1917-08-22

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)
NON-OOMBATAiNT POSITIONS.
["I accept my hon. friend's suggestion-if hon. gentlemen will promise to be as good to-morrow as they have been this evening.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 12, midnight.\nThursday, August 23, 1917."]
Mr. MACDONALD:: How many officers and men are permanently employed in positions which are non-combatant, in connection with the Overseas Militia Department in London, England?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: None of the officers and men employed in London, England are permanent except those that have been seconded from the permanent staff and permanent force of the Canadian active militia. All of them, except those that belong to non-combatant units in the military sense, such as Canadian Army Pay Corps and Canadian Ordnance Corps, are combatant.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to the fact that the answer he has given is an evasion of the question. I should like my hon. friend at a later date to answer my question by stating how many officers and men have been sent over from the permanent staff and permanent force to perform the duties to which I refeT. As to the minister's reference to the fact that those who belong to non-combatant units in the military sense are combatants, I would point out that I was referring to the noncombatant positions, not to the men themselves. My hon. friend's answer, therefore, is not an answer at all, and I should like an assurance that later he will give me the information for which I asked.


Albert Edward Kemp: There was no intention whatever to evade the question put by the member for Pictou. His question clearly is:
How many officers and men are permanently employed in positions which are non-combatant?	i
The word "permanently" is understood to mean permanently as opposed to temporarily; the word has the same effect in the camps in England as it has in Canada. Men who are non-combatant in a military sense are men who belong to the Army Pay Corps, the Ordnance Corps and units of that kind. Does my hon. friend refer to those who are occupying positions of a civilian character? If he will be good

enough to put his question in some way so that the information sought will be clearly defined, we will try to answer it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The men who are employed in connection with the Overseas Militia Department are certainly non-combatants while they are so employed, no matter what corps they are attached to. In his answer my hon. friend excepted those men with reference to whom information should have been given. I will put the question in another way, and I hope I shall receive the information that I am seeking.



Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	How many men, officers and employees of the National Service Commission are of military
age?	,	..
2.	What are their names and respective
salaries ?
3.	Who, if any, have military badges, and on what grounds in each case have they been granted?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	None.	.
2 and 3. In view of the above answer these questions do not arise.


BUILDING OP WOODEN SHIPS.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	Are. wooden ships being built in the Government Dry Dock in Prince Rupert?
2.	Is the plant in operation?
3.	If not, what is the reason therefor?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. There is no Government dry dock at Prince Rupert. The dry dock to which presumably reference is made is one owned by the Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company. The Government are informed that no wooden shipbuilding has yet been commenced at this dry dock.
2 and 3. The Government are informed that a considerable amount of ship repair work has been done at this dock. The Government have been in communication with the Imperial Munitions Board and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and earnest efforts have been made to secure the commencement of a shipbuilding programme at Prince Rupert. It is understood that up to the present it has not been possible to arrive at a programme that would ensure such deliveries of material and supply of labour as to justify the letting of contracts.


MONCTON ARMOURY SITE.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Did the Board of School Trustees for the city of Moncton ask for the use of the site of
the new armoury in the city of Moncton for school garden purposes?
2.	If so, was said request granted?
3.	Was any part of this lot used by families of soldiers who have gone overseas?
4.	If so, what are the names of the soldiers whose families are using same?
5.	Was this site, or any part of same, used for any other purposes? If so, for what purpose?
6.	Has any rent been paid by any person, or persons, for use of said lot? If so, what amount and to whom paid?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No, as it has already been decided to set apart this land, for the use of soldiers families for agricultural purposes.
3.	Yes.
4.	No. 709049, Pte. W. A. Weldon, 5th Canadian Mounted Rifles; No. 709511, Pte. Dale Weldon, 20th Battalion; No. 1030313, Pte. Donald G. Grant, 236th Battalion; No. 507296, Pte. A. J. Grant, Signallers; No. 649181, Sapper Frank Cuthbertson, 6th Canadian Kailway Troops; No. 477216, Pte. E. Cuthbertson, Royal Canadian Regiment; No. 355, Pte. B. L. Wadman, Canadian Army Dental Corps. All these soldiers are overseas, with the exception of F. Cuthbertson, whose battalion is yet in Canada; and E. Cuthbertson, who is at the Signal Training Depot, training for service overseas.
5.	Yes. Red Cross Society, of Moncton, for patriotic purposes.
6.	No.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, communications and documents of all kinds referring to a request for having the mail from Marble Mountain come from Eden Platform instead of West Bay Road.


SIR GEORGE PERLEY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:	.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville):: I see in a press despatch that Sir George Perley is coming back to Canada. I would ask if that is true.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I hope he will
return to Canada some of these days, but I have no information that he contemplates a speedy return.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I ask the Minister of Finance if he will be good enough, before we return to the dis-



cussion of the Canadian Northern Bill, to get information for the committee as to whether or not the obligations of the Canadian Northern Railway which fell due on June 1, July 1, and August 1 were met, and if they were, were they met by means of advances made to the company by banks in Canada who did so at the instance of the Government, which agreed to recoup them, and if so what are the names of those banks?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I will consider the question of my hon. friend. I do not know precisely what he refers to. He mentions the obligations of the Canadian Northern, but be does not state what those obligations were. I will take it up when we are in committee again upon the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What
amounts have been spent by the Canadian Northern on the Mount Royal tunnel, and the Montreal terminal.


William Thomas White: I think I can obtain that information for my hon. friend. If I am not able to do so before we are again in committee on the Bill, my hon. friend may raise the question anew.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: When we were discussing the Canadian Northern Bill, I made allusion to the fact that the stock had been pledged to the Bank of Commerce, and the Solicitor General stated the stock had been so pledged. I would be glad if the minister would bring before the House a statement of the amount of advances made by the Bank of Commerce to the Canadian Northern in respect of that stock.


William Thomas White: I might say in answer to my hon. friend that the advances referred to by the Solicitor General are those made to the owners of the stock, not to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. No company can borrow against its own stock. As I understand it the advances were made to Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann and Company upon the stock and other assets, in the usual course of business. 1 have no information as to the amount, and I do not regard it as relevant to the discussion on the Bill.


Mr. NESBITT:: 1 ask the Ministei of Finance if the announcement in the Gazette - to-day that the Canadian Northern had raised $10,000,000 .on Dominion Government securities, is with respect to the repayment of some maturing loan on an old guarantee that had been put up as collateral for the present financing?
rMr. Macdonald.]


William Thomas White: I have not had my attention drawn to the article to which the hon. gentleman refers. The Canadian Northern Railway Company has a loan, secured by Government collateral, maturing about September I, and they have been negotiating to renew that loan, or to make a new loan from the proceeds of which the old loan could be paid off. I have no doubt the announcement refers to that transaction.


Frank Oliver: The sense in which i desired the information I asked for was possibly not the sense in which the Minister of Finance understood it. 1 desired the information for the purpose of taking in some degree, the measure of the value of the stock as evidenced by the transaction between the holders of it and the Bank of Commerce.


William Thomas White: I said that, as far as I understood it,'no loan had been made specifically against the stock. There is no connection between the amount of the loan made and the value of the stock. My hon. friend, let us say, has an account with his bankers and they have a lien upon his assets, but the lien is upon the entire amount of his assets, including in the amount a particular security. It is not the case that a specific loan is made against a specific security.


COAL SUPPLIES IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if be will give us a report with regard to the coal situation. He said yesterday that he would do so to-day.


George Green Foster: I can give a very general statement in reference to the coal situation, which, if it has not been followed closely by the members of the House may not be within their knowledge. The coal situation in Canada, as it presents itself, is about as follows: The production last year of non-anthracite coals in Canada amounted to 13,800,000 tons. Of that production a little over 6,000,000 tons came from the Maritime Provinces (Nova Scotia almost entirely); 2,800,000 tons was raised in British Columbia, 4,600,000 tons in Alberta, and a small proportion in Saskatchewan, making altogether the amount raised about 13,800,000 tons. That, however, was

not sufficient for the needs of Canada, and in addition to that about 13,000,000 tons of bituminous coal had to be imported from the United States. Of the importation of bituminous coal, about 2,500,000 tons went to Quebec, 5,500,000 tons to central Ontario, 5,000,000 tons to the Georgian Bay and lake ports. The importation of 13,000,000 tons and the amount raised in Canada of 13,000,000 tons represent our available supplies for consumption after deducting about 1,800,000 tons, which was exported for bunkerage and other purposes, and some little which was exported to the United States. That is the situation in reference to the bituminous part of the coal business.
As regards anthracite, we are dependent for our supplies under present circumstances on the United States. Last year 4,500,000 tons of anthracite were imported^ into Canada. About one-quarter of a million tons went to the Maritime Provinces, a little over 1,000,000 tons went to Quebec, a little over 2,000,000 tons to Ontario and a small proportion-half a million tons or so-to Manitoba and the near west provinces. In addition to the bituminous coal amounting to 13,000,000 tons imported therefore, we imported anthracite coal to the amount of 4,500,000 tons, making a total importation of fuel coal for domestic and industrial purposes of 17,500,000 tons.
Anthracite stocks in this country were pretty well lowered last year, or at the end of the last coal year, and probably
1.000.	000 tons extra will have to be imported of anthracite in order to make up for the deficiency, which means that we are dependent upon the United States for about
18.000.	000 tons of coal.
With reference to our own production of coal, there is not any possibility that I can see that the amount raised this year will be in excess of the amount raised last year. In the West there have been coal strikes, and consequent delays and confusion, which have reduced to that extent the possible output. In Nova Scotia the shortage of labour, owing to enlistments and other causes, has been so great that it has been impossible for them to add to the production this year. On the other hand, the consumption demand in the Maritime Provinces' has increased and the situation in that respect is that what is raised in the Maritime Provinces will not be more than sufficient to take care of the needs or demands of the Maritime Provinces. What formerly came to Quebec (quite a large proportion of it from the 303jr
bituminous output of Nova Scotia) will have now to be supplied by imports from the United States.
That is the situation in so far as Canada is concerned and therefore the situation in the United States becomes of more interest to us. What then, in its brief and broad features, is the situation in the United States? The normal output of anthracite coal in the United States is between
67,000,000 and 68,000,000 tons-last year it was 67,700,000. The output of commercial bituminous coal in the United States, sold on the market, last year was 509,000,000 tons. The beginning of the coal year, the first of April, had found the supplies in stock not very large, but production, despite all difficulties, has increased from April up to the present time and the total amount raised, both anthracite and bituminous, for the period of the present coal year has been considerably in excess of what was raised last year.
The question comes:	If there is any
amount of coal in the United States and the output has increased as compared with last year, why the high prices and why the consequent fears of shortage? There are several principal reasons for it. In the first place there is a vastly increased demand in the United States for industrial and war purposes. The increase of steel which is computed to be necessary this year and which will be forthcoming, calls for an increase of 40,000,000 tons of coal for that special production alone. The cotton textile factories, the munition factories and other industries, stimulated now by war needs, are calling for increased quantities of coal. The railways have to do the hauling and it is computed that the railways this year will require thirty per cent more coal for haulage purposes than they consumed last year, which works out at about an extra amount of 40,000,000 tons or over. That has to be taken into account and it is not possible or probable that the demand will be decreased. In proportion as industry carries on its work of war preparation coal becomes more and more necessary.
One cannot understand the coal situation in the United States, even comparatively, unless he also takes into account the transportation situation which is so intimately connected with the distribution and even the production of coal, as tardy or speedy distribution forms a most important element in coal mining. There has been a comparative shortage of railway transport

for coal purposes. Barges and ships along the Atlantic coast and barges and shipB on the lakes have been transferred in large tonnage quantities from the carriage of coal to the carriage of more remunerative freights. Many of these vessels, both on the lakes and on the Atlantic coast, have been diverted into war activities, either by purchase or by charter. Thus there has been and is a shortage of shipping carriage for coal. With reference to the railways, the demands upon them for the carriage of other freight than coal have been very great. They have not in the United States a co-ordinating body such as our Kailway Commission, but, in order to cope with the situation, some months ago the railroad presidents of the United States met in Washington and voluntarily submitted themselves to the regulative control of a committee of five or six railway men. The American railroads are now administered so far as transport arrangements go, as if all were under one system and managed by this railroad war committee. As a result of their work, voluntary entirely, they have cut out, up to the present, more than 16,000,000 miles of train services and have thus saved thereby 1,120,000 tons of coal, which motive power, man power, and fuel power can now be diverted to more necessary carriage. They have also taken hold of the car distribution and within the last three months have diverted 106,000 empties from railways where they could be spared to railways and districts where they were more necessary and where they could do better service. That shows the improvement that is taking place.
One point to be taken into consideration is that most of the mines in the United States have not storage facilities. They depend upon the coal being carried away as soon as it is raised; and it is the custom of the men in most of the mines, I am told, not to go under ground unless the cars which are to take the product away are there ready for loading; and if the cars are delayed and are not available for loading, no work, or less work, is done in the mines, 'and to a corresponding extent there is disorganization and confusion amongst labour itself. A part of the shortage which has occurred is, of course, due to the transference of alien labourers by hundreds of thousands to European countries to the colours of those countries.
As to what is being done in Canada, the fuel controller and his aides are busy at work on two lines, first to co-ordinate the activities of the dealers and shippers and 
the transport facilities in Canada with a view to equal distribution of the coal when it once arrives at the border, and, second, to look after the supplies that are necessary in the various sections, to ascertain what they are and to make arrangements for their being filled. On the other side of the line the work of the fuel controller and his aide is to keep in co-operative touch with the authorities, the coal miners and operators, the transport facilities and so on, as well as with the Government authorities, to work in touch and unison with them, to get their sympathy and their aid so far as possible. These two lines of their endeavour are being carried on with great pertinacity I know, and I think with very considerable success.
From this short survey of the situation two things are patent as to what Canada will be required to do. It is not impossible, with the wide powers that have been conferred upon the President of the United States and with the work that is being done to ascertain and to regulate the prices and the output, and with the wide powers that we possess to regulate prices and tariffs, that, if activities are maintained as they now are, both the United States and Canada will be, to a certain extent, put upon rations with regard to coal, as distinguishing between absolutely necessary services and services which are not so necessary and which may be dispensed with. In Canada we are taking measure to bring about a complete co-ordination between the different railway companies as to the disposition of cars and the direction of traffic with the view to the saving of coal, just as we are saving in foods. I believe myself that this is absolutely necessary, and that we' can do a great deal in that way.
I have not given to the House particular figures with regard to particular lines that are being followed; it is, perhaps, not best that 1 should. With reference to the lakes, Hon. members will have observed last night that orders have been issued by the Washington authorities to several of the great railway lines to give preference to coal carriage from the mines up to the ports on the lakes so as to provide for the supplies which are necessaries .to go up those lakes during the open navigation season in order to provide for winter necessities.
I have endeavoured to give, as briefly as possible, an idea of the general situation, information which helped me, as I came to understand it, to see the question in its true light, and which may be somewhat helpful to the House.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: My right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) made no reference to the arrangement which he said some two weeks ago was being made by the Government to place some vessels at the disposition of the authorities in Halifax and St. John, with a view to obtaining ship transportation from the anthracite mines of the United States to those ports. Would my right hon. friend say whether those arrangements have been completed, and, if so, whether the vessels have been placed at the service of these authorities and when it is expected the carrying of coal to those ports will commence?


George Green Foster: My statement
still remains true, with some modifications, which it was hinted at the time would be necessary, as to the facilities for unloading large vessels. The fuel controller and his helpers in Halifax and in St. John, had a conference in Montreal, and went over that situation. I think the view is that the transport situation is loosening up considerably with reference to the employment of the smaller vessels, and that there is possibility of getting service at a more reasonable rate. The offer is still open and can be carried out in reference to the larger vessels, to which I referred, in the carrying of large cargoes. The whole matter is under the close advisement of the fuel controller and his helpers in St. John and Halifax, in co-operation with the Department of Marine. Mly hon. friend (Mr Hazen) may have some other knowledge about it.


Hon.  J. D@: HAZEN (Minister of Marine): Some time ago my department took steps to obtain vessels for the carrying of coal from the mines to Halifax and St. John. Great difficulties have been experienced. First of all, we had released, for the Dominion Coal Company, a large ship which had been commandeered during the war by the British Government. We made representation as to the necessity of having that ship in commission for the coal trade. In addition to that, we succeeded in placing' at the disposal of this company vessels which had been commandeered and those vessels have been employed in taking coal to Halifax and St. John, and have relieved the situation, so far as the supply of bituminous coal to these cities is concerned. Some time ago our attention was called to the danger of an anthracite coal famine at St. John, Halifax and other ports, and, on looking into the matter, we found that the
dealers at St. John, Halifax and other places in the Maritime Provinces were justified in exacting the very high prices they charged for coal, in consequence of their being called upon to pay enormous freights for the transport of the coal from New York to points in the Maritime Provinces. The Maritime Province dealers did not purchase from the mines, but purchased generally through dealers in New York, and whereas the carriage of coal before the war cost about $1.50 a ton from New York to points like St. John and Halifax, the schooner owners and vessel owners were now charging as high as $6 a ton, or four times the 'freight charges before the war. In view of this, we notified the fuel controller that the Department of Marine and Fisheries would be prepared, if the dealers obtained the coal for the Maritime ports, to furnish vessels for the purpose of transporting it at what would be regarded, under all circumstances, as a fair and reasonable rate of freight. The vessels that we proposed to place at their disposal were vessels of 3,000 tons. The hard coal which comes to Maritime Province points has not come in large quantities, and it was carried in vessels of 500 or 600 tons or less. The difficulty arose that because the dealers in these places had not facilities for handling great quantities at one time-they had not coal pockets, and storage facilities, for large consignments-it was represented by authorities in St. John and Halifax that, if ships of 3,000 tons were placed at their disposal, it would be impossible for them to handle such large cargoes. The day before yesterday, as stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a conference was held in Montreal, at which were present the fuel controller, Mr. Magrath, representatives of the coal interests in Halifax and St. John, and other places in the Maritime Provinces, and the Deputy Minister of Marine. I believe that the general opinion expressed was that there was practically little, if any, danger of a coal famine at any of these ports. It was the consensus of opinion that the matter was largely a schooner proposition, and that the coal must be carried by schooners, and not by the larger vessels. Under these circumstances I have authorized the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say to the Fuel Controller that if we are informed that cargoes will be available I will be prepared to recommend the commandeering of schooners to bring that coal to Maritime Province ports at prices considerably less than the prices now charged. It will

be possible to do this, in conjunction with the coal dealers, and if this is done I think it will have the. effect of lessening very materially the prices that are being charged at the present time.


Frank Oliver: If I might be permitted,
i should like to make the suggestion to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in regard to the coal situation in Alberta-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman
would be quite out of order.


LOCATION OF EXEMPTION TRIBUNALS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DEVLIN:: I desire to ask the Government, through the Minister of Justice, what progress has been made by Mr. Plax-ton in establishing localities for units of exemption under the Military Service Bill.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I am not in a position to answer the question fully, but I may say, in a general wray, he has gathered very considerable information, and I think the location of the different places where the tribunals are to be established is just about decided.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if, at the time instructions were given to Mr. Plaxton to go on with the location of tribunals of exemption, the Government had obtained the assurance, as under the constitution it was bound to do, of the Governor General's assent to the Military Service Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These are questions
which the hon. member had better place on the Order Paper.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The question is one of
vital importance.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is one of the reasons why I have suggested that it should be placed on the Order Paper. The hon. member cannot on such a matter expect an off-hand opinion from the Minister of Justice. I must say to the House that I have endeavoured not to be too strict in restricting questions put when the Orders of the Day are called. I think I have erred upon the side of giving too much latitude in this respect. Many questions have been put to which, in view of the times and the conditions we are living under, I have not raised objection, but I fear that some hon. members haw abused the privilege and have asked many questions which ought, more properly, to be placed on the Order (Mr. Hazen.]
Paper in regular form. I must ask hon. members to assist me in keeping as clcsely as possible to the rules.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Do I understand that my question is not in order?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I -would ask the hon. member to place his question upon the Order Paper.


RESOLUTIONS OF THE WAR VETERANS' ASSOCIATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Pugsley: Has the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) received the resolution of the War Veterans' Association, to which reference was made a few days ago, when he said he wouid inquire into it; if so, has any action been taken with regard to it?


Albert Edward Kemp: When my hon.
friend from St. John brought this matter to my attention, I had a search made for the resolution, throughout the different branches of the department, and I am unable to find that the resolution lias reached the department at all. I have searched in every branch of the department for the resolution, but I am unable to find it.


THE MILITARY VOTERS' ACT, 1917.
[Stage Direction]
FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN COMMITTEE.	,
The House again in committee on Bill No. 127, the Military Voters' Act, 1917- Hon. Mr. Doherty-Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 6-Information as to the candidates.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What has the minister to say as to my suggestion last night that we should provide for the posting of lists of candidates upon the notice boards of the various battalions?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This provision is to
ensure that information as to candidates will reach the different presiding officers at the earliest possible moment. Of course, the purpose of making the provision was that these officers should be in a position to circulate that information so that it might reach the soldiers. I would expect that they would use every means in their power to attain that result. I had it in mind that the details of how they should do that might, perhaps, be dealt with in regulations or instructions under the Act.
I did say last evening-and I am willing

to adhere to it-that, if hon. gentlemen thought it desirable, we could add to this section a provision that the presiding officer should circulate this information by every means at his disposal-or some general words of that kind. We could hardly name in the statute the particular places where he should put the notices up. In the Dominion Elections Act a returning officer is instructed to put up his posters in four of the most prominent places in the district; he is left that much discretion. Perhaps what I have suggested would cover the point raised by my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister is always talking about this matter as if mysterious difficulties had to be overcome m order that this information might be conveyed to the soldiers in the camps in England or in France. There is no reason why there should not be a definite statement that publication of these lists shall be made in each of these camps. Under the Dominion Elections Act, a returning officer in Canada must publish notices giving the place of holding the election, the subdivisions of the different ridings where the election is taking place, and the particular places where the polls are to be held.
We have in England 127,000 men, located in the different camps and hospitals. If the minister will look at the military regulations-it is most difficult for hon. gentlemen to get a copy of them-he will see that there are most effectual methods of conveying information to the rank and file. Any one who has ever been through a camp knows that near the adjutant s tent there are a number of bulletin boards on which notices are posted. 'The soldiers make a point of looking for these notices, and in that way any information the commanding officer desires to communicate is quickly disseminated. These bulletin boards are found in every camp in England and France and at the hospitals, and every soldier overseas, except those who are in the front line trenches for a week at a time, or whatever it may be, could be informed of the names of the candidates in that way. Why should we not definitely provide in the statute that the information shall be posted on these boards? Twenty-four hours after our nominations close, the proper officials in England will know the names of every candidate in every constituency in Canada, and the information could be printed and posted up within a further twenty-four hours.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to putting in as much detail as it is reasonable
to put in a statute, and I have no objection to accepting my hon. friend's suggestion. All I was a little apprehensive of was that if we specified one particular method it might happen that some more effective method of communicating this information to the soldier would be available to the presiding officer, and I had in mind that in the instructions or regulations we should provide that he use every available means of conveying this information. It does seem to me that it would be wiser to adopt that form, rather than to specify one particular method, which, in some instances, perhaps by accident, might not be available.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I think it would be well to follow as closely as possible the method of conveying information that is followed in an ordinary election. Of course, it is not necessary to post up notice of an election in this country, because the people have evidence of its approach practically every night during an election campaign. But around every polling station placards are posted saying where the poll will be held. As the hon. member for Pictou says, in every camp there are bulletin boards, by means of which the commanding officer can convey to every private in the ranks any information he desires to give, and the news is very quickly disseminated. Could not the minister provide in the statute that the information'shall be posted on these boards in the same way that commanding officers furnish other information to the sub-officers and privates, and that where this means is not available some other means shall be adopted? If we leave the door wide open, one presiding officer will use one means of giving the notice and another, another. There would
4 p.m. be no uniformity, with the result, possibly, that a large number of those entitled to vote would not see the notice at all. I think it is preferable that the notice in regard to the election should be posted in the same way that other information is posted for information of the soldiers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section provides that this information shall be transmitted through all presiding officers. Perhaps we might add to the section something like this :
Presiding officers shall cause placards containing this information to be posted on the bulletin hoards in all camps where the same may be possible, and shall use all other available means of bringing this information to the knowledge of the soldier.

I had in mind something of that nature to be inserted in the instructions. With regard to the requirements in this country, I would point out that the places where this information is to be posted are left to the discretion of the returning officer. Section 88 provides that:
The returning officer shall cause such proclamation to be posted up within the electoral district for which the election is to take place, at four of the most prominent and conspicuous places in each city, town and village, or ward of such city, town or village, when it is subdivided into wards, and at four of the most prominent and conspicuous places in each parish, township or division of parish or township.
I think what I am suggesting now is more definite than that, as it requires that the notice shall be posted on the bulletin boards in all camps, where that is possible, and further than that, that every other reasonably available means be used to bring the information to the knowledge of the soldier. I desire to meet the views of hon. members if possible, but with all respect, I do think that this is a matter that might, perhaps, have been left to the instructions to be given to presiding officers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have had the opinion of the hon. member for New Westminster as to what the officers on the other side shall do, and in view of the statements that were made by him, a Government supporter, I do not think the minister can complain against hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. The amendment suggested by the minister seems to cover the ground reasonably well, except that it says: " the bulletin boards in all camps." Now, each battalion or corps has a bulletin board, and unless the minister adds something like this: " the bulletin board of each battalion or corps," the notice might be posted on the bulletin board of one battalion in a camp and the men belonging to other battalions might never hear of it at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to inserting that also. I had used the word in the plural,, and I thought it would cover all the boards in the camp. In the definition section of the Act, "Camp" is made to cover every place Where there is a gathering of soldiers under the command of an officer. It would therefore cover every place where a 'bulletin board might exist.
I have no objection, however, to accepting the suggestion, and I therefore beg to move that section 6 be amended by adding the following words:
Presiding officers shall cause placards containing this information to be posted upon the 
bulletin boards of each battalion in all camps where the same may be possible, and shall use all other reasonably available means to bring such Information to the knowledge of thd military elector.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What is the information?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The list of the nominations made in the different electoral districts.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Nomination and polling days.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Does this mean there shall be no deferred elections in Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The intention is there shall be no deferred elections in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not even in the county of Chicoutimi?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not even in the county of 'Chicoutimi. I must make one correction to that. We have found that with regard to the Yukon territory it would be impossible to carry this out without making a very undue delay between the issue of the election writ and nomination day, and, therefore, I desire to move an amendment to the section, I have not under my band at the moment the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act which make it clear that this undue delay would be caused if we made the nomination day all through Canada await the time when it would be possible to comply with the present requirements of notice, etc., with regard to the Yukon Territory. I therefore beg to move:
That section 7 be amended by inserting in the third line thereof, after the word "districts" the words "except the Yukon Territory."


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is the minister sure
that the twenty-eighth day might not fall upon a Sunday, or a holiday?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will not fall upon a Sunday unless we fix nomination day upon a Sunday, and I thought perhaps we might be entrusted with having sufficient reverence for the Lord's Day not to fix nomination day on a Sunday. As regards statutory holidays, I also think we might be trusted to so arrange nomination day that the corresponding day in the fourth week thereafter will not be a statutory holiday.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 8-Conduct of polls:
Mr. CARVELL:: I have not had an opportunity of taking part in the discussion of this Bill, on account of absence; but going over it hurriedly this afternoon, it seems to me that paragraph 5 of section 8 is a very, very serious departure from the recognized principles necessary in holding elections in Canada. I realize that there is some difficulty in applying all the well-recognized principles of holding elections in Canada to elections held in war time, and many of the provisions which are being passed here must be very largely experimental. At the same time it is not right to allow a returning officer-I do not care who he may he or how he is appointed-to carry a polling box or bag around as he wants to, and get the men here and there and allow them to vote without having any person present.
I know that appeals to the Minister of Justice as being an unfair provision. I can quite understand there may be cases where there will be a great deal of difficulty in having a really organized poll, but there can be some machinery provided by which some person representing all the interested parties can be notified of the time and place of the voting. We all know that many people aTe unfair about elections, and there is no use of us shutting our eyes to the fact. - Every man in this House knows that even under the most rigid protection which can be afforded by statutes, you will have unfair practices at elections. As the Bill is, if a man wants to ibe unfair, you simply put the power in his hands. You hand over to an officer who is chosen by the Government-and I notice last night the Minister of Justice held the 'Government was not to throw away their powers of conducting the elections, and I admire him for his honesty, because he has admitted that they are going to run the show.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what the minister admits. Therefore, if he is going to run the show and is going to appoint political partisans to hold these elections in the army, while I admit that there are a lot of men who would not violate their oaths of office, still we know what is liable to happen. He is liable to get men who will not be as scrupulous as others will be. It is an absolute violation of the principles of decency and honesty to allow a man under any circumstances to go around and take votes under conditions which he might say were all right, but under condition in which there would be no opportunity of having anybody present to watch him. I hope the minister will consider clause 5 very carefully and that he will either eliminate it or throw some protection around it, so that there cannot be any possibility of fraud. Everybody admits that the soldier should have a vote. Yet there should be every precaution taken so that there will not be a feeling in this country that unfair methods are being adopted to secure an advantage for one party as against another.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not desire to contest the proposition that an unscrupulous person could abuse his position. But let us get away from the unscrupulous person for a moment and look at it from the side of the soldier voters. What I had in mind in making that provision was this: Soldiers, at the time that the poll is going to be held, say to-morrow, are ordered into the front line, or into the trenches.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is only in
France.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It possibly might be a good suggestion to limit it to France. That is the class of soldiers that I had in mind and that is the sort of condition with which a conscientious deputy presiding officer could deal. I have such an abiding faith in human nature that I am loth to believe that our officers over there who will be appointed, although they will be appointed by the Governor in Council, like all officers that ever were appointed in this country, would seek to avail themselves of such a provision in order to fraudulently pass over a vote. I would be quite ready to adopt any wording which will restrict that provision in such a way as to diminish any possibility of fraudulent action in regard to it. I would be sorry J,o sacrifice the provision as a whole because we all know that these voters that we are trying to enable to vote will, in large numbers, do their voting in	the valley of the
shadow of death. Under these conditions I think it	would be Unfortunate, if a soldier goes the day before we had arranged for a formal poll at the place where he is to be, and if he is to face death in the performance of his duty, that he should be absolutely prevented from registering his vote in the event of his never getting back. I would anticipate that there would be agreement perhaps that, if it is a reasonable proceeding to provide an opportunity for him to record his vote, it should be provided. I realize that it does provide

a possibility for fraudulent action if you have an unscrupulous voter and an unscrupulous deputy presiding officer. I would really have been glad if I could have conceived of any provision to meet that condition. I would be glad to accept any suggestion with that end in view.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can offer my hon.
friend a suggestion right off. There is no reason for a provision of this kind in Canada or England. These are two things that might be eliminated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to England, these men are being constantly taken in drafts. A regiment cannot go and most of the men do not go as units to France but they go in drafts. The presiding officer has fixed his poll in a camp in England, say, for the day after to-morrow, and to-morrow a hurry-up call comes for fifty men to go. Must we say that they will have to vote at a formal poll, of which the scrutineers have been notified so that they may be there to verify their votes?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They could vote in France.
Mr. DOHERTY- That is all very well if they get to France in time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nobody crosses to
France who does not go through a period of preparation before going to the trenches and every man who crosses does not go into the trenches. Thousands of men in other corps that are auxiliary to the fighting forces are not called upon to go to the front at all. The men who go to France stay at a base for a period of preparation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one instance and it may be that that the answer is sufficient. But I understand that men are brought hack to England, many of them wounded and some perhaps in a dying condition. Men in large numbers, unfortunately, are severely wounded. Many of them, no doubt, are in danger of death. Many of them die day after day. What I would like to get at by this provision is to make it possible for the votes of these men, under these conditions and circumstances, to be taken without the formality of a poll.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If that is all the minister wants I think we can arrive at something, that is all I want.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be very glad to get a suggestion from the hon. gentleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not the minister of elections, but I know something about 
elections in Canada. I presume that the gentlemen who have gone overseas have not ceased to be human beings because they happen to have put on the khaki. The minister seems to balk at the expenditure of a little money in order to take this vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Because I notice that only a very limited number of scrutineers are to have their travelling expenses paid. There is more money being squandered on the Maritime Provinces general staff alone than would provide for a hundred elections in France. They are spending $400,000 on the general staff, and when you add to that separation allowances to their wives and a great army of typewriters, batmen, servants and hangers-on, I am sure you will have $600,000 or. $700,000 that is being paid-I will not say squandered-on the little general staff in the Maritime Provinces. Why cannot the minister spend a little of' this money in order to secure a fair election in France? Why can he not have it arranged in some way? I am not just giving him the wording, but if he would accept the idea I would very soon give him the words. The situation would be met if he would provide that no vote shall take place except in the presence of the scrutineers for both parties.
There must be a scrutineer for each party, whether there are two or three, and if those men should be officials paid by the Government the cost involved would be only a few dollars at the very outside. There is no occasion for a hurry-up call such as my hon. friend describes. While 6uoh a condition of affairs might exist, I think he is magnifying the possibility of it, because men do not leave England on a day's notice, and when they arrive in France they do not go at once to the front, but to a base. The presiding officer should not be allowed to receive a ballot except in the presence of a scrutineer for each party, and then all the ballots taken should be sealed up and 6igned by the scrutineers in such a manner that they could not be tampered with or broken open until the final counting. This could all be done very simply and at a very slight expense. There is no occasion to permit the presiding officer to go behind the barracks, or wherever he finds a man who has a right to vote to receive a ballot, and put- it in a bag and keep the bag open for a month, the ballot not -even being sealed in an envelope. If the minister wants an honest vote, I am pointing out a simple method of greatly

improving the machinery for taking it. Surely he should adopt every safeguard which will tend to convince the people and the soldiers that they are being given an honest opportunity of voting and that when they have voted their votes wih be counted and that everything will be right. I am not going to try to hold up the legislation, but I have not before had an opportunity to express my views. I have suggested concisely what, to my mind, would be the remedy for a great evil. I do not insinuate that all the officers he would appoint would be unfair; in fact I think a very large proportion would be fair, would be on their honour and would respect the honour reposed in them. But still, as it is framed, it leaves the suspicion, it leaves ground for argument all over the country, and if the Bill goes through as it is there will be no weapon in the hands of the opponents of the Government that will be as powerful and as potent as the holding up before an audience the provisions of this Military Votes Bill. I appeal to the minister to take this into consideration and see if we cannot agree on something which will be perfectly fair and will give every soldier an opportunity to cast his vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to making it possible to have a sufficient number of scrutineers, the Bill certainly gives every opportunity. The complaint is that we do not pay the scrutineers. But the scrutineers are similar to those who take part in elections in this country. Here is a Bill which enables each political party to create from among the soldiers who are on the spot as many scrutineers-while they are called deputy scrutineers they have all the powers of scrutineers-as they may think suitable or necessary, and the Bill confers upon the deputy scrutineers all the powers of an agent of a candidate under the Dominion Elections Act. Thus it cannot be suggested that, so far as a multitude of scrutineers is concerned, this Bill does not do everything that can be done. Then we are reduced simply to the question of payment of those deputy scrutineers. As I have said, they will, in the very nature of things, be men on the spot, and why should we provide payment for expenses of gentlemen who will not have to travel? Nobody would suggest that we should remunerate or pay the travelling expenses of scrutineers engaged in elections in Canada. The hon. gentleman overlooks the fact that these scrutineers are not to be sent from Canada to carry on the scrutineering operations. I think that, on reflection, he would not suggest that we would send into the camps a lot of civilians to do this duty.
I would assume that each of the parties, looking after its legitimate interests, would provide a number of scrutineers at each camp, and especially at each base, where there are soldiers gathered.


Mr. GERMAN:: How will it be possible for soldiers to obtain leave of absence from duty to act as scrutineers in a general election, perhaps for two or three days? They have other duties to perform.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, so far as it may be impossible consistently with their military duties, for these men to perform their duties as scrutineers, I have to admit that they will not be able to do so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is trying to compare the condition of affairs ill Canada with those in France. He must know that there is a difference. In Canada, if I am running as an opponent of che Government, I have just as much right at a poll as the Government man. I am on the ground, and I can. have my agents, and if I fail to appoint my agents, my friends can appoint them. We know each other, and we know the people, and we have all the machinery for protecting ourselves. But when it comes to the army at the front, it is quite different. It may sound very well to say that they provide scrutineers, but the hon. minister knows that the army is under the control of the Government from the day a man is enlisted until he comes back and is discharged. The Government have every facility in the world in the matter. They have access to all the papers whereas I have not the faintest idea where my electors overseas are located. I suppose I have 1,500 electors from Canada over there. I could not tell to-day where twenty-five of them might happen to be. My opponent has all this information, or he could get it from the Government. He ceuld get the name and number of every one of these soldiers, and he could send them literature and instructions. He could appoint his agents and could be represented by his agents at every camp.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does my hon. friend
not think that hon. members on that side of the House, and we on this side could be trusted, under ordinary circumstances, in the affairs of life, and in matters of sport, to do the square thing? Why, then, cast a shadow of suspicion and send it through

the country, until the fame of the country fairly stinks in our nostrils? Why can the hon. gentleman not give the Government credit for some common honesty such as you find exhibited, say, in a hockey match?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I can trust my hon. friend to be fairly decent in an election. I do not know whether he would trust me or not. I do not know whether it makes very much difference, but if he thinks he can turn me away from my views on the matter by throwing mud


John Hampden Burnham: I would trust the hon. gentleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Thank you. All this
talk about reverencing the soldier is claptrap. We are willing to give him every respect and give him an honest opportunity to cast his vote, but, for Heaven's sake, quit talkii g nonsense. There never is a time that the word " soldier " is mentioned in the House that somebody does not get up and try to do the highfalutin act, as my hon. friend behind me says-I was going to say the nonsensical act. Treat the soldier as a man, and stop trying to wave the flag; get away from all this nonsense and talk business. I say that we, as an opposition, have no opportunity whatever of reaching these people, and getting our agents and our machinery in motion to run an election. There is no use in denying the fact that a soldier is a human being, just the same as he was when he was a civilian in Canada.


William Cameron Edwards: Sober or drunk?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is a human being
just the same.	~


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend used to characterize him as "drunk." How does he characterize him now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is two years since I answered a question of my hon. friend, or held any communication with him, and I am not going to start it now. There is one man in this House who is beneath contempt.


William Cameron Edwards: That is the hon. member from Carleton.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not propose to parley with him.


Mr. KATE:: The reports from Fredericton do not go well just now for the other side of the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman can see the difficulty of being represented by scrutineers at all of these places, unless there is some special provision made for it. I am only asking the minister to provide that, wherever a poll is held, a scrutineer for both parties must be present, and not merely a scrutineer for one party. I ask that, because the hon. gentleman can see the almost impossibility of the Opposition candidate being represented, unless there is so'me provision made for an official recognition of the scrutineers. My hon. friend talks about the fairness of this! and says it is all done the same as in Canada, but if he will turn to section 8 he will find that this voting does not take place in the presence of the agent. Section 8 says:
(4) The deputy presiding officer shall permit any scrutineer or deputy scrutineer, or, in the absence of both, any one military elector,' to be present at any poll, and to act thereat as agent on behalf of any party, with the powers of an agent of a candidate at a poll! held under Part III.
If my hon. friend will refer to section 9, as to the manner of voting, he will see that. Subsection (c) provides that the voter shall answer under oath before the deputy presiding officer the questions set forth. Subsection (e) says:
(e) The ballot paper shall be marked in the presence of the deputy presiding officer, but>
in such manner as not to disclose to him or1 to any other person any marking thereon.
The presiding officer in all probability will be the colonel of the regiment, and this soldier is taken in, in the presence of the presiding officer, and must mark his vote in his presense, excepting that the presiding officer will turn his back to him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is holding a poll at which the scrutineers must be present, and have all the rights of representatives of the candidates.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot read that in section 9.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It never occurred to my mind that, having said that these gentlemen might be present, and have all the rights of agents of the candidate, that it would be necessary, at each successive step, to say that they should be present.
I take it for granted they are to be present at the holding of the poll, and we proceed to say what the presiding officer shall do at the holding of the poll. All this time these scrutineers are present, and if there is the slightest doubt about it, I will be happy to repeat it in every section.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Subsection 9 does not bear out the hon. minister's statement. Subsection 3 of section 8 reads:
(3) Where conditions make it reasonably possible, the deputy presiding officer shall give public notice of the time and place of an intended poll, and, in cases of polls to be held! without Canada, a special notice to any per-' son whose appointment as a scrutineer oh deputy scrutineer has been communicated to him, with the request that he so notify.
I should like the minister to tell me how in the world is the Opposition candidate going to. be able to notify the deputy returning officer? How would I know who was going to be the deputy returning officer in a poll in France? I have no means of knowing it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman understand that it is a matter of appointing scrutineers to represent a particular candidate?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I do not think so. He is to represent the party.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All these deputy scrutineers are to be appointed by three scrutineers, who are appointed on the nomination of the leader of the hon. gentleman's party.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They could certainly ascertain the whereabouts of men whom they would be willing to trust as scrutineers I wouid suppose that these three scrutineers would familiarize themselves with conditions in England and in France and ascertain where the different groups of men were and where services of deputy scrutineers would be required.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How can they do that?
The voting is to commence the day after nomination.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision is that
the voting may begin the day after nomination, but the obligation is imposed upon every presiding officer who holds a poll to give these notices. Though the period in which voting can legally be done extends from the day after nomination until the polling day, the requirements of the statute with regard to the giving of notice must be complied with. It had not entered into my mind that in a place where the giving of notice was possible, a presiding officer wou'd arrange for the holding of a poll the day after nomination so as to make the giving of notice impossible.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why not strike out the
words " where conditions make it reasonably possible"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would hon. gentlemen desire that, if conditions made it impossible to give notice, the soldiers affected should be deprived of their vote?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot imagine any
condition that would make it impossible. They have twenty-eight days within which to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know what
our respective powers of imagination may be. These men to whom we desire to give the vote are living under conditions where they may be voters to-day and may have gone over the great divide by to-morrow.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That does not apply in Canada or in England.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In Canada or in England the conditions will always make the giving of notice reasonably possible.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why should thtwhole of the machinery provided by this section be established on the assumption that we are dealing with men who are 'voting in France? Why should not the men who are in Canada vote the same as private citizens dc? Why should not the same thing apply in England? For each battalion of 1,C00 men in England, five polls o'"*ht to be provided, at each of which 200 men could vote, under proper conditions and on a day to be fixed. The only place where you need to provide for special conditions is in France. Why word the provision in such a way that any presiding officer anywhere can dispense with notice?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Everywhere in England it will be reasonably possible to do these things, and wherever it is reasonably possible all these things will be done.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why make any
special rule for England?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have not made any special rule about England; we have made a general rule for everywhere.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend or his agent on the other side must appoint deputy presiding officers. Why should there not be a scrutineer for each deputy presiding officer, that scrutineer to be present wherever the deputy presiding officer and his clerk hold a poll or accept a vote? If the minister makes provision to this effect and pays the scrutineers for their services, then you will have an honest poll. When the polling has been finished, all the documents should be sealed up and signed by the deputy presiding officer, his poll clerk and the two scrutineers. These

documents could then be sent on to Paris or London-and there would be no question whatever, of unfairness. My hon. friend would not experience any difficulty in hawing standard scrutineers accompany each presiding officer. I suppose that any one presiding officer will not work mo-re than a day or two, because he will he appointed in respect of a particular place; he will take the vote, and that will he the end o-f his duties. There is no necessity for subsection 5 of this section. My hon. friend talks about the men being taken -away in a hurry; that upon a day set for polling the men might have to be -sent off to the trenches; there might be an emergency. My hon. friend is conjuring up something as a justification for the insertion of this clause in the Bill. He knows that these men do not go to the trenches on ten minutes' notice. A regiment goes into the trenches; the men stay there for a certain number of days and then come back for a number of days' rest. There are twenty-eight days within which the vote may be taken. There is no reason why all these votes cannot be taken at the rest camps in the rear in the piesence of scrutineers. There will be no occasion for the deputy presiding officer taking one, one hundred or one thousand votes in any other than the ordinary way, in the presence of the proper officials and of the scrutineers of both parties. My hon. friend knows also that the men do not go from England to France on a day's notice; they have at least a week's notice. Surely there can be some co-operation and confidences between the commanding officers and the general office in London as to the movements of the troops. The returning officers could be notified as to the movements of a certain corps or unit during the subsequent eight or ten days and the polling could be arranged accordingly. We are not trying to block my hon. friend's Bill; we are trying to make it workable, fair and reasonable, so that the people of the country as well as the soldiers themselves will realize that a fair and honest method of voting has been worked out for them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am willing to assume that the statement with which the hon. gentleman concludes- is perfectly true. I have not suggested that in any criticism or suggestion that has been made there wa6 anything but the very best intentions. I might suggest that a little reciprocity on the subject would not do any harm.

However that may be, if the absence of that reciprocity is considered useful, I can stand it. Let us see just exactly where it is that we differ about these different details, and we will take first the question of the selection of scrutineers. The hon. gentleman will agree with me that scrutineers for each party will have to be appointed by that party. Now our law provides for that; it empowers each party, through its three chosen representatives, whose expenses we pay, to -select scrutineers. They have perfect liberty of section. If the hon. gentleman goes with me so far, then the difference between us turns exclusively upon the question whether the Government should provide payment for these scrutineers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is one difference.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one difference. I do not know whether I made myself clear, but as I understand it, the scrutineers will require to be military electors, unless we are to send in to all these different mi'i-tary camps groups of civilians. We thought that so objectionable that with regard to the election officers themselves we have provided that they shall be military electors. That was also done in the previous Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose the Opposition scrutineer should suggest that a certain sergeant should be appointed as scrutineer. Is there anything in this Bill that provides for that sergeant getting leave of absence for the purpose of acting? My hon. friend forgets the fact that he has- all the machinery in his hands, and we have none in ours.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to try and answer all the different questions, but it is rather disconcerting when one is answering one question to have another one put. I was trying to get down to the successive things on which we differ, and I said that the first thing on which we differed was the question whether the Government should pay these scrutineers. Now, unless we are going to upset very materially military operations, it must be anticipated that just as election officers themselves are military electors, the scrutineers will also be found among the military voters. During the preparation of this Bill it has been impressed upon me from the other side at the instance of military officers, that we should see to it that the officers appointed in connection with this .election should be military men, whether privates or officers. I

think in all reason it must be agreed that the scrutineers will have to be found among the same body from which it has been found necessary to provide that the election officers shall toe selected. If that is true, and they have to be appointed by these chosen representatives of the respective parties, it seems to me that we have done everything that could be done in the way of providing facilities for naming, whether we pay the scrutineers or not. Now what is the advantage in our paying them, unless it is going to be an encouragement to seeking scrutineers in one place who will have to move away to other places to perform their scrutineer duties? I do not think the hon. gentleman himself would anticipate that the military authorities would be willing to consent to that sort of thing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why not? That is the very question-this is an election.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because, even if this be an election, the proper carrying on of the military operations at the front does seem to me to he more important than this particular election.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A couple of dozen men cannot upset military operations at the front, whpre 100.000 men are employed. It is no use talking nonsense of that kind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The toon, member asks me a question, and when I try to answer him he says it is no use talking. What would he like me to do? If I sat down and was silent he would still complain. I am offering what I believe to be perfectly sound reasons. Of course, his judgment and mine may not agree, because I have not the advantage of possessing 5 p.m. the judgment of the hon. gentleman, and I am limited to offering such observations as in my judgment appear to be well founded and sound. It is a matter of intense humiliation to me that my views do not meet with his approval but hardly a disappointment because I did not anticipate very much else. The hon. gentleman quite understands that we shall not reach any helpful results by this sort of commentary on the observations that are made.
I take it that these men must be military men and it does not seem to me to be more reasonable to suggest that a scrutineer shall be provided from a camp, say in England, to go to France to be scrutineer in another camp, than it would toe to suggest that here at home I should send to Halifax or Vancouver or some other place to find a scrutineer to help me in Ste. Anne's Division. As long as I am paying the expenses myself, and as long as I am dealing with people who' are under no obligation superior to the obligations they may think they are under towards me, I am at perfect liberty to do that if I think proper. But we must always remember that we are carrying on an election among men who have very important duties to perform, and I ask the hon. gentleman himself, is it reasonable to suggest that when in any camp of any importance there are, as there must be, numerous friends and supporters of both parties in this country, we should make a provision in this Bill to make it possible, and even to encourage, one or other of the parties to go looking for scrutineers under conditions which would entail travelling expenses? I really think there is no fair ground for complaint in the fact that conditions are such as to make it necessary for the respective parties to select as their scrutineer people who will be on the ground and who, toeing on the ground, will of necessity not have to go to any expense in the performance of their duties.
Mr. COPtP: How is the candidate going to know where his friends are who will act as scrutineers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I thought we all understood that we had not in contemplation the providing of scrutineers to represent particular candidates. I myself, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman says of the immense opportunities that I have for knowledge of where my electors are, must say that I have never so far been able to find out where particular soldiers were. I have not had occasion to ask for them in connection with an election, but have had occasion to ask for them in connection with other things. Last evening the hon. member for Piictou asked whether we could not lay on the Table samples of lists showing, among other things, the whereabouts of soldiers. I asked the Minister of Militia today whether such lists were available and whether they could be had, and he seemed to be under the belief that there must be some misapprehension with regard to the description of the lists which were referred to. I myself have no knowledge of the existence of such information being available to anybody. But even supposing that the hon. member knew where some of his friends were located, this Bill does not pretend to make a provision whereby it will be possible for him to select a scrutineer for himself, and send hiir, to where his friends are.

Of course he may, if he has that information, communicate with the representatives of his own party who have the nomination of scrutineers, and they will, no doubt, be very glad to meet his suggestion, but the Bill does not undertake to make precise provisions so that every candidate may have scrutineers at the poll. The best we can hope to obtain is adequate provision for representation of the respective parties at the poll.


William Manley German: This poll is to he kept
open continuously from the morning after nomination day until eight o'clock of the day of the election, so that votes may be polled morning, noon or night? There is no intermission at all? They can vote at night as well as they can in the day?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am obliged to my hon. friend for the information; I did not know that.


William Manley German: I ask the Minister of
Justice if it is so?
Mr. DOlHERTY:	The Bill conta ins the
information, and the Bill does not provide for polls being open all day and all night for four weeks.


William Manley German: I simply asked the Minister of Justice for the information.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And I am giving the
information.


William Manley German: Under the provisions of the Bill, is it not permissible that the poll could be held at night, just as well as in the day-time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is permissible, and
there might be conditions when night would be the most suitable'time for everybody.


William Manley German: I just wanted the information. I was not at all impertinent to the minister; I suppose we are entitled to the information.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly, and the hon. gentleman has the information now. As I understood his question, he wished to know if the Bill provided that the poll should be open morning, noon, and night for twenty-eight days. I have tried to answer him.


William Manley German: I stated that according
to the wording of the Act, as I understand it, the poll could be kept open morning, noon, and night until eight o'clock of the day of the election.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hours at which the poll may be kept open are not prescribed. Within that period they may be kept open

at any time that military exigencies permit. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman would suggest that this should not be done. It seems to me we should leave it possible for polls to be held at such hours as may be most convenient under the particular circumstances as they arise.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: In the case of a man who might be on the point of leaving for France, is provision made under subsection 5 of section 8 to prevent him from voting again in France, or voting at two or three different points?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only possible safeguard we have against that, whether a man votes that way or in some other way, is that every voter is required to swear he has not previously voted in the course of the election; just as in this country the only precaution we have against a man voting more than once, if he can succeed in getting by the officers, is his oath that he has not previously voted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister has not yet discussed the proposition I put up to him. Perhaps I may be allowed to place it before him again, and in doing so I wish to quote section 11, although we have not yet reached it, as indicating what I have in my mind. Section 11 at least presumes that a deputy presiding officer may hold more than one poll, or rather he may hold a poll, for instance, for the 25th Regiment to-day, for the 26th to-morrow, and for the 27th the day following. He may travel around from place to place. It also provides that when the bag is full he can seal it up, and start with another one. He does the sealing himself; it is not done by the scrutineer. Why could not the scrutineers appointed by the leader of the Opposition receive notice immediately upon the appointment of the deputy presiding officer that such and such an officer has beep appointed. Then the scrutineer, or scrutineers, could be named to accompany that deputy presiding officer, and wherever the deputy presiding officer accepts a vote the scrutineer would have the right to be present. He would follow the deputy presiding officer around. There should be some direct provision that any man appointed as a scrutineer, or deputy scrutineer, should have leave of absence for the time necessary to attend to the voting. Aly hon. friend points out the difficulty of taking men away from their military duties, and I quite understand that difficulty, but at the same time we must remember this is an extraordinary condition we are providing for the soldiers. We

must realize it is something that will only happen, I hope, once in our lives, therefore we should make a special law to provide for a special case. I have no idea how many deputy presiding officers there might be, but if they are going to travel around and cover extensive territory, there will not he very many of them. If they only take a poll in their own regiment, the amount of time they will require is not considerable, and their pay would be a mere bagatelle. I would like to see a deputy scrutineer for every presiding officer, and I think no ballot should be deposited in the box except in the presence of that deputy scrutineer. If my hon. friend will accept that principle he will eliminate a great deal of discussion in regard to this Act, and he will get his Bill through, because we can easily work out the details. After the ballots have been taken in any particular place I would suggest that those ballots be sealed up in a package, and signed by the returning officer, the poll clerk and the scrutineers in such a way that the seals could not be broken without detection. If the minister will accept that I am sure in a very short time we can arrange for the wording of the changes and the Bill can go through.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to closing up the box immediately after the ballots have been taken, as compared with the system under which the box is to be finally closed and sealed only after it is full, or after the officer has taken all the ballots he contemplates taking, or it is possible for him to take, I may say these two systems formed the subject of discussion and consideration when we were engaged in preparing the Bill. When we come to the section dealing with that, I shall be glad to put before the committee the reasons which led us to the conclusion that this was the better way. If in the judgment of this committee the method suggested by my hon. friend is considered the better method, I shall be quite prepared to accept it. For the moment we might let that particular phase of the subject stand. With regard to the principle involved in connection with the scrutineers, as I understood it, my hon. friend suggested that every scrutineer should be notified of the names of the presiding officers?
Y:. CARVELL: What I suggested was that the scrutineers for each party-that is, the three scrutineers appointed by the leader of the Government and the three
appointed by the leader of the Opposition- should be notified of the appointment of each deputy presiding officer, then they could arrange for scrutineers to represent each party.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I certainly think he ought to have knowledge. When we provided for the appointment of these gentlemen and gave them all the rights of representatives of Canada, it did not suggest itself" to my mind that they would not make inquiry. It must be remembered that the presiding officers named will not be very numerous. I would suppose that a dozen would be more than enough to take care of the work in England and France. I would have assumed that if I had been performing the duty of scrutineer on behalf of my party it would have been part of my business to make inquiry in regard to these deputy presiding officers. However, I have not the slightest objection to making it the duty of the presiding officers, as they appoint ieputy presiding officers, to notify the representatives of each party. I have no objection to adding that provision to the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Go a little further and provide that no votes can be polled except in the presence of the scrutineers, and then we will eliminate a whole lot of discussion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I realize that there is force in a great deal of what the hon. gentleman says on the subject, but, on the other hand, I must ask myself: Are we going to create a situation in which the soldier will have to lose his vote because he does not happen to be at a formal poll?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the difference between that man and a man in Canada who is a ratepayer and a good citizen and who loses his vote on account of not complying with the conditions of the law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The man in Canada is his own master and he has his own time. He may have to make a sacrifice to get to the poll, and if he is ill he may not be able to get to the poll. If he is not detained by superior authority, or if he is not ordered to go elsewhere, he will have an opportunity of polling his vote. Then he is not exposed to the dangers to which the soldier is exposed. I do not want to indulge in any highfalutin, but there are some facts in connection with this matter which are not highfalutin.' Surely it is a more serious matter to say >to a man who is called to go 'away to-morrow to face death.



You cannot vote because the poll is not to be held until the day after to-morrow, than it is to say that to the man at home who is pursuing his ordinary avocation, although I
quite admit that the man. rat home may not live until the day after to-morrow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is entitled to his vote just the same.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Here we have a condition of affairs where it is permissible to vote at any period within four weeks. Here is a man going out and taking the grave chance that he will not come back or that he will come back severely wounded and in very serious danger that he will not live until the day after to-morrow. That condition may exist and it does exist in a large number of cases. If under these circumstances it is possible to have that man's vote taken without undue risk of its giving rise to abuses we should provide means by which it could be taken otherwise than at a formal poll.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I entirely agree with that and I think that probably the minister has shown that there is some difference between the citizen and the ordinary soldier because the soldier is under orders.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Is that the only difference? Is he not performing a supreme service to the State?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, we admit all that. We admit that the soldier is entitled to vote. We are giving him 28 days to record his vote. The minister states that a man is sent to the front and that he is liable to be killed. Whether he is liable to be killed or not-I do not think there is any argument at all-he is a soldier and therefore entitled to his vote. If the minister would only meet the suggestion he would get rid altogether of the objection. Why not make provision that the presiding officer shall notify the scrutineer because you have got the scrutineers any way?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have pretty well got together so far-


William Cameron Edwards: We cannot hear as well as hon. gentlemen opposite can. Would the minister let us know how far he and the hon. gentleman have got together?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have got together to this extent that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) agrees with me that, if it be possible that a soldier's vote could be taken otherwise than at the formal poll under conditions which make it necessary without any undue opportunity for abuse, it would be desirable that the vote should be

so taken. All that is provided in the Bill is that it should be done otherwise than at the formal poll. I am not seeking to conclude from that that I have met the thing upon which we are agreed because I quite understand the suggestion of the hon. member is that, though it might be taken otherwise than at a formal poll, it ought to be required that a scrutineer would be present.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the point.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And to that end we
ought to make provision for the appointment of sufficient scrutineers. I am quite prepared to supplement the provision for the appointment of a suffic'er t number of scrutineers by imposing expressly upon the presiding officer who names the deputies the obligation of giving notice to the general representative of each party so that the latter may be in a position to know who the deputy presiding officers are and so that they will be in a position to provide a scrutineer for each deputy presiding officer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: One step further; let the deputy presiding officer be required to notify the scrutineer that he is going to accept a vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Now we have reached
the real question as to what is possible. If that is possible, why, of course, it ought to be done. We have already made it the duty of the deputy presiding officer, wherever the conditions make it reasonably possible, to give notice of the poll that he is going to hold. Perhaps, technically, the taking of one vote is the holding of a poll, but I do not suggest that it should be so understood. It seems to me that we have gone as far as we can go when we make it possible for each party to provide that there should be a scrutineer for each deputy presiding officer and have made it the duty of the deputy presiding officer, wherever conditions make it possible, to notify that scrutineer that he is going to take a vote.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You leave a loophole
there.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I concede that there i3 a loophole there through which some fraud may come in; but it seems to me that we have to choose between a loophole through which fraud may come and saying to the soldier that under such circumstances he will of a certainty lose his vote.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How will he be deprived of his vote by providing that the scrutineer shall be notified before his vote is taken?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the conditions that necessitate taking his vote otherwise than at a formal poll arise, say, this morning and the scrutineer has been called away for the day from the camp-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He would appoint some one else in his place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman
will be satisfied with a provision that where-ever it is possible to get the scrutineer-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is always possible.
Mr. DOHERTY-I think I have gone about as far as I can go to meet the hon. gentleman.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is asking us to legislate for an impossible case. All our men are collected in camps, and when a presiding officer goes to camp to take the votes in it, his scrutineer will be with him in normal cases, and why should he not have him there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am trying to make
provision for the taking of a vote under conditions that will not occur every day and, with all respect, I do not think it reasonable to suggest that because you have a scrutineer appointed for the deputy presiding officer, that scrutineer will at all times be available. Now it is suggested that somebody else should replace him. I have no objection, in fact the provision for the holding of the poll provides for another military elector acting in the absence of the scrutineer, and I have no objection to make the requirement that wherever that thing could be done it should be done. Hon. gentlemen say there is never going to be a case where that will not be possible. Then I am not asking much for the soldier when I ask that that opportunity should be given to him, if the hon. gentleman should happen to be mistaken and such cases should arise.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If a scrutineer has been appointed on each side for each deputy returning officer-


Robert Laird Borden: In the Dominion Elections Act there is a provision that if there is no authorized representative of either one candidate or the other, electors can come forward and claim the right to act at the opening of the po}l.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That same provision is here.


Robert Laird Borden: Why could you not provide that if there is no official scrutineer present the deputy returning officer should select two men who should each
represent one side and have the votes taken in that way? I should like my hon. friend to bear in mind that, notwithstanding all he has said, these votes are to be polled under conditions that none of us can realize, not even those who have been at the front.


William Pugsley: That would not be so in England.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the men at the front and of what the Minister of Justice has in mind, the polling of votes at the front. I should like to impress this: the holding of an election in France and in Great Britain, particularly in France, involves the necessity of most careful provisions, but we must ensure the fullest possible opportunity for voting and at the same time provide adequate safeguards. That is the object of the Dominion Elections Act. That is the object of these provisions, which take into account the holding of an election in a situation that is very difficult and much more complicated than anything we have in this country. I should like to impress upon the committee that we ought to try to make the provisions of the simplest possible character. They will have to be carried out by men whose minds for the most part-I am speaking of those at the front-are intent upon the sternest duty men could be called on to fulfil and who would not have the opportunity to sit down and study these provisions very attentively. Therefore these provisions should be of the simplest possible character. We should avoid complex provisions if we wish to have the election carried out so that men will have a full opportunity to vote and also that no technical questions will be raised with regard to it. It seems to me that the provision I have suggested, which is veTy much like that in the Dominion Elections Act, ought to be reasonably satisfactory. It may be that this provision will never be invoked or, on the contrary, it may be invoked very often; one condition or the other will depend on what is going on at the front, on the developments of warfare which will be taking place when this Act is put into operation. Imagine endeavouring to carry out this Bill in the midst of the awful conflict raging during the last four or five days on the outskirts of the town of Lens! I think any one of us, without exercising his imagination to the full, can realize how intently the minds of all engaged in that struggle would be absorbed in the duties immediately before them, and of how little concern they -would think the strict fulfilment of

techni-oai! provisions of this Bill compared with the sterner duties facing them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I quite agree with every word the Prime Minister has said, and I do not think that, with twenty-eight days in which to take an election vote, anybody would ever dream of trying to take the ballots of men engaged in a movement such as that around Lens to-day.
If the votes are to (be taken at many different points you must have a returning officer and a clerk, who shall visit each point. I presume a vote would not be taken without the clerk, and why, then, should you not have the scrutineers also? My hon. friend says: " If there is nobody there to represent one party, the returning officer or deputy returning officer can appoint scrutineers. But supposing there is only one man present, how can you have scrutineers to represent a party? My hon. friend is too astute a lawyer not to toe able to understand the proposition that is presented. These scrutineers are to be appointed toy the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. They are to be notified of the appointment of every deputy presiding officer, and then they have sufficient time in which to nominate a scrutineer for each deputy presiding officer, and the deputy presiding officer shall take votes without notifying the scrutineers. Of course, if he has notified them, and they do not come, it is their fault. That gives the scrutineer the opportunity, if he cannot be present, to appoint a substitute if notice is given. These things will then be worked out, and there will be a feeling that nothing which is unfair or underhand is being done. That is all I ask for. I think we should extend the section to include a private, so that, if necessary, a private could be appointed as a scrutineer. He should have permission to follow the presiding officer wherever he goes, and his travelling expenses should be paid. If you want to appoint a private, then appoint him, and give him leave of absence. No votes should be taken unless the scrutineers on both sides have 'been notified. They could make their own arrangements. If that is done a lot of the discussion will be obviated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We intend to provide that the presiding officer shall be notified of the appointment of the deputy presiding officer. I suggest, in view of what has been said, that the presence of the scrutineer or some representative of the candidate, should be provided for.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Or proof given of his having been notified?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have drafted a proposed amendment that may perhaps be satisfactory, although the words may not be absolutely so. My proposed amendment reads:
But such vote shall he so taken In the presence of the deputy scrutineer, or failing either or both, of a military elector or two military electors, who shall together with the deputy presiding officer sign upon the envelope in which the ballot is inserted a certificate that the vote was taken under this subsection, and the reasons which made it necessary.


William Erskine Knowles: 
William Cameron Edwards: There is an obligation upon the Government to provide the necessary machinery to enable the soldiers to record their votes in this election. That, I think, is conceded by all. Beyond question, some soldiers wild foe unable to poll their votes in what is called the formal polls. Shall we give those soldiers no opportunity to poll their votes, or shall we endeavour to provide machinery whereby they may be enabled to do so? In the case of an election in Canada, the Government provides a man who is called the deputy returning officer, and recognizes the appointment of a man who is called a poll clerk. The duties of the poll clerk may be regarded as clerical, but the very fact that he is in the polling booth with the deputy returning officer is, to some extent, a safeguard in respect of the registering of the votes. Moreover, each party may be represented by a scrutineer. If there are two candidates, each has his scrutineer; if there are three candidates, there will be three scrutineers. It has never been regarded as an obligation upon the Government to provide scrutineers for the parties and to pay for their services, but these scrutineers have always been permitted to have a place in the polling booths; they have been recognized to that extent. If we go that far in this case, what fault can be found? The deputy returning officer will go to France or to some other place to take the votes which cannot he polled in the formal booths. The man who should go with him is the man who would be in the booth with him if the vote was taken in

the formal poll-that is, the poll clerk. In sending out those two men to take the vote, the Government is providing the same safeguard that is provided in any election held in Canada. As I understand the Bill, the parties interested may provide scrutineers who may be present when these votes are taken. The member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) says that we should appoint two scrutineers, one to represent the Government and one to represent the Opposition. But does that cover the whole case? So far as this side of the House is concerned, one scrutineer would be sufficient, but would it be fair to appoint only one scrutineer to represent the Opposition? Surely no person would say that. If you represent by accredited scrutineers, paid by the Government, the various elements that constitute the Opposition, you impose upon the Government the necessity of sending with the deputy returning officer a small army of men to see that the vote is properly polled. For instance, there would be one scrutineer to represent the Government side; there would be another scrutineer to represent the Laurier Liberals, another to represent the anti-conscription Liberals and the Bourassa element, and a dozen-


George William Kyte: They will be represented by the Government.


George Perry Graham: And there are the Patenaude Tories and the Paquet Tories.


William Cameron Edwards: Hon. gentlemen seem to think that if the Government appointed two scrutineers and paid their travelling expenses, that would meet the case. But in order to represent all the various elements in the Opposition, at least fifteen or twenty scrutineers would be required.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We are satisfied with one; we are not asking for fifteen.


George Perry Graham: One would be better than none.


William Cameron Edwards: If you want one, the machinery is provided here the same as it is in an ordinary election. Any party will have the privilege of sending scrutineers to look after its own interests. The Government send the deputy returning officer and his poll clerk; they provide all the machinery that is provided in an ordinary election and all the usual safeguards. I do not think it is reasonable to ask that they should go further than that.


George Perry Graham: In an ordinary election, the polling is done at a stated time and place; in this case provision is made that

votes may be taken, not at a stated time and place. That is the difference.


George William Kyte: There is another vast difference. If any fraud is committed in connection with an election in Canada, those who commit the frauds can he prosecuted under our criminal law, but I scarcely think our criminal law could reach those who commit frauds in France in connection with the polling of votes.


William Pugsley: My right hon. friend
has called attention to the extraordinary conditions which exist in France. I quite admit that the conditions there are extraordinary, but this Bill provides the same machinery, and is equally defective in its safeguards, in respect to elections which may be taken outside of France as in France. The same provision applies to all elections held outside of Canada, wherever they may be held. I am told that conditions in England, so far as the taking of a vote is concerned, are substantially the same as conditions in Canada, and that there would not be the slightest difficulty in taking the vote there.


William Cameron Edwards: What about those undergoing medical treatment who are not in bed, but are still not well enough to go to the poll?


William Pugsley: 
George Perry Graham: Does the minister not think he ought to make provision for two parts in this Bill, one for the men not in France or not near the firing line, and the other for those who are liable to be called to the trenches at any moment? With conditions as they are in Canada, for instance,
I see no reason why the soldiers in Canada could not poll their votes in one day just as the men in a city poll their votes in one day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That provision is in the Act.


George Perry Graham: Under ordinary conditions, there are a large number of men, and with one deputy returning officer to so many voters the poll should be all taken in one day. I see no reason why the Elections Act as we have it in Canada could not apply to the soldiers' vote being taken in Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are some things that would be different-the method of taking the vote, for instance. We have subjected the actual method of marking the ballot by the soldiers in Canada to the rules that prevail here; but we use this form of military ballot, and the reason for so doing is that in taking votes in camps in Canada you would be face to face with the same situation, that you cannot establish separate polls for the different constituencies without very great inconvenience.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is only in the poll.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is only in the poll. If my memory serves me right, we have, generally speaking, with regard to the provisions for marking the ballot, maintained the requirement that the soldier in Canada shall retire behind a screen to mark his ballot, differing in that from the method provided for overseas voting. As we go along it will be found that there are other material differences. In this Bill we have not made two separate parts, but we have made different provision as to the method of taking the ballots in Canada. Bearing in mind what was said this afternoon, 1 would be disposed to do what I mentioned to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), and that is to impose on the deputy presiding officer, when he takes any vote outside of the formal poll, to insist on taking it in the presence of the scrutineers, or failing that, in presence of a military elector or military electors. I desire to enact
any precaution that can possioly be enacted and for that purpose am willing to provide that with regard to a ballot taken in that exceptional way the presiding officer taking it, and the scrutineers or military electors present, should join in signing the certificate to be endorsed upon the envelope, stating the fact that this particular ballot was taken in this exceptional way, and the reasons why that course was followed. I submit to the committee that with those additional safeguards it is not an unreasonable proposition. And I want to be in this respect, as in all respects, frank with the committee; that particular subsection was the subject of a good deal of discussion, and the conclusion I arrived at as the wisest course to follow was to insert the provision as it stood in the Bill, quite expecting that it would give rise to difference of opinion, and that suggestions would be made looking to a greater protection. I have had the advantage of listening to the suggestions made. At the moment, at all events, I do not feel that I can quite meet them all. But, as I indicated this afternoon, I would be prepared to meet them to the extent of making provision that when the presiding officer, appoints his deputy presiding officers, he should notify the scrutineer or scrutineers of each party of the appointment. In the second place, I would be prepared to add the provision that the military authorities shall, subject to non-interference with the performance of military duty, give every military elector the time and opportunity to vote; and also, subject to the same condition, that they should give to. every military elector who may be named as deputy scrutineer time and opportunity to perform his duty. I would also be prepared to add the further precautions I have mentioned with regard to the taking of this particular kind of vote. I submit that to the committee as the result of the impression made upon my mind by what has been said, and as being what, at the moment, seems to me as far as it is possible to go without running the risk of depriving soldiers of the opportunity which they should have to vote.


George Perry Graham: I cannot see why any difference should exist between the conditions under which the soldier should vote in Canada and the conditions under which an ordinary individual should vote. I think the Elections Act should apply to every case in Canada, and I do not see why it should not apply to the men in England as well. You have a large number of men together-

not as large as we have in our cities, yet the cities are divided up into-


Mr. ARTHURS:: There are more voters in some camps than there are in some of the cities.


George Perry Graham: It is only a question of having more polling booths, and more returning officers. None of the reasons which can be brought forward for special arrangements which are necessary at the front-and we all recognize conditions must be exceptional there-can be said to exist in the camps in Canada. I would go further and say that in Canada we ought to have the ordinary ballot, because the soldiers here will know the candidates. There is no reason why they should not.


Mr. STEVENS:: Every camp probably will contain representatives from twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty different constituencies.


George Perry Graham: Surely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are all mixed up. You would have to have ballots for almost all the constituencies in Canada. That is the outstanding difficulty.


George Perry Graham: There is a good deal in what my hon. friend says. Perhaps that is a full reply to what I have been saying as to the ballots. It strikes me as a pretty good reason except that if I were in a camp and I came from the riding of South Renfrew I would know where South Renfrew was voting. I think a polling booth for each riding might be provided in the camp.


Mr. BRADBURY:: You might have only one or two voters from each riding.


George Perry Graham: No one would have so far to go in a Canadian camp as many electors in South Renfrew have to go on polling day. There is another consideration. Men in Canada are not in the position of the men in France, and I see no reason why the men should not be free on polling day for voting purposes. They should not be marched to the polls by their officers and kept under command, but they should go as free electors, every man as good as an officer on that day as far as his vote is concerned.


Mr. MORPHY:: Is he not?


George Perry Graham: We seem to be applying to the men in Canada and in England a set of conditions as if they were on strict military service and subject to this condition and that. Particularly in Canada there is 
no reason why the Government should not say that military law for that day shall be in a measure relaxed so that members of a company, or a battalion, will not feel that they are being taken to the polls to vote under their officer. Most men do not like to be driven to the polls, they would rather go themselves. Most soldiers will not like to be formed in regular formation and marched to the polls.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is nothing in this Act that requires them to be.


George Perry Graham: There is nothing in this Act, but unless there is some provision that the men shall have that day, not the fifteen minutes or half hour to wait until the officer says: "I am ready and I am going to march you to the polls," that will be the result. Give them election day so that no officer can command them to do this or do that. Make them free so that every man will be at liberty to mark his ballot and so that he will feel that he is not in a military camp and not subject to military discipline on that day. In so far as he is an elector he should be free to go to the polls. The ordinary private in a company who de-pendis on hie officer for promotion and everything else, will feel, as long as he is not given freedom to go as a citizen and not a soldier to vote, that he is under some obligation to the commanding officer. The men should be freed entirely from that in Canada. In fact, a good many'of the soldiers in Canada, where they are at a camp near home, might be allowed to go home and vote at their own polls. I am only pointing out what is the feeling of some of the soldiers with whom I havie discussed this matter. It is like men who are dependent for employment on their employer; he would line them up and drive them to the polls. They do not like that; men like to go themselves without any restrictions or orders from anybody. I am not so sure but that the same thing would apply in England as well. But the principal thing that I wanted to draw attention to was that there are two separate conditions. This Bill ought, I repeat, to be in two parts, one part applying to the conditions existing at the front and the other part to wherever there are men in camps. It is no more trouble to take the vote in a camp than it is to take it in the city of Ottawa.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When we come to deal with the special sections that deal with the things to be done under the Act we will then have an opportunity of considering

what objection there may be to the provisions made and how far it would be possible to assimilate them more closely to the ordinary system. Subsection 1 of section 8 provides that:
Polls shall be held In such camps or other places, in Canada or elsewhere, as shall be assigned to the charge of presiding officers for the purposes of this Part.
I do not think that would be open to objection. Then the rest of the subsection applies to polls held without Canada. Subsection 2 is the one which makes it a duty to allow facilities to the deputy presiding officer and time and opportunity for the soldier to vote. It was to that section that I proposed to add a provision placing the obligation on the military authorities, subject to such action being consistent with the proper performance of military duties, to allow any military scrutineer time and opportunity to perform his duty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before six o'clock I asked one question about section 7. I understand that under that section there will be no deferred election in Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I moved an amendment this afternoon to except the Yukon Territory where it will be impossible to hold the election because the election list has to be prepared after the issue of the writs. A period of forty days is allowed for it, and if we were to try to bring in the Yukon Territory we would find that it would be impracticable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Only in two ridings in Quebec, Chicoutimi and Gaspe, have the elections generally been deferred. There is no need now, with the railway in operation, to defer the election in Gaspe, and the election may be held on the same day. In the old days it was not possible.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As we have four weeks between nomination and election day, I do not think there is any need for deferring the election in any place but the Yukon. If it were not for the long delay in preparing the list in the Yukon, that territory would be included also, but we are forced to make an exception of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If it were winter in
Gaspe, you would have to take advantage of the section of the Dominion Elections Act which provides that the proclamation shall be wired, because there is no communication in winter, unless it is fair weather, between the mainland and the Magdalen Islands. But, that would be the only exception.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We went into the provisions of the Act and it seemed fairly clear that, in view of the long interval between nomination and election, there would be no substantial difficulty anywhere except in the Yukon.


Frank Oliver: If the necessary instructions and information can be transmitted by wire, I do not know why the Yukon should be delayed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The principal reason is that in the Yukon the list is prepared after the issue of the writ for the election, and a period of forty days is allowed for the preparation of that list. The four weeks between nomination and election would not be sufficient for the preparation of the list.
It seemed to us that the balance of convenience was in favour of deferring the election in the Yukon rather than delaying the elections all through Canada or devising a new system for the holding of elections in the Yukon.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN (St. Mary's, Montreal) (translation):: Mr. Chairman,
can the hon. minister explain why, under section 7 of the Bill, elections shall be held a month after nomination? What is the reason of that change? Formerly there were only eight intervening days. What are we aiming at?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is to make it possible for the soldiers' votes, specially overseas, to be taken before the polls are closed here in Canada.
It would be undesirable, I understand, that an election should first be held in Canada and the result of that election be given out, and that we should then proceed in Europe to take the votes of the soldiers who, under those circumstances, would vote knowing the result in Canada. If we cannot hold all the elections on the same day the elections at all events will be brought to a close on the s aine day on this side of the ocean as on the other side.


Médéric Martin: The procedure could be reversed. Nomination day on the other side might be fixed three weeks before. It might be better because in large centres, elections will be awfully expensive. I do not know whether it would be possible or not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would hardly be
desirable that nomination day on the other side should occur three weeks before nomination day in Canada, that candidates

should he nominated overseas and that three weeks after they should be nominated here.


Frank Oliver: Reverting to the Yukon,
that territory can be reached by wire as quickly as Edmonton, and the different outlying points in the Yukon are at no greater distance from telegraph offices than many points in the prairie provinces or British Columbia. If it were desired to hold all the elections on one day, with an interval of four weeks between nomination and election, I can see no reason, with my knowledge of the Yukon, why the election should not be held there at the same time as in other constituencies. The lists in Alberta and Saskatchewan are prepared exactly as they are in the Yukon.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The machinery for the holding of the election in the Yukon is especially devised for that territory. Provision is made for the appointment of an enumerator in each polling subdivision to make a list of electors, and thirty days is allowed for the making of the list. All of this has to be completed fifteen days before the polling day. As I said, we decided it was more convenient to defer this election than to delay all the elections in Canada or to make new provisions for all of this procedure in the Yukon.


Frank Oliver: The condition in regard to the preparation of the lists is, in effect, exactly the same in the Yukon as in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and there is no reason why what is done in Saskatchewan and Alberta in the limit of time permitted by the Act should not be done in the Yukon, the hon. minister rests on the point that it would take a week by mail to reach Dawson. That settles it, but I would think proceedings could be taken on information by wire and, in that case, the work would start at Dawson as quickly as it would at Edmonton. There is no greater area to cover, and no populated points at which it would be necessary to have a polling place at greater distances from railroad communication than in the West Edmonton district. The Vermilion settlement on the Peace river is not less than 250 miles from the nearest rail and telegraph points and there would be no difficulty in meeting the conditions, as far as that point is concerned. I think there would be no difficulty in meeting conditions in the Yukon. I do not wish to press the point, but I have some knowledge of the country and of the conditions the minister speaks of, and I do not wish to have the change he proposes made when I am 
present without my stating the facts, as I understand them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not making a change. I am leaving the law as it was in reference to the Yukon. I am making a change in this way, that we are making the dates in all the other constituencies in Canada coincide. Every reason which has been advanced in favour of a deferred election in the Yukon stands good to-day, as I have endeavoured to point out. Things that have to be done after the issue of the writ necessitate a much later date for nomination in that constituency than in other portions of Canada. In all constituencies in Canada, except the Yukon, there must be eight days' notice of poll, but it is not considered unreasonable that in the Yukon two weeks' notice must be given because you have a large unsettled territory through which the news must be published. Before arriving at a conclusion to except the Yukon from the general rule, I made a careful examination of what the result would be, and it has led me to the conclusion I have stated. I might also observe that this section, providing that all the elections shall be held on the same day and excepting the Yukon, has already been passed.


Frank Oliver: I thought the hon. gentleman spoke of an amendment providing for postponement in the case of the Yukon.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, this Bill as originally drawn provided for all the elections being held on the same day, and then different matters were pointed out, and the change was made.
Mr. MURPHY- The hon. gentleman was interrupted when explaining some of the subsections of section 8 and indicating an amendment he proposed to introduce with respect thereto. I would like to add my request to that already made by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) as to the advisability of relaxing military discipline on polling day, with respect to the soldiers who are in camp in Canada. The objection made by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) as to the difficulty of using the ordinary ballot in these camps in Canada has not, in my judgment, such weight as to preclude the adoption of that ballot, inasmuch as twenty-eight days are to elapse between- nomination and polling day. There would, first of all, be no difficulty on the score of time. As to the other feature of the matter-that there would be in each camp representatives from thirty to forty constituencies

that is a matter

which could be ascertained well in advance of polling day, and suitable arrangements could be made to meet a condition of that kind. Therefore, in my judgment, it would be a decided advantage, first, to relax military discipline on polling day in these camps in Canada, and, second, to provide the soldiers in camps with the ordinary ballot instead of the ballot proposed under this Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the suggestion that we should abolish military discipline for the day-


Mr. MURPHY:: I said "relax."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I used the word "abolish" because that was the impression I had in my mind. However, I think everybody would agree with me that it would not be advisable to have a day in which there would be thousands of men-


Charles Murphy: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I have in mind the amendment my hon. friend approved of a couple of years ago, when we were both members of the committee to which the Elections Act was referred, and by which we allowed working men certain hours during the day to vote, so that they would have those hours as of right, and not by favour from their employers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have not specified the number of hours, but we have put upon the military authorities the imperative duty of affording every military elector time and opportunity to vote. Until the hon. gentleman from South Renfrew suggested it, it had not occurred to me that the battalions would be paraded and marched up to vote as battalions. I quite conceive it would not be an impossible thing, but the better convenience would be served by letting each man record his own vote at some reasonable time.


George Perry Graham: That is my idea.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision requiring them to be paraded. The provision is to compel the officer to allow them time and opportunity to vote. If we were to take a period of two hours, it might, perhaps, be a serious interference with the routine of the battalions, and would not, at all events, be necessary. There are times when we have had camps as large as 30,000. It would be pretty difficult to have 30,000 men vote in two hours. I do not think we could anticipate as many as that. If we have to make a fixed period of time we will allow a great deal more time than would
be considered necessary, rather than run the risk of not allowing quite enough time.
If the individual soldier is to be allowed to go by himseli and vote, ten or fifteen minutes might be ample. I am not a military man, and I do not know to what extent two hours of enforced idleness for one day in a camp would be undesirable, but I fancy it would tbe an unnecessary interference with the conduct of the camp operations, and while I would rather see each man go by himself and vote, still, if a battalion was marched up, and the men allowed to go in one after another and mark their ballots, I cannot quite see how the vote would be influenced.


George Perry Graham: I leave it to the hon. gentleman. He and I are of the same nationality. If I were a private in a company, and my officer paraded me to go and vote, I would feel that I was under the officer all the time, as I would be. My idea is that, during the time of voting, the private is just as good a man as the officer. He ought to feel he is polling a vote as a citizen, and not that he is subject to the command " Eyes right," or " Eyes front," or subject to any orders at all.
I think that he would feel a greater degree of freedom if he was allowed to go to the poll as a citizen, not under orders. If the officers decided to allow so much time to each battalion for purposes of voting, then the men should be allowed to vote as individuals, not particularly as soldiers. I object to their being marched up to the poll under orders and asked individually to step out of the ranks to vote and then step back again.


James Arthurs: Under ordinary circumstances it would not be possible to march a battalion up so that the men might vote. In the first place, in the ordinary poll held in Canada only about 100 or 150 votes could be cast in a day. It would take a considerable length of time to enable all the members of a battalion to vote. Under this Act every soldier has to answer certain questions and to take an oath, the form of which is found on the back of the ballot paper. It would be impossible, therefore, for the officer in command to take that proceeding. The propeT proceeding, I should think, would be to allow certain platoons freedom for the afternoon or for a certain portion of the day, during which period they could do their voting. I think we can trust the officers to see that this is done in a reasonable way. In camps in Canada the military duties are usually

over quite early in the afternoon. Under this Act the polls will be open until 8 p.m.; that would give a great many men an opportunity of voting. I do not see that there would be such difficulty as my hon. friend suggests. .	>


George Perry Graham: Naturally, an officer is a very superior person on account of his position. Suppose that at 8 a.m. the private is under orders to his officer; if when he comes to cast his vote he is not absolutely released from duty, he feels that he is going to the polls by order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Arthurs) agrees with me that that difficulty should be obviated. It ought to be made clear in the statute that it is the duty of the officers to allow the soldiers to be released from duty for a certain length of time in order that they may vote. They should vote not as soldiers but as free citizens.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a distinction between a soldier and a free citizen?


George Perry Graham: I mean, as an elector, not under orders.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We can, if we devote our minds to it, regulate every step that is to be taken on election day by the soldiers and by the officers. I do submit, however, that we might leave something to the common sense of the people concerned, both soldiers and officers.


George Perry Graham: But you do not leave it to the soldiers. The soldier has no mind of his own unless he is released from duty during the day or at the time of voting.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not so sure that the soldier would resent being marched to the poll for the purpose of casting his vote.
I have seen the soldiers paraded to the paymaster's office. They went in one after the other, and they did not refuse the money because they had been taken there under orders. I would suggest to the member for South Renfrew that perhaps such a proceeding would work out to his own advantage, because the soldiers might be naturally inclined to vote against the authority that subjected them to it.


George Perry Graham: I would not want that advantage.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Seriously, I want to meet as far as I can any suggestion that may be useful. It has been suggested that we have been somewhat fanciful in respect of the possible difficulties of soldiers on the other side of the ocean voting. Pos-
sibly it is somewhat fanciful to suggest that it would make any difference to the soldier whether he was paraded to the poll or not. Our experienced military friend (Mr. Arthurs) points out the improbability of this happening. I do not think that we are running very great risk of wrong being done to anybody. Whatever the officers do will be done under the eye, as it were, of the public in Canada; they will be subject to criticism if they do not give every man fair opportunity to vote. I really think that we can safely take that risk. If we cannot take it, we shall have to make such detailed provisions in this Act that it will take us a very long time indeed to have it passed.


George Perry Graham: I think I could put it in two lines.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
might deal with this particular suggestion in two lines, but if we adopt the principle it will take a good many lines to meet all the suggestions in respect to detail that have been made.


George Perry Graham: The men who are in the military camps are absolutely under military rule, and unless under this legislation they are relieved from that authority when they come to poll their votes, there is no guarantee that they will be so relieved. My hon. friend does not leave much to the common sense of officials where their duties are prescribed by statute. The privileges that these men will be called upon to exercise on this particular day as citizens of Canada will be more important than the work that the officer might want them to do in the military camps.


James Arthurs: It would not be possible to relax discipline and allow all the men off for one day in any military camp. That is absolutely out of the question.


George Perry Graham: I defer to my hon. friend's view, but I still hold my own. I have been in these military camps; very many men obtain leave of absence.


James Arthurs: You suggested that they should all be let off.


George Perry Graham: I submit that it could be done. I was arguing that the duty appertaining to polling day was paramount to the military duty of that day. It is in the interests of the men themselves that they shall be absolutely free from military control on that occasion; that they shall feel that they are marking their ballots as free citizens of Canada. I am not suggesting

that the officers would try to control their votes; that is not my argument. These men will be voting not as soldiers, but as citizens of this country, with all the interests of Canada at heart. There ought to be a specific provision that they shall be allowed to vote in that way. The minister says that they will be allowed to do that by the officers; then why not set it out specifically in the statute? I have as much confidence in the common sense of the officers as anybody has, but if I were a private in the ranks I would feel that so far as the voting was concerned I was as good a man as the commanding officer, and if I were paraded here or there or anywhere else to vote I should feel that I was being led to the poll.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: We have considered this section for quite a long time, and the longer we sit on it the farther we get, apparently, from passing it. I do not think that I have seen any one in the House or out of it who can blow hot and cold more successfully than the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham).


George Perry Graham: That is quite an art.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: A moment ago he said that he objected to soldiers being driven by officers to the polls.


George Perry Graham: I said paraded. I never used the word "driven."


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think there is any difference in view of the way the bon. gentleman said it. However, Hansard will decide. Whatever the hon. gentleman said, he intended to impute improper conduct to the officers of the forces against the soldier. He insinuated that the officer had the soldier under his hand when he should not have. That is an insinuation that I think ought to be resented on the floor of this House on behalf of the officers of this country. The hon. gentleman also said that the privates were dependent on 9 p.m. the officers, and under an obligation to them. I think that also ought to be resented and refuted. Personally, I think that if any officer in any camp in Canada attempted to interfere with the right of our Canadian citizen-soldier to exercise his franchise, instead of the >soldier being driven to the poll, the officer would be driven out of the camp.


George Perry Graham: That would be mutiny.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have a higher regard
for the Canadian soldier than to imagine
he would stand for treatment of that kind. The hon. gentleman is simply conjuring up imaginary difficulties. What authority has he for suggesting that any of these things are likely to happen? There, is no foundation for his remarks at all. He is simply supposing that things will happen that never have happened. He is suggesting that the Canadian citizen-soldier is going to be simply a serf under the absolute control of his officers.


George Perry Graham: I know one soldier who was flogged at Borden.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And that one incident is sufficient basis for my hon. friend to make a wholesale attack upon the officers in our forces.


George Perry Graham: Nonsense. I did not do/ anything of the kind.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And he suggests that our soldiers would accept servility, and that they would not have the manhood to resent interference with their freedom. He said the men should be freed from that-freed from something they have never been subjected to. In that connection he argued that employers of labour herded their men -another insult to the labouring men of this country. I know that the labouring men of this country will not be herded by their employers, and I put the soldier on an equal plane with the labouring man.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member says "hear, hear ". After saying all these things he says " I have every confidence in the officers ". That is what I call blowing hot and cold with a vengeance. I think the Minister of Justice is to be commended for his patience. If ever a man was patient under insidious attacks and puerile attempts to waste the time of the House, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is that man. I think it is time we made a little progress with this Bill.


George Perry Graham: I am glad that my hon. friend has had the opportunity of making a real political speech, and I suppose he will now have it distributed amongst the gentlemen in his constituency and elsewhere, and perhaps have it published in the Orange Sentinel.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Not a bad paper.


George Perry Graham: No, I get it and read it regularly. There is not a man in this House but knows that I said nothing in disparagement of the workingman of Can-

ada. I said that he would resent an employer doing any such thing. Nor did I say anything derogatory of the officers. I made it plain that I did not mean to say the officers would do anything wrong, but that the soldier ought to he free from military control at the time he voted. I submit that that is a fair proposition, which can be discussed without any pyrotechnics, and one which the men in the ranks will agree with; and I know something of their feeling.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know whether the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) was hitting at me or not, and I do not know that I need bother my head much about it anyway. I suppose I am a member of this Parliament, and I am not aware that free speech has been abolished yet. I do not think there has been any undue criticism of this Bill-at least not by me.


George Perry Graham: This is practically the first time I have spoken on the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are some features of this Bill that are certainly very objectionable to me, and I believe they are also objectionable to a great many members on both sides of the House. There are three features to which I object. But before taking them up, I think that when hon. gentlemen make suggestions the Government ought to say either "We will meet you and have this thing arranged if possible," or, "We won't." We should then know where we were at. Taking the points to which I object in the order in which they appear in the Bill, subsection 3 of section 3 provides that a man who was a non-resident of Canada at the time of his enlistment can apply his vote to any constituency he may indicate. That is bad in principle. I am going to take the chance of being called a disloyal citizen by my hon. friend from North Perth or some one else-because whenever we talk about soldiers in this House somebody on the other side tells us we are disloyal-and say that I have very grave doubts whether the people of this country feel that a man who is not a resident of Canada should have the right to vote. Let them call that disloyal if they want to; that is what I say. To my certain knowledge in one regiment in this country to-day there are over 1,000 Americans who do not know anything about our laws and the questions upon which they may be called upon to vote. These men are entitled to the very highest respect for having enlisted, but I am not sure that they 	.
ought to have the vote. But if Parliament decides that they should have the vote, surely they should not have the right to apply their vote in any constituency they please. They ought not to be allowed to play the game as somebody wants them to play it. I do not know to what extent it could be done, but I do know that if any officer were so disposed, this provision might give rise to very grave abuses. I do not want to mention the name of the regiment, but I repeat that in one regiment in Canada to-day there are a thousand Americans, or a thousand in perhaps two regiments, in the same place in Canada. If these men are to be given the right to vote, some provision should be made as to where they shall vote. They should not be allowed to distribute their votes as they see fit.
The second thing to which I object-and I think I am voicing the sentiments of hon. gentlemen around me-is that provision of section 8, which gives an officer the right to poll a vote without an agent or representative of both sides being present when the vote is being polled. I am putting it in pretty broad language, but that is the substance of my objection. This could easily be avoided. A provision could easily be framed to safeguard the secrecy and honesty of the ballot. I admit that holding an election at the front is not like holding an election in Canada. In connection with that, I do not believe that any officer-I do not care who he may be, whether he is the most upright man in the world-should be allowed to carry around with him a bag of votes open to the inspection of himself and anybody else for weeks before it is sealed and sent to its proper destination.
That bag should be sealed up at the close of the polling every day, and either the bag itself should be sealed up by three or four men representing both parties, only to be opened when those same persons or representatives of the same persons are present, or the ballots for the one day's proceedings should be put into a package, sealed up, marked by the different parties and forwarded to destination. That comes under section 11. The third proposition to which I object is the provision that this Bill shall apply to the voting in Canada. I am speaking now to the Minister of Justice, who was a member of the subcommittee, of which my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy), my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrop), my hon. friend from Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. AUGUST 22, 1917
Robidoux), my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) and myself, were members. We went over this thing thoroughly, and I think we gave it as fair consideration as possible. As a result of our deliberations, we worked out a scheme in 1915, which is found in chapter 11 of the statutes of that year. A voters' list was provided for the soldiers in Canada and returning officers were appointed. They were governed by the election laws of Canada. Elections were held the same day as the other elections in Canada, and there was no trouble whatever. Why the Government wants to import an entirely new condition of affairs into the voting in Canada, and give a month's time for the polling of votes, is something I cannot understand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will my hon. friend allow me? Under this Bill all the soldiers in Canada are to vote on one day. There will be only one election day. In that respect the present Bill does not differ from the old one. We had some discussion on this question before the hon. gentleman came in, and I pointed out that I thought the greatest substantial difference between the way the votes are taken in Canada with regard to the ordinary individual and the way they will be taken with regard to the soldier in this country consists in the fact that the soldier in this country is to use the form of ballot as provided by this Act. We went over the provisions of the old Act which have been referred to and after careful consideration .and giving the best thought we could give as to how it would work out, we decided-of course may have reached a mistaken conclusion-that the endeavour to provide separate ballot boxes for 100, or 200, or 230 different polls, and to take the vote with the ballots appropriate under the ordinary system of holding of polls by constituencies, would entail a great deal of trouble, and would involve a great deal of confusion, It must also be remembered that under the old Act it was contemplated that all of the votes taken in Canada, as well as those taken on the other side, for a constituency should be so collected as to make it possible to send them to the returning officer in the constituency in which the election was being held, and to have them counted. When we abandoned the idea that it was possible to have the overseas votes assorted and sent in that way to the particular constituencies and counted the same evening, it seemed to us that we had to choose between assimilating the soldiers' vote in a certain
degree without distinction of places, and endeavouring absolutely to assimilate the vote in Canada to the general system of voting. In my judgment, the practical difference, as I have already said, consists only in this, that the ballot is to be the form of the military ballot and to be deposited in the envelopes, and left to be assorted afterwards. I think it can hardly be disputed that it will add a great deal to the convenience of the taking of the votes, if the votes of the soldiers as they present themselves can be taken without distinction between their constituencies, leaving the assortment to take place afterwards and by officers of the same class as is provided with regard to overseas voting, but under the direction of the general returning officer here. It seems to me we get a simpler and more expeditious way of getting the votes taken in the camp, and one which wil-l give rise to less possible confusion, and be likely to create less interruption in the carrying on of the operations of the camp than would be the result if' we have to try to provide separate polling arrangements for every constituency in the Dominion. As regards the method of marking the ballot, the retiring behind the screen and the secrecy of the ballot, we have preserved in Canada the requirements made for the general voting in Canada; and speaking in a general way I do not think there is a material difference between the system of the soldier voting in Canada and the other electors voting, save that the soldier does not vote in a poll set aside for a particular constituency, and does not use the ballot provided for a particular constituency. If my hon. friend had been here this afternoon, he would have heard the discussion that took place with Tegard to the means provided by this Act in order to enable every soldier elector to know the candidates in his particular constituency. I think those provisions are ample. They have been improved by an amendment added at the suggestion of the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald), making it quite clear that every soldier shall have ample opportunity of knowing the candidates in his particular constituency, and this Bill affords him perfect opportunity to vote for one or other of those candidates.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister pardon me? I did not read carefully the provisions of section 7. I see now that the voting in Canada shall all take place on the same day. I am rather inclined to agree with the minister that so far as the actual voting is concerned the provisions of this

Act should prevail, because we could not have, perhaps, a dozen different 'ballot boxes in the same regiment. I am only trying to see if we cannot arrive at some means by which we can shorten this discussion and get the Bill through. So far as I am concerned, I do not like Ottawa sufficiently well to remain here until October 7, if I can help it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps this suggestion might help in attaining the result. We have had a pretty thorough discussion of the sections, as far as we have gone-and I do not by any means wish to suppress further suggestions with regard to them- and I think we shall attain a better result if we let this section stand, and take up the next one, with a view to hearing what may be said on it, then, let that section stand, and so far as suggestions are made the Government would be in a position to take them all together.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that is fair.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We can then see what suggestions can be met, and what suggestions we are not in a position to accept. In that way we would reach a practical result, which, I appreciate, is the wish of every one.


William Manley German: I wish to say a word with regard to section 8 before it stands at the suggestion of the minister. Outside of Canada the only three places in which any number of soldiers' votes will be polled will be England, France and Bermuda. I cannot see why the vote taken in England should not be taken exactly in the same way as it is in Canada. The soldiers in Elngland will not be more considerably distributed than in Canada. They will be held in large numbers in the several camps in different sections of England. There is no reason why all the votes in England should not be polled on the same day.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: What about all the hospitals in England in which there will be soldiers?


William Manley German: I do not know why they should not be polled in the hospitals on the same day. I think it would be better to poll them on one day rather than on several days in the hospitals. Surely the hospital officials will not want deputy returning officers coming to the hospitals day after day. In all the training camps in England it would surely be more convenient for the military authorities, and for the soldiers too, that all the votes
	.
should be polled on one day under the protection of the scrutineers. In Bermuda, necessarily, the votes will all be polled on one day. There is no necessity of having different days and this great stretch of time for polling. The only place where this question of mystery, with which the Minister of Justice seems to surround the voting, will have any application will be France. There is only one place in France where the votes can be taken. The soldiers will either be on the firing line, in the four weeks between nomination day and election day, or in the reserve line. The Canadian troops, I would suppose, hold twenty-five or thirty miles of trenches.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Twelve miles.


William Manley German: They hold twelve miles of trenches. During these four weeks the soldiers may be in the trenches, and on the firing line, where no voting can be done, and they can only vote when they return to the rest places or reserves. All these voters in France, or the bulk of them, will be on rest or reserve line extending over a space of about 12 miles. What difficulty is there in having their vote taken on one or two days? Let the returning officer fix the days. Let the scrutineers be present when the ballots are marked and placed in the box, and, when they are placed in the box, let the box be sealed in the same manner as in Canada. I cannot see that there is any difficulty or mystery surrounding this question of the soldiers voting. It looks, from the standpoint of the layman, as if it would be an exceedingly easy matter when it comes down to the mere work of recording the votes.	I am inclined to
insist that the vote should be polled in France on certain days to be fixed by the deputy presiding officers to suit the convenience of the military authorities; that when these votes are polled they shall be polled in the presence of scrutineers, who are there not as scrutineers for candidates but as scrutineers for parties; that in the presence of the scrutineers the ballots shall be marked and placed in envelopes; that the envelopes, at the end of the day, shall be placed in the ballot box; that the ballot box shall be sealed, and that the deputy returning officer shall not be permitted to carry the ballot box around in his possession for a week half full of ballots. Under the section he can open or close the poll when he likes, early in the morning or at midnight, in short, at any hour of the day or night, or at any time to suit the

exigencies of the military authorities. That is bad for the soldiers themselves. The soldiers will have a desire to feel convinced that their ballots have been properly marked, that they will reach the goal for which they are intended, and that the person-Government or Opposition candidate -for whom they have voted will receive the just and true recompense of those votes.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. German) has given an illustration of how simple it is for us, comfortably seated in this Chamber, to arrange for the expeditious taking of the votes overseas. My hon. friend says that he speaks at a distance. Well, he does speak at a great distance from the reality. I was in England in 1915.
I had the intention at that time of visiting every Canadian wounded soldier whom 1 could find in the British Islands or in France. There was not anything like the number of wounded then that there is now, and they were scattered from one end of the United Kingdom to the other in 143 different hospitals. That was the condition with regard to the wounded. There were then 143 different hospitals at various places at which the votes of Canadian wounded soldiers would be taken under this Bill. Besides that, there is a new condition in regard to certain arms of the service. Forestry battalions have been scattered over different parts of the United Kingdom, sometimes in small groups. You would find them at many different places. I should have said, in regard to the hospitals, that I obtained a list of the hospitals in which Canadian wounded were to be found. I succeeded in going to something over forty of them in the intervals between my work, but I frequently found this condition: I had a list of the men in a particular hospital, but I would find half or two-thirds of these men there and in the meantime the others had been moved to other hospitals or to convalescent homes. Imagine for one moment the project which my hon. friend seriously puts forward, of trying to take the votes of the wounded in one day. You would require something like 150 or 160 returning officers. According to the argument that was put forward, you would require 300 or 320 scrutineers. The suggestion seems to me to indicate the utter unreality of my hon. friend's project for taking these votes. Besides that, what condition have we in France? My hon. friend tells us seriously that all the Canadian forces in France are concentrated within twelve miles. That indicates an absolute lack of appreciation on his part of the conditions.


William Manley German: I said they were holding that number of miles of trenches.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend forgets that we have forestry battalions and railway construction battalions in France, cavalry units scattered over the country in small groups, fifty or sixty or seventy miles from the trenches held by the Canadians, ready to be brought into action when called for. When I was in France last March we had units of the Canadian forestry battalion carrying on their operations in the Vosges, one hundred or one hundred and fifty miles away from the Canadian trenches, and the Canadian railway construction corps were not near these trenches but far away on the Somme, carrying on operations wherever they would be most useful. If any hon. gentleman imagines that it will be an easy thing, under the simplest possible procedure, to obtain the votes of our forces in. France, while he may be perfectly sincere, it is an indication that he has an absolute lack of appreciation of the conditions in France; he does not understand them. Our forces of different arms are scattered over half of France and it will be a tremendous task to enable those men to have a reasonable opportunity of voting, under the best conditions we can devise. It is most difficult to realize those conditions, and I admit that I have but an imperfect appreciation of them in all probability, although I have been twice in France at the Canadian front. To carry out such a suggestion as my hon. friend offers under the actual conditions at the front would be quite impossible. Then, too, our men in England are in more camps than my hon. friend 'has any idea of.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Last evening I suggested that the Minister of Militia might furnish a statement in fuller form of such information as the Prime Minister has just given, a general statement of the disposition of the Canadian troops in the United Kingdom and in Europe.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will realize at once that it would be absolutely against the public interest that the disposition of the Canadian forces in France should be stated to this committee; it could not be thought of for a moment. So far as Great Britain is concerned, I think there would be no objection to giving details as to the camps, although I should not like to speak positively about that. I omitted to refer to the taking of the votes of the men engaged in patrol service in the North sea, in mine sweeping, and in the Canadian vol-



unteer reserve, scattered among fifteen, twenty or perhaps forty ships, guarding the British Isles and doing patrol service in the North sea. To give these men a reasonable opportunity of exercising their franchise is surrounded with difficulties and perplexities absolutely beyond the imagination of any one who has not known something of the reality. My idea is that while we are bound to surround the taking of the votes with every reasonable safeguard, we ought to make these provisions as simple as possible and to give these men the best opportunity that is available under the law of this country to exercise their franchise. I feel very strongly that the members of the committee will be animated by a desire to do that, and I would like to impress on the committee that it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for us to realize what that task really is.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If there is any military reason why information, of the nature I have suggested should not be given, that is a sufficient answer. But I think that information could be given in a general way which would be of service and would not be objectionable. I quite agree with the Prime Minister that it would be impossible to hold the voting in Great Britain and France on one day. I rose particularly to call the minister's attention to subsection 3 of section 8. The latter part of the section is very indistinct and difficult to undersand. Am I correct in assuming that it requires the deputy returning officer to give notice to every person who is appointed as a scrutineer of the fact of his appointment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. He is to inform the deputy scrutineer when the information that he receives of the appointment has been accompanied by or followed by ? request that he should do so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If that is the case, why not express it plainly?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I thought it was expressed plainly, and, with respect, I still think so. I should be glad to make it more plain if any suggestion is made which will help to do so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not say directly that every scrutineer shall have notice of an intended poll? Why require that the deputy presiding officer must have a request that that communication be conveyed to the scrutineer? I was going to suggest that we insert after the word

"notice," in the fourth last line of that section, the words "special notice shall be given of such polls to any person whose appointment as a scrutineer or deputy scrutineer has been communicated to him," and end there. These words "with the request that he so notify" are hardly good drafting, and certainly are not a good way to express the idea.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If you suppress those words, you make it the duty of every presiding officer, of whom there may be an exceedingly large number over in France, to send a notice to the scrutineer in England that he, the deputy presiding officer, is going to hold a poll. You will make him send a notice to every deputy scrutineer of whose existence he knows, even though he is in a gathering which makes it perfectly clear that only one deputy scrutineer will come to his poll. As stated this afternoon, there will be at least double as many scrutineers as deputy presiding officers. Would it be desirable to say that every deputy presiding officer must notify every scrutineer of whose existence he knows? They cannot all come.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The scrutineer attached to his polling division.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The scrutineer who
wishes to be assigned his poll-that is the purpose. We ask all the scrutineers-who after all, are the representatives of one or other party-to notify the deputy presiding officers that they are the scrutineers and ask to be notified of the intended poll. It is to bring the two together, so that each deputy presiding officer will know which scrutineers wish to go to him. If the hon. gentleman will give me better English, I shall be delighted to put it in, but I want the substance of the section to remain.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No deputy returning officer would be liable to interpret that section the first day he had it before him, and I am satisfied the minister will try #id improve it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I thought it was all right. I would be very much obliged if the hon. gentleman would suggest an improvement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it intended to mean that the deputy presiding officer shall give the notice to any scrutineer or deputy scrutineer of any intended poll?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The subsection reads:
(3) Where conditions make it reasonably possible, the deputy presiding officer shall give public notice of the time and place of an in-

tended poll, and, in cases of polls to be held, without Canada, a special notice to any person whose appointment as a scrutineer or, deputy scrutineer has been communicated to him, with the request that he so notify.
To me that is perfectly clear, and I do not know how it could be improved. Supposing the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) were the deputy presiding officer, I would say to him: "You shall give notice to any scrutineer whose appointment has been communicated to you, with the request that you so notify."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not say: " If requested, a special notice of any intended poll shall be given to any scrutineer or deputy scrutineer?"-then you have it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would then have it, just exactly as I have it now. I have not the slightest objection to insert those words.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It would be plainer if you said: " with the request that he be so notified."


Charles Joseph Doherty: The request is that he notify-not that the deputy be notified.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The more I listen to this discussion the more I am convinced that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Halifax is a good one, namely, that this Bill be referred to a special committee, to be threshed out and referred back to the House for one or two days' discussion. It seems to me there are so many technical questions that we cannot follow intelligently the trend of discussion in this committee. As my hon. friend makes a collection of all the suggestions, will he allow me to come back to what I think is one of the most objectionable sections in the Bill, subsection 3 of section 3?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I made this suggestion a little while ago which seemed to be not [DOT]unacceptable:	We have gone over a certain number of sections and some of them have been allowed to stand. This particular section has been fairly exhaustively discussed, and we also have had some discussion on section 3, which section stands and we will have to go back to it-I think it would really make more intelligible to everybody the particular provisions if we allowed this section to stand, and proceeded with the next one, and after we -have discussed it I would be satisfied to let it stand. Such a course might save time later on. We should get a general idea of the whole Bill and the hon. gentlemen will be quite at liberty to come back to section 3 and deal with it further.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite agree with the suggestion of the minister as to this section. Subsection 3 says:
Where conditions make it reasonably possible, the deputy presiding officer shall give public notice of the time and place of an intended poll-
And so on. That is sufficiently wide to leave it entirely open, so far as Canada is concerned, to the deputy presiding officer as to whether or not notice should be given of the poll. I think that language should be more definite and certain as far as Canada is concerned, that notice should be given of the intended poll in any case. Then at the end of section 2, in reference to the suggestion of my hon. friend from Carleton this afternoon in regard to scrutineers, I suggest it should be amended by adding the following words:
and shall allow every scrutineer time and opportunity to perform his duties.
I think that the Prime Minister, when he was dealing with what he thought to be the difficulty of holding polls in England, was referring to the exceptional cases. It is true that there are men in the hospitals, but the Overseas Militia Department has a list of the various hospitals in which the men are located, and there is no reason why there should not be a presiding officer at each of the hospitals. If provision were made to this end, the vote could be taken in one day. As to the forestry units, not more than 14,000 men altogether in England and France are engaged in forestry work. The officials at headquarters know where the forestry battalions are and there is no reason why a presiding officer should not take the vote of each forestry battalion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that subsection 2 of section 8 be amended by inserting in line 31 after the word "his" the word "military" and by adding at the ending of the subsection the following words:
and, subject to the same condition, to every military elector who may be appointed ev deputy scrutineer time and opportunity td perform his duties as such.
To meet the suggestion just made, I move to amend subsection 3 of section 8 by inserting at the beginning of the subsection before the word "where" the words "In Canada and," and by inserting after the word "possible" in the first line the words "without Canada." That would make the provision read as follows:
In Canada, and where conditions make it reasonably possible, without Canada, the deputy returning officer shall, etc.

I move, further, to amend subsection 5 by adding to it the following words:
but such vote shall be so taken in the presence of the deputy scrutineers, or failing either or, both, of a military elector or two military electors, who Shall, together with the deputy, presiding officer, sign upon the envelope in, which the ballot is inserted a certificate that the vote was taken under this subsection and. the reasons which made it necessary.
I think that will be recognized as adding some precaution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the minister let that last amendment stand? The section is a rather complicated one, and we should have time to consider the effect of the amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My idea was that we should adopt the amendment and let the section as amended stand.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section, as amended, stands.
On section 9-Manner of voting within and without Canada:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should like to know why such evident precautions are taken to secure the secrecy of the ballot here in Canada, and such evident precautions are taken that there shall be no secrecy in the taking of the ballot elsewhere than in Canada? It is true that paragraph (e) of section 4 provides that six scrutineers shall be appointed, three for each side, and that every scrutineer shall have and may exercise all the rights of a candidate or his representative at any poll. That would mean that they would have a right to be present at the .polling booth, or wherever the vote was taken. Paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 9 provides that when it comes to the voting the ballot paper shall be marked in the presence of the deputy presiding officer in such a manner as not to disclose to him or to any other person any marking thereon. Now, what does that mean?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to adding the words: " and the scrutineers," if that be the suggestion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would suggest that the ballot be marked in a compartment, just as is done in Canada. Paragraph (b) of subsection 2 provides that the military voter shall proceed into a compartment so arranged that he may be screened from observation and shall there mark his ballot paper. But when it comes to the voter in

France or anywhere else, there is no such provision for secrecy. I think the same precautions should be taken wherever the vote is held. The men could easily go into some compartment. If the vote is taken in the field there will be a tent, or a blanket could be hung up to screen the voter from Observation, and behind that he could mark his ballot. I think the minister ought to be willing to make the provision for secrecy uniform, wherever the vote is taken.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would suggest that the form of ballot be changed, and that there be simply three blanks, one to contain the words " Liberal candidate," another " Conservative candidate," and another " Independent candidate." There are only two recognized political parties in Canada, the Conservative party and the Liberal party. All other candidates would be classed as Independents. I think that would simplify matters for the soldiers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At present the ballot
papers provide for voters who desire to vote " for the Government," those who desire to vote " for the Opposition," and those who desire to vote for
10 p.m. the " Independent candidate." Last evening we had the suggestion-and I think there was some merit in it-that we should add a blank in the event of there being a Labour candidate. I do not see that there would be any great gain in substituting the words Liberal and Conservative for the words Government and Opposition, because it is not an impossible thing that gentlemen who are Liberals may want to vote for the Government, and gentlemen who are Conservatives may want to vote against it. And after all, the real issue is, shall the Government succeed or shall it be defeated -defeat, of course, meaning that the Opposition wins. Then, of course, we should be leaving out the great Liberal-Conservative party, which is not without existence in this country, some of us are happy to believe. I do not think we should gain anything by the suggested change.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The only point is that
the ordinary elector is more familiar with the words Liberal and Conservative than with the words Government and Opposition.
Mr. GERMAN1: If the hon. gentleman's suggestion is adopted, it will be necessary to have a space on the ballot paper for the Unionist party.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know whether it is as yet born. However that may be,

with all respect I do not think we should gain very much by making the change. After all, I think most people have a notion whether they are voting for the government or against it, and perhaps as clear a notion as whether they are voting for a Liberal or a Conservative candidate.
I am prepared to consider the suggestion that was made last evening that we should provide a blank in the event of their being a Labour candidate.
Coming to what was said by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) with regard to the provision for secrecy in Canada and the omission of it overseas, the provisions for secrecy in Canada are a reproduction of the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, and the provisions with regard to voting outside of Canada are a reproduction of the provisions of the Act of 1915. There will be places, I have no doubt, where it will be possible to provide for the voter going behind a screen. On the other hand, I certainly think there are places where it will not be convenient to do that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They could always hang up a blanket, even if the vote was taken in the open field1.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is perfectly simple if you are in a room or in a camp in Canada. But it has been impressed upon us by people who saw the vote in connection with the Australian election-it was impressed upon us by the representative of Australia on the other side, through the Canadian representative over there-that it was of the greatest possible importance to make the formalities as simple as possible. Time is of some consequence in the taking of these votes, and I put it to the hon. gentleman, is there very much greater danger of the violation of secrecy when a man takes his ballot and marks it at a distance from me where I cannot see how he marks it, than when he marks it behind a screen?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let us put it as between the officer and the man, and we must not forget that it is the officer who is to hold this election. We know that in the army there must necessarily be a great distinction between the officer and the private. In order to maintain discipline the private must salute the officer, and he is compelled to look upon him as almost a different being altogether. Sometimes I think there is too much of that business. However, the fact remains. Now, under this Bill, when the man comes before the officer to register his vote, the officer, if so disposed, may
say, "The law says that you shall mark your ballot in my presence," and he can make him do it. I am not saying that any large proportion of the officers would do that, but if an officer wanted to do it, here is his authority.
It is true, if the voter happened to be a lawyer and had read this Act, he might say "Yes, Mr. Officer, that is all very nice, but I find by section 4 of this Act the scrutineers have a right to be here."


James Arthurs: Where does the hon. gentleman get his authority for the statement that an officer will be present there? As I understand the Act, the deputy presiding officer may be anybody, and I should think on the average of chances in all probability he would be a private from the-ranks.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is not serious in making that statement?


James Arthurs: Absolutely serious.
There are many men among the privates there as well educated as my hon. friend, and just as fit to be deputy presiding officers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is begging the question. He has been an officer, and has been at the front, and he knows there is about as much chance for a private to be a poll clerk, or a deputy presiding officer, as there is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. We are discussing this thing seriously, and we are trying to find a way out, and to save time, and the minister is meeting us.


James Arthurs: There is no use in making absolutely foolish statements.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I agree with my hon. friend entirely; there is no use of any man making foolish statements, therefore he had better keep quiet for a little while.


Mr. TAYLOR:: At the last military election I voted at a British Columbia camp. The returning officer was a private soldier, and his clerk was another private soldier. I was commanding officer when I went there to vote. The private soldier who was the returning officer swore me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This Government was not running that election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now I want to come back to what I was discussing with the minister. My hon, friend beside me suggests that he would like to see the poll book with the name of the officer in it. Of course, we

are compelled to take the word of the hon. gentleman, but naturally we would like to see the poll book. However, we will take his word. We do not want to be strictly regular. [DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is very unnatural.


George Taylor: For the information of
my hon, friend whose mind is so fine, I will give him the name of the presiding officer. It was Pte. Harold E. Sands. The poll was at Vernon, British Columbia.
Mr. 'CARVELL:	That does not convey
very much to us. However, we will look him up. I was pointing out to the minister the fact that clause (e) subsection 1, section 9, provides that the ballot papers shall be marked in the presence of the deputy presiding officer. There is a section in the Bill which provides that the deputy presiding officer shall be a military elector- I think that is correct?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And, notwithstanding
the theories put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite, we know that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, and in fact I might say in one hundred cases out of one hundred, these deputy presiding officers will be officers. I do not think it is right that the private or the non-com. should be compelled to go, possibly, before his own commanding officer, and that there should be a provision in the law by which that commanding officer could say to him:	"You
have to mark your ballot in my presence; true it is, you can turn your back to me when you are marking it. if you wish to do so, but you must mark it in my presence." Let us look at the thing in the ordinary light of common sense. We are all of age, we have all been through elections and we know exactly how these things are arranged and how simply it is to put into effect the system which would provide for the carrying out of the vote in Canada. Simply have the soldier go behind a screen or somewhere where he would he alone, let him mark his ballot there, and then give it to tlie officer. I hope the minister will consider this. I would also recommend paragraph (g) to the attention of the minister. In case the voter is incapacitated by blindness or other cause, the returning officer is to mark the ballot for him. That should he done in the presence of the representative of each party, they are called "scrutineers " in the Bill. I think it will be agreed that there should be some provision to that effect.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Pierhaps I was not correct, but my understanding was that having provided that the scrutineer should be entitled to be present at the poll, and enjoy all the rights of representatives at polls in Canada, it was not necessary to repeat it with regard to each operation, but I have no objection to it. It will put the point beyond all doubt.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you change section 8 I agree with the minister that the change suggested in paragraph (g) of section 9 would necessarily follow.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection whatever to inserting it. It was some Frenchman who said that that which went without saying went all the better for saying. I am quite prepared to make that amendment. As to_ the other amendment, I will consider the suggestions which have been offered. I recollect that at the time of the passing of the Act of 1915 we did pretty thoroughly thresh out the possibility; and I may say I was led to consider it desirable to preserve the present form by the insistent representations that were made to me by officers who were on the other side at the time of the elections that were held oveT there. What was impressed upon me in a general way was the importance of making the operation of the taking of the ballot as simple as was possible, and making it involve as little time as possible. The Australian authorities made certain suggestions to us, some of which had already been in our minds. They impressed upon us in a general way that^we should make the thing so that there should be as few requirements as possible the absence of which might nullify the vote. Looking at it from that point of view, I was led to think that probably there was no substantial danger in connection with the marking of the ballot in this particular way. There may be something in the suggestion that if the presiding officer be a commanding officer over a particular soldier, it may have some effect, but frankly it does net seem to me there is a great deal in the idea that it would necessarily influence the soldier to let the officer see how he is marking the ballot, in the face of a law which expressly prohibits him seeing it, and in face of the fact, which we will now make perfectly clear, that the scrutineers of the respective parties shall be present. Frankly, it was my belief, after I had given it some consideration, that there probably was as great protection for secrecy in this as there would be in the

provision that a man should go behind a blanket and mark his ballot, because if you are dealing with a presiding officer who wants to see the ballot, and is willing to exert what pressure his position as an officer gives him over the voter in order to see how the ballot is marked, I am very much afraid that marking the ballot behind a screen will not prevent him from seeing it. I know the evidence in some election cases goes to show that even with the screen conditions have been so managed that how a man voted has been ascertained. However, I shall be glad to consider the point-or rather to reconsider it, because we did give considerable thought to it in connection with the preparation of the Bill. I want to look at the places where we ought to insert the word "scrutineer."


James Arthurs: I am quite sure that every hon. member in this House is just as anxious as the hon. member for Car-leton (Mr. Carvell) that this voting should be secret. At the same time there are many circumstances under which it will be utterly impossible to have any screened portion, even of a tent, for that purpose. If this vote is taken where a great many of the men are in dug-outs, or in confined quarters, it would not be passible to have an arrangement of that kind. In England there is an average of 25,000 wounded Canadian soldiers, many of whom are unable to get up to mark a ballot, and their votes must be taken by some means in the hospitals. Is it fair to deprive these men of the right to vote, simply because they are in the hospitals? The same thing is true in France. There is a great number of men in the hospitals in France, running into many thousands, and it would be utterly impossible to have any screened apartment, or any private place, where they could mark their ballots.
As far as the deputy presiding officer is concerned, I am quite confident that in many cases there will be no difficulty with regard to the question of authority over the voter. I believe that in many cases the deputy presiding officer would be a noncommissioned officer or man. In our army we find that a majority of our common soldiers are pretty well educated, probably as well educated on the average as the officers are. There is another consideration too. It would be very hard to get an officer to take this responsibility. I am quite sure that no battalion commander or major, would take it. If it were taken by any officer he would be one of junior rank and his authority would be limited to the men with whom he was personally acquainted.
Our junior officers, unfortunately, change very quickly, they do not know very many men personally and they do not interfere with any except the members of their several companies. I am quite sure that , no officer having any considerable authority over his men would accept that position.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the adjutant
be too busy?


James Arthurs: The adjutant is a very busy man. If it were any officer it would be the quartermaster, or the paymaster. The quartermaster sergeant, or an ordinary sergeant, would be the most likely man.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to suggest that clause (e) of subsection 1 of section 9 might start, in general terms, with the language of the Dominion Elections Act. It would be something like this: "The ballot paper shall be marked wherever reasonably possible"-that is the language of the minister-"so that each voter shall be screened from observation." "Screened from observation" are the words used in section 133 of the Dominion Elections Act. Perhaps that suggestion would help the minister.


Mr. STEELE:: In connection with the
screening of voters, or asking voters to mark their ballots behind a screen, it does seem to me that it is almost impraetieable. There are large numbers of wounded men in France and England. It is due to these men, who are suffering quite sufficiently from their wounds and their work, that the task of voting should be made as easy for them as possible. To ask that these men be removed behind a screen to vote is to ask something that is impossible. When we remember that we shall have numbers of men suffering from pneumonia and rheumatism, and perhaps thousands from fractured limbs, many recovering from serious operations which possibly have snatched them from the brink of death, to ask that these men be not allowed to viote unless they mark their ballots behind a screen, or unless screens are put around their beds, does seem to me to be asking something that is unreasonable and unnecessary. The duty of this House is to make the voting for the men at the front as easy as possible while protecting it from all possibility of impropriety. Our first duty is to make it easy for the men to cast their ballots. L was struck by another suggestion that was made to-night by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) regarding the distribution of troops. The hon. gentleman made the suggestion that the voting should

take place on one or two days. Troops that may be in, a certain section at one time may be miles away from there shortly after.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In England?


Michael Steele: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


Michael Steele: The battle of Messines
Ridge took place early in the morning, and hundreds of men who' had been wounded that morning were being carried in motor ambulances across Charing Cross bridge on their way to hospitals in England that night. Hundreds of men are here to-day and miles away to-morrow. It would be absolutely impossible to consider taking the vote on one or two days in view of the wide distribution of the troops. Every facility should be given to the man who is overseas to poll his vote in this election.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know why it is emphasized that we are trying to prevent some soldier from voting. We have heard that suggestion over and over again since three o'clock this afternoon. I cannot understand, the suggestion that any member on this side of the House is trying to prevent any soldier from voting. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be using their utmost ingenuity to conjure up some case in which they can show that a man is presented from voting. Does any one think that I want to prevent a man in a hospital from voting simply because I make some inquiry?


Michael Steele: If we put into this Act a provision that every man who votes must go behind a screen it would prevent thousands of wounded men fror voting.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Nobody ever proposed
that at all. I was trying to point out that every military voter in Canada was precisely in that condition. The provision applies to soldiers in the hospitals in Canada, and there are thousands in hospitals.
I have seen men carried on stretchers in Canada, and there are hospital trains going through the country from Halifax to Vancouver, flitted up with special beds. There must be hundreds of soldiers in Canada who could not vote if they were compelled to walk behind a screen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not amend both clauses and say " where possible."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly. None of us are trying to keep men from voting. Sub-
section (g) could easily be amended by inserting some such words as " where possible." I am pointing out principles on which the Bill should be drawn and the amendments prepared. Once we agree upon the principles, there will foe no difficulty in choosing the exact language. None of us want to prevent the injured man from voting any more than the man on the firing line. We contend that every secrecy should be thrown around the casting of the ballot. All we want is an honest ballot and with that we shall foe satisfied.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that from the outset we have been substantially agreed upon those two principles-that we ought to provide, so far as possible, an opportunity for the soldier to vote, and that we ought to go as far in the direction of surrounding that vote with precautions to prevent abuse or fraud or illegality as is consistent with giving a reasonable opportunity to vote.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all we want.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have taken note of the hon. gentlemen's suggestions and shall be glad to consider them. It has been impressed on us that we should make the operation of voting as simple as possible, and should' so arrange it as to take up as little time as possible. I shall be very glad to give consideration to the suggestions made on this section. We might deal for the moment with these amendments so as to get them out of the way. I would reserve the suggestion to make provision that where reasonably possible the elector shall be screened off. Of course, when it is provided that the elector is to go behind a screen, then you make possible the substitution of a marked ballot. Under the system proposed there is no provision for the initialing of the ballot by the presiding officer, or for the other checks against substitution employed in this country. We were acting on the advice of those who had had experience, that we shall leave as little to be done in the way of writing as possible because the conditions at the front make it desirable that the voting be got through as promptly as it reasonably can be. In the second place, I do not think it any reflection upon these gentlemen over there to say that it is well to bear in mind that although we shall have deputy returning officers just as intelligent as there are anywhere, a great many of them will be entirely unfamiliar with this routine, and there will not be a very great opportunity for

instruction. There will he no time for them to study the Election Act or the instructions which have been transmitted to them, and while I do not want to urge that anything that is necessary should be omitted, I am impressed with the idea that, so far as consistent with the fair protection of the secrecy of the ballot, every incidental procedure that can be done away with should be omitted. If we adopt the screen,
I think it necessarily follows that we must adopt the precautions that are provided to Iks carried out in Canadian camps, with regard to the counterfoil, the numbers on them, and the initials on the back by the officers taking the vote. I think there would be serious reasons to apprehend that in the carrying out of those things, there might be many errors, and we might be troubled with questions as to whether certain ballots should be counted or not. The hon. gentleman has pointed out the reasons why this was open to objection. I hope he will think over matters, as I intend to do; but I think we might as well make the amendments agreed upon now.


William Pugsley: I was not in the House when the amendments were proposed. Have you a provision for the ballot box being under lock and key, in which box the ballots and envelopes are to be placed, and which must not be opened until opened by the special returning officer? A thought occurs to me along the line of the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton, (Mr. Carvell), that while we are all anxious to give every soldier the opportunity to vote, we must not regard the voting a plaything. There is no advantage in the soldier voting unless his^vote has, in the result of the election, that influence which the vote of every man ought to have, and it will not do to nullify, or to give the opportunity for partisan presiding officers or others to nullify the influence of the vote of the soldier by putting in fraudulent votes, because the result would be just the same as if the honest soldier had not voted at all.. I want to impress upon the minister as strongly as possible that this Bill gives the greatest opportunity for fraud, and those of us who have had anything to do with elections in Canada know that, without the Government being a party to it the men who are acting for the party machine seem to feel that they are justified in resorting to practices exceedingly improper, and doing things which they would not think for a single moment of doing in private life. Why it is I do not know, but that is the case, and that
is why Parliament has tried to throw around elections certain safeguards. That is why I tried to impress upon the minister the desirability of both political parties having a voice in the nomination of the presiding officer. We have appealed to the Government in vain. Under the provisions of this Bill, the presiding officer will know exactly what the voter is doing. Clause (e) subsection 1, section 9, provides that the ballot paper shall be marked in the presence of the deputy presiding officer, but, in such a way that he will not see how it is marked. Those are two contradictory expressions. My hon. friend knows that where a paper is to be signed in the presence of witnesses, it means that the witness is to see the person make the signature.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But in this case it must be done in such a manner that where the signature is placed cannot be seen.


William Pugsley: Has the voter to turn his back on the presiding officer? The thing is too absurd to consider for a moment. As the section stands, it will mean that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the presiding officer will know how the ballot is marked. Then, the Bill makes no provision as to the special kind of pencil to be used. The Dominion Elections Act provides that a black pencil must be used, and I think it must be indelible. Under this Bill any kind of pencil can be used. After the papers are in the bag, or unlocked box, they are in the control of people who might erase the pencil mark and put in another. There is absolutely no safeguard whatever in these matters, and I submit it should be the duty of the minister to protect the honest voter in the exercise of his franchise and prevent, if possible, his vote being nullified by fraudulent practices, and this Bill gives every invitation to the deputy presiding officers and those acting with them to resort to such practices.


William Manley German: To my mind, the most
objectionable provisions of this section is that which allows the deputy presiding officer to carry in his possession for a whole week the ballot box unlocked and unfastened in any way, into which from nomination day to tie day of polling these ballots aTe being deposited.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not this section
that is open to that objection. Some time ago I made a suggestion which I thought everybody accepted, that when we had dealt with a section and such suggestions as we thought desirable had been made, we

might let it stand and proceed to another. The hon. gentleman is beginning to make objection or criticism, or probably leading up to suggestions, -with regard to a subsequent section. Might I ask that this section stand, and we will come to the section to which his observations apply. In that way we can make a little progress.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I assume the minister, having heard the suggestions made by hon. members on this side of the House, will consider them, with a view of redrafting the section and providing the proposed amendments. The hon. member from Perth spoke about the taking of votes, in answer to the hon. member from Carleton. It appears to me that we should in this section make provision for the majority of cases that exist in England, where the voting can be done just as well as in Canada. If we had made such a provision we should have avoided all the discussion we have had about the impossibility of taking the vote of the sick soldier and the vote of the man in the trenches.
A good deal of the extended consideration of the Bill has been occasioned by the fact that many of its provisions deal with exceptional cases rather than with cases where voting could be carried on as simply as it might be carried on in England. I should think that the whole thing might be re-drafted with a view to providing that the men in the camps outside of Canada shall vote as they do in Canada, exceptional provision being made for taking the votes of men in hospitals and in other exceptional circumstances. I suggested last night that my hon. friend make specific mention of a labour candidate; that could be done in clause (d), subsection 1, section 9. In subsection (g) there is no provision for depositing in the ballot box the ballot marked by the presiding officer on behalf of a person incapacitated by blindness or other cause. I would suggest that at the end of subsection (g) the following words be added "and then deposited in the ballot box in the presence of the voter." That would be in accordance with the terms of the Dominion Elections Act. I would suggest also that the minister take into consideration the provision suggested oy thp member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) with a view to designating specifically what is to be used in the marking of the ballots.
I know that it is des'rable to have a simple Act, but the more definite you make the Act the easier will be its execution by those who have not had experience.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall look up the requirement about the kind of pencil. My impression is that there is no special provision as to what kind of pencil shall be used.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A black pencil.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I leave it to hon. gentlemen whether a ballot should be discarded simply because it is marked with a red pencil.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Is provision made for giving the vote to Canadians who are in the Royal Flying Corps or in other branches of the Imperial service? Will the provisions of this Bill apply to Canadians serving in Salonica, Egypt and Mesopotamia?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As at present printed, it covers Canadians serving in the Royal Flying Corps. I announced that I proposed to make it cover every Canadian ordinarily resident in Canada who is a member of any Imperial force. The Bill, however, does not provide for the taking of votes in Salonica, Mesopotamia or Egypt-anywhere outside of Europe.	[DOT]
Mr. iCOCKSHUTT: Salonica is in Europe.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was proceeding to
make an explanation with regard to Egypt.
I shall try to learn to be more precise.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are many Canadians in England and France who are not covered by section 2 of this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We mentioned particularly the corps in the Imperial Forces composed of Canadians who were grouped together, because we thought that we could get their votes. It is not clear that we shall be able to get the votes of those who are not grouped together; nevertheless we propose to make the definition of military voter include every British subject ordinarily resident in Canada who is in any Imperial force whatever or who is serving in any of the Allied forces. We shall not be able to send presiding officers into these forces to look for_the men, but where they are grouped together we shall send presiding officers, subject, of course, to our being permitted to do so by the authorities in those forces.
I move that clause (d), subsection 1, section 9, be amended by inserting after the word " candidates " in line 16 the words " or labour candidate or candidates," by substituting for the word " person " at the end of the sixteenth line and the words " or persons at the beginning of the seven-

teenth line, the words " any candidate or candidates," and by adding at the end of the seventeenth line after the word elected the words " designated by name. It was pointed out by the member for St. John, in connection with the ballot form, that the words " any person " might give a voter the idea that he could vote for any person he liked, without regard to whether he had been nominated as a candidate.


William Pugsley: I assume that paragraph (b) will still be open to consideration?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is intended that the section as so amended will stand. I beg to move that clause (e) subsection 1, section 9, be amended by adding after the words "Presiding Officer" in line 20 the words " and Deputy Scrutineers present or military electors acting in their stead."


William Cameron Edwards: What is the object of the word "present"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If scrutineers are notified and nobody comes I do not want to make it impossible for the deputy presiding officer to go on and take the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The same words ought to be inserted in this clause after the word "voter," in line 25. The subsection would then read "who shall then and there in the presence of the voter and deputy scrutineers present or military electors acting in their stead."


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would that cover the case of the illiterate man?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was going to make the insertion in. the case of thd illiterate man when we come to that.


William Pugsley: Paragraph (f), subsection 1, section 9 provides that the deputy presiding officer may administer to himself the necessary oath. I never heard of such a thing before. It strikes me as anomalous that a man should administer an oath to himself. I think it would be better to have a clerk administer it to him. It would be extraordinary for a man to say to himself "You do swear that you will do so-and-so.** How could you indict a man for perjury on that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As far as the proceedings in France are concerned, I do not think we shall be able to indict anybody for perjury anyway. I am not quite certain that it is always essential that some-
11 p.m. body should hand out a Bible and say "Do you swear?" I have
seen a good deal of swearing where the individual took up the Bible and said I do solemnly swear." The provision in paragraph (f) is open to the objection that we have no evidence that the man took the oath except his own certificate that he took it, but we are relying upon that same man's certificate for the oaths of all the other electors.


William Pugsley: Would the minister be rather sorry to see that clause in the Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, I am not sorry to see it there, because after all it is only permissive. I do not know whether this would be considered very grave, but we have not made it imperative that on all occasions there should be a clerk. As this vote is going to be taken, there is no provision for the keeping of a poll book, and though we have provided for a clerk, we have not made his presence essential. The returning officer may be in a position to fill those envelopes himself, and may or may not under given circumstances have a clerk. This was merely to make it possible, if the circumstances arose, that this man should certify to his own oath. Of course, if he has not a clerk, that will end the possibility of the clerk administering the oath.


William Pugsley: That is only as to his vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he has not a clerk, of course that eliminates the possibility of the clerk administering the oath.


William Cameron Edwards: Inasmuch as the cleTk is only permissive, could you not meet the condition by inserting the word "have"?


William Pugsley: It strikes me as peculiar.
I have seen a great many statutes in reference to oaths, but I have never yet seen a case where Parliament has solemnly declared that man may swear himself.


William Cameron Edwards: Does not my suggestion get over the difficulty?


William Pugsley: No.


William Cameron Edwards: It must be administered by somebody else, of course. In any event it is only permissive.


William Pugsley: I would rather see it left out altogether, because it is of no effect.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps we might let it stand.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The poll clerk or the scrutineer could administer the oath.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will consider the point.


William Pugsley: You may depend on it, if he has to swear himself he will put his vote in.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And, he could not be prosecuted for perjury.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that clause (g), subsection 1, section 9, be amended by inserting after the word "voter" in line 33 the words "and in presence of the deputy scrutineers present or military electors acting as such." I move also that the same subsection be amended by adding at the end thereof "and deposit such envelope in the ballot box."


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are the words "blindness or other cause" sufficient to cover the case of an illiterate voter who cannot mark his ballot?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I rather think so. I
do not know whether there is anything really gained by mentioning blindness.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to ask a question as to subsection (e), which says "-the voter shall fold the ballot, place it in the envelope, securely close the same, and hand it to the deputy presiding officer." This is practically the same wording as the statute of 1915. Is it the intention that those envelopes will be such as can be sealed?
I do not think there is anything in the Bill describing the envelopes. I presume it is the intention that they shall be sealed, bilt it does not say so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I am not mistaken there is a provision somewhere in the Bill that the deputy presiding officer shall seal the envelope. It would be somewhat inconvenient to have each of the voters seal his envelope.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I assume the envelope is to be such as can be sealed, but it does not say so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention was that the deputy presiding officer should seal the envelope. I am afraid that has been omitted in the Bill. We will give that point further consideration. In the meantime we might pass on to section 10.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 10-Votes of civilian officials appointed under this Act, Subsection 2- Military elector resident in Canada:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There should be
some limiting words at the end of this section where provision is made to enter [Mr. Doherty. 1
the name upon the poll book. You may have the case of a person who has been across but whose name is already in the voters' list in the district in which he resides. Perhaps the following words might be inserted at the end of the section: " Provided it is not already on the list of voters in the electoral district." There is no necessity of entering his name if it is already on the list.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have a special
provision to prevent a man from voting more than once. Part of the affidavit that he is required to take is that he has not voted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, that is not in form D. If his name was on the list in the district in which he formerly resided he might vote as a military elector and then vote again.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill provides that he shall be required to swear that he has not already voted. The purpose is to provide a method by which a returned soldier, a man who is no longer in the service and who has been honourably discharged, has a vote because of that fact, if our definition of " military voter " be finally adopted. We wanted to provide for the district in which he should be entitled to vote, and it seemed desirable that we should locate him in the district in which he was residing as a returned soldier rather than in the district in which he resided before he enlisted. His quality as military voter entitles him to vote at his actual residence at the time of voting. He is entitled to have a vote as a returned soldier even though under the provincial law he would not find himself on the list. If he finds himself on the list it will be possible to vote either as a military voter or as an ordinary voter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister not
think that he could overcome my difficulty by providing in form D that he shall declare that he has not previously voted?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The ordinary oath in
part III would provide for the case if he had polled his vote as a returned soldier and then tried to vote as an ordinary elector.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is in form D that we have to provide for that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will it he necessary for the elector to produce his certificate of discharge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision requires it and we thought it was not an unfair provision because this man is getting his vote absolutely on the fact that he once was a soldier and has been honourably discharged. He gets that vote in a place where he has no claim to vote on any other ground. I do not think it is unduly hard on him to ask him to produce his certificate of discharge. He has four weeks in which to get it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister not think we have done a good day's work?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I confess I had an ambition to get over all the sections this evening and pass them. I appreciate the cooperation that we have tried to extend to each other this evening, but I think we should all be in a better position to take the matter up to-morrow if we had gone cursorily over these sections.


William Pugsley: We should be in a better humour if we went home to bed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any way by which a candidate, or somebody on his behalf, could get the roll of any battalion that has gone overseas?


William Pugsley: I am told they are all printed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There seems to be some misapprehension. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) last evening mentioned some lists and I said I would speak to the Minister of Militia about them. The hon. member spoke of a list which, among other things, would give the present whereabouts of a battalion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Hansard so mentions it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not intend to say that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Minister of Militia informs me that it is quite impossible to get those lists. I understand that the nominal roll-s of the battalions as they left Canada may be procured. Tf my hon. friend had in mind the nominal rolls of battalions, or sample rolls, it would be quite possible to get them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would be some help. I suppose the rolls are not complete?


Sir HERBERT AMES:: Speaking of the nominal rolls, we have them in the Patriotic Fund. They are only printed up to
the 150th battalion and there are not more than half of them procurable. The rolls for the later drafts are not procurable.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have in my office rolls of battalions to the number of something like 105 or 110. These rolls were printed as the battalions left Canada and were sent in by the paymaster. These were sent to me, I do not know for what reason.
I received them long before the recess.


Herbert Brown Ames: There are fully one hundred battalions ot which the rolls are not printed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understood last evening that the hon. member for Halifax desired only to have sample lists.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, we should like to have the actual rolls.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, it was the lists that we wanted, of each battalion, where they are available.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We all have soldiers in different battalions, and if we had the rolls of the units in which our soldiers are serving we could easily figure out which of our electors were in different units.


Herbert Brown Ames: Only last week a list of the nominal rolls that are printed was sent out, so that the Militia Department have that information and could easily furnish it.
On section 11-Forwarding the ballots:


George Perry Graham: Does the minister not think it would be a good idea to carry out the suggestion made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and that at the close of each day the ballot boxes should be safely sealed and despatched to their destinations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We considered that, but I shall be glad to reconsider it. The reason we abandoned the course now suggested, which would in many ways appear to be the preferable course, was that it would necessitate the employment of a great number of boxes, -with consequently greater difficulty in transporting them and greater work for the officers who attend to the counting. However, I shall be glad to reconsider the suggestion that it would be better, even at the risk of a multiplication of boxes, to provide that each box should be sealed after being used. I quite recognize the desirability of having a more specific provision defining the nature of the ballot box, and I think we would meet the situation if

we put in a provision making it quite clear that section 122, part 3, should apply. I propose that section 122 of the Dominion Elections Act shall apply. That section reads:
The ballot boxes shall be made of some durable material, with one lock and key, and a slit or narrow opening in the top, and so constructed that the ballot papers may be introduced therein, but cannot be withdrawn therefrom unless the box is unlocked.
I think we cover that by our definition that the word "box" shall include any receptacle. That would meet the criticism. I think the word "box" is used here, but we could amend our interpretation section so that a bag might be used and meet the requirements. In the practical operation of other elections that have been held, it has been found that, for the purpose of the election so held, a bag was a more convenient thing for use under conditions in the field than such a metal box. I do not think any one can attach serious importance to the question whether a bag or box is provided, because a bag or box would meet the requirements of section 122. If provision were made that wt, should have a receptacle from which the ballots could not be withdrawn once they were dropped in, and which was securely locked and closed, perhaps that would diminish, to some extent -at all events, the objections made to the deputy presiding officer carrying the bag, or using the same bag on more than one occasion. However, I am glad to consider the suggestion that he should send this back after each operation. What is present to my mind is that we might make provision such as I have suggested applicable to places where you hold something that is really in the nature of a poll and make some exception in cases where the officer may have to go from one group to another, or one hospital to another for the purpose of collecting the ballots of very small collected groups.


William Pugsley: I hope the minister will adhere to the box.


Mr. CURRIE:: I think, under the conditions at the front, it would be impossible to have ballot boxes. The transport is taxed to its limit to carry food and ammunition to the front, and it would be looked upon by the military authorities as an outrage, if yon asked that the same transport should carry a load of empty boxes, when it should be filled with shells. When the ballot is enclosed in an envelope, nobody can find out how a soldier voted, unless he

tampers with that envelope. There is nc reason why the ordinary mail bag, which is capable of	being	well	lockedat night' and kept	in	a	safe	place,should not be used	as	a	baPot box.It will not take up	any	space.	There
are hundreds of bags going up to the line every day, and hundreds of ihem coming back empty. There is no reason why the post office should not supply good mail bags for this purpose. I desire to point- out to hon. gentlemen opposite and to those who have been taking objections and suggesting that there may be irregularities, that the men at the front are not that kind of breed. As a matter of fact, they do not care very much how elections go. They are risking a great deal now, and I would be quite willing to take their method of carrying on the election, without an Act at all. There is no method of posting the names of the candidates on a board. There are no boards over there. All the information is sent to the front by a small telegraph wire.


George Perry Graham: That is at the front.


John Allister Currie: Yes, and that is virtually the rule. I do not think the same necessity arises, as in an ordinary election, for ballot boxes. I think Parliament can safely trust the soldiers at the front to see that this vote is fairly taken, and if we cast ourselves on their hands I do not think Parliament will regret it. The crook, the ballot box stuffer and the election thug will not be there. These men are not of that quality. Why all this fuss and all this attempt to establish safeguards? To my mind it is not necessary at all. The point that was raised the other night by the hon. member for Pictou, about the way votes were taken in England, does not apply to this election at all. I think it would be out of the question to send ballot boxes to the front. The proper way would be to put the ballots in a mailbag. That is all you can get over there. They could not understand the necessity for a ballot box. It is absolutely necessary for the transport to handle food and munitions, and every inch of space is required for that service.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I made a suggestion, which 1 still think is worth considering. I realize the difficulty of handling boxes. I have never been there, but one's imagination does not have to go very far in order to appreciate the difficulty. I suggest that, at the close of the polling every day, these sealed envelopes should be taken out, in the

presence of the scrutineers, and put in a sealed package, and marked by the returning officer, his clerk and the scrutineers. That sealed package would be ready to be forwarded to Paris, or London, and the same bag or box is available for the next day.


George Perry Graham: That is what I had in my mind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You could preserve the
ballot dox.


Charles Joseph Doherty: One advantage of the ballot box is that once a ballot is dropped in, it stays there until it gets to the returning officer. By the method suggested by the hon. member for Carleton we lose that. On the other hand, you gain in this way, that you send your ballots off at once. But you have to allow some operation to take place of handling the ballots outside of the presence of the voters and scrutineers between the time that the ballot is deposited and the time that the proper officer counts it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The safest thing is the bag properly sealed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We might, as I say, make the provision suggested this afternoon -that, at the end of every polling operation, the bag should be sealed up and sent at once; but we might perhaps modify that, so as to make provision for the exceptional case, where one polling operation might be the gathering of four or five votes in a hospital by an officer who would have the time and opportunity to do it, and perhaps he would gather in other groups of the same kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You might make some arrangement like that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why should these provisions apply to Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not see any reason why we should not use the ordinary ballot box in Canada. I was suggesting that we make section 122, which defines the form of ballot box, apply. The section of the Dominion Elections Act which tells us about the form of the ballot box merely provides that the material shall be durable, that it shall have one lock and key and a slit so constructed that the ballot papers may be introduced therein, but cannot be withdrawn therefrom unless the box is unlocked. A leather bag, for instance, could be of durable material; it could have one lock and key, and it could meet with the rest of those requirements.


William Pugsley: When a box is used it may be locked during all the time that the ballots are being put into it. The ballots cannot be extracted without unlocking the box. You have to keep a bag, however, open all the time, until all the ballots have been put in.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What applied to the locked box applies also to the locked bag; you can put your envelope into the bag without unlocking it. Why should the bag be open? If you have a bag which conforms to the requirements of section 122, you can put your envelope in through the slit; it will not be necessary to unlock the bag or keep it unlocked.


William Pugsley: It is rather inconvenient to have a slit in a bag.


Charles Joseph Doherty: A tin box would not be procurable on the fields of Flanders. They used the bag on the other side, and I do not see any reason-


William Pugsley: Why not use a wooden box? That is what we use in New Brunswick.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That goes to indicate that the statute does not require any sacramental thing at all.


John Allister Currie: The Dominion Government has not any ballot boxes of its own; they always fall back upon the township or municipality for boxes with which to carry on the election. It is time that the Government obtained suitable galvanized boxes, or boxes of some kind, in which the voters could deposit their 'ballots. In one case where an election was held close to the time when a municipal election was also being held, there was a wild scurry to get half a dozen ballot boxes in which to receive the ballots. They had to go to Toronto and take them from the cellars there. I hope that when the Dominion election comes along, ballot boxes will be provided, with safety locks that cannot be opened and without any false compartments. I do not see any reason why the soldier's ballot should not be deposited in its envelope with the other ballots in the ordinary ballot box. When the returning officer comes to open the box and to count the ballots in the presence of the scrutineers, he can place in a sealed envelope the ballot of each soldier cast for a certain riding and send it to the returning officer for that riding. Or he can count the soldiers' ballots then and there and transmit the count to the returning officers of the respective ridings for which the ballots are cast.

Mr. GRAHAM That might be done in Canada.


John Allister Currie: Yes. In France the objection to providing boxes is very great. Metal or wooden boxes would not get within a mile of the trenches. As for wooden boxes, the fellows would use them to start fires with, because wood is valuable out there; the men carry it round in their pockets to make fires with which to boil their tea kettles. If metal boxes were used, complaint would be made that so much useful steel was used for that purpose when it might more appropriately be shot across at Fritz. The best thing to use would be the standard mail bag. When it is pretty well filled, it could be locked in the presence of the scrutineer and handed over to the brigade post office as registered mail. These votes will have to be taken in brigade areas.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would it not be advisable to use a smaller bag than the standard' mail bag?


John Allister Currie: I would send no bag there at all except a bag that would be used in carrying supplies to the district concerned. When it is being sent back, let it carry the ballots.


William Pugsley: And let the deputy presiding officer use his coat pocket in the meantime.


John Allister Currie: I would as soon trust the deputy presiding officer's coat pocket in France as I would the ballot box in New Brunswick.


George Perry Graham: It is now midnight; we have worked pretty well to-day. I think that we all have a desire to report this Bill and to put it in proper shape as rapidly as possible. Does the minister not think that we had better adjourn?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I accept my hon. friend's suggestion-if hon. gentlemen will promise to be as good to-morrow as they have been this evening.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 12, midnight.
Thursday, August 23, 1917.