west of the Rockies.


George Perry Graham: It would work out with the great majority of voters anyway.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I suppose the vote might be taken on nomination day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was some discussion as to their knowing who the candidates were.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am opposed to this Bill, more particularly to clause 2, because I do not see any possible way in which the votes can be taken fairly so that there can be any certainty that they will be delivered as cast. let us look for a moment how it works out in particular constituencies. In Edmonton the Conservative candidate is the commanding officer. Does the Minister of Justice think that it would operate satisfactorily in a case such as that, where there are hun-

dreds of men brought in from the surrounding constituencies of Alberta, a great many of whom will be there long enough to qualify in Edmonton, but who will also have votes in their home constituencies? These men could vote in Edmonton by securing a half-day off on election day, go out in civilian clothes, take the oath that they were voters in Edmonton, and so cast their votes there. Even granted that a commanding officer who was a Conservative candidate would not care to act as returning officer for his own election, he would appoint somebody under him in the military force to do so. Let me ask, in all candour, is there a man in this House on either side who would want deliberately to put the ballots for his election in the hands of any candidate opposed to him, to let him deliver them or not deliver them just as he saw fit, without more safeguards than have been provided in this Bill? The more the Bill is discussed, the more utterly and absolutely absurd it seems to expect that the votes will be delivered and counted as they were given. If I was reasonably sure that the vote as cast would be delivered, I would hold up both* hands for this Bill. I have a large number of men from my own constituency at the front, two out of three of whom are supporters of my own; but, under the circumstances, scattered, as they may be, in Turkey, Egypt, Bermuda, England, France, Belgium, and I hope in Germany, I would not have one hope in a thousand that their vote would be delivered in Canada at the election as they were intended to be. Who has asked for this legislation, might I ask the minister? We have not been able to hear yet of anybody who has done so. Has any section of the army, has any section of the militia forces asked for this legislation? For my part I do not believe that the Government has any expectation that this will ever become law; and it is all done to enable them to wave the flag that the Liberals were against allowing the soldiers to vote. We are not against allowing the soldiers to vote, but we are against allowing the Government to count the votes after they are cast. The Prime Minister yesterday spoke of the difficulty of getting honest elections in Canada. Let us talk plainly. We know on both sides of the House that there is a great deal of difficulty in getting the votes counted properly, with all the restrictions with which the best men in the country have been able to hedge about the Election Act during the last 50 years. We know what the results are. My right, hon. friend yesterday made some
remark on that line which I will read to the House:
I recall that with all our safeguards and legislative provisions, a deputy returning officer and a poll clerk went forth in one of our western provinces, pretended to journey into the north 100 or 120 miles, but went in reality only 20 or 30 miles, where they sat down under a tree, filled in 150 names, deposited as many ballots, and came back with the story of a unanimous Liberal vote in that remote part of the constituency. It is impossible to prevent fraud absolutely by legislative enactment.
I think my right hon. friend would have done himself more credit if he had told the whole truth in that connection. We all know that the Liberals suffered by the barefaced rascality which was practised on that occasion. That was the first and only time in the history of Canada that a Government deliberately brushed aside all technicalities. They would not call for a new election when they could have won easily, but they took steps to hand over the seat to a Conservative candidate.


Mr. BRODER:: They simply gave back the stolen goods.


John Gillanders Turriff: Certainly, but did hon. gentlemen opposite ever suggest doing anything of the kind? Only last summer three constituencies were absolutely stolen in the backwoods of Manitoba, and the candidates were all confirmed in their seats. There was no restitution there of the stolen goods, not a bit of it.
Let me tell my hon. friends what took place in my constituency in the last Dominion election that hon. gentlemen opposite had the running of. That was in 1896. At that time we had almost the same system of voting that we have at present. The Elections Act did not contain the provision that enables a man to cast his vote on election day whether his name is on the list or not, the provision which the Minister of Justice and my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) suggested should be struck out only a few days ago-and I quite absolve both of them from having any wrong intention in making that proposal. Several days before the election took place, and after the ordinary pen and ink lists for the polling division had been posted up, men were sent out from the Conservative headquarters in Moosomin to instruct every enumerator throughout the constituency to strike off the list a certain percentage of Liberal names. These men were sent out by the men in charge of the Conservative campaign in that constituency. One of these men, whom I know

very well, went to one of the Conservative enumerators in my constituency and suggested that he should strike off 25 per cent of the Liberal names on the list. The enumerator, as straightforward a man as ever lived, absolutely refused to do it. He sent for me and told me what had been suggested. He said that he told me not because he wanted it blazed abroad, but that my friends in the other divisions should be on the look out for trouble. What happened at the next polling subdivision? The enumerator there, the night before the election, struck off twenty-five Liberal names, and then cleared for parts unknown; so that the next day there was nobody to put the names on the list again. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson), who was in the same constituency at that time, knows something about it, for he had a somewhat similar experience. When polling day came there was almost a riot in the next town to where I live. They had a rope ready for the enumerator, and if they had found him they were going to drag him through a pond close to the town. But he could not be found. I must say, however, to the credit of the Conservatives in that polling subdivision that we did not lose many votes through it, for afterwards man after man told us that they voted for the Liberal candidate because they would not stand for such work as had been going on.
I point this out to show that with all the safeguards we have, it is possible that an honest vote may not be recorded. What can w'e expect then when the vote is taken thousands of miles away, when the men at the front are not so likely to be as careful as they w'ould be if at home, and when the commanding officers are in many cases candidates ! Suppose the commanding officer hands over the work to somebody beneath him who is looking for promotion and wants to stand in with the powers that be. What is likely to happen? So far as I can see, this Bill provides no penalties for the man who does not send in all the votes, or who misdirects them. There are many ways in which the intention of the voter at the front could be defeated. The more you look at this Bill the more difficulties you see in it; it simply bristles with difficulties from one end to the other. Why is the Minister of Justice so anxious to give votes to the soldiers? He knows that 35 or 40 per cent of the voters of Canada do not take the trouble to vote anyway, and I am sure that some of the soldiers who are to be provided

with votes would not take the trouble to vote if they were at home. On the other hand, many no doubt would like to vote, even at the front, and I for one would like to give them the opportunity of voting. I would hold up both hands for any Bill that would ensure that the votes would be counted as the voters intended.
Again, no hon. member of this House has yet shown that there has been any considerable demand from any part of . the militia for soldiers' votes. There is one certain and easy way of getting over this difficulty. Why does not the Prime Minister do the straightforward, honest and patriotic thing, and say that there shall be no election until the war is over, or until the end of the term of Parliament. Nobody would object to that, and if the war was not over when the end of the term of Parliament came I venture to say that every man in this House would be willing to extend the term of Parliament until the war was over. To my mind, it is an outrage to throw this country into the throes of a general election right in the middle of this war, when every bit of energy in the country is required for conducting that war properly. In this easy way the Prime Minister and his followers could settle the whole difficulty. Why do they not do the decent and patriotic thing, and tell the country straightforwardly that there shall be no election before next session at all events? We have every reason to believe that in a year from now the war will be over and our soldiers back in Canada. But I think that hon. gentlemen opposite do not want the soldiers to have votes when they are back in Canada They would rather not have the votes of the soldiers when they come back. A good deal has transpired in the last two months that could lead one to take that view. Therefore, we find the Government anxious to railroad thjs Bill through the House to give votes to the soldiers and at the same time to provide practically no safeguard which would justify us in the expectation that the votes, as they are given in the firing line, will be delivered in the constituencies where the men come from in the way intended.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Turriff) make the statement that he is strongly in favour of votes for soldiers. I find that a great many hon. members on this side of the House are in favour of votes for soldiers. The difficulty seems to be to provide the necessary ma-

chinery to have the votes taken and also to provide the necessary safeguards. It does seem to me that there is sufficient legal ability in this House to draft a Bill that will provide the necessary machinery as well as the safeguards.
With some diffidence, I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) certain changes. I approach this question with an open mind. These suggestions have just come into my mind to-day, and it may be that they will be found to be very crude. Sections 2 and 3 perhaps ought to be considered together. They provide for the casting of the votes. Section 2 provides that the envelopes for holding the votes -shall be sent by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the officer in command of each military base in Canada in which volunteers are serving and also to the office of the High Commissioner for Canada in London. Then, section 3 provides that, on the election being called, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall communicate with the officer commanding the corps in which the volunteer is serving and that the commanding officer shall provide each volunteer with a ballot papeT. That is for the men in Canada. As regards the men in Europe, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall notify the secretary of the High Commissioner of the issuing of -the writ and the secretary shall thereupon send a sufficient number of ballot papers, affidavits and envelopes to the proper officer or officers, and such officer or officers shall give each volunteer entitled to vote a ballot paper, affidavit and envelope.
The provision in regard to the duties of the commanding officer are very crude. We have to consider what men are entitled to this vote. First, we have the body of men in Canada. We will have under training in Canada about 20,000 -men; they will be scattered about-10,000 at Valcartier and perhaps 5,000 at two other camps. Surely some simple means could be provided for taking the votes of these men in camp. The, machinery ought to be -simple and effective for that purpose. Next, we come to the votes of the soldiers in England. We are told that we will have at the base in England 20,000 men. The men in England, with the exception of those who are in the hospitals, are altogether in one place, under efficient military organization and under the control of our Militia Department. The third class comprises the men at the front. I am told by my non. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major General Hughes) that we have 38,000 men at the
front and that number will be raised shortly to 50,000 men. Our men at the front will be in two divisions. They are now in one division. That division is under the command of General Alderson and the Canadian officers and staff under him. These men are assembled close together or within a very few miles. With these men all together, or within a very limited area, there should be no difficulty in taking their votes. Many of my friends who have spoken say that these men are at the fighting line. We are led to believe that these men are engaged absolutely in battle night and day. I am told, and you will see it in the reports that come from the front, that trench work consists of one day in the trenches and two days out of the trenches. If they put in two days in the trenches they have four days out of the trenches. They go back to the base, where they are assembled, and there should be no difficulty while they are there in taking their votes. Of course, I can see that there will be a number of men whose votes it might be difficult to take, but we have to face that fact.
I think the machinery provided under sections 2 and 3 is defective. You start right off, and, as soon as the election is announced, you say that the secretary of the High Commissioner shall take action. What shall he do? He must give instructions to the officers commanding the different corps and units and -send them ballot papers, and they are to carry out these instructions. We know that no civilian can give instructions of any kind to military officers. We know that the military officers at the front could not possibly take any commands, orders or instructions from a civilian like the secretary of the High Commissioner. That would be impossible. Then, remember how difficult it would be for him to find out who are the officers commanding these different units. It is very difficult. For example, in. England there are the hospital corps, the army service corps, the paymaster corps, the divisional corps, the artillery, the ammunition corps, cavalry, and what is called the base or recruiting camp. You have all these different units divided into many different parts and having amongst them many commanding officers. It would be almost impossible for the secretary of the High Commissioner, in the short time allowed him to get the necessary information and even to get the proper postal addresses. By the time he got the inform-

ation changes might be made. Then there is this further consideration: 'he has not been in the habit of communicating with the officers commanding the different units; he has not (been transmitting information to them, and he has not 'been receiving reports from them.
It may 'be asked: how can we work this out effectively? It would seem to me that we have the most perfect machinery possible provided for us now. The Militia Department, or the Militia Council, have control practically of all the Canadian troops in England and at the front. Our paymaster's department is a Canadian department. The paymaster's department, now that it is in proper working order, has proved to be most efficient. They have to communicate directly with every officer commanding the different units and they have to directly put the pay into the pockets of every man at the front and of every man in England. This is a direct channel of communication, not only with every officer commanding every unit but with every man in Canada, at the front or in England. Pay is the most effectual way of communicating with the men. We have there a perfect channel of communication under proper direction.
It has been said that it would not be necessary to have this legislation, if the Prime Minister and the Government would say that no election should be brought on until after the war. I have a firm and honest belief that the Government of this country will not have an election until after the war. I believe their duty at the present time is to carry on the business of the country, but their first and prime duty is to prosecute this war with their full energy and all their ability, and to allow nothing to interfere with that. They have the precedent of England for the adoption of this policy. I am glad to have seen that the Opposition has given to the Government during this session, and during the special war session as well, every assistance in their power to conduct public business without party controversy. But there is this to be considered: suppose the war should end in a year, and a truce be declared, we know very well that our troops would have to stay in Europe after that, for five or six or perhaps eight months, as in South Africa they had to remain for almost a year. Until all the preliminaries are carried out, the indemnities arranged for, and the treaty entered into, our soldiers could not return to Canada, and in the natural course of events, the time for a

general election would come before then.
As I have said, the Militia Department has the most perfect machinery and the most perfect channel of communication to reach effectually every man and every officer at the front. We have provided the soldiers with their clothing, and we are providing their pay, and when promotions are made by General Alderson, he reports at once to the Militia Department here, and every detail at the front is practically arranged through the Militia Department in Canada. My suggestion then is, that the ballot papers should be sent to the secretary of the Militia Council, and that there should be imposed on the Militia Council the duty of forwarding these ballot papers to the proper officers, because they know the commanding officers of the different units, their location, and everything about them. The Militia Council could give the necessary military instructions that would be promptly obeyed by the officers of the different units, and then the
4 p.m. ballot papers could be returned sealed to the Militia Council, to be handed over to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. This, Sir, is my suggestion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have heard with interest the admirable suggestion made by the hon. member (Mr. H. H. McLean). I had in mind, when we come to the section which describes the officers to whom the ballots are to be sent from the Secretary of State, that the officer on the other side who is in the best position, as I have been informed to have these ballots effectively transmitted to the bases where they can be used, would be the chief paymaster of the Overseas Canadian Expeditionary Force. He is an officer already appointed, .and he would do this work ex-officio, and not because the Government has selected him. Those of us who have been concerned with the introduction of this Bill have been most anxious, so far as possible, to make its operation independent of personal selection by the Government, and the utilization of the machinery of the paymaster's department would operate to make an officer, and not a particular individual, the intermediary through whom these ballots would be forwarded. I know that during this discussion very improbable and far-fetched grounds have been invoked to base suspicion upon, and if we were to designate the Militia Council to be in any way connected with controlling the return of the ballots, it might give rise to the suggestion that in some way or other the Gov-enment would be enabled to control the

selection of particular men. I am anxious to avoid that, so far as I possibly can, and to my mind it might be better not to utilize the officers of any department of Government to return the ballots.
Let it be assumed that whatever machinery we devise here-and we are ready to adopt any well-reasoned suggestions in that respect-may sufficiently secure a genuine vote by the soldier, then it is my belief that once you get that properly sealed into the post office to be transmitted to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, it will be the safest way for the ballots to be returned here. I think that the fewer people through whose hands these ballots are going to pass, the better it will be. Every day we send through the post office things the secrecy of which is most important, and once you get the ballot properly marked and properly deposited in the post office, it is to my mind the best way to secure its not being tampered with in any way. Then, it being addressed to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, when it reaches him here it is in the hands of a responsible officer. It comes to him sealed-and I propose to make that more absolutely clear-and verified, so far as such things can be verified. It is made his duty to put that in a sealed package. He seals it with his own seal, making a package for each electoral district, and he forwards it either by mail or by special messenger to the returning officer; and the returning officer has to produce that in a sealed condition in the presence of the candidates or their representatives. The returning officer puts these ballots in the ballot-box, just as the deputy returning officer puts other people's ballots in the ballot box, and that returning officer will count those ballots. The hon. member for Assiniboia says that all he objects to is the Government counting the ballots. Where he finds in this Bill any provision for the Government counting the ballots, I must say, passes my comprehension. The ballots will be counted by the returning officer. Other ballots are counted by the deputy returning officer. Surely, the returning officer is as much to be trusted as his deputies are. In effect, this is just one more additional deputy returning officer who is the returning officer himself. He will count these ballots at the close of the poll. It was suggested this morning that the provision of the Bill that he shall count these ballots at the close of the poll did not mean, as it does in other Bills, at once after the closing of the poll. We will make that clear. So, the only difference will be that at five
o'clock in the afternoon of polling day, say in the hon. gentleman's constituency, if there be soldiers' yotes, those votes will be counted just as other votes will be counted, in the presence of the candidates or their representatives. Surely, it is impossible to suggest that the Government is going to count the ballots.
So far as those ballots getting back to Canada is concerned, one thing strikes me with regard to the suggestion that they come through the Militia Department or any other department. I would like to avoid even the semblance of these ballots after they are marked being in any way in charge of the Government as a Government. The election is in charge of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. He is not our instrument in any way; his duties are clearly prescribed. As to that part, I think the hon. gentleman should absolve us from the suggestion thai we a?e trying to " count the ballots."


John Gillanders Turriff: In using'the expression "counts the ballots" I had not in mind the mere fact of ascertaining the number of the ballots for the several candidates after the close of the polls. I was thinking of the whole course of collecting the ballots, forwarding them and counting them,-the whole proceeding from beginning to end.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will not the hon. gentleman admit that the one thing the Government has to do is to reach a determination as to the man on the other side who shall take the ballots and post them? I do not understand the hon. gentleman to suggest that the Government controls the Post Office; I hardly think he will suggest that. We are trying to meet any difficulty that may be raised by putting this into the hands of a permanent official who must be trusted with everything that has to be done with regard to an election. Let me say further that any other suggestion, short of refusing the soldier his vote, that will tend to prevent the Government from having any control of this operation, I will accept with great pleasure, and I am satisfied that my colleagues will endorse me in that statement.
The hon. member who last spoke (Mr. H. H. McLean) has pointed out that there is no necessary connection between this Bill and an election now or later. He has given a very good and conclusive reason foi that. Might I point out another? We dealt the other day with the Elections Aot. Did anybody come forward and say: Unless you are going to have an election

there is no use of amending the Elections Aot? The bon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) last year, before the war began, moved for a committee-and; we were very glad to assent to that motion- to consider and improve the Elections Act. Did anybody suggest that that hon. member must have come to the conclusion that an election was to he held right off and that otherwise he would not have proposed the amendment of the Act?
There is only one question here-we cannot get away from it; we always come back to it-and that is: should the soldier have a vote, [DOT] and should the machinery for registering that vote be provided? If he should not have a vote, we should not do anything about it now or later. If he should have a vote, now is the time to provide the machinery by which that vote can be registered. What other class in the community would stand for it, if, being entitled to a vote-and I am assuming for the moment that this is admitted in relation to the soldiers-and if the law as it stands did not provide the necessary machinery, they were told: There is not going to be -an election at once; there may be no election, and therefore it is not necessary to do anything? If there lis a right there should be dn the -law means provided for the exercise of that right. As to the suggestion that the Prime Minister should say that there will he no election for a certain length of time, I can hardly see how hon. gentlemen can be serious in such a thing. Is the prerogative of the Crown to dissolve the House df conditions require it to be renounced for a definite period? Yet, that is what hon. gentlemen ane asking foi.
Now, to come back to the objections made to the details of the Bill. If I followed the 'hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff)-and I do not propose to discuss with him past stories of scandal; what we are concerned in, I believe, is how we are going to make this proposed legislation effective-he suggested that a -soldier in barracks in Edmonton, might, under the existing law in that province, and without legislation at all, take dhe necessary oath and register	his	vote. I
quite recognize that that is possible. Before the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) made his suggestion, in considering the matter I had come to the conclusion that there should be added to this Bill a provision that nothing contained in it should prevent the soldier, in a case where he found himself in a position to do so, from exercising his franchise
	(
in the ordinary manner, and, further, that when he found himself in that position, he should so exercise his franchise. This would make it quite clear that this Bill is to apply only to the class of people to whom it is intended to apply, that is, persons who, by reason of their military duties, are prevented from exercising their franchise in the ordinary way. I do not propose to ask that this section be passed at the present time, because I recognize fully the value of the suggestion made by the hon. member for South Renfrew. I want to put the operation of this proposed legislation, so far as it is possible to do so, in a position where even a suggestion of improper control by anybody may be rendered an impossibility. So also do I wish to make this Bill operate to give the soldiers a vote with as little disturbance as possible of the conditions that surround voting generally. If we can find the means whereby the vote of the soldier at home may be taken at polls, or at other places appointed for the taking of such votes where the soldiers are stationed, and the ballots then distributed to the electoral districts where they belong, I shall certainly be very glad to modify the Bill so as to bring about that result. That would reduce the danger pointed out in the method suggested absolutely to the case of men who are overseas. With regard to that, I am glad to have the suggestion for the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean) and I shall be glad to have any suggestion from any member that will provide further precautions with which to surround the giving of that vote, and more particularly that will aim to meet the suggestion that there is any possibility of this Government in any way manipulating or countenancing or conniving at manipulation of the ballots.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My hon. friend, in the course of his observations, stated that the Government could not make any declaration as to the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown with regard to dissolution. I have not uttered a word up to this time upon this subject, nor do I intend to do so. The Government will have to take their own course with regard to dissolution, and, when they dissolve Parliament, whether it he this year or later, the people will be the judge as to whether the reasons for dissolution were or were not sufficient, and whether that course was inspired by patriotic motives, or by motives which were not patriotic. As to the exercise of the piero-

gative of the Crown, and the assertion of my hon. friend that the Government cannot be expected to make any statement on this point, I want to take complete issue with him. It has been done elsewhere: it has been done, more or less formally, in England. The statement has been made, though not formally, that there was no cause for an election; that it would be better to have no election during the war. This statement has been made by ministers and by members more than once in England. But this Government, the Government of Canada, have again and again declared to the people that there is no occasion to exercise the prerogative of dissolution. Not later than last year this was done by the Government. My hon. friend will recall that a statute was passed some years ago by Parliament providing that in the province of Manitoba the election lists shall be prepared every year by a board of judges. The same statute provides also that in the unorganized districts of the province of Ontario a board of judges shall prepare every year, in the months of July and August, the electoral lists. This power is to be exercised mechanically by the board of judges, without an injunction from the Government, but the exercise of that power may be dispensed with by Order in Council passed by the Government. An order was passed last year that there should be no revision of the electoral lists in the unorganized portion of Ontario and in the organized polling districts in the province of Manitoba. The Government last year, therefore, intimated that there would be no election. This being the case, there is no reason to believe that the Government may not be called upon to give an intimation as to whether or not the prerogative of dissolution shall be exercised. I repeat that, whether we have dissolution or whether we do not have dissolution, the action of the Government will have to be judged when the time comes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have a profound respect for any opinion on a question of this kind emanating from the right hon. gentleman, but I entirely fail to see why a provision made by the statute, and the exercise by the Government of the power conferred by that statute, in any way implies that the Crown or any responsible ministers advising the Crown can bind themselves that for a certain period of time, without regard to what conditions may arise within that period of time, they will not perform what those conditions might make 144
it their duty to do. I have already seen, as emanating from the right hon. gentleman, a statement that the fact that the Government exercises the power which it has to exercise some time in the month of June or July, if my memory serves me, whereby it dispenses with the making of the lists for certain districts, binds the Government and the Crown that for a year after that there shall be no dissolution of the House. I must confess that I cannot see any ground for drawing that conclusion. I presume that it would be a fair inference that when a government in the month of June or July, or whatever is the period within which it may do so, does exercise the power of dispensing with the preparing of the lists, it does so because at that time it does not anticipate that there shall be an election. But to conclude from that, that for a year to come the Crown has forfeited its prerogative right to dissolve Parliament and that the ministers have become relieved of what the conditions in the country arising after that action might make it their duty to do in the way of advising the Crown, I must say seems to be an absolute non sequitur. Surely it would be a less deplorable consequence of the exercise of that power that a limited district in the country might, perhaps, find itself without lists than that for a year the Crown's prerogative should remain in abeyance, and that no ministry, no matter how imperative might be the reasons for giving that advice, would be free to advise a dissolution of Parliament. I have great respect for the right hon. gentleman's views, but I certainly cannot concur in that. The right hon. gentleman says it has been done before, but I notice that when he referred to what had been said in England he said "not formally," and that what was said in that country was that there was no occasion for an immediate dissolution and perhaps no cause for dissolution there until after the war. I made no reference to any statement of that kind; I was referring to what I understood to be called for by different gentlemen last evening-an assurance that there would be no election for a certain period of time. I am expressing no opinion whether there ought or ought not to be an election; I only desire to point out that it seems to me that so long as we are going to continue to be governed in accordance with the constitution, no such undertaking can be properly given.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that I wish to contradict very much of what



my hon. friend has said. I do not contend that the fact that the Governor signs an order to dispense with the necessary formalities for an election is binding upon the Government that there is to be no dissolution; but I say that my hon. friend himself has given the interpretation of that act. It is an expression of the opinion of the Government that there is no cause for an election. Of course, even after the Government have taken such a course as that, occasions may suddenly arise which may compel dissolution, but my hon. friend will agree with me that when the Government dispense with the necessary formalities which must take place before an election, it is a statement to the public that, in the opinion of the Government, there is no cause for a dissolution, and a subsequent dissolution could not be justified unless a new cause compelling a dissolution had arisen which did not then exist. That is the point which I make, and therefore I say that the Government has more than once stated its opinion that there should be no dissolution. It does not follow that there might not be a dissolution if the power of dissolution exists at all times; but it has to be exercised on proper occasions and under proper circumstances. 'All I say to my hon. friend is that when the Government, as they did last year, pass an Order in Council dispensing with the formalities which must take place in Ontario and Manitoba before an election, no dissolution should take place unless there is a cause which did not exist when the order was passed. Something new, something which could not have been foreseen, might cause a dissolution. That is all the Government can undertake. To-day the Government can declare that they see no cause for an election, or that they see cause, or they may say nothing. That is their prerogative and their privilege. I do not ask the Government what they will do; it is their own secret; they may do what they please; but if they dissolve or do not, whatever action they may take, they will have to account for it to the electors; and if they dissolve, they will have to give a sufficient reason to the electors to justify a dissolution.


John Gillanders Turriff: I can give an instance in point. Last year, when the Legislature of Saskatchewan was called together for what was known as a war session, the programme was laid before the House and the leader of the Opposition in the legislature asked whether, if the Opposition concurred in everything and went in for a short session and brought up none of the subjects

that are usually brought up in an ordinary session, there would be any certainty that there would not be an election before another session of~the legislature was called. The Prime Minister of Saskatchewan promised absolutely that as far as he could see there was no intention whatever of having an election, at least until after there was another session of the legislature.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That only proves that
the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan and I do not agree upon this subject.


Michael Clark: It is immaterial to me and perhaps to others when the elections are to be held or whether they are held at all. But it is utterly absurd for any person to suggest, at a time when we are endeavouring to pass a measure to give votes to soldiers who are at the front that there should be no election until after the war is over. This Act contemplates an election during the war.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: There is no doubt about it. What is the use of the measure if no election is likely to be held.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: Hon. gentlemen applaud.
I tell them they are wasting their time discussing this measure if there is to be no election and no chance of an election during war time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: We do not know how long the war will last, but the Bill cannot be made of any use unless an election takes place during the war. Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to he very much afraid that there will be an election.


Michael Clark: Not at all.


Michael Clark: I can recall an occa- . sion two years ago when they kept us up here night and day trying to force an election when we were endeavouring to prepare for this war. We endeavoured at that time, as we all remember,. to do our share towards naval participation in the war that we saw coming.


Frank Oliver: That you saw coining !


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: We were then within a year or two of the previous election, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite were determined to have an election at that time. But they do not want an election now, two years later. The position they take seems to me to be absurd.


Mr. KAY:: Does the hon. gentleman think we should have an election this year?


Michael Clark: I am not concerned
whether we have an election this year or not. I said at the start it was immaterial to me when we had an election. The objections that I have heard so far to this measure come from hon. gentlemen who are suspicious that something crooked is going to be done in the taking of votes at the front.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: I cannot understand the
fury and vehemence of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), backed up by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who appear to be exceedingly suspicious that something crooked is going to be done in connection with the counting of the ballots. The one thing that these gentlemen ought to suspect most is their own suspicion. There is absolutely nothing whatever in it, and no justification whatever for that suspicion. I would like to know what the Conservative party has done, what this Government has done, to justify any such suspicion. The Conservative party has not conducted a federal election in this country for twenty years. Every federal election in that time 'has been under the control of hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. gentlemen composing this Government have neveT been guilty of any such actions as would justify hon. gentlemen opposite in suspecting that they were conniving at anything in the way of crookedness in connection with this vote. Not only that, but if we take into consideration the Redistribution Bill passed last year, and the fair and just way in which it was made, I think hon. gentlemen ought to give a little more consideration to the Government. As far as the province of Ontario is concerned, I say the Government waived a great many legitimate' advantages that they could have had from a redistribution.
I do not think that hon. gentleman opposite have any reason to complain about the redistribution, and I do not think they do complain about it. I think it is only right that they should give this Government credit for fairness in regard to redistribution; and the way that redistribution was made should convince them that the election will be conducted fairly and squarely. In the province of Ontario the Conservative party has been in power for ten years, during which time three elections have been held; but not one single charge 144J
of crookedness at elections has been made against the Government; not one protest has gone to trial; there has not been one solitary charge of ballot-switching or crookedness at the polls during all that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the ten years previous?
Mr! CLARK:	I do not want to refer to
the past. I do not like the suspicions and insinuations of hon. gentlemen opposite against the officers who are to take the vote at the front. I do not see an hon. gentleman opposite whom, if he were an officer, I would not trust with ballots cast in my favour. I do not believe that there is any more justification for suspicion against the officers at the front than there is for suspicion against the gentlemen in the Dominion of Canada who will be appointed returning ofncers and poll clerks. These officers at the front are not only officials of the Government for the purpose of taking the vote, but also officers in His Majesty's service; and I have every confidence that the vote will be taken properly, and I think hon. gentlemen opposite ought to have the same confidence.
I agree with the hon. member for St. John that the question bristles with difficulties; but these difficulties can be surmounted, and the discussion in committee is bound to have that effect. I think all of us will agree that the soldiers should have votes; it is therefore our business to see that they get votes. Proper safeguards must surround the voting so that no crokedness can take place. But I am not apprehensive that there will be any bogus ballot boxes or anything of that sort, and I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite should have any suspicions in that regard. I have the greatest confidence that the officers who will be appointed to take the vote will conduct it properly.


Mr. NESBITT:: I have not been in the House very much for the last few days, and have not heard much of the discussion. I did, however, hear the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) speak last night. The other day I asked the Minister of Justice if there had been any demand for this Bill from the soldiers themselves. Although I did not think it was a very serious question, the Speaker thought that it was, and ruled it out of order; and the minister did not answer. I understood the hon. member for Calgary to say last night that 12,000 men had enlisted from Gslgary,

and that every one of them had demanded the vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that 12.000 had enlisted from Alberta. If I said that they had all demanded the vot'e I certainly did not intend so to state. I said that a very large number of the men that I knew had asked that that provision should be made. Of course I do not know the whole 12.000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I understood him to say that they had all come from Calgary, and had all demanded the vote; and it struck me at the time that that was very different from what had occurred in my section of the country. So far as I can recollect, about 300 men enlisted from the city 'of Woodstock and district. One of the contingents has gone to London, another to Guelph, and the first went abroad. I have met many of these men on the street in Woodstock, but not one of them has suggested that he would like to have a vote; nor have I had any post-cards, letters, or communications of any description from those who have enlisted from Woodstock asking for a vote. I do not say that they would not accept the privilege of voting if they had the opportunity. But I have been wondering where the demand for this Bill came iron). If I were at the front, I think I should be kept busy dodging bullets; I should certainly dodge as many as I could.
I notice that the first section of this Bill provides that the soldiers will have the right to vote for a certain electoral district.
I would like to point out to the minister that a good many of the men who enlisted in Woodstock do not live there. I understand from the papers which give the news of the recruiting that many came from the south riding. I think that a lot of the members of the last contingent enlisted in Tillsonburg or Ingersoll, which are both in the south riding. I know that a number of those who enlisted in Woodstock for the first two contingents are not familiar with our expressions with reference to elections. For instance, a number of these men would . not know the difference between the south riding and the north riding. I am not jealous of these men having votes. I would have no objection whatever, if we could be sure that the votes would be counted exactly as the soldiers wished them to be counted. I am pleased to say that many of the native-born who enlisted from my section of the county are friends of mine anyway. But we all know that most of
IMr. Nesbitt.]
those who enlisted from Western Ontario were natives of the British Isles. They have a perfect right to vote, so far as I know, and I think most of them have been in this country long enough to be entitled to vote and so far as Woodstock is concerned, I think most of those who enlisted would have registered if they had been home at the time of the election. I see that section 1 provides that a volunteer shall be entitled to vote who has been a resident of any place in Canada for a period of not less than thirty days. If my memory serves me right our law requires a residence of three months in a locality.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provincial law requires a longer period than thirty days.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Somebody has said that
there would be ho necessity for this Bill if it were not the intention of the Government to bring on an election. Whether that be true or not I shall leave to the committee to determine. But, if a number of these men are still in Canada, there is no reason why they should not be voted in the ordinary way. Why should they not be sent back to their own districts? Take districts like Guelph and London; there is no reason why these men should not be sent back to poll their votes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for
South Eenfrew (Mr. Graham), earlier in the afternoon, made a suggestion looking to provision being made that those who are still in Canada should register their votes in Canada. That would apply to cases where they were near to their own districts. The suggestion was also made that where they were a great distance away we should arrange to take their votes at the places where they may be encamped subject to sending their ballots back to their districts. I do not propose to ask that this particular section be adopted until that suggestion has had the fullest consideration, and I hope we will be able to adopt a system which will substantially meet that view.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not hear my hon.
friend from South Eenfrew (Mr. Graham), but in reading the Bill I could not see any reason why something of the kind could not be done. As to the man actually in the fighting line, we know that the people of this country are very strong on sentiment and are very eager to provide everything for the soldier. Now we see that the minister is going to provide votes for them. We have been diligently providing every-

thing that is required to eat or wear and we have been very anxious to contribute in every way possible to their comfort. I cannot conceive that these men either in England or at the front will be worrying themselves about the election if an election comes on. They will have other things to engage their attention if they are really at the front and on the firing line. However, personally, I would have no objection to their voting if it can be done in a feasible way. My hon. friend will readily appreciate that even a person with a non-suspicious mind like I have-rather a stupid one-would not very much like some commanding officer to have the absolute control of how men were to vote either at the front or in Canada. The minister, for whom I have a sincere regard, can quite well appreciate that even people of a non-suspicious mind would not like to be put in that position. We all quite agree with the hon. gentleman who spoke a moment ago that the officers in command of these men are honorable. I know a good many of them who are highly honorable. Still, you know that in politics there is an awful temptation to get the better of the other fellow if you can. There is small blame attached to a person who does that. While I have a high idea of the officers at the front, they would, after all, have the control, practically speaking, of how the men in their regiments were to vote. Nobody would be brutal enough to say to his men that they must vote this way or that way, but they would suggest in some way that would be kindly how the men could vote. You cannot drive a man, but you can coax him very readily. There is a strong objection to having the votes taken in the way proposed. I am not, as I said, of a suspicious turn of mind, but really, is it not asking a good deal from both sides of this House that the officer in charge, whatever his politics may have been before he went to the front, should have the absolute say and control as to how the men under him should vote? That only applies to the men at the front or in England. It strikes me, and I am glad to see that it has struck the minister in the same way, that it would be absolutely unnecessary to provide for voting in that way with respect to the men who remain in Canada. I am glad to see that the minister agrees with the position I take on this matter.
We have all been anxious to close the session and get away home. This session has pot been long in comparison with
ordinary sessions, but there seemed to be a feeling in the air when we first came here that the session would be of a non-partisan character. Sometimes it has drifted down to party discussion. Last night it was very strongly on the border line of straight party discussion. We all came here with the idea that it would be a short session and that we would get home early. When we thought we had everything done this Bill came up. It gives special privileges to a class of the community even if this class is made up of soldiers whom we all honour.
I am glad to see that everybody does the same. I dislike, personally, hot-air loyalty. Hot-air-and-champagne loyalty never did go down with me worth a cent. I dislike to hear it, but I have no doubt that we are all ready to acknowledge our indebtedness to the soldier who has gone to the front to risk his.life. I confess quite freely that I am too big a coward unless I had to do so, but I have a great appreciation of the fellows who do. I endeavour to do my duty as nearly as I can in other ways. We are going to pass a Bill here that gives a special privilege. Is it asked for? If it is not specially asked for, why press it? If it is asked for, let us sit down and work out how the soldier can get a vote if he wants it. If he does not want it why bother with it? What demand has been made? If there has been a demand what kind of a demand has been made?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to say a word or two with regard to the last remark made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). He claims that this is a special -privilege that we are giving to a section of our people. I claim that it is not a special privilege, but it is simply giving them the same rights that we who remain at home exercise.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The ordinary registered
voter has to be three months in the locality,_ this provides thirty days. That is the special privilege that I was referring to.


Donald Sutherland: I am glad to have some explanation from the hon. gentleman, because he repeated the remark that it was a special privilege. Thirty days' residence in this country applies only to British subjects. If that is the distinction that he, made, I am glad to learn that that is what he meant.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend will also recognize that he and I can only vote where we live.


Donald Sutherland: And we can only vote once, and without this very legislation our Canadian soldiers, who, above all others, have the highest sense of their duty to their country and to the Empire, would be deprived of votes. It is to that I take exception. We have heard during this session talk about frauds being perpetrated on the country, and about injustice having been done to our solders, in the matter of their equipment, and, Sir, that is one important reason why, to my mind, the soldiers on whom these wrongs are alleged to have been perpetrated should have an opportunity of expressing their views. At all events, the fact that the Government has introduced a measure of this kind is evidence that they are not afraid of the votes of the soldiers, and that they believe they have treated them justly and fairly from the very first day they were mobilized in Canada, and since they have been placed side by side with the soldiers of the Empire. We have heard much about the boot scandal, and those of us who saw the men at Valcartier, trudging in the mud and the wet-


Mr. MACDONALD:: I rise to a point of order. I submit that it is not open to my hon. frie.nd to discuss the boot question, which is before a committee of the House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


William John Macdonald: The hon. gentleman opposite will have all the opportunity he wants to discuss the boot question when the report of the committee comes down to-morrow.


Donald Sutherland: The very fact that these investigations have been held is to my mind sufficient justification for extending the franchise to the men who best know all the circumstances. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) have expressed themselves as being very suspicious that some wrong would be perpetrated if the Government should have supervision over the votes of the soldiers, but has not the Government in office always had supervision over elections, and are they not held responsible in every instance for . the manner in which the elections are conducted? We are doing in this case simply what is done in all other cases with respect to elections. I, most emphatically declare that . if any men are to be deprived of the franchise it should not be the men who go to the front to fight our

battles, and who have the
5 p.m. highest 'Conception of their duties and responsibilities to their native land. There have been appeals from hon. gentlemen on the other side that no election Should be held during the continuance of the war, hut whether we will it or not an election may .become necessary, and it is only in the event of an election taking place when these men are at the front that this measure has been introduced. The obstacles which some hon. gentlemen opposite endeavour to conjure up against this Bill are purely visionary. I wish anything I might say could convince these gentlemen that the officers in command of our troops are honourable and responsible men, and I have enough confidence in them to believe that the vote to be taken at the front will be the purest vote cast in any election throughout the length and breadth of the Empire. I have the most absolute confidence in the men who are facing death in the trenches for our sakes, and I would be ashamed to refuse to place the utmost responsibility in their hands.
The 'hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has taken exception to the vote being given to men who have been in Canada for a few months only, and he says they cannot understand the issues in an [DOT] election. Let me point out to him that these men will be voting for or against the Government, and not on the individuality of the candidates. I believe in that respect a fairer test of public opinion may be secured than in the ordinary case where two candidates are voted for, one of whom, because of his personality, may command support from the electors which does not represent the feeling of the community on the policy of the party he supports. It is in my opinion more desirable to have a fair test of public opinion on the issues before the people, than it is to have a test of the personal standing in the community of individual candidates, and in that respect I can see many advantages in taking the vote for or against the Government, or for an independent candidate, as the case may be. I did not intend to offer any remarks on this subject nor would I had not the discussion been so prolonged. I could not imagine that there would be a man found in this House who would take any serious objection to giving the franchise to the men who are to-day in arms for the defence of the Empire. I know that from many constituencies a large number of men have gone

to the front, but I am thankful that I have never concerned myself about what their political affiliations may be. I have heard some persons express the opinion that most of the officers are of the Conservative faith, hut I do not agree in that view and I hope it is not so. I do believe that in the appointment of officers there has not been the slightest discrimination made on political grounds. The first intimation I had that war had been declared between Great Britain and Germany was from an officer in my county who called me by telephone and asked me to announce at once to the Minister of Militia that he offered his services to go to the front in any capacity that might be desired, and I assume that he was but one amongst hundreds of the officers of the active militia. I believe, Sir, that there are many Liberal officers at the front who will be called upon to look after the method in which these votes are recorded, and hon. gentlemen opposite need not insinuate that there is going to be such a terrible danger' that Conservative officers only will be placed in charge of this work.


William Manley German: The hon. member for
South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) thinks there has been too much discussion already on this Bill, but fet him remember that as to the very first clause which we have been considering most of the day, the Minister of Justice has admitted that it was presented in such a crude state that it is necessary to allow it to stand for further consideration. The discussion of the Bill has not been in vain. In my opinion, this Bill is bristling with difficulties and every section will have to be considered carefully, so that I apprehend that it will take not only to-day but perhaps several other days to get it into shape, so that the soldiers at the front, the soldiers in Bermuda, and the soldiers mobilized in Canada, can vote properly and have their vote surrounded with such safeguards as to afford that protection which every honest voter desires. The hon. gentleman, therefore, is mistaken in thinking we have taken up too much time in discussing this Bill.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me; I did not refer to the discussion on the details of the Bill, but to the objections raised by hon. gentlemen opposite to giving soldiers votes.


William Manley German: So far as any objection
to giving soldiers votes is concerned, that was decided when the second reading of the Bill passed, and we are now in committee
endeavouring to provide some workable machinery to carry it out.
I would just call the attention of the Minister of Justice to one possibility under section 2. This section provides that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall send to the officer in command of each military base in Canada in which volunteers are serving in the present war, and to the officer in command of the Canadian troops at Bermuda, the necessary ballot papers, affidavits and envelopes. As stated by my hon. friend from Queens and Sunbury (Mr. H. H. McLean), sections 2 and 3 are so closely dovetailed that they must be considered to some extent together. Has this contingency suggested itself to the Minister of Justice? The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery sends these documents to the officer in command of the Canadian troops in Bermuda, let us say, immediately after this House is prorogued-no time is fixed, and these' papers could be sent as soon as printed. We understand that there are twelve hundred Canadian troops there who would have a right to vote under this Act. That officer is supposed to keep these ballots, affidavits and envelopes, in his own possession until the writ for the election is issued. Suppose, as might very easily be the ease-and we must provide as well as we can for all contingencies-the officer in command of the Canadian troops in Bermuda is exchanged. He wants to go to the front, and he is sent to the front while the Canadian troops are left in Bermuda. Suppose he takes these papers with him. There is no direction as to what the officer shall do with these ballots, affidavits and envelopes. Nothing is provided in this Act, and I take it that no command from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery can affect the officer. He acts voluntarily, and he can use these papers or not, as he sees fit. Suppose a British officer is sent to take command of the Canadian troops in Bermuda, one who knows nothing about this Act. The change is not called to the attention of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. When an election is called, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery sends this cablegram:	" Writ for election is
issued." But the officer in command who receives that cablegram knows nothing about it; he lias no ballot papers and no knowledge of this law-does not know what has taken place nor what his duties are. There is no authority in this Parliament to impose on him any obligation to do anything with regard to these papers. In that case will the vote of the sold;er#

in Bermuda be taken? This section will have to be changed, it seems to me, to provide for a contingency of that kind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are many contingencies that might be suggested. All these voters might die before the elections.


William Manley German: Does not the minister think that is rather far-fetched?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is almost as farfetched as the suggestion of the hon. member, but not quite. The officer in command, if he is called to England, will cease To be the officer in command. He will have received these papers in his official capacity. No doubt he has other documents in charge in his official capacity. He will receive under another provision of this Bill, copies of this law. I think we can safely assume that he has sufficient intelligence and sufficient honesty-


William Manley German: I am not questioning his honesty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -and sufficient ordinary everyday common sense not to take these papers to England. Equally so I think we can assume that the new officer coming to take over the command will take possession of these documents under the law and will ascertain what his duties are. Moreover, these changes in commanding officers will be known to the department here, and we can assume that if it is necessary to communicate the fact of a change of officers, that communication will be made to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. I must say I am lost in admiration at the ingenuity with which the hon. gentleman discovers things that might happen to defeat this law. There are many things that might happen to defeat the law, but I do think that there is no ground for serious apprehension in relation to the particular difficulties he suggests.


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman must remember that every contingency of that kind is provided for in the Elections Act of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: I desire to ask the minister a question. Section 2 provides for "a sufficient supply of ballot papers in form A." Turing to form A, I find that three places are provided for marking the ballot: first, "I vote for the Government;" second, ''I vote for the Opposition;" third, "I vote for the independent candidate." Is there any special reason, or was any special reason adduced before the committee, why it should read, "I vote for the 
Government.," and, "I vote for the Opposition," instead of, "I vote for the Conservative candidate," "I vote for the Liberal candidate?" Did the hon. gentleman think it was a better lure to say "Government" and a bigger scarecrow to say "Opposition" or was there some other special reason?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Speaking for one member of that committee, I can say he did not think about lures, still less about scarecrows.


Jacques Bureau: We may think anything.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the hon. gentleman is absolutely at liberty to attribute to the Government and to myself all sorts of schemes and contrivances which his vivid and powerful imagination may suggest. But, as he asks me the question, I answer absolutely and unqualifiedly that, as I have said, I gave no thought to lures or scarecrows. I never thought that it would make any difference to the intelligent voters for whom the ballots are intended. It evidently makes a difference to the hon. gentleman, but it never occurred to me that to the intelligent voter it would make the slighest difference whether I said "Government" or "Conservative party," "Opposition" or "Liberal party."


Jacques Bureau: The super-intelligence
that framed this Bill might be too high for apprehension of an idea that would strike an ordinary mind. Let me give the Minister of Justice a case in point. In 1911 we had a general election. In the province of Quebec we had deferred elections; one in Chicoutimi and Saguenay. Before September 21 the Government was a Liberal Government, but after September 21 the Liberal party, who had nominated a certain gentleman as a candidate, found that he had slipped through their fingers. I am not personally aware of the fact, but I was told that he had wired the right hon. leader of the Government that he wanted to be on the Opposition side until the new Government was sworn in.	Practically speaking, the
Liberals, although not in power, were running the affairs of the country until October. When the election started there was a Conservative and a Liberal candidate in the field. What about the case where the soldier or absentee voter votes for the Opposition and there is no Liberal candidate in the field? The hon. Minister of Justice may be wdtty or funny in this matter, but I want an answer to my question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Tlie hon. member's
question was: did I see a lure in the word "Government" and a scarecrow in the word "Opposition"?


Jacques Bureau: I did not say that; I asked why you provided for the forms "vote for the Government" and "vote for the Opposition." I must be right, because the hon. gentleman flares up at the words "lure" and "scarecrow."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was a moment ago accused of being witty; now I am accused of flaring up. Which did I do?


Jacques Bureau: Both.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I can counterbalance the compliment to my wit against the criticism of my flaring up, and thus dispose of both. The hon. gentleman wants to know why it is that we provide for the voting in this way. We all know under the law what the Government is, and we also know what the Opposition is. When we go to the country, the great issue before the people will be whether the Government has been administering the affairs of this country for the last few years in such manner that it is deserving of the continued confidence of the people. Therefore it seemed to me that we were providing, in as effective a way as we could devise, for voting upon the great substantial issue between the parties.


Jacques Bureau: What about the independent candidate? He is not recognized by law.


Mr DOHERTY:: We conceived that there might be a candidate in some cases who did not claim to support either the Government or the Opposition, and while the law does not deal with such candidate, that is a condition which, I think, should be intelligible to anybody without explanation. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Maisonneuve might have complained that we had forgotten him if we had not provided for an independent candidate. The soldiers, as intelligent men, will know that there may be an independent candidate who does not take sides as 'between Government and Opposition.


Jacques Bureau: How would the minister act in a case such as the one which I have mentioned in regard to the election in Chicoutimi and Saguenay in 1911?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a provision in the Act that when any difficulty or doubt arises as to who is the candidate entitled to be designated as the Government candidate or who is the candidate entitled to be designated as the Opposition candidate, the matter shall be determined by the leaders of the respective parties.


Jacques Bureau: How would you advise the returning officers to count the votes in a case like tlie one which I have cited?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Government is undoubtedly the Government that goes to the country; that is the way I would decide it.


Alphonse Verville: One of my objections to this Bill is its provision that the voter shall vote for the Government or for the Opposition. At the next general election you may have as candidates, socialists, nationalists, labour men, who are very proud of their respective parties. It has been suggested that it is better to vote for the party than for the man. I take issue with that view; I do not believe'in it. The policy of a Government is liable to change in a very few months. While the soldiers who have gone to the front may have known something albout the policy of the Government when they left, if the policy of the Government changes-as a matter of fact, the policy of the Government has changed since the soldiers left-they	may vote for
what they believe	to	be	the
policy of the Government, but which really is not the policy of the Government. Suppose you have an election in this country and the fiscal policy of the Government has changed very materially. The fiscal policy is everything with the people; it is the fundamental basis of the cost of living. These men may vote for the Government, believing that the Government still adhere to their old policy, whereas if they knew of the change they would vote against the Government. Of course, it would be difficult to have meetings in the trenches, and as to sending literature to the soldiers, I have seen so many kinds of literature that I do not believe in it. As to the soldiers who are in Canada, I ask the minister if he will allow me or anybody else to go among the soldiers and explain what has happened during the last few months, or further back? It is not more than fair that this should be done. It has been stated that if you adopt the principle of this Bill you open the door for discussion among the soldiers. These men are entitled to know before they cast their votes what really is the policy that they are voting for. It may be said that they will be allowed to attend political meetings during

the course of an election, but T am not sure that they would be allowed to attend meetings of that kind. Besides, if the minister attempts to trespass on the rights of the Minister of Militia he will have a hard time. The Minister of Labour knows something about that; he knows what it is to try even to do his duty in respect of labour conditions when the Minister of Militia has something to say in the matter. I suppose, therefore, that the soldiers will be forbidden to attend any such meetings. In case of a general election next summer those men would not know the fiscal policy of the Government. I emphasize that, because I claim that the new fiscal policy of the Government, with the increase of tariff, is far more important than many of the people of Canada imagine. It is the basis of the cost of living, and I will explain this in my neighbourhood to the best of my ability. It makes no difference to me whether soldiers' votes are polled in my constituency. I am not in favour of having men vote for or against the Government, because, as many men on both sides of the House who will acknowledge, the personality of the candidate has a great deal to do with the result of an election. For this reason I think that we should vote not for the Government or the Opposition, but for a representative. We are voting for the man who we believe will best represent our ideas in Parliament. The man has everything to do with it. In effect this Bill says: simply choose anybody, whether he can speak or think makes no difference provided he is a man who belongs to the Government side or the Opposition side. Then if he gets a majority of the vote, under this Bill he is elected. I do not think that is right. I claim that the people in St. A*nne vote for the Minister of Justice they do not vote for his party; they vote for the man, and he knows it; of course he does. Those soldiers who are in Canada should surely have a chance to vote not for the party, but for the candidate. This is very important and it seems to me that we should have a chance to speak to these men before the election. I am not speaking for myself; the Government may bring on an election to-morrow so far as I am concerned; I am ready. I have even got my lists ready; I did not even wait for the Government. Put in 500 soldier votes against me in my division and it will make no difference. I am pretty safe, so far as that is concerned. I claim that we are in duty bound to explain 
the policy under which the country is going to be administered in future years. That is exactly what our soldiers on the other side will not know rnything about. My hon. friend knows that they are not allowed to read the papers every day. Where will they get time to read the papers? The fact is that it may be better for them not to read the papers. They are under discipline and must submit to that discipline. Then, in many - cases the men may consult the commanding officer as to how they should cast their votes; they may ask him if he knows anything about the Government, what has been done, wnether there has been any change in the situation. If a commanding officer is consulted in this way, what will he say?' Will he say: I do not know anything about it? If he says that the soldiers may say: Well, we do not know anything either, and we will not vote. Suppose the Minister of Justice were an officer, with all due respect for him, and he had a certain number of men under his command and some man came to him and said:	Officer, I would like to
know something about this election:	I
have a ballot here and am supposed to cast my vote for or against the Government but I know nothing about it. Then the minister might be tempted. By all means let him tell the man the conditions; but it is possible that if he happened to be either a Liberal or a Conservative he would lean towards that side in his explanations. That is human nature.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would he not do that
if he were at home?


Alphonse Verville: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is the soldier in the
trenches in any different position as to voting from the man at home? Any man who happens to be a Liberal or a Conservative may say to the voter at home what he thinks about the situation. If an officer in a regiment at home were asked by a soldier what he thought, he might express his political views. Is it any worse for him to do so when he is abroad? Surely it would not be suggested that we ought to stop all conversation on political questions between the officers and their men.


Alphonse Verville: We must bear in mind that the officer will be indirectly a kind of returning officer. He will have the ballots to distribute and so will be indirectly a returning officer. I do not want to deal with that side of the question so much, because I know the difficulty we are up against. I would like to see a change in the provision

respecting those soldiers who will be in the country at the time of an election. It seems to me that they should have the full power to go and vote where they have a right to vote, or that the machinery should be arranged in such a way that they could be made thoroughly familiar with the real conditions and then have a chance to vote for the condidate and not for the Government or the Opposition. Why should we not give a chance for the Socialists, who are numerous in British Columbia, to vote for their own candidates? They should be permitted to vote for their own men. Then if there are Nationalists in Quebec, they should also be given a chance. We have some twenty of them in the House, that is, so-called. Let us give them a chance wherever they are. Such a plan would be more applicable to the real conditions existing in Canada to-day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know whether
the hon. member was in at the time, but in response to a suggestion of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) I did say that we would consider a suggestion which he made which looked to providing machinery whereby soldiers still in Canada at the time of an election would vote as nearly as possible as they would vote in the ordinary course. It may be possible that they would have to do that voting not in their own district, but the idea was that means should be provided to collect their ballots. As to the opportunities of soldiers of that class to hear discussions, I am quite sure that neither the Minister of Militia nor any of the military authorities would seek to interfere with soldiers attending such meetings as they desired to attend, when they were not on duty. As to the question whether they will have time from their duty to attend meetings, after all, they will be- in the same position as all other employees who have to take time from their occupations to attend meetings. I am anxious that the soldier shall have every opportunity of informing himself like everybody else, and I certainly think that soldiers here in Canada would be as well informed on current events as any other men. As to the soldier on the other side, I think that some hon. gentlemen have an exaggerated idea of the absolute persistency with which he is supposed to be in the trench shooting or being shot at.


Alphonse Verville: I did not say that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: From the point of view of his having time to read or get information, I may be quite mistaken, but I am not aware that there is any disposition to prevent information from reaching the soldier. I think hon. gentlemen have quite an exaggerated idea of the depth of ignorance of the soldier on the'other side as to what is going on here in Canada. The soldiers receive letters and, I have no doubt, newspapers and other documents from their friends in Canada, and I am sure that they will be fully informed on events in this country. If any of us were away from Canada under the same circumstances as they are, we would be only too glad and happy to avail ourselves of every source of information in regard to events at home.
I think that the soldiers over there will be fairly well informed as to what is going on lere.


Mr. PROULX:: One defect in this Bill, which has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville), is that it provides only for a vote for or against the Government or for an Independent; and it gives the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition power to elect representatives to this House. It might easily happen that both candidates in a constituency were of the same party. It happened in my. own constituency in 1908; my opponent was a Liberal. Suppose that there are only a few votes difference (between the two candidates, and that there are enough soldiers' votes to decide the election. Then the party leader has power to say which candidate shall be elected; the candidate in that case would be selected, not by the electors, but by the leader of one of the parties. This is not a democratic measure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Those soldiers have said that they want to vote for the man who will follow that leader, and that leader determines which is the man who will follow him.


Edmond Proulx: Under the British constitution and under our own, which i3 modelled on the British,, the personal equation has to be taken into consideration. When the candidates ask for the suffrages of the electors, the electors vote for the one in whom they have confidence, and who they think will support one particular party. But still they are not sure that he will support that party; for after the candidate is elected he has carte blanche; he is perfectly at liberty to decide which party he will support. The electors, however, have

confidence in him; but under this Bill they would have to trust the party leader.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it were possible to secure a situation where all the soldiers should actually know who were the candidates, I do not suggest that under those circumstances this measure would be preferable. This method is suggested only because, as regards the men who go overseas at all events, it seemed impossible to devise an arrangement whereby they could have knowledge of who it was that had been nominated, and then send in their votes in time to be counted on election day. When we were considering the matter in the committee, a suggestion was made which, if I had been alone in the committee, would have been acted upon, that we should give the man a fourth alternative; that is to say, that we should put a fourth space giving the soldier the privilege of saying: I vote for So-and-so, leaving a blank space so that the soldier could fill in the name of the man for whom he wanted to vote. If that commends itself to this committee, I should be disposed to do that, because it would give the soldier an opportunity to vote for a particular man; and though, of course, the soldier would be voting without the certainty that the particular man would actually be nominated, at the same time, with regard to a considerable number of electoral districts, he would be fairly safe in his anticipation that that particular man 'was to be a candidate. I shall be glad to get as near as possible in every respect, so far as the soldiers overseas are concerned, to' the conditions that would prevail if they were at home and able to exercise their vote; but the suggestion of voting for or against the Government or for an independent candidate was thought to be the nearest thing that could be done in cases where it was impossible for a man to know who the candidates were. I might say that this method was followed in the New Zealand Act.


Frank Oliver: When I was speaking some time ago I used the expression that I was willing to let the soldiers vote, but unwilling to let the Government count the vote. That expression has been taken up by other members, and the Minister of Justice has challenged the correctness of the phrase, and suggested that there is no provision in the Bill whereby the Government can count the vote. I wish to take issue with the minister on that point. I ask him who does count the vote if it is not the returning officer, who is an ap-
pointee of the Government? Therefore, the Government does, in fact, count the vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Government counts all the votes.


Frank Oliver: Yes. But let me point out the difference between the conditions under which the Government, through the returning officer, counts the votes cast under this Bill, and the conditions under which the returning officer counts the votes under ordinary circumstances. In an ordinary election the ballots are marked and put in a ballot box under the active and direct supervision of scrutineers, sworn and bodily present, who watch the proceedings very carefully to see that what is intended by the voter shall be carried out by the deputy returning officer. When the poll is closed in the presence of those scrutineers, the ballot box is opened and the ballots counted in the presence of those same scrutineers; so that the country is not dependent upon the honesty of the deputy returning officer for an accurate count. He is subject to the check of the presence and activity of the scrutineers of the interested parties. But in the case of this Bill the ballots are sent to the returning officer at some time previous to the day of the count, and they are in charge of the returning officer for the intervening period.
I need not enlarge upon the possibilities of what might be done by the returning officer during the period in which those ' ballots are exclusively in his charge without let or hindrance or observation from any other person whatsoever. My hon. friend will say that I am casting an aspersion upon returning officers. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have had experiences of returning officers, and of actions by our Government, that warrant us in being suspicious under those circumstances.


Mr. ROGERS:: What experiences?


Frank Oliver: I will come to that presently. If it were proposed to insert in the Dominion Elections Act a provision parallel to this, whereby the ballots which have been cast on election day should be sealed up and remain in the charge of the returning officer without any observation by the scrutineers, would the minister approve of such an amendment? Would he not be ready to admit that we were placing responsibility upon or confidence in the returning officer that we should not place upon or in him? Now what is the difference between the re-

turning officer under ordinary circumstances and the returning officer under the circumstances contemplated by this Bill?


Mr. STEVENS:: Under our present law is it not the practice for the returning officers to bring in the ballots from distant points- at all events, in Western Canada and Eastern Ontario?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend surely knows how the balloting is conducted. The ballots are marked and handed to the deputy returning officer or the poll clerk, in the presence of the scrutineers of the different parties. They are placed in the ballot box in the presence of those scrutineers, and when the polls close the ballot box is emptied and the ballots counted in the presence of those scrutineers, [DOT]and the count is forthwith issued. The process is entirely under the scrutiny of interested parties, and there are no chances as to what shall occur before the ballots are given, at any rate, their first count; whereas, in the case of this ballot, the box remains in the hands of the returning officer from the time he has received it until the poll is closed on polling day.


William Manley German: The ballots are not in *a box?


Frank Oliver: No, they are not. That is not a proper protection for the people of Canada ih the conduct of an election.


Mr. BLAIN:: " When are they counted?


Frank Oliver: When the poll is closed on polling day, the returning officer opens these ballots and counts them.


Richard Blain: In the presence of whom?


Frank Oliver: In the presence, I presume, of the scrutineers.


Richard Blain: The same as with other ballots?


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether that is so or not, 'but that makes no difference to my point. My point is that these ballots have been in the possession, and under the sole responsibility, of the returning officer for an indefinite period, and none of the parties to the election besides himself has any means of preventing these ballots from being tampered with.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Is that not so in the ease of a recount under the present condition?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but the ballots have already been counted in the presence of the scrutineers before the appeal is taken.


Avard Longley Davidson: In the case of a recount, while the final count is pending, the ballots are still in the custody of the returning officer, and may be tampered with?


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly, but the ballots have be n counted in the presence of the scrutineers, and a certificate has already been issued as to the result of the polling. There is no question as to the actual count, because in such a case there can Be no dispute, but as to the ballots as to which there may be some measure of dispute, all these ballots are counted in the original count by the deputy returning officer before the scrutineers, and if they are not found in the ballot box when the recount takes place it is absolute evidence that the ballot box has been tampered with.


Richard Blain: After the soldier votes the ballot must be returned to some individual. Whom would my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) suggest in place of the returning officer? Has my hon. friend any suggestion to make as to the form in which the ballot should be returned, if this proposal is not satisfactory?


Frank Oliver: I am not making any suggestions. I am replying to the assertion of the minister that the Government does not count the votes, I am pointing out that the Government does count the votes.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend takes objection to the Bill as it has been introduced by the minister particularly because in this case the ballot is left in the possession of an individual. In what other way would my hon. friend suggest that it should be taken care of which would give greater security?


Frank Oliver: I am not making suggestions at this moment, but at the beginning of the consideration of the Bill I did make the suggestion that if it was desired that the soldiers should vote, and that they should vote under ordinary conditions, they could be given their qualification to vote wherever they were on election day.


Richard Blain: What about the old country?


Frank Oliver: I was speaking, of course, only of those in Canada. That is the only way I can see to actually protect the public right as well as the right of the individual soldier. In that way it would be absolutely

protected. There are reasons against that being done which were stated by the minister, and I am not arguing on that point. But I have pointed out to the House a method whereby a soldier in Canada might exercise his franchise just as any other citizen would do, or as he would do if he were not a soldier, and the right of the public in regard to the casting of his ballot is protected.	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would like to get clearly just what the method is. Does that mean that a soldier in Halifax should be allowed to go to Vancouver?


Frank Oliver: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I understand it to mean that on the lines of the suggestion of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) we should provide at the military place where the man is, means by which he can vote in Canada.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the suggestion made by my hon. friend from South Renfrew, I might point out that there is just that undesirability I have already mentioned, that if a ballot is marked in Halifax to be counted in Vancouver, it must necessarily be sent to Vancouver and be held in the hands of the returning officer without check by any other party for such an indefinite period that there will not in my mind be proper or adequate protection for the sanctity of the ballot.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Has the hon. gentleman any suggestion to make in addition to that?


Frank Oliver: I did make the suggestion at the beginning of the consideration of the first paragraph that if the soldier were allowed to cast his vote at the place, and in the electoral division, in which he was situated at the actual time of voting, exactly as any other citizen and under the same conditions and safeguards, his right and privilege would be protected and the public right to a proper exercise of the franchise would also be protected. I am not making that suggestion to the minister; I am stating a simple fact. The minister shows reasons why that would not be a good wiay to deal with the question and I appreciate his reasons. My hon! friend from South Renfrew made another suggestion which has in it certainly very many elements of advantage, a number of which advantages the Minister of Justice suggested. But there is still that difficulty that I mentioned and I do not think that it would be proper for me to agree

to the provisions of the Bill unless I drew the attention of the minister to it. I do not wish to argue that point at the moment, but I was merely arguing the point that, as a matter of fact, the Government does, count the votes. That is the point I want to put forward and that is why I say I object to the Bill. I do not object to the soldier voting, but I do object to the Government counting the votes when nobody else has a chance to check the Government or its officers in doing so.
In sections 2 and 3 it was provided that the ballots shall be sent to the commanding officer, and then that they shall be distributed by the commanding officer to some other officer, who shall, as a matter of practice, act as the deputy returning officer. He will hand out the ballot to the soldier and will receive back the ballot and the necessary affidavit. As the section reads, certainly the Government has the authority and the responsibility without let or hindrance of deciding who shall be the deputy returning officer who shall actually hand out these ballots, receive them and forward them in. I do not wish to make suggestions, but I think there was a suggestion made by the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean) that there should be some specific officer who, without the choice of the Government, would automatically be. the man to handle that responsibility. That. I think, would be a very decided improvement, but I am taking the Bill as it is, not as it is going to be improved, and I say that when the Government takes the right to pick out whomever it pleases amongst its officers on the ground to act as deputies it is most essentially taking measures to see that only the right votes come in.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) does not wish to be unfair, and I would like to point this out to him. If he will look at the Bill he will find that, while the proposition may not be an effective proposition in his view, it does not take into the hands of the Government the selection of particular officers. We even exclude the High Commissioner from intervention, so that nobody who is of the Government should figure in this, and we made the secretary of the High Commissioner-an officer whom this Government did not appoint-the man who ex officio would take this thing on himself. We left it in his hands-although it inay not be sufficiently definitely stated in the

Bill-to transmit these 'ballots to the proper officers for distribution, and then we provided that any commissioned officer might do this. I think as drafted the Bill is too indefinite on that point and that it requires to be made precise, but it certainly does not afford grounds for the very serious imputation the hon. gentleman has put upon those who drafted the Bill. I have asked my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) for suggestions as to other and better safeguards, and I am willing to put them in, but he persists in saying that this is a deep-lSid scheme to find a way by which the Government will control the men, when all that I am looking for is a method by which this can be done toy persons acting ex officio and not those whom the Government would pick out. And the hon. gentleman does all this to get to the very remote conclusion that the Government counts the ballots. He seems to think there is something criminal about that. I would like to point out to him that perhaps the Bill does not provide proper machinery to take care of the ballots on their way to be counted, but the Government certainly does not count them any more than it counts all the ballots in all the elections, which are counted by the returning officers; and these ballots are also to be counted by the returning officers. I am satisfied that the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair, but I hardly think it is fair for him to continue putting the imputations on those who drafted this Bill, of having drafted it with a view of manipulating it in the most absolutely and utterly dishonest way conceivable, and with a view of placing themselves in a position where, if the suggestion of my hon. friend has any foundation, they are supposed to go out and see if they can find among our military officers men capable of every trick and device to destroy the genuineness of these ballots. I hardly think that is a fair line of argument.


Frank Oliver: There is no member of this House against whom I would be less inclined to make aspersions than the Minister of Justice. I am sorry that what I have said seems to have created on him the impression which he has stated to the House. But we are here on very responsible business; we have very serious duties to perform and while I ivant to eliminate any personal idea from what I have to say, I must take facts as I find them. I do not wish to show any personal animosity.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There was most certainly no intention of any personal animosity on my part.


Frank Oliver: I know that, and I know that the minister has been very fair and very reasonable in everything he has said, but I must take this view: this is not the Bill of a committee; this is the Bill of the Government of which my hon. friend is the Minister of Justice, and of which Bill he is the responsible father. This Bill was introduced by resolution on the authority of His Royal Highness the Governor-General.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not convenient to proceed with this Bill this evening, and I therefore move that the committee rise.


Robert Rogers: The reason being, that following the usual custom we will take private bills after eight o'clock and then
Estimates, as we want to get through the balance of the Estimates.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Post Office Department, 1913-14-contingencies-clerical and other assistance-further amount required, $2,500.
['When I was Minister of Public Works the necessity for a public building in this town was strongly pressed on me, and after giving it most careful attention, I concluded that the town, because of its population and importance, was much more entitled to a public building than many others which had secured public buildings. I had an appropriation put in the Estimates and I actually purchased the site, but delay was caused by some legal dispute which arose regarding the boundaries of the property. Had it not been for the unfortunate result of the election, that building would have been erected long ago.\nResolutions reported.']
George Perry Graham: That money has been
expended, I suppose?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Will the Postmaster General please tell me who is the postmaster at Grande Prairie, what is his salary, from whom is the post office building rented, and what allowance does he receive on account of it?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have not that information here. I will send it to the hon. gentleman to-morrow.
Post Office, 1913-14-outside service-salaries -further amount required, $372,600.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This money is nearly
all expended. The Estimates were made up in September, 1913, and in consequence no provision was made for the salaries of the current year for those taken on after that date. By reason of the expansion of the service, as I explained on my Main Esti-
[DOT]2296

mates, we were obliged to take on a number of employees,- and this is the amount required to pay them.
Mr. MARCH.:	Would the hon. minister please give particulars?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The new employees
were distributed as follows: railway mail clerks, 100; mail transfer agents, 30; clerks and messengers in superintendents' offices, 17; clerks, messengers and porters in inspectors' offices, 39; clerks, letter carriers, messengers and porters in city post offices, 726.


Charles Marcil: Are these appointments
all permanent?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Has the department still
the system of taking on so-called labourers as temporary employees and afterwards drafting them into the permanent service?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, we take on temporary clerks.


Charles Marcil: Can one of these he appointed to the permanent service without examination?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He is appointed for six months as a provisional clerk, after which he passes an examination.	*


Charles Marcil: Has the minister had time to look into the question I brought to his attention regarding a postal sub-office on Sherbrooke street in Montreal?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The inspector is now making an investigation of the matter, and we are awaiting his report.


Charles Marcil: I have received letters from a number of those interested, including Lt.-Colonel Baker, who took a great interest in the matter and worked unceasingly on it, calling on postmasters in Montreal and getting numerous petitions asking that some postal convenience of this kind be given to this district. At present, except for the ordinary letter-boxes on the street, there are no postal facilities. Sherbrooke is a main thoroughfare and a very busy one, yet it is without postal facilities. Also I have a letter from a leading citizen of Westmount with regard to the post office at the corner of Victoria avenue and Sherbrooke street. This gentleman, who is a former alderman and a leading citizen of Westmount, and greatly interested in the locality, makes the suggestion that when the department decides to provide better post office accommodation for his locality,

it should place the post office on Sherbrooke street instead of on Victoria avenue, because Victoria avenue is not of such great relative importance as formerly.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We will certainly consider the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


Alphonse Verville: I would suggest to the Postmaster General that in future when he opens a small post office in Montreal, it should not be in a store that is closed three nights a week at six o'clock, and early in the other evenings. I do not want to complain of those already there, but the hon. gentleman knows that very often post offices are placed in drug stores which is a convenience to the public, as these stores are open in the evening. One change was made for which I was very sorry. The Government thought they were taking the post office away from a Liberal. As a matter of fact, the man was a Conservative. It is true, I recommended him, but I did so because his store was the best situated place in the parish for a post office.
I desire to put another question for information. Suppose that a person desires to send a registered letter to a member of the House, is it necessary for him to put on it a two-cent stamp and a five cent stamp for registration?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As to ihe latter question, it is not necessary to put a registration stamp on a letter addressed to a member during the session. As to post offices in stores that are closed in the evening, the hon. gentleman will realize that it is not always possible to find a store conveniently situated for a post office that is open after six olclock. Where possible the department places post offices in drug stores, because they are kept open in the evening. That is the policy of the department. I think that what the hon. gentleman says is correct, and I will try to carry out his suggestion.


Alphonse Verville: They took a post office away from a drug store the proprietor of which happened to be a Conservative.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When?


Alphonse Verville: A couple of years ago; it was not under the administration of the present minister. A requisition bearing many names was sent to the department for the opening of a post office, in a drug store which was on the corner of a street. The post office was opened in a dry goods store, three hundred feet away from the corner.

The reason why I asked as to the sending of a registered letter to a member of the House is that at the very post office to which I referred they compelled a correspondent who was sending a letter, to me to pay two cents for postage and five cents for registration. In answer to my correspondent's question, I said that this was absolutely unnecessary.


Charles Marcil: 1 desire to ask with regard to the sale of stamps on Sunday when, as the minister knows, in Montreal, cigar stores and fruit stores are open. I applied for a stamp at a fruit store and was told that they were not sold on Sunday. Has the department any rule to that effect?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I see no objection to the sale of these stamps by tobacconists and druggists.


Charles Marcil: What I want to know is whether it is against the law to sell these stamps on Sundays?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, it is not.


Charles Marcil: Are the war stamps out yet?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, we are issuing them now.


Charles Marcil: Are they to be used at once?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Not until the 15th.


William Frederic Kay: At the present time rural mail carriers and stage drivers are paid only once every three months. As a rule their salaries are small, and in many cases they have to discount their cheques, as it were, in order to deal with the storekeeper and the moneylender, and when they receive their cheques they have to pay a considerable amount in the way of interest. I would suggest to the minister that he take into consideration the advisability of paying these men every month.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am informed by the officers of my department that reports are made by inspectors before the mail carriers are paid; and it would be impossible, with the service that we now have at our disposal, to have reports made and the men paid every month.


Charles Marcil: I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that no rural mail route has been established in my constituency. A few years ago a route was laid out by the late Postmaster General from New Richmond railway station around to 145
New Richmond and Little Cascapedia. Tenders were called for, but no contract was awarded, because the amount proposed to be charged for the service was too high. This is rather disappointing, as New Richmond is one of the most promising localities in the constituency. Has the minister taken any steps in the matter, in the way of calling for tenders or introducing a service in that district?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am told that it was impossible to make a contract at a reasonable price for the carrying of the mail. There may be some very special circumstances why this has been the case, and if my hon. friend can give me any information on the subject I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Charles Marcil: I understand that the
lowest tender was $1,000, and that the department considered that to be too high. Has the department taken no steps since then?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am informed that
nothing further has been done. The $1,000 was considered by the department to be too high.


William John Macdonald: I received a letter
from my constituency with reference to a condition that has been created by the establishment of a rural mail delivery in * that district. The minister will remember that I was in communication with him in regard to a rural mail delivery route which was asked for last year, and in respect to which, through some error, the answer was given that this route had not been applied for. In the adjoining district a rural mail route has been laid out from River John through the district of Hodson, returning to the village of River John. It was probably intended to afford facilities to a number of the people who have been getting their mail from Hodson post office through this rural mail delivery route, which is still hung up. With the establishment of the rural mail route from River John to Hodson, the Hodson post office has been closed, and the result is that ten or fifteen people who are not on the rural mail route and who' would be on the proposed route if it were established, are not supplied with facilities for getting their mail and are obliged to go a long distance to the nearest office. I would suggest to the minister that the post office at Hodson be opened until the matter respecting the proposed rural mail delivery route to which I have referred is satisfactorily arranged.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think that that is a reasonable request, and I will look into it immediately.
Mail service-ordinary land service, including rural mail delivery; further amount required, $365,000.


Frank Oliver: I would ask the minister to urge on his colleague the Minister of Public Works the desirability of spending the appropriation that has been in the Estimates for the last three or four years, a small matter of $5,000, for the erection of a building at Athabaska Landing which will accommodate the post office and telegraph and land offices, on the ground that the accommodation is urgently necessary for post office purposes.


Robert Rogers: I am sorry that the hon. member for Edmonton should be in doubt about this matter; I thought I made a definite promise the other night that I would go on with that work.


Frank Oliver: I hope I may take this as a definite promise.


Robert Rogers: It was definite before.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I will endeavour to see that my hon. friend keeps his promise.
Mail service by railways-further amount required, $300,000.


Frank Oliver: I presume that the Postmaster General is aware' of representations that have been made in regard to the carrying of mails to Prince George. For some time after the opening of the railway the mail was carried from Vancouver to Prince George by all-rail route via Edmonton. I understand that recently that has been abandoned and the old route by stage from Ashcroft has been adopted. It has been represented to me by the Board of Trade of Edmonton that the change is not in the interest of Prince George or more particularly of Edmonton, that the service by way of Ashcroft is not nearly as efficient or as satisfactory and that the former conditions should be reverted to. It is further represented that whatever is done between Ashcroft and St. George the mail service by way of Edmonton should have the preference.
Patrol of the northern waters of Canada- further amount required, $50,000.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister explain that?


Mr. HAZEN:: I explained the matter to the House when my Main Estimates were on. The trouble was that our appropriation last year was not large enough for the pur-

pose, and we require $50,000 more in consequence of the loss of the Karluk. The loss of the Karluk with the supplies carried by her necessitated the purchase of the steamer North Star and a quantity of supplies to complete outfitting. The relief of the party from the Karluk also necessitated certain expenditure not anticipated when the Estimate was made up for the present year. To meet these disbursements it is necessary to obtain a supplementary vote of $50,000.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister give
some more definite particulars than he gave on a former occasion in regard to the number, character, disposition and purpose of the vessels still in commission under that vote?


John Douglas Hazen: I thought I made a fairly definite statement, but I will give a further statement since August, 1913. In the month of August, 1913, the auxiliary schooner Karluk, carrying about half the members of the expedition and a large quantity of supplies, scientific outfits, etc., was caught in the ice some thirty miles off the Arctic coast of Alaska. The ice conditions that year were extremely bad in the Arctic, and no vessel was able to penetrate as far as Herschel island, the ships being held up to the westward of the boundary line between Alaska and Canada. After the Karluk had been held in the ice for some time it was presumed that she was stationary for the winter, and Mr. Stefansson, with three companions, Messrs. D. Jenness, A. McConnell and B. W. Wilkins, left the ship for exploring and hunting purposes and landed on the Alaskan shore. A heavy storm sprang up, the ice near the shore broke away and the Karluk drifted off and for the rest of the winter was carried by the ice in a westerly direction.
On January 11 the Karluk was crushed in the ice and sank. Every preparation had been made for such an event and the party landed safely on the ice with a full supply of provisions, munitions, fuel, etc., and a comfortable camp was established. At that time the sun was still below the horizon, which made travelling on the ice extremely difficult, and it was decided not to make for land until the return of the sun made travelling easier and safer. Land was visible from the shipwreck camp, which was presumed to be Wrangell island, but which turned out later to be Herald island.

Some members of the party chafed at the enforced inaction and were anxious to make an immediate move. Some of these men left the main party and in two detachments ventured out on the ice in an effort to reach land and safety. The members of these two detachments were never seen afterwards, although parties explored the ice and endeavoured to reach Herald island, a"d there is no doubt that, unfortunately, the eight men comprising these two detachments have perished.
The main party left camp on February 19 and reached Wrangell island on March 12. They brought up a large quantity of the supplies taken from the ship, built a house and camped there for the winter. Captain Bartlett, with one Eskimo and a dog team, left almost immediately for Siberia, which he reached after an arduous and venturesome journey across extremely rough ice with many open leads. After 17 days' travelling on the ice he landed about 50 miles west of North Cape on April 4. He then proceeded along the coast of Siberia and finally reached Emma harbour on May 16. Captain Bartlett's trip was a wonderful performance and is evidence of his courage and determination, and there is no doubt that the survivors of the Karluk owe their lives to his enterprise and endurance in his remarkable trip across the ice and along the coast of Si-, beria.
From Emma harbour Captain Bartlett was taken across Behring strait to St. Michael, Alaska, on the whaling steamer Herman, owned by Messrs. Liebes & Co. of San Francisco. This ship interrupted its trading and whaling venture to carry Captain Bartlett to a port from which he could communicate with the Canadian Government, and the thanks of the Government are due to the owners of the vessel for the kind act performed. Captain Bartlett immediately communicated ' with the Department of Naval Service at Ottawa and arrangements were promptly made for the relief of the marooned party. As a result of these arrangements during the summer of 1914 four ships endeavoured to reach Wrangell island to take off the wrecked men. These ships were the .United States revenue cutter Bear, engaged in the patrol of northern waters, the Russian Government steamer Tayrnur and the ice-breaking steamer Corwin and the trading and hunting .steamer King and Winge. After several attempts had been made by these vessels to reach Wrangell island, the 145}
King and Winge managed to reach the island in September and took off the survivors of the crew of the Karluk and a couple of days later transferred them to the United States revenue cutter Bear, which brought the party to Victoria.
To come back to Mr. Stefansson and his three companions, who landed from the Karluk in September, 1913, this party joined the other members of the expedition under Dr. Anderson who, with their ships, the Alaska and the Mary Sachs, were wintering at Collinson point, Alaska. A programme was then drawn up for the subsequent work of the party. It was arranged that in March, 1914, Mr. Stefansson would undertake an exploring trip on the ice in the Beaufort sea, with the intention of returning within about a month. Mr. Stefansson started on this trip rather late in the year and the ice was beginning to move. He intended proceeding north for a certain time and then returning to his starting point if possible. If, however, ice travel became difficult in that direction, he intended to travel to the east with the intention of reaching Bank's Land in the winter of 1914-15. He left instructions that in the summer of 1914 a vessel should be sent along the shores of Bank's Land to establish depots and erect beacons that would guide him on his return trip in the spring of 1915 if he was unable to reach the mainland before that date. These directions have been carried out. The vessel Mary Sachs, under Mr. Wilkins and Captain Bernard, left Hersohel island in the early part of August and touched at Baillie island on August 19; then headed for Bank's Land to carry out Mr. Stefans-son's instructions. The second party, "under Dr. Anderson, left Herschel island on August 10 and Baillie island August 21, on the vessels Alaska and North Star, and established headquarters on Coronation gulf, where they expected to carry out scientific investigations during the fall of 1914, the following winter, and the summer of 1915. It is expected that the expedition will return in the late fall of 1915 or the following winter.
The loss of the Karluk with the supplies carried by that vessel, necessitated the purchase of another ship, the North Star, and a quantity of supplies, in order to complete the outfit of the party. The relief of the party from the Karluk also entailed certain expense, and to meet these various disbursements it will be necessary to obtain a supplementary vote of $50,000.


Frank Oliver: When was the last word received from the North Star and the Mary Sachs?


John Douglas Hazen: It was some time ago, I do not remember the date exactly.


Frank Oliver: Would it be after or before the close of winter?


John Douglas Hazen: Before.


Frank Oliver: And no word has been heard since winter set in?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so. The department is expecting to hear word at any time. I will get the facts and give them to my hon. friend to-morrow.


Frank Oliver: What is the size and character of the North Star?


John Douglas Hazen: It was purchased at
Demarcation point from Mr. Anderson at a cost of $13,000. I have not the tonnage here.


Frank Oliver: Is it the same kind of boat as the Karluk?


John Douglas Hazen: I think it is a little larger, but I am judging by the price only. The Karluk cost $10,000, and the North Star $13,000. Other circumstances, of course, may account for the difference in price. Still, the North Star is a substantial vessel.


Frank Oliver: From what the minister has read, there would seem to be no reason for alarm in regard to the safety of Ste-fansson and the two men with him.


John Douglas Hazen: Alarm is felt for the safety of Stefansson, but not for those members of the party who are on the Mary Sachs, the Alaska, or the North Star. The hon. gentleman is probably aware that Captain Bartlett was in Ottawa after his return from the North, and he thinks it possible that Stefansson is safe; in fact, he says he will not be at all surprised if Stefansson is found; but at the same time I think there is reason for apprehension.


Frank Oliver: According to the programme mentioned by the minister, Stefansson was not expected to return until 1915. Have the preparations been made that he requested?


John Douglas Hazen: Everything has been done.


Frank Oliver: This is a matter of more than ordinary interest. Would the minister be good enough to inform the House upon what information from Captain Bartlett he thinks that Stefansson is possibly lost?


John Douglas Hazen: Captain Bartlett's idea, if I remember correctly, was that Stefansson should have reached the mainland at an earlier date. I gathered from Captain Bartlett that it was on that account that he thought there was reason for apprehension for Stefansson's safety.


Frank Oliver: Have arrangements been made or are they being made to have one or more of the vessels up in the North make an attempt to trace Stefansson during the coming summer?


John Douglas Hazen: Instructions have been given to that effect. In addition to that, all vessels that were known to be going up North, whether belonging to the United States or any other country, were asked to be on the look-out for any trace of Stefansson.


Frank Oliver: Which particular vessel will have charge of this search on behalf of the Canadian Government, and who will be in charge of it?


John Douglas Hazen: The Alaska, the Mary Sachs, and the North Star are up there now. I forget the names of the officers who are in charge, but whoever they are they will do all they can.


Frank Oliver: All three vessels have received instructions to make that search?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: At what time were these instructions sent up North? It is a long road up there.


John Douglas Hazen: The instructions have been sent, but I could not say just when.


Charles Marcil: I was rather surprised to learn from an answer given by the minister a few days ago, in reply to a question of mine, that the minister did not see his way clear to compensating the fishermen of Gaspe and Bonavenlure who suffered by the severe storm on the 4th of June last.


John Douglas Hazen: We have an item here.


Charles Marcil: But that is to compensate the relatives of those who were drowned. The minister, I understand, has decided not to allow anything to those fishermen who lost their boats and fishing gear. Many of these fishermen lost their boats and all their fishing gear right at the opening of the fishing season, and the loss handicapped them for the whole season. The minister knows that these fishermen

are not very wealthy, and I think it was rather unfortunate that he did not see his way clear to allowing them something. The storm was of unusual severity, the severest for many years, Dr. Wakeham says. The case of the fishermen is a most deserving one, and I think the minister should have allowed them something.
Mr. HiAZEN: My hon. friend is referring to the storm of unusual violence that swept over the northern part of New Brunswick and the Gaspe peninsula on the 4th of. June, 1914. There was some discussion of this matter on the day the House prorogued last year, but the facts were not then known. While there was serious loss of gear on the Quebec side there was no loss of life; but in Gloucester county, N.B., twelve fishermen were drowned. In two instances, a father and his two sons, and in another, a father and a son perished. Of the twelve persons who were drowned, six left widows. It has been represented that the conditions were such as to call for assistance from the
Federal Government, and it was urged that compensation should be made for loss of gear as well as assistance given to the widows and heirs of those who were drowned. My hon. friend knows that storms of considerable severity visit the different parts of the coast practically every year and cause serious destruction and loss of fishing equipment. While the storm my hon. friend has referred to was much severer than usual, if compensation were given for gear lost, similar consideration would have to be accorded to all fishermen who lose gear on account of stormy weather. It was considered that assistance could reasonably be given only to the heirs of the twelve persons who were drowned. The storm occurred at the beginning of the fishing season, so that those who might be depending on the persons who were drowned had received practically no earnings from them that year. The sum of $200 was paid to the widows, families or lawful heirs of each person drowned during that storm. The following is a list of the names and the amounts paid:
.Name of Fisherman.
ProspSre Albert	
Martin P. Albert	
Oliver Paulin	
Joseph	
M. LeBouthillier	
Joseph D. Boudreau	
Pierre LeBouthillier	
Fred Chasson	
J. B. Albert	
J. TSriault	
Fred Terriault	
TliSophile Dugas	
Cheques were made out to the names given in the list and forwarded to the fishery officer for distribution. The feeling was that if we gave compensation for loss of gear in this case we would be bound to make compensation for loss of gear in every storm that might take place. That principle has not been acted upon by this Parliament in the past, and I hesitated to establish a precedent.


Charles Marcil: I quite agree with the
statement of the minister. Although I regret that he was unable to see his way to make compensation to these people for the loss of their gear. The amount allowed is very small, although it is considerable to some of these poor people.' It must not be forgotten that the Government encourage the fisheries and pay bounties to the fishermen engaged in that calling. The trade of the fisherman has been growing smaller and smaller every year. The fisheries of
Paid to.	Relationship.
Mrs. ProspSre Albert	 Wife.
U IVfnwfivl D A IRart
Oliver Paulin	
Joseph Theriault.. . . Augustine LeBouthillier J. D. Boudreau .. . .
*'	Augustine LeBouthillier	
Mother."	Fred Chasson	
Wife."	ProspSre Albert	Mother."	Jos. Terriault	
""	Jos. Terriault	
"Mr. Herbert Dugas	Father.
Canada are supposed to be one of the important resources of the country, and I think the department would have been justified in giving favourable consideration to this claim. I do not assert that every fisherman losing his gear should make a claim upon the department, but in this case where the storm was very severe the refusal to grant assistance to those who have lost their property was rather hard treatment. When the fisherman gives up his calling and takes up another occupation it is hard to get him back. I know the minister realizes the importance of these fisheries and the desirability of their proper exploitation. I think that the minister, considering all the circumstances, might have given them something, but I suppose it is too late now to argue the point further.
Another thing I want to ask the minister about is the salmon pond at New Mills. This pond was on the Restigouche on the


broadlands above New Mills, but I am told that the experiment was not as successful as it should have been. Would the minister kindly state the reason of the removal to New Mills?
^lr. HAZEN: My hon. friend moved for the papers, and I am sorry they are not before the House. The change was made, I believe, on the recommendation of the fishery officers of the department. There had been trouble with the pond further up the Restigouche river where it was at Flatlands and it was felt that the work could be more successfully carried on where the pond now is at New Mills. The hon. gentleman is quite right; the first year's experiments at the pond were not an unqualified success. There was some trouble in consequence of the collection of sediment and dirt in the pond that interfered with the health of the salmon. That has all been* overcome and my information is that the results are now most satisfactory. Last year they were fairly satisfactory, a considerable number of salmon fry being obtained in the pond and there is every reason to believe that it will be successful now. The papers will show all the correspondence and I hope they will be before the House to-morrow or at the latest on Monday.


Charles Marcil: Has any understanding
been arrived at with the Government of Quebec in regard to the issue of fishery licenses?


John Douglas Hazen: Correspondence on this
subject is now taking place between the Department of Justice and the Department of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec. I have not seen Mr. Newcombe for several days, but when I last spoke to him an arrangement had not been arrived at although I believe there was reason for hoping that an arrangement would be arrived at soon.


Charles Marcil: I understand that for the present year the existing condition shall continue and that no licenses will be issued by this department?


John Douglas Hazen: No such agreement-has
been arrived at that I am aware of.


Charles Marcil: That was the suggestion made.


John Douglas Hazen: We contend that the decision given in the British Columbia case is applicable to the province of Quebec, the decision being that there is a public right of fishery existing in tidal waters and, that

being the case, that the administration of this fishery is in the hands of the Federal government. The government of Quebec contend that Magna Charta, under which this public right is given, does not apply to the province of Quebec, that Quebec does not come within the terms of Magna Charta. We are advised by the Department of Justice that that position is not well taken. However, the Government at Quebec does take the position very strongly that the judgment of the Privy Council does not apply to Quebec and we think it very desirable that there should be a judgment of the Privy Council finally disposing of the matter. We suggested to the authorities at Quebec that we should arrange to have a case stated to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Privy Council that would absolutely decide whether the regulation of the fisheries shall come under the federal or provincial authorities. That was not accepted by the province of Quebec. There has been some correspondence under which the provincial authorities propose that they should go ahead this year and administer the fishery as they have been doing for a good many years in the past and that we should take steps, by arresting some one for violating the law of fishing without a license for the Dominion to bring the matter to the consideration of the courts again. The last correspondence I saw on the subject shows that the discussion has taken place along that line and I believe that an arrangement may be come to. It may be that my hon. friend has information a little later than I have that an arrangement has been come to.


Charles Marcil: I am sorry to say that I have not, but I hope that an understanding will be arrived at between the two Governments because it will be unfortunate if the population down there find themselves occupying a position between these two authorities and not knowing which has the jurisdiction. I would like to draw the minister's attention to a peculiar state of affairs in connection with the salmon fishery on the Baie de Chaleur and Gaspe coast. The minister knows the great importance of the salmon fishery in the Baie des Chaleurs in the months of May, June and July. The fish are brought up to Dalhousie and Campbellton and placed in cold storage to be kept until ready for shipment to market. Until last year we had a semi-weekly service which collected this fish along the * Gaspe basin and took it to Dalhousie and Campbellton, there to be put in cold

storage. Last year the semi-weekly service between Montreal and Gaspe was discontinued and we were given a weekly service. This year the people of the coast generally, who found the service so useful to them in shipping to Quebec and Montreal, find that it is now of no use to them for the purpose of exporting their fish in May, June and the beginning of July. The result of the change in this service is that we have thousands and thousands of the most valuable Gaspe salmon, that are fished for all the way to a point below Grand river and along the coast of the county of Gaspe, lying there without means of shipment except by railway. The railway has no cold storage cars and can provide no proper facilities and the result is a great deal of trouble and an immense amount of loss. The last time that the Estimates of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) were up I asked him a question on that point and he told me that he was practically powerless. This company, the Baie de Cbaleur Steamship Company, has a two-years' contract for a weekly service from Montreal to Campbell-ton, and it has turned out to be nothing but a freight service. The boat is very uncertain and the people do not know whether it will pass on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. The fishermen cannot afford to allow their fish to remain on the wharf waiting for the boat. Consequently, they have to resort to the railway and great loss has been occasioned. I thought that the minister might perhaps bring pressure to bear upon this company as the result of which they would give a semi-weekly service during May and June. This valuable salmon must be kept in cold storage and placed on the market at as early a period as possible and in the best possible condition if an adequate return is to be made to the fishermen.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad indeed to urge the matter on the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Naval Service-to provide a further amount for the removal of obstructions in the Fraser river, B.C., Governor General's warrant, $50,000.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Why was this work made necessary?


John Douglas Hazen: The obstruction was formed in the first place in 1913 by the building of the Canadian Northern railway road-bed along the bank of the. river at Hell's gate and vicinity. It completely blocked the ascent of salmon to their spawning beds. In view of the great value of the salmon fisheries, immediately following the discovery of
the blockade in the fall of 1913, work was started in making temporary channels to meet the changing heights of the water, and thus many salmon were enabled to pass up. The Canadian Northern railway was then called upon to restore the river to its original lines during the time of low water in February and March, 1914. This they finally started to do in a rather leisurely manner in February, 1914; but they had hardly got under way when a terrific slide came down from the side of the mountain at Hell's gate, and made conditions very much worse than ever. As it became obvious that only by the exercise of the greatest possible energy could the obstructions be sufficiently removed to enable the ascent of the salmon during the coming season, a conference of engineers on the spot was arranged for. The engineers were the department local engineer in charge of the removal of obstructions in rivers, the engineer of the New Westminster Harbour Commission, and the engineer of the Provincial Department of Public Works. They estimated the cost to be at least $60,000, and Teeommended that the work be placed in the hands of the Pacific Dredging Company, which was best equipped to carry it out. This was done, the company to receive ten per cent of the cost as profits, plus rental for the machinery. The work has proved of much greater magnitude than was anticipated, and has been going on ever since. It is expected that it will be finished in April. By the installation Of a temporary sluice and temporary channels, the fish were passed up this year. Representatives of the Canadian
9 p.m. Northern have been in Ottawa and they have taken the matter up with my department. I understand they admit their liability in connection with the first obstruction, but they claim that the 'second slide was not due to any work of construction on their part. That, of course, will have to be fought out with them.


William Pugsley: Has the work been
finished?	.


John Douglas Hazen: No.


William Pugsley: Including this sum ot $50,000 and $30,000 in the Main Estimates for next year, there would be a total voted of $140,000 altogether.


John Douglas Hazen: We are assuming that it will cost $30,000 for the work done since February. There was a miscalculation as to the cost of this work. We were first

told that it would come to $60,000, and I had $60,000 placed in the Estimates, but to our surprise we found that was not enough. We think this vote will cover the full amount.


William Pugsley: Does the minister know who the Pacific Dredging Company are?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


William Pugsley: Does he know that they are in any way a part, of Mackenzie & Mann?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think they are.


William Pugsley: It has been intimated to me that this company is controlled by Mackenzie & Mann.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so, but we had the report of a board of the very best engineers we could get, namely, our own engineer, the engineer of the Niw Westminster Harbour Commission, and the engineer of the provincial Department of Public Works in British Columbia, and it was on their report we placed the work in the hands of this dredging company.


William Pugsley: What proportion of the cost is the Canadian Northern Company willing to pay ; I understand they are willing to pay for the obstructions caused by their own works?


John Douglas Hazen: The engineer of the Canadian Northern Company has had communication with the deputy minister, Mr. Des-barats, and I understood they had a preliminary talk over the matter, and the Canadian Northern agreed that for the first obstruction they were liable, but they disputed their liability for the second. The opinion of our engineer is that the last slide was caused by the building of the railway along the river bank at the foot of the hill and disturbing it.
Lighthouse and Coast Service-agencies, further amount required, $7,000.


William Pugsley: Has the minister any information with regard to the purchase of coal in Vancouver; I am informed that it is purchased without tender?


John Douglas Hazen: Does my hon. friend refer to the coal purchased for the Marine and Fisheries Department or for the Department of Naval Service?


William Pugsley: My informant says that the Marine and Fisheries Department and the Quarantine station-that of course would be in the Department of Agriculture-do not call for tenders for coal, and I should

very much like to be advised as to the prices paid. Perhaps the minister will tomorrow give information as to that?


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad to; but my impression is that they do call for tenders. We certainly do on. the Atlantic coast.


William Pugsley: I submit this statement to the minister and he promises to give me the information.
Lighthouse and Coast Service-administration of pilotage and maintenance and repairs to steamer Eureka-further amount required. $7,000.	[DOT]


Mr. BOULAY (Translation):: About three weeks ago, -when the first Estimates of the hon. minister were laid before the House, I called his attention to the fact that two ships had met with ill-luck off a place called Sainte-Felicite. The hon. gentleman promised at the time that he would furnish 'detailed information as regards that casualty. I would like to know whether he is now in a position to supply that information, and also whether he has made enquiries as regards the placing of a buoy at that place and has made up his mind to place one there, or take some means of avoiding such casualties henceforth.
I understand that last summer two ships met with accidents. I would'like to know whether the department was notified of such occurrences. A large number of ships pass there and if no aids to navigation are provided, ships may meet with disaster and become total wrecks.
I may further point out to the hon. gentleman that, to my mind, the danger signal which has been placed about one mile west of the church of Ste. Felicite, does not fully answer the requirements of navigation. If a lighthouse or danger signal were placed at Cap a la Baleine, a short distance from there, I think it would be the means of avoiding accidents such as those which occurred last summer. I would like to know whether the department has been notified of such occurrences.


John Douglas Hazen: I understand my hon.
friend to refer to what he claims to be the insufficiency of certain aids to navigation on the St. Lawrence, and speaks of a buoy being needed at Ste. Felicite and some further signal stations being required there. I do not know whether he has called this to my attention before, so that I have referred it to the Lighthouse Board, or not. But, if not, I should be glad to call the attention of the Lighthouse Board to the matter and ask for their decision.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister contemplate any work in the way of lighthouse service on the Baie des Chaleurs?


John Douglas Hazen: I gave information on those points when my Main Estimates were under discussion. I have not the facts before me now, but I can get the information for the hon. member.


Herménégilde Boulay: Last year an investigation was held at Father Point into the case of Captain Belanger. I noticed there was a gentleman there attending the investigation who seemed to be very much interested in it. But still he had no business to be there. I inquired who he was and found that his name was Capt. Lindsay. He was there three or four days doing nothing at all, understanding nothing of what was going on. I should like to know from the minister if Captain Lindsay was there by his orders or was he there at his own wish?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not recollect whether
I personally gave orders to Captain Lindsay to attend or not. He may have attended by the order of his superiors in the department. He is the Superintendent of Pilots on the St. Lawrence, and he may have considered that when an investigation of this sort was taking place-and I would not say he was wrong-it was his duty to be present to learn what went on and what action should be taken.
Construction of a vessel to replace the Scout 

further amount required, $43,000.


John Douglas Hazen: That is on the St. Lawrence, running from Kingston to Prescott.
I promised an hon. gentleman that when my Estimates were before the committee 1 would lay on the table a statement of what liad been done respecting steam trawlers. Though the present vote, does not relate to this subject, perhaps I may be allowed this opportunity to put this statement with regard to steam trawlers on record.
Statement re Steam Trawling.
As steam trawlers from France and the United States, as well as those that operate from Nova Scotia ports, fish on this side of the Atlantic, and as even the inshore boat fishermen usually fish more than three miles from shore, it ds obvious that the only permanently effective way of controlling this fishery is by an international arrangement.
In 1910 it was recommended to His Majesty's Government that a conference of representatives of the countries interested, should ue called, with a view to reaching an arrangement for the entire prohibition of steam trawling on this side of the Atlantic.
In 1911 a reply was given in effect, that His Majesty's Government would find it difficult to support such a conference, but suggested that one might be called to consider the regulation of the fishery along the lines of the North Sea Convention.
While there were many reports of destruction of the gear of ordinary fishermen, interference with their operations and injury of fishing grounds, etc., there was little or no positive information in the premises before the Government. Moreover, while the majority of those engaged in the industry were opposed to trawling, there were those who strongly favoured this method of fishing as an improved one that should be encouraged, and the only one by which a constant supply of fish to meet the demands of an increasing fresh fish business in Canada could be supplied. Hence it was considered best to have the affects of such steam trawling as was being carried on investigated before going into conference. In the spring of 1912 it was arranged with the United States and Newfoundland authorities that during that season such investigations would be carried on independently, the understanding being that, immediately following the completion of such, His Majesty's Government would b ? asked to call a conference.
The investigations in Canada and the United States were carried out under precisely similar instructions to the investigators; but the United States took much longer to complete its investigations than was at first anticipated'. The report of its investigators was submitted omy a short time ago.
It is now feasible to ask His Majesty's Government to invite a conference, which it is proposed to do forthwith.
As, however, the conclusions of such conference could not be reached in time to be made effective this year, and as it seems possible that a considerably larger number of trawlers than heretofore will come to this side this year, it is eminently important that some means he taken to protect the ordinary fishermen.
In recent years there does not appear to have been destruction of the gear of the ordinary fishermen on the banks by trawlers. Therefore, if the inshore fishermen are amply protected, there would not likely he difficulty during the present year.
After careful consideration of the matter, it has been decided to do this by a regulation under tbe Customs Act, whereby the master of any steam trawler will be required, before he is granted a clearance for- the fishing grounds, to give tire customs officer a declaration that he will not fish within at least 12 miles from shore. This will apply to French trawlers operating from Canadian ports, and those that do not, do not fish in the immediate vicinity of our coasts. Failure to comply with this requirement or a breach of the understanding will render the master and the vessel liable to the penalties prescribed for a violation of customs regulations.
As boat fishermen do not operate more than nine or ten miles from shore, this regulation will assure them full protection.
The regulation will apply to all trawlers clearing from a Canadian port on the Atlantic coast. While the United States trawlers do not clear from such ports, their operations so far have not extended beyond the Georges Banks, and there is nothing to indicate that they will during the present year.

That matter was duly considered by the Commissioner of Customs/ the deputy minister and myself, and accordingly an Order in Council was passed along the lines mentioned in the statement which I have just read.


Charles Marcil: Are these trawlers allowed to operate in Baie de Chaleur?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think any have ever gone into the Baie de Chaleur.


Charles Marcil: There was one there three or four years ago.


John Douglas Hazen: They cannot go in under this regulation.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister consider that he has legal authority under the Customs Act to make and enforce this regulation?


John Douglas Hazen: It is the view of the Commissioner of Customs and the department that they have full authority to enforce it.


John Howard Sinclair: This regulation will be useful to some extent as applied to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where trawlers are operating along the coast. It will he of no service, of course, to those who fish on the hanks of Newfoundland. Does the ! minister feel certain that he has not power to enforce the regulation adopted two years ago?


John Douglas Hazen: While I have not an opinion in writing from the Justice Department, the opinion of the Justice Department, having heard the representations made by the Government of France through their consul general in Montreal, is that it would not be desirable, from the legal standpoint, to attempt to enforce it. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice himself gave careful attention to the matter, and conferred with his deputy minister and with me about it, and the conclusion arrived at was that it would not be safe to attempt to enforce that provision. There is a treaty with Japan under which their vessels have certain rights in Canadian ports, and the French Government, being a favoured nation, has the same rights as are given by treaty to Japan.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Do I understand the minister to say that this regulation will not be enforced against French fishermen?


John Douglas Hazen: That is right, if my hon. friend refers to the Act passed two years ago.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no reason why Canadian or British trawlers should not be prevented from operating.


John Douglas Hazen: Not at all. Canadian trawlers are not allowed within the three mile limit.


John Howard Sinclair: They are allowed to clear from Canadian ports and to operate on the banks.


John Douglas Hazen: Under this regulation they will have to undertake not to fish within twelve miles from the shore.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister says that we are not in a position to prevent French trawlers from operating on the banks, owing to the Japanese treaty. My point is this: is my hon. friend not in a position to prevent trawlers registered in Great Britain and in Canada from operating on the Banks, irrespective of any treaty that may exist?


John Douglas Hazen: I think we could, but we would not accomplish much by doing that. If you do not stop the French trawler, there is not much use in stopping the British trawler.


John Howard Sinclair: It depends upon the number that operate. If a large number of British trawlers should come across and operate on the Banks, it would be vary important to have the power to apply the restriction to them.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: I understand the minister to say that his department enforced the regulation with respect to the operations of these trawlers within the three-mile limit, and that he had no complaints of any kind within the last year. I may tell the minister that he is not properly informed on that point. It is a fact that steam trawlers operated in the Gulf of St. Lawrence along the coast of the county of Inverness last season and the season before. They have adopted a method by which they can evade the regulations and carry on operations without difficulty. They leave port after dark, and begin their fishing along the coast within the three-mile limit before daylight. The minister says that he is going to enforce the regulation to prevent steam trawlers clearing from ports in Canada from operating within twelve miles of the shore. I wish to point out that the vessels of the protection fleet must exercise greater vigilance than they have exercised in the past if they wish to accomplish anything, not only in enforcing this regulation,

but in enforcing the regulations which at present exist. The fact of the matter is that the existing regulations prohibiting the operation of steam trawlers within the three-mile limit have not been enforced, and the result is that half the fishermen along the coast of Inverness county have abandoned fishing altogether. My hon. friend knows that the equipment which these fishermen require is quite expensive, and they have had such sad experiences in the past in the destruction of gear, nets and trawls that they will not now take any further risks. These trawlers leave Port Hawkesbury or some other point in the Strait of Canso after dark; they drop their gear, pursue their course to the Gulf of St. Lawrence and are outside the three-mile limit before daylight. The information which the minister has with respect to the enforcement of these regulations is not correct. The vessels that he sends down there to enforce the regulations, if they wish to accomplish anything, must pursue a vigilant policy, and not remain tied up in port. The only suggestion made by the fishermen along the coast is that the protection fleet should be on duty at night; this is the only way of discouraging the practice which the steam trawlers have of operating within the three-mile limit. Seven years ago, when first I came to this House, I took occasion to criticise the late Government for their laxity in the matter of enforcing these regulations. I have repeated the same charge since then, and I repeat it again" now. The protection vessels cannot accomplish their purpose if they are not right on the spot before daylight.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. member has made the statement very positively, and I do not wish to question what, he says, but if he is right the officials of my department who make reports to me are wrong. So far as I know, the gentlemen who are in the department, and who are the same gentlemen who have been there for a number of years, are thoroughly competent, and are trying properly to discharge their duties. The statement they make is that practically no fishing was done last year by trawlers within the three-mile limit, and in support of that they refer to the fact that during the last year practically no complaints on that score have reached the department. I do not question the hon. gentleman's statement; he has made it more positively than I ever heard it made before. I will at once call the attention of my officials to his statement, and see what they have to say in (regard
to it. But their reports have been such as to convey an entirely different impression from that which the hon. member's positive statement to-night would convey to the House.


Alexander William Chisholm: My information comes from the fishermen, and they will be very much surprised to find from to-morrow's Hansard that the minister is so ill-informed, I care not what official gave the information. I took occasion in this House to find fault with the late Government for their failure to enforce the regulations, and I say most emphatically that in this case I have the information from the fishermen. I am not surprised to hear the minister say that he has had no complaints this last year or the year before. The reason for that is that the fishermen are discouraged because their complaints were not heeded in the past in this regard and are abandoning the fishing. They cannot afford to buy gear and have it destroyed before daylight by steam trawlers. The fishermen are at my back in this matter.


John Howard Sinclair: This is a question of very great importance all around the coasts of the Maritime Provinces, and if the minister would be kind enough to put the text of the regulations on Hansard it would be very interesting. We would like to see his new regulation.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be very glad to bring it down to-morrow.
To defray expenses in connection with the preparation, etc., of a Dominion Electoral Atlas based on the Redistribution Act of 1914, $8,500.


Charles Marcil: What does the hon.
gentleman intend doing in regard to the Dominion electoral atlas for the new constituencies? Will it be distributed to members of the existing Parliament as well as to members of the next Parliament?


Mr. CODERRE:: Five thousand copies are to be printed. Members of this Parliament will have one copy each, and so will members of the next Parliament.


Mr. MURPHY:: Have arrangements yet been made for the work.


Louis Coderre: Yes.


Charles Murphy: With whom?


Louis Coderre: The Dominion Geographer and the King's Printer.


Charles Murphy: Who is to do the publication?


Louis Coderre: The King's Printer. The intention is to have it printed in the bureau.


Charles Murphy: Has any arrangement been made to that end?


Louis Coderre: I am informed by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery that this is being done now.


Charles Murphy: All the work is being done in the. Printing Bureau?


Louis Coderre: The arrangement is
being made with the Printing Bureau.


Charles Murphy: Does that mean the
work?


Louis Coderre: The work is not started yet.


Charles Murphy: Then it does not mean
anything?


Louis Coderre: The lithographing is to be done outside and the other part in the Printing Bureau.


Charles Murphy: Has any arrangement to that end been entered into?


Louis Coderre: There is no arrangement yet, so far as I know.


Charles Murphy: Have tenders been
asked?


Louis Coderre: No.


Charles Murphy: Will tenders be asked?


Louis Coderre: Yes.


Louis Coderre: By the Printing Bureau.


Edmond Proulx: The plates have been preserved ?


Louis Coderre: I am told that they are of no use. In the province of Quebec there will be many changes in the new atlas.


Edmond Proulx: In many counties there
are no changes and the old plates would do for them.


Louis Coderre: There will be many
changes because we will give all the municipalities in the atlas this year.


Charles Marcil: Will it be the same size
as the last one?


Louis Coderre: A little larger. It will have a history of each district on the back of the map.


Charles Marcil: I understand that one
copy was given to each member of the House last time and if he required additional copies he had to pay $2 apiece. What is the policy of the department in that respect?


Louis Coderre: They have to pay $2 for each copy above the one given to them.


Charles Marcil: Outside of members of
the Senate and House of Commons, who are to get copies? The newspaper press?


Louis Coderre: Parliamentary distribution as usual.


Charles Marcil: What does that mean?
All*. A1URPHY: From whom?


Louis Coderre: I do not know.
Air. A1URPHY: From whom can we get that information?


Louis Coderre: I do not know yet who will be called upon to tender.


John Howard Sinclair: Why not open it to the public and permit any one to tender?


Louis Coderre: Really this matter does not come under my department. This will be done, I am told, by the Dominion geographer.	,


Charles Murphy: He will only prepare
the copy; he will not do the work. That will be done in some printing or lithographing establishment.


Louis Coderre: The printing and lithographing are done as I have said.


Edmond Proulx: How was the last one
made?


Louis Coderre: Distribution to newspaper men.
Mr. A1ARCIL: The same distribution as the last time?


Louis Coderre: Yes.


Charles Marcil: When will the work be
ready in book form?


Louis Coderre: About the 1st of June.


Charles Marcil: And will the distribution take place then to members of this Parliament?


Louis Coderre: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not
yet answered my question. I would like to hear him say that this work would be put up to public tender and printers would all have a chance to bid on it. It appears that under this Administration the old system of tender and contract has practically been abandoned. They appear to have a

[DOT]2309
list of favourites in each of the departments to whom letters or telephone messages are sent whenever work is to be done; and the general public have no chance. T do not think that should be the rule in Canada; it should be the exception; I know that in some cases it may be the best thing to do. Last year I picked out at random four cases from each of three departments, and I asked a question in the House as to what papers the tenders had been advertised in. The answer was that the tenders were not advertised in any papers at all, that there was no publication whatever. That appears to be the rule under the present Administration. I should like to ask the minister to see that for once some work is thrown open to the public, and given to the lowest or the best tenderer. Let us make an exception in this case, and have the work done without graft.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: That sounds good,
but it would be something brand-new. It was never done in the past in this country.


Frank Oliver: If it is good, why does
my hon. friend object simply because it is new?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I did not object.


Louis Coderre: Of course, this does not come strictly under my control. I am told that tenders were never called for in cases of special work of this kind.


Charles Murphy: I have only to say that
if my hon. friend acts on that advice, he will get into more trouble than he ever dreams of. Tenders were called for.


Herménégilde Boulay: Mr. Chairman, I may be allowed at this point to offer a suggestion. For some years past I have taken an interest in elections, and it strikes me that since the Dominion Government has taken over the making of the voters' lists, many errors have crept in the lists for the county of Rimouski. As a result of such oversights, it often happens that voters are deprived of their franchise, and inconvenienced in other ways. It seems to me that such hardships might be obviated by having the lists made by people who are familiar with the names of French voters in the province of Quebec. I realize that
people who are familiar with the English language only, are liable to make such mistakes, especially as regards surnames, and mistakes as regards surnames are, of course, Ithe most objectionable. All such oversights would be avoided if people thoroughly. familiar with the spelling of French names were appointed to make the lists. As I have just stated, errors concerning surnames are the most misleading, and they might be avoided by following the course I have suggested.
Supplementary Estimates for 1915-16-to provide for payment of the full sessional indemnity of members of the House of Commons -days lost through absence caused by illness or public business during the present session- notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, an Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendments thereto-payment to be made as the Treasury Board may direct, $19,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can we have a list of the names? I simply inquire to make sure that the name of Dr. Beland is not forgotten.


Robert Rogers: I have not the list here, but I can assure my hon. friend that Dr. Beland is not forgotten.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the late Mr. Richards on the list?


Robert Rogers: I have not the list here.


Frank Oliver: What is the definition of public business? I understand that this is to provide for the payment of indemnity to members who are absent on account of illness or on public business. I can understand that members engaged in military affairs are certainly entitled to this consideration. Is there any other class of business that is considered public business which would entitle members engaged in it to the payment of their indemnities?


Robert Rogers: I understand that great care is exercised by the committee that has this in charge. Any man, like Sir Edmund Osier, who is engaged with his own business is docked for every day he is absent. I do not think there is any definition of public business. I suppose it would mean business such as that in which Colonel Currie, Dr. Beland and others are engaged.


Charles Marcil: How many members are at the front?


Robert Rogers: I have not the list before me, but I think we all know which of our colleagues are in the fight.


Charles Marcil: How many copies are to
be bound, and how many to remain unbound?


Louis Coderre: There will be 1,000
bound in cloth, 1,000 in paper, and 2,000 unbound.


Charles Marcil: I think the names should be given, as it is a credit to the House. I can recall five members: the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. McLeod); the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie); the hon member for Brome (Mr. Baker); the hon. member for Beauce (Hon. Dr. Beland), and the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick).


Mr. STANFIELD:: I might say that in this matter the Whips are consulted by the Accountant of the House. We both prepare a list and see that no person is put on except those who are absent through sickness. The accountant tells me that Dr. Beland is not entitled to be paid out of the military vote for those who have gone to the front. Therefore his name is included in this vote. The same thins applies to Sir George Perley and Colonel Baker, the hon. member for Brome.


Charles Marcil: Was not Dr. Beland appointed to the Canadian medical corps by the Minister of Militia and Defence?


John Stanfield: I understand that he is a prisoner.


Charles Marcil: At present, but he was appointed to the Canadian medical corps.


Frank Oliver: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if any other kind of business than military business is recognized within the meaning of this vote, and, if so, what?


John Stanfield: Nothing but Government business is recognized. Sir George Perley is away on Government business, and the Hon. Mr. Burrell's name was also included, because he was away for nearly a month at the San Francisco exposition.
Miscellaneous-to provide for the purchase of 400 copies of the Life of Sir George E. Cartier, by John Boyd, $2,000.


Edmond Proulx: Who, besides the members, will get a copy of this work?


Louis Coderre: I have arranged to give a copy to the members of the press gallery, and there are a few copies left.
Distribution of Parliamentary documents_
further amount required, $1,000.


Charles Marcil: Two electors of mine applied for copies of the Auditor General's Report. One was an English-speaking elector and the other a French-speaking elector. I sent to the English-speaking elector the report for 1914, and when I applied for the French version of the report

I was told that the report for 1914 had not been printed in French, and that only one volume of the 1913 report had been printed in French. If we are going to have these blue-books we ought to have them in reasonable time; otherwise it is wasting money to no purpose. I want to know if any action has been taken to bring the publication of these reports up-to-date.


Louis Coderre: The last two volumes of the French version of the Auditor General's Report for 1912-13, and the French version of the Auditor General's Report for 1913-14, are just being printed, and I expect them to be ready for distribution within three months.


Charles Marcil: Why was not the report for 1912-13 printed before this?


Louis Coderre: Because it is impossible to print the two versions together.


Charles Marcil: You are not doing that in the case of the English version for 1913-14. If these blue-books are to be of any use they must come out in a reasonable time; otherwise it is a sheer waste of public money to issue them.


Louis Coderre: The King's Printer tells me that when he came in the French version of the report for 1912-13 had not been commenced. He is. attending to that matter, with the result that I have stated.


Charles Marcil: I understand the minister has organized a staff especially for the translation of the Auditor General's Report?


Louis Coderre: Yes, the money was voted last year.


Charles Marcil: How many translators are there?


Louis Coderre: Three.


Charles Marcil: Are they stationed in Ottawa?	_


Louis Coderre: Yelh


Charles Marcil: Is the printing being dme at the Printing Bureau in this case?


Louis Coderre: Not of the 1913-14 n-pert.


Charles Marcil: Where?


Louis Coderre: Montreal.


Charles Marcil: By contract?


Louis Coderre: No contract, but ar Bureau rates, as usual.


Charles Marcil: Who is printing it in Montreal?


Louis Coderre: La Patrie.


Edmond Proulx: Why is it necessary to send so much printing and lithographic work outside? When you look at the Auditor General's Report it is astonishing to see the amount of money that is spent by the Government for outside printing. There is a lavish distribution amongst outside printers. La Patrie must have got thousands of dollars and different newspapers in different provinces are treated with almost equal liberality. Cannot the Printing Bureau do the work for the Government?


Louis Coderre: No.


Edmond Proulx: I am inclined to think that a lot of this money is wasted. For some, little public work the Government will advertise in fifteen or twenty-five newspapers. It is a waste of money. They spend more money sometimes in advertising than the whole work is to cost.


Louis Coderre: Advertising is done outside of the Printing Bureau.


Edmond Proulx: I do not refer only to advertising; I refer also to printing and lithography.


Louis Coderre: Last year we had an increase of $300,000 in the amount of printing, $200,000 of which was done in the Bureau and $100,000 outside. Although we have the same accommodation the work is increasing every day. That is the reason why so much work is sent outside. There is a part of this work which never has been done in the Printing Bureau and which cannot be done at present because we have not the necessary plant. We have not the plant to do the lithographic work, and it is absolutely necessary to go outside. That represents the largest amount of work done outside.


Edmond Proulx: Are tenders called for this work which is given to different printing companies?-


Louis Coderre: In some cases tenders are asked for, but generally not. We pay according to the rates which have been established for years and which are known as Bureau rates.


Edmond Proulx: Do you discriminate
amongst the newspapers?


Louis Coderre: I give to those who ask.


Edmond Proulx: The Liberal papers do not ask?


Louis Coderre: They do not.


Edmond Proulx: They are very reasonable.


Charles Marcil: Has any action been taken on the report of the commission appointed last year to deal with the printing and distribution of public documents, and which suggested that there was great waste in printing useless blue-books which were for the most part thrown away. That commission consisted of Sir Joseph Pope, Dr. Doughty and another gentleman?


Louis Coderre: That commission was in connection with the Archives, and the commissioners visited all the departments and ascertained that there were a number of documents worth preserving, as a result of which there is a vote in the Main Estimates this year for $100,000 to enlarge the Archives building, so as to accommodate these documents.


John Stanfield: My hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) is thinking of the joint report of the Printing Committee on that matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member (Mr. Marcil) is quite correct in what he says. That commission incidentally reported in reference to the number of blue-books which were printed and never used, and they made a recommendation in that respect. Recently I submitted to the Joint Committee on Printing of -both Houses a proposal tp reduce the number of some of these publications, and the committee dealt with the matter so far as they could in a report to the House, which was adopted yesterday. I have considered the matter carefully for some time, and it is my view that a committee should be appointed to take up the whole question of printing and distributing reports and parliamentary documents, so that it may be done on a more businesslike basis than is pursued at present. In my judgment, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved every year if the printing and distribution of these publications were curtailed. One of the recommendations of the commission to which my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) has referred was a very good one: it was to the effect that the present system of distributing the blue-books should be done away with. These publications are now carted from the Printing Bureau to the distribution office of the House of Commons, and men are employed
23 v>

to carry them around to the rooms of the members, who often refuse to take them, and they have to be piled up in the corridors. It was recommended that a post office or postal station should be established	in	or close to the	PrintingBureau, from which officers of the Post Office Department could send the publications by mail, as a supply for the House of Commons and Senate, and thus save a lot of unnecessary labour and expense. Copies of these publications could be kept in a small library	or	distribution office	in	theHouse	of	Commons for the	use	ofmembers, of the Senate and House of Commons during the session, and a couple of employees could be placed in charge of them. There are now sent to each member two copies of each report published,	which are duplicated	in	the
Sessional Papers, 24 copies of the Trade and Commerce Monthly Report, two copies of the same, in the Customs reports, and two copies of all other reports. It seems to me that there is a great waste of money in this, and that a good business committee composed of one or two of the deputy heads of departments, together with the King's Printer, the Superintendent of Printing, and a Minister of the Crown, would be able to recommend a cominonsense basis on which this distribution should be made. The present system is unbusinesslike and extravagant, and serves no good purpose. I have been told that some of these publications are not taken out of the post office by parties to whom they are granted, and have to be burned, which of course costs money.
Mr. MARCH,: The House is grateful to Mr. Speaker for the attention he has given to this matter, and while the same complaint existed in my time as Speaker I think it has grown even worse since. The French-speaking mepibers of the House have even greater reason to realize the waste, because when the blue-books are printed in English two copies of each are sent to them, and then a year or two afterwards when the translation is made they get another dose of the editions in French. Some of these are technical books and of no earthly use for any general purpo"e. The recommendation of the commission to which I referred, and the further recommendation of His Honour the Speaker tonight, are worthy of the attention of the Government. I wish to know if the minister has taken any action or intends to take any action in the matter.
[The Speaker.]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I recently submitted to
the Joint Committee on Printing that we could very well cut off half this waste by distributing in future one copy of these documents to each member instead of two copies as at present. If a member required further copies he could send a post-card to the Printing Bureau and get them in reasonable number. The Joint Committee on Printing recommended my suggestion to the House, and the House concurred in that report yesterday. Several members of the House have informed me that they do not wanit these reports at all, and in that way the waste can be still further lessened. In my judgment, that rule should apply to the distribution of the bound copies of Hansard as well, because I think that one bound copy of Hansard for each member instead of two would be quite sufficient.


Louis Coderre: I have before me
the report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, in which the King's Printer makes a suggestion to the same effect as that made by Mr. Speaker.
Miscellaneous printing-further amount required, $50,000.


Louis Coderre: This amount is required to pay for printing done during the year, mainly of departmental reports. It is not possible, under our present system, to estimate in advance what will be the amount spent on this service. Let me give an illustration. By an Order in Council the Department of Agriculture is authorized to print as many copies of its report as it desires. Last year they caused to be printed 80,000 copies of a report of about 900 pages. This year, we have had to print 100,000 copies of a report of 1,500 pages, the report of the Central Experimental Farm. iSo, it is impossible for my department to foresee what will be the amount required during the year. I make this explanation to show how it comes that we are asking for this supplementary vote of $50,000.


Charles Marcil: There should be some control over the number of books printed, and only as many should be printed as are needed in the public interest, so that there may not be a printing of thousands on thousands of books that are unnecessary.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that the charges for printing should be grouped under one head. At present, without very great labour, one cannot ascertain what is

the cost of printing to this country. Every department pays for its own printing?


Louis Coderre: Not for the annual
report.


William Pugsley: But for a great deal of printing they do pay?


Louis Coderre: Yes.


William Pugsley: Besides all these other items, we have this amount of $50,000, a further amount required for the printing of the year. The items for printing - should be so arranged that on consulting the Auditor General's Report we could see what printing costs the country. If anything is paid for printing documents for the House of Commons or the Senate, let that appear among the items in its proper place.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I desire to make a suggestion to the minister about printing. When printing of a special nature has to be done it is hardly worth while to call for tenders, because you have to deal with those who supply these specialties. But it would be well that the minister should have a plant for these special kinds of work/ Then, when he has ordinary printing to do, such as any newspaper concern can turn out, let him call for tenders. He will thus get the benefit of market prices and will not be at the mercy of a few who seek to monopolize this class of work.
Mines and geological survey-Mines branch- to provide for the cost of experimental tests of low-grade magnetic iron ores with a view to making pig steel direct therefrom on a commercial basis, $10,000.


Louis Coderre: A committee of the members of the Geological Survey and the Mines Branch, appointed in September last, to investigate and report on the iron mining industry of Canada, and the metallurgical treatment both local and foreign that might be applicable to Canadian iron ores, recommends that a series of practical tests be made to demonstrate the possibility of making pig-steel direct from selected non-marketable ores, or ores now marketable with difficulty, and suggests that such tests be made at the Moffatt-Irving Electric Furnace, Toronto, as will best demonstrate the possibilities of a convenient method towards developing and utilizing some of the low-grade magnetic deposits of this country on a commercial basis.
The cost of this work is estimated as follows:	a series of experimental furnace
runs for thirty days, $3,000; labour, power, electrode consumption, $1,000; supervision, analyses, providing ore, coke flux, etc., 146
$3,000; unforeseen expenses, $3,000; total,


Charles Marcil: Where are these lowgrade ores obtained?


Louis Coderre: In Ontario and Quebec.


Charles Marcil: I am told that along the shores of the St. Lawrence immense quantities of these low-grade ores can be obtained.


Louis Coderre: Experiments will be
made with that ore.


George Perry Graham: There is a lot of it in
the Timiskaming country.


Louis Coderre: When the matter came up last year, one of the parties interested in the ore industry in Ontario came here to ask for a bounty from the Government. Instead of paying a bounty the Government appointed a commission to investigate and report. This commission was composed of officials of the Mines Branch and of the Geological Survey. They made a partial report, advising the department to make experiments or tests by the Moffat-Irving process, and this amount is now asked for to provide for such experiments and tests.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: From what part of
Quebec is that ore obtained?


Louis Coderre: On the north shore,
opposite Anticosti island.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Large deposits of the best iron ore can be obtained in Rimouski and Temiscouata.


Louis Coderre: That ore will be examined by the commission.
Adulteration of food, and the administration of the Act respecting fertilizers, fraudulent marking and commercial feeding stuffs, $51,000.


George Perry Graham: How is this inspection in the matter of adulteration of foods carried on? I remember when there were officers in every town, and the officer in my own town was engaged in canvassing for my opponent practically eleven months of the year. He really did but little work in the line of inspection; he had charge of the voters' lists for the riding. How many employees has my hon. friend in this business?


Mr. BLONDIN:: In all, for preventive service and survey of adulteration of foods, about 250. No report of any such condition as my hon. friend has suggested has reached me.


Charles Marcil: Has there been any increase in the number of inspectors?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No.


Charles Marcil: How are these men paid?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By the year.


Charles Marcil: What is the average salary?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: About $600.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister appoint officers in rural constituencies, or only in towns and cities?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Inspectors are appointed in the cities, and make survey of the food in the various districts. Most of the inspectors live in the cities.


Charles Marcil: What work is performed by the ordinary inspector in the rural districts of the province of Quebec?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: They go around and collect all kinds of samples for analysis and inspection.


Charles Marcil: From merchants and
farmers?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: From every dealer.


Mr. ROBB:: Has the minister had any complaints from milkmen of inspectors stopping milk wagons on windy days, emptying a sample into a package and then sending the package to the department with the result that the milk is reported as dirty?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am not aware that anything of the kind has come to my department.
Adulteration of food, etc.-proprietary or patent medicines, $1,500.


George Perry Graham: Are these sent to the department?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No, the manufacturer has to apply for a license number and to make a declaration that the medicine does not contain certain harmful ingredients. This is in order to enable the department to follow a patent medicine in case it is found hurtful to public health.
Department of External Affairs-salaries, $27,200 ; contingencies, $9,500.


George Perry Graham: Sir Joseph Pope is at the head of this department. What are the exact duties of the department?


Robert Rogers: He has charge of all diplomatic correspondence and work of that kind. He has naturally had a very busy time during the present year. It is a very busy department.


George Perry Graham: If the Post Office Department had negotiations in connection with

the postal service between the United States and Canada, would the Postal Department hand their brief to Sir Joseph's department and have him conduct the correspondence?


Robert Rogers: Not necessarily.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We do that ourselves.


Robert Rogers: For example, when we had the case of shooting in Ontario, Sir Joseph went to Washington and arranged the matter. He arranged a settlement there.


George Perry Graham: I remember trying to have some correspondence with the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States as well as with the Imperial Government. We carried on a kind of semiprivate correspondence for some time, but when it became official correspondence between the two Governments we had to hand it over to the Department of External Affairs.


Robert Rogers: You are quite right in that.
Office of the Conservation Commission- salaries, $39,500.


George Perry Graham: Are there any changes in the officials of the Conservation Commission?


Robert Rogers: No. The commission is
doing very important work and has been very active and energetic in connection with the surveying and development of the natural resources of the various parts of Canada. I believe that under Mr. White a work very valuable to the Canadian people is being carried on. Mr. White is a very energetic and active man, doing very good service.


Charles Marcil: Are the recommendations of this commission taken up by Council and followed, or are they merely printed and embalmed.


Robert Rogers: As far as I know they are always given effect to.


George Perry Graham: Usually when this item is up we are given the names of the staff with their salaries and some details of their work. It is really a department of Government carried on in an semi-independent way, but the people are greatly interested in it. I had some correspondence with the commission this year myself. The sum of $39,400 is asked for in a lump without a word of information as to the personnel of staff or the work they are doing. I have

no desire to criticise the commission, but unless we have details of this kind we are not in a position to intelligently vote the amount. I am satisfied that the commission are doing a good work; but we may be asked throughout the country about men on the Conservation Commission and their duties and salaries, and unless we are able to give the information it will be thought that we do not know very much about the management of the country's affairs.


Robert Rogers: I will see that a detailed report from the deputy minister is placed on the table to-morrow.


James Alexander Robb: For the last few years the
Conservation Commission have had throughout the country a number of demonstration farms. They get farmers to cultivate portions of their farms under the direction of superintendents employed by the commission. I understand that this year that work has been transferred to the Department of Agriculture. Can the minister tell us whether that is correct? Who paid the expenses heretofore? This amount seems rather small for the work they are doing.


Robert Rogers: I understand that some arrangement was arrived at between the Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture in order that the work should not be duplicated, but just what it was I do not know.
Miscellaneous-Expenses under the Naturalization Act, $20,000.


Charles Marcil: I brought up this question of naturalization some two or three weeks ago, particularly with reference to repatriating Canadians, and the Secretary of State said that he would make a statement on the subject, but he would first have to cable for certain information to England.


Robert Rogers: We will let the item stand until he comes in.
Miscellaneous-grant towards defraying the preliminary organization expenditure of the Canadian Peace Centenary Association-revote, $10,000..


George Perry Graham: It was announced that some celebrations were to take place in different localities in connection with the Centenary of Peace. Will they take place this summer?
Mr. RuGERS: Nothing has been settled. I am sure that the one-hundredth anniversary of the establishment of peace between Great Britain and her great American daughter, the United States, is a source 1461
of great satisfaction to us all. This amount is asked for to defray any expenses incidental to the celebration.
Miscellaneous-special allowance to the Chief Justice of the' Supreme Court of Canada, to cover travelling and other expenses in connection with his services while acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, $2,500.


George Perry Graham: Has the Government
ever seriously considered the question of appointing a regular representative at Washington? I do not mean a British representative, as we now have, but a Canadian one. This matter has been discussed in the House on several occasions, and different views have been expressed. Personally, I am not prepared to express any views, but I should like to know if the Government have seriously considered this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that the subject has ever been very much considered, at least by the present Administration. A great many things would have to be taken into account before a proposal of that kind could be carried out. The status of any such Canadian representative in relation to the British Ambassador would involve a great deal of consideration. One of two courses would have to be adopted: one would be to attach the Canadian representative to the British Embassy, and the other would be to have an entirly separate representation. The difficulties which would arise in case either course should be adopted are sufficiently obvious to make it unnecessary for me to dwell upon the subject.
Miscellaneous-grant towards the maintenance of the experiments with reindeer in the Canadian Labrador, under the direction of Dr. W. P. Grenfell, $1,000.


George Perry Graham: How big a herd of
reindeer have we up there?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid that is rather a difficult question to answer. The reindeer were introduced into that country by ffiy hon. friend the ex-Minister of the Interior. They have been up there for a number of years, but I am afraid have not prospered very well.


Robert Laird Borden: I have taken a little interest in this subject, and have had the advantage of reading a very interesting monograph thereon, prepared by an officer of the Department of the Interior whose name I cannot recall at the moment. It might be worth while at some later date to lay it on the table of the House for the information of the members. There has

been a good deal of correspondence on the subject, and a good many representations have been made to the Government with regard to it. If I am not mistaken, there are in the northern parts of our western country immense herds of caribou, and one gentleman who has paid a good deal of attention to the subject made what seemed to me a pretty sensible suggestion, that more could be accomplished with the caribou in that region than with the reindeer. He made the further suggestion that if some attention were given to the utilization of these herds a great supply of meat might be derived from that northern country. As far as I can recollect, the suggestion was that if the wild animals which preyed on the caribou could be checked in some effective way an enormous source of meat supply might be opened up in that northern country. I was a good deal impressed by the suggestion, but in the hurry and rush of a great many affairs demanding one's constant attention, particularly during the past year, I have not been able to give to it the consideration that it deserves, or call it to the attention of my colleagues as I wished to do.
Miscellaneous-Grant to the Medical Council of Canada, $15,000.


Edmond Proulx: When this matter came
up some time ago I asked my hon. friend whether the council had made a report to the Government and he promised to make inquiries.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid that I have not been able to ascertain that, but I will endeavour to do so. I did write to the gentleman who is representing the council in the absence of Dr. Roddick to obtain some information as to the disposal of these moneys, and the purposes to which they were applied. I have his letter, though not immediately under my hand, and I think he gave a reasonable explanation of the necessity for some assistance under present conditions. It is hoped that as the system becomes more general, which was inaugurated by the Bill introduced by Dr. Roddick, and as more medical practitioners avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by that Act, the funds of the Council will become very much more selfsustaining than at present. In the meantime, while examinations must continue to be held, although possibly very few people apply to be examined, it does seem necessary that some assistance should be given to the association's work. I think we all agree that the purpose to be served by the

Bill and the work which the association is carrying on are very laudable.


Edmond Proulx: I have been informed that the examination fee has been $100 and that the council holds two examinations a year in different cities. If the Council is to receive a grant of $15,000 I should think that it could reduce the examination fee. and I hope it will. In addition to the fee of $100, the candidates have to undergo considerable expense to attend the examinations. At one time the examination was held at Winnipeg, and the students from the East had to travel to Winnipeg for the purpose of undergoing the examination. If the examination is held in Montreal the candidates from the West have to travel to Montreal. I hope that with the aid of this grant the association will be able to reduce by half the examination fee.
To provide for the salary of a private secretary, A. Hinds, $600, and clerical services to the Hon. J. A. Lougheed, a member of the Cabinet and leader of the Senate, $1,200.
Mr. W. T. WHITE moved that the resolution be amended to read:
To provide for the salary of a private secretary, and clerical services to the Hon. J. A. Lougheed, a member of the Cabinet and leader of the Senate, $1,200.


George Perry Graham: The effect of the amendment is to strike out the name of the secretary. This may change the destination of the grant. I suppose that in reality it goes to the secretary and not to any individual.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know who the secretary is.


George Perry Graham: The name is mentioned, but my hon, friend the Minister of Finance moves to strike it out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
British Columbia-Better Terms Commission, $40,000.
George Perry Graham: What about this Better Terms Commission?


Robert Laird Borden: There has not
been a great deal of progress made since I last reported to the House on this subject. I think it would have been possible to have done so had it not been for the outbreak of the war, although at first sight there does not seem to be a great deal of relation between the one matter and the other. It was arranged that one commissioner should be appointed by the Federal Government, another by the provincial government, and that the third should be selected by the two so ap-

pointed, or, in default of their agreement, that he should be selected by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We had some correspondence with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, his intervention having become necessary, and we were asked to indicate the length of time for which the services of the third commissioner would be required, and also some other particulars. We were in communication with the British Government on the subject shortly before the outbreak of the war. It will be perfectly apparent to hon. gentlemen that since the outbreak of the war there would be very great difficulty in securing the services of men who would be very suitable for the discharge of such duties and who would have been available under other conditions. Then some question arose with the government of the province as to the exact scope of the reference, as to which there would not have been any difficulty, I think, except that the subject became more or less submerged in view of the exceedingly pressing questions that have demanded the undivided attention of the members of the Government since the war broke out.


George Perry Graham: The war has produced a peculiar situation. It has rendered the needs of the province greater and the ability of the Dominion to satisfy them less, but as there is no report from the commission I presume there is no use of discussing the matter now.


Robert Laird Borden: The commission is not really fully constituted for the reason I have mentioned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that two commissioners have been appointed?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the right hon. gentleman have any objection to saying who they are?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Bodwell, K.C., was named by the province and Mr. Lash, K.C., by the-Federal Government.
Liquidation Union Life Assurance Company-additional amount required, including charges of counsel representing the Department of Insurance at prosecution of directors, $6,606.74.


Mr GRAHAM:: That is all the expense connected with it?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: That is the balance.


George Perry Graham: I presume the matter has been settled satisfactorily to all parties?


William Thomas White: This is the balance required to pay the liquidation expenses and the fee of counsel representing the Dominion on the prosecution of certain directors of the Union Life Assurance Company. My hon. friend remembers that the Union Life had some 130,000 or 140,000 policy-holders throughout Canada, and its affairs got into a very bad condition. We threw it into liquidation and the court appointed, at our instance, an official of the Insurance Department. now the Superintendent of Insurance, Mr. Finlayson, as liquidator. At my special request as Minister of Finance, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company assumed all the policies. We felt rather obligated to them for doing so, because they paid about $400,000 more than the business was worth on an actuarial reinsurance basis. The only ground for the Dominion assuming the expenses of the liquidation was the widespread character of the disaster which would have resulted to the 130,000 or 140,000 policyholders throughout the Dominion. The Metropolitan Life was unwilling to pay the expenses of the liquidation. The Government thought that we were justified in saying that we would assume those expenses. They have amounted to about $25,000 or $26,000. This amount of $6,606.74 will complete the payment of the expenses of liquidation.


George Perry Graham: All the policy-holders are protected?


William Thomas White: They are all protected; they are all taken care of.


Robert Rogers: Would my hon. friend
from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) renew his question about naturalization, and the Minister of Justice will give him the information?


Charles Marcil: I asked if there had been any change in the law affecting the naturalization of former Canadians residing in the United States who returned to Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does my hon. friend refer to former Canadians who have become naturalized citizens of the United States?


Charles Marcil: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand it,
under the law prior to the Naturalization Act of last year there was a special provision for a person re-acquiring British nationality who has abdicated it by naturalization in a foreign country. Under the law as enacted last year I understand that

such person would have to be naturalized now just as though he had always been an alien. The provision which dealt specially with the repatriation of persons who formerly had been British subjects has disappeared under the new Act, and the person now who has lost his British nationality by becoming naturalized in a foreign country must become naturalized as any other alien. I am speaking purely from memory on a question of law, but I think I am correct.
Department of External Affairs-to provide for the salary of one clerk in first division, subdivision B, from October 1, 1914, at $2,800 per annum, $1,400.


George Perry Graham: Who is the new clerk?


Robert Laird Borden: H. C. Borden, private secretary. The work in the office of the Prime Minister is ordinarily very heavy, but during the past eight months it has been exceptionally so on account of the great number of confidential telegrams and other communications despatched from day to day, and on account also of the very great work which is entailed in coding and deciphering the correspondence, which, in many cases, is of a highly confidenial character. The former secretary, Mr. A. E. Blount, who has discharged these duties, with clerical assistance, during
10 p.m. the first three years of the Administration, was much overworked, and I .have found it necessary almost to station a policeman at the office door to forbid him from attendance when he was seriously indisposed. Finally Mr. Blount was practically on the point of giving up his position and seeking some other work which would be less severe, but I made an arrangement with him to stay, on condition that he would have assistance. I made application in various quarters and I have had a great deal of difficulty in securing a person with the requisite knowledge and experience and qualities for the position, but eventually I succeeded.
Office of the Auditor General-contingencies -temporary clerical assistance-further amount required, $5,000.


Herménégilde Boulay: Before
passing this item, I deem it my duty to make a few remarks for the benefit of those authorities whom it may concern.
A certain parable in the Gospel states that it is as difficult for a thief to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as for a camel to pass through a needle's eye. I believe the Auditor General has in mind that parable in so far as his employing French Can-
adians in his department is concerned. At the door of his office stands a cerberus who keeps a jealous watch in order to stop any French Canadian from entering. The Civil Service list of 1913 reveals the fact that out of 90 employees in his office, only two French Canadians are to be counted. I should think that if the situation was reversed and the English-speaking employees were in such a minority, the walls of this House would crumble away under the vehemence of the remon-. stances of some of my hon. friends opposite.
I deem it my duty to protest strenuously against the perpetuation of such discrimination against the French Canadians in a department of the public service. I hope the authorities who are at the head of that department will see to it that a stop is put to such a practice. I should not be astonished to be told that those two employees are merely translators or stenographers.
Miscellaneous-investigations under the Inquiries Act-further amount required, $2,500.


William Pugsley: Is this in connection with the commission of which the gentleman from Newfoundland was a member?


Robert Laird Borden: This is merely a general vote; I do not think that it has relation to any particular inquiry.


George Perry Graham: Is it for inquiries that were made last year?


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.
Miscellaneous-to provide for the expenses of the Acting High Commissioner, London. England, $13,000.


George Perry Graham: Can the Prime Minister tell us now if he has made up his mind as to who is to be the permanent High Commissioner?


Robert Laird Borden: I have been so busily occupied ever since that I have hardly been able to give the subject consideration, The office of High Commissioner has been of special service to the Government under the conditions that have prevailed during the past eight months. Of course, the status of Sir George Perley as Acting High Commissioner is different from that which has been enjoyed by any High Commissioner in the past, inasmuch as he not only discharges the duties of that position, but he is a member of the Government as well. I think that I have suggested on previous occasions, both in this House and elsewhere, that some closer form of co-operation as to certain matters
.APRIL 9, 1915
might possibly be found in adopting that as a permanent policy. Nothing that has happened during the period in which Sir George Perley has discharged very efficiently the duties of that office would lead one to the conclusion that it would not be a wise policy. I would not, however, desire to be understood as suggesting or intimating that any absolute and definite conclusion has been reached on that subject. The only thing that can be said in the, meantime is that the experiment, if one can call it an experiment, has proved to be a highly successful one under the conditions which have prevailed during the past year, and that very valuable service has been rendered not only to the Dominion, but, I think, to the Empire as well, by Sir George Perley in London.
Militia and Defence-salaries and wages-further amount required, $14,000.


William Pugsley: I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works, who, I think, is looking after this item, .to a memorandum which I have received from British Columbia, and which I should like to read to him in order that he may give the committee some information on the subject. I am informed that in March, 1914, tenders for a supply of coal were called for by the Department of Militia, 1 think in Victoria. The contract was awarded to Messrs. Kirk & Company at $7.10 a ton. There are two other tenders, one at $6.90 and another at $6.75, so that Kirk & Co. s tender was the highest. The lowest tenderer was not awarded the contract, but the coal to be supplied under one of the lower tenders was from the same niine as that which Kirk & Co. were supplying-Thus there can be no question of the quality of the coal. I am informed that at a meeting of coal dealers held in Victoria, Mr. Kirk admitted, in the presence of six others, that he gave a commission to the secretary of the Conservative Association of the city. That is a matter which is worthy of investigation by the Government, as it seems to me that it is very reprehensible. It is not good administration to pass over the lowest tenderer where tenders are called and give the contract to a higher tenderer.	-


Robert Rogers: What is the difference?


William Pugsley: The lowest tender was $6.75 per ton; the next $.6.90 per ton; and the next $7.10 per ton. The contract was given to Kirk & Co. at $7.10, the highest tender. That is the information which I have, and I would be., glad if the minister
would have the tenders submitted tomorrow. I do not like to trouble him so late in the session, but I received the information only a few days ago. This is the first time since then that any item of Militia Estimates has been under discussion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. gentleman give me the name of the party to whom the payment was said to have been made?


William Pugsley: Are Kirk & Co. in Vancouver or in Victoria?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are in Vancouver. They may be in Victoria too. Many of these firms are in both cities.


William Pugsley: My memorandum does not say whether it is in Victoria or Vancouver. I think the letter referred to the fact that information was given to my informant while he was in Victoria. Therefore I would assume it was in Victoria.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not like for a moment to have it go on record that that occurred with the secretary of the association in Vancouver.


William Pugsley: Is Mr. Price secretary of the association in Vancouver?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I want to say most emphatically that, so far as I am concerned, we never allow anything of that type to go on. I have never had any knowledge of a practice of that kind going on in Vancouver. There are four firms in the coal business there-Evans, Coleman Evans, Macdonald & Marpole, Vancouver Coal Co., and Kirk Coal Co. They always tender at exactly the same figure, $7 a ton, on coal for the Government, and the orders are usually divided up among the four firms. The hon. member is aware that the firm of Macdonald & Marpole are strong supporters of his party, so there is no complaint on the ground of political patronage.


William Pugsley: It must be very clear that this is Victoria, because Mr. Price is mentioned as secretary of the association.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not Vancouver.


William Pugsley: I judge that is the case also from another statement, because it says: "If you remember, I gave you all the particulars in reference to this when you were in Victoria." My hon. friend is entirely right in insisting on that course; where tenders are called for it is a matter of obligation on the part of the department to

give the contract to the lowest tenderer, else it is a farce to call for tenders. But, as it has been stated here, the Militia Department, .having called for tenders, instead of giving the contract to the lowest tenderer, gave it to the highest. A very objectionable feature of the case is that it seems to be admitted that the gentleman who got the contract made a contribution to the secretary of the Conservative Association, and people will naturally assume that this was a consideration for his insisting on the contract going to the highest tenderer. That is the inference one would naturally draw. Perhaps the minister would, to-morrow, bring down copies of the tenders with the name of the party to whom the contract was awarded?


Robert Rogers: I shall be glad to bring to *the attention of the Militia Department to what my hon. friend has stated, and to have placed on the table to-morrow their explanation.	*


Mr. CARVELL:: Before this vote passes, I want to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Perhaps this is not the proper time to do it, but I am not able to be in the House frequently. What method was adopted in paying Canadian soldiers in England? Were they paid by our own cheques or was the money sent to England and paid there? The reason for asking this is that I have received a letter from a constituent enclosing an original letter written by a soldier to a friend in New Brunswick. This soldier says:
There is a general kick among Canadians in general about pay. They cheat us out of 15 shillings to 18 shillings every month and tell us that it takes that much of every man's pay to pay for the exchange on Canadian money to England. You know and everybody else knows that it don't take that much. Somebody is making quite a fortune out of us fellows.
I shall send the letter to the Prime Minister if he wishes to see it. It is an ordinary letter written to New Brunswick. It was sent me by a gentleman in New Brunswick to find out what it means. I had supposed that the money would be transferred to England and paid there in English money, but evidently some other course has been adopted.


Robert Laird Borden: I did make some inquiry as to the system of payment carried out in regard to men at the front. A Mr. Ward, who had had considerable experience, I believe, as paymaster in the navy and who some years ago was appointed

Assistant Accountant General and Paymaster in the Department of Militia, was sent to Great Britain with the first expeditionary force to act as overseas paymaster with headquarters in London. The Department of Militia places sums to the credit of the High Commissioner's office, requisitions are made upon the High Commissioner's office by the overseas paymaster general and he transmits the sums to the regimental paymaster. I understand there is a paymaster for each regiment. The regimental paymasters attend to the payment of the men.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would seem then that they would be actually paid in English money.


Robert Laird Borden: I would understand so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This letter is dated as
late as March 21. Has the Prime Minister had this question brought to his attention before, or has he received any protest?


Robert Laird Borden: No. I have
not had the subject brought to my personal attention before. It may have been brought to the attention of the Minister of Militia, but not to my attention.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope the Premier will look into the matter, because if it be true, and I have no doubt at all from the tone of the letter that it is true, there is evidently mismanagement somewhere.


Robert Laird Borden: I am obliged to my hon. friend for bringing.the matter to my attention. If he will send me the letter I will transmit it at once to the paymaster of the Department of Militia and ask for a statement from him in regard to it.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN (translation):: Before this item is passed I would like to ask the hon. Prime Minister a question. Has he received a letter from the mayor of Montreal in which I requested him to do something to help the " out of works " in that city?
I do not know whether the Hon. Prime Minister has received that letter, but this I can say, it remains without reply to this day. I should very much like to know why.
I have spoken in French because my right hon. friend understands that language. I have had no answer to that letter which, as mayor of Montreal, I wrote to my right hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I remember receiving it, but, as my hon. friend had pub-

lished it as an open letter, I did not understand that he expected any reply; and for that reason, and without the slightest de-.sire to be discourteous, I did not reply.


Médéric Martin: I think the least thing
my right hon. friend could have done was to answer. I was rather surprised at not hearing from him, because every letter calls for an answer.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not really understand it in that way, because my hon. friend published it as an open letter. It appeared in the papers, I think, before I received it. So I suppose it would be proper for me to regard it in that sense, and not as an ordinary letter written from one gentleman to another, and which of course would demand a reply.


Médéric Martin: The object of the letter
was to induce the Prime Minister to do something for the unemployed of Montreal.
I am 4G years of age, but this is the first time I have written a letter to a gentleman, especially the Prime Minister of Canada, without getting a reply.


Robert Laird Borden: I would also
say that this is almost the first time that I ever received a letter which had first been published in the papers of the country.


Médéric Martin: My letter contained a
suggestion to the Prime Minister to bring . down some legislation to help the unemployed of the city of Montreal, where there are 50,000 men out of work. If I could be here every day I would have brought the matter up in the PIou.se myself.
(Translation.) I would like to mention here, that in my official position as mayor of Montreal, I am the representative of one-seyenth of the entire population of Canada and it seems to me that I am at least entitled to a rejoly from the hon. Prime Minister. ,


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate the importance of any communication from my hon. friend acting in his capacity as Mayor of Montreal. Because I 'did not make a reply to the letter, for the reason already mentioned, I do not wish him to think that I did not give my best consideration to his representations. I have been in communication with the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and also with my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, for the purpose of endeavouring to provide as far as possible any work for the unemployed in Montreal. I am sure my hon. friend realizes the difficulties of the situation-one which has been experienced not only by
municipalities, cities and provinces, but generally, under the difficult financial conditions which have prevailed since the outbreak of the war.


Médéric Martin: Another open letter was
sent to the Prime Minister by Commissioner MacDonald, and according to the newspapers it was answered, although perhaps we should not believe all that the newspapers say. This was two or three days afterwards.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend's letter was the first.
Militia and Defence-Gratuities to professors of the Royal Military College on retirement, $15,190.	.


William Pugsley: On what grounds are gratuities given to professors retiring?


Robert Rogers: This is simply following the usual practice. Professor Butler and one or two others have retired this year.
Special allowance to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to cover travelling and other expenses in connection with his services while acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General-Omitted from Main Estimates, $2,500.


Robert Laird Borden: This is necessary on account of the item in the Main Estimates not being the usual amount that has been granted of late years. I think the amount has bean $5,000.


William Pugsley: I have never understood that $5,000 was allowed. I understand that the duties of deputy to His Excellency the Governor General simply mean, attending the opening and closing of Parliament. I think $2,500 is the usual amount, but possibly it may be more.


Robert Laird Borden: I will get the
Estimates of last year, and endeavour to look it up.


William Pugsley: Let the item pass, and my right hon. friend find out afterwards.
To provide for the salary of a private secretary, and clerical services to the Hon. J. A. Lougheed, a member of the Cabinet and leader of the Senate (payment may be made to a member of the Senate staff notwithstanding the Civil Service Act)-further amount required, $600.


George Perry Graham: This is in addition?


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to be the $600 which is usually allowed to private secretaries in addition to their salary as clerks.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps before we rise
the Prime Minister would give the explanation he promised in reference to the Northwest Mounted Police?


Robert Laird Borden: The amount of $60,000 is explained to me by the Comptroller of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police as follows. It consists of three items: The first item of $40,000 is to provide for the expenses of the Baker lake expedition undertaken to inquire into the murder of Messrs. Radford and Street by Eskimo in 1913. The sending of this expedition was not decided upon until after the Estimates for the current fiscal year had been prepared and passed, and the expenditure, including the purchase of a schooner, amounted to $40,000. I made some explanation in regard to this matter last year. These two men were murdered in the North, and after a good deal of consideration of the subject, and after I had consulted with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), we decided to adopt this course instead of undertaking to arrest the Eskimo. There was evidence which had come to us from reliable quarters that the men who unfortunately met their fate there had contributed probably to the result by undertaking unusual punishment of some of these Eskimo. I have looked into the report of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police as to the expedition but it does not seem that any report has yet been made; at all events it is not in this year's report.
Then there is an item of $10,000 for transport. Owing to the outbreak of the war and to looking after the alien enemies in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the item of $50,000 for transport, included in -the current year's Estimates, was found insufficient and a further sum of $10,000 is required to complete this service. There is another item of $10,000 for billeting, subsistence and forage. The price of provisions both where men are billeted and for those living in barracks, has increased considerably owing to the outbreak of the war and the failure of the crops in certain portions of the provinces has caused an increase in the rate of both hay and oats. The sum of $10,000 is required to complete this service. These three items make up the total of $60,000 which is asked.


George Perry Graham: The Royal Northwest Mounted Police are a body of men who are a credit to this country. It is really beyond the comprehension of strangers to understand how the presence of one member of the Mounted Police force in a locality in the west maintains order. I have been through that western country and where
IMr. Graham.]
great crowds were gathered two mounted police would be enough to maintain order, whereas, in the eastern country, you would require a dozen or more .to do the same work.


Robert Rogers: They are all very well
behaved.


George Perry Graham: _ When the Mounted
Police are present I suppose they are, and no doubt at other times also. The Mounted Police have no superiors in the world.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) for his appreciation, in which I entirely agree. As I stated in an earlier part of the session, the men who were recruited to the number of 500 last summer have proved to be a very fine body of men who, in their training and discipline, have made excellent progress and are well up to the standard of the former force.
Mr. L4FORTUNE:	Mr. Chairman, will
you permit me to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to an item in the Main Estimates of $15,000 for' the construction of a post office at St. Jacques l'Achigan in my riding? When his Estimates were up I brought this matter to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General, and he was kind enough to refer me to the Minister of Public Works, who, he said, was very kind, obliging and just, with the assurance that I would succeed in securing his assent to the construction of this post office. In 1909, when I was elected for Montcalm, the late member for that riding, Mr. Dugas, now judge of the superior court of the district of Joliet, asked me very earnestly to see to the completion of that building. A vote of $15,000 was passed but to my great surprise that sum was taken away in the following sesion of 1911. I asked to have it replaced in the Estimates, but I had no success. In 1912 I came back and asked the same thing with no success. It was only in 1913 that the then Postmaster General, now a judge of the superior court of Montreal, at my request, replaced the item of $15,000._ Still, there has been no construction. A lot was bought and paid for, the plans were made, everything was ready and I was waiting for the tenders to be called for but no tenders have been called for yet. I would like to appeal to the justice of the Minister of Public Works and to ask him to order the construction of that building. St. Jacques 1'Achigan is a

very large and a very nice place. There are two banks, one college, a tobacco manufactory, and a good population, and it is altogether a very flourishing place. The Administration having decided that this post office should be put up, I think that this Parliament might do me the favour I ask. I do not want the building for myself. I am living in Jacques Cartier near Montreal, and I do not need a post office for my correspondence but I simply ask that the building be erected as a matter of justice to my electors. I hope that the hon. gentleman, who is here to do justice to every one, will see that the building is soon put up. I draw his attention again to it. [DOT]


Robert Rogers: 
Mr. LAFORTUNE:: I might make another remark in justice to the late Minister of Public Works, my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). Everything was ready before the election of 1911 and the tenders were to be called for but there was a difference as to the line between the lot that the Government had purchased and the
neighbouring property. The department was ready to call for tenders, but a dispute arose between the Government and the adjoining proprietor which prevented that. I am thankful to you, Mr. Minister, and having heard of your good disposition I know that you will keep your word, and I will find my post office erected before the general election.


Robert Rogers: 1 can assure my hon. friend that he can absolutely depend upon it, that he will probably be in a little better position at the next general election than he was at the last.


William Pugsley: When I was Minister of Public Works the necessity for a public building in this town was strongly pressed on me, and after giving it most careful attention, I concluded that the town, because of its population and importance, was much more entitled to a public building than many others which had secured public buildings. I had an appropriation put in the Estimates and I actually purchased the site, but delay was caused by some legal dispute which arose regarding the boundaries of the property. Had it not been for the unfortunate result of the election, that building would have been erected long ago.
Resolutions reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported this day from the Committee of Supply.
['With the unanimous consent of the House.\nResolutions concurred in.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not the usual practice to receive a report from the Committee of Supply on the same day as that on which the resolutions have been agreed to in the committee, but it is stated in Bourinot that at the end of a session, when there is urgency, it is occasionally done in the Canadian Parliament, though never in the English Parliament. I think it well to let the House have knowledge of what is being done.


George Perry Graham: That was my understanding, but the Clerk of the House informed me that it was customary in the Canadian Parliament, near the close of the session, and that it was done last year.


William Pugsley: With the unanimous consent of the House.
Resolutions concurred in.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey) presented the report of the Special Committee to which was referred the report of the Board of Inquiry respecting boots supplied to the Department of Militia and Defence, and all matters pertaining to such boots.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Saturday.
Saturday, April 10, 1915.