1917-09-11

EXPENSES OF PARLIAMENTARY SESSIONS.

[Stage Direction]
RECOMMENDATION Op THE COMMITTEE THAT THE INQUIRY BE CONTINUED NEXT SESSION.
Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (E. Hastings) presented the report of the Select Committee appointed by the House to act with a like committee of the Senate to consider and, during the present session, report the total cost, including incidental expenses, of each session of Parliament and the best way, if any, of reducing the same.
Your committee regret that they have so far been unable to make much progress with the inquiry entrusted to them, and would, in view of the importance of an inquiry of this kind, recommend that a similar committee be reappointed early next session to fully consider the subject referred to them.


[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved, seconded by Sir George Foster, that the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on 6th February last, recommending the promotion of Mr. A. C. Campbell, of the Hansard staff, to be associate editor of the Official Debates, and of Mr. Harry E. Oliver, from the Committee Reporting Staff to the Official Debates Reporting Staff, oe concurred in.
He said:	I understand an explanation
was given with regard to this matter on the 6th February.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I understand this recommendation is for the promotion of Mr. A. C. Campbell, of the Hansard staff to be associate editor. He is an officer of many years service and very competent.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I wish to add a word on behalf of Mr. Campbell. I think he is one of the most obliging men in the service, and I am glad to see that the Government has recognized his merit.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill 133, The WaT-Time Elections Act, Mr. W. H. Bennett in the Chair.
On section 1-Part 1 of Dominion Elections Act suspended' and part 2 to operate as amended:
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I suggest that we consider the Bill panagragh by paragraph. Section l occupies about 10 pages, and the matters referred to are not alike in character.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I do not see that there would be very much value in reading the whole section. We might consider it as much as possible in the order in which it appears. I know that it is impossible to confine the discussion to any particular clause of the Bill. We may take the discussion on the whole clause, but commence with the first part of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I desire to call attention to the words "complete demobilization" which appear in this Bill and in former Acts. That expression has never been given any legal definition. What is complete demobilization? Mobilization is simply calling the forces together, and demobilization will mean the time when, after peace is concluded, the order is given to recall the troops. Unless we have a definite definition, the period of demobilization may be extended to an unknown length.


Arthur Meighen: I think demobilization
has a distinct significance.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is it?


Arthur Meighen: I am not able to give
it accurately, but my opinion of it is this: complete demobilization takes place when all those enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces are released from further obligations as members thereof.


Mr. MURPHY:: I remind the Secretary
of State that judicial decisions were given in England after the South African war defining the period of demobilization. I think they may have something to do with the names of the men being placed on the voters' lists.


Arthur Meighen: Those decisions will
apply here.


Charles Murphy: Perhaps my hon. friend
could get information on the subject and give it to the committee.


Arthur Meighen: I shall try to get it.


Mr. BUREAU:: Do I understand that a
definition is to be given of complete demobilization?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that a
definition is necessary in the Act. I stated that I would ascertain what the legal sig

nificance of it was, as determined by British decisions, and that I would inform the committee. In the absence of any Canadian decisions the English decisions would be followed.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Does this legislation
apply to by-elections held after the general election?


Arthur Meighen: If by-elections were
held prior to demobilization, the provisions of this Bill would apply, because the Dominion Elections Act as it stands now applies to by-elections as well as to general elections. This Bill suspends the operation of certain clauses of the Dominion Elections Act and makes it read in a certain way until a certain time. Consequently, this Act, during the period of its operation, would apply to by-elections.


William Erskine Knowles: In that case, having regard to the provisions of the Military Voters' Act, at every by-election every one of the thousands of men who are Britisn subjects and who never lived in Canada would have a vote. A great deal of expense would be incurred in taking the votes of the soldiers overseas at every by-election.


Arthur Meighen: The Military Voters' Act does not apply to by-elections. If it be decided to hold by-elections after the general election, some new provisions will have to be made, because we c<^uld not take the soldiers' votes in a by-election. I quite agree that the provisions of this Bill would be very awkward of application in such oases. It was not intended that this Act should apply to by-elections, but legally it would.


William Erskine Knowles: No matter what party succeeds in the coming contest, by-elections will be necessary prior to the meeting of Parliament. Nearly always after an election some additional persons are called into the Government, or some defeated minister has to find a seat. The probability of this occurring within the next few months is more marked than it ever would be under normal conditions.


Arthur Meighen: It is difficult enough to provide for a general election in war time; we hope to avoid the necessity of providing for a by-election. I can conceive of scarce-

ly anything more impracticable than to hold a by-election fairly in war time. It would be a tremendous task to pick out the soldiers who should vote in a particular constituency, to ascertain what relatives should vote in that district, and so on. I think the best way to avoid that would be not to have any'ministers defeated.


Charles Murphy: You had better put that in the Bill.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: That is not a bad idea.


William Erskine Knowles: The law is that newly appointed ministers who formerly were ordinary members of Parliament must be re-elected. I suggest that i' be provided tlut members of the Opposition who are elected and afterwards made ministers of the Crown shall not have to be re-elected.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I call the attention of the committee to the fact that part 4 of the Military Voters' Act applies only in the event of a general election.


Mr. MARCIL:: "The Dominion Elections Act" is the title of our present law. This Bill might well be styled "The War Time. Dominion Elections Act."


Mr. PROIJLX:: Does the Secretary of State not think it advisable to make this law applicable only to general elections?


Arthur Meighen: I cannot say that that would be advisable. If by-elections are held, some law must be applicable-some law that will enable the vote to be recorded. However awkward the application of this Act might be, it would be better than the application of the other Act, which would be a downright outrage in a by-election. Before we are out of committee, I think consideration had better be given to the subject of by-election.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not insert a provision stating that the law shall apply only to general elections?


Arthur Meighen: I will give consideration to that. But the effect of that would be this: in one province I do not think a by-election could be held at all. If a byelection could be held in a given province, it would be on a different basis entirely fiom that on which a general election is held. However, I will see whether less trouble would be given by making the law apply to general elections only. That provision will be adopted which will create the less trouble and be the more equitable.


Mr. NESBITT:: What is the affect of a
and b in this section?


Arthur Meighen: The effect-my words apply to similar clauses all through the Bill-is to make the list-making provisions now applicable in part 2 to Alberta and Saskatchewan, applicable generally throughout Canada.


William Erskine Knowles: Is this part of the clause
to be adopted? Surely that part which relates to demobilization cannot be adopted if the Government is going to give the matter consideration.


Arthur Meighen: What I stated was that I would give the legal interpretation of the word as decided in the court. The paragraph stands so far as that is concerned.


William Erskine Knowles: The Act should stand, not only for that purpose, but for the purpose of deciding whether you are going to make it effective after the general election is held or not, because that question is linked up with the other. The minister was to state whether or not this Act would cease to be effective at the close of the general election.
( -^r MEIGHEN:	The paragraph will
stand.


Mr. OLIVER:: I have not the advantage of being a member of the legal profession, and, therefore, I am not as well able to dovetail this amending Act into the original Act as those who 'are of that profession. I find the greatest difficulty in arriving at an understanding of ithe provisions of this amending Act on account of having .to do so much dovetailing with the original Act. Would it not have been possible to draw up this amending Act as a whole, that is to say, to make it complete in itself with such provisions as would be necessary in order to leave the original Act 'as it stands, but so that the citizen who was not a member of the .legal profession could have some reasonable idea of the working and the effect of the new provisions? I am unable to follow intelligently .the provisions of this new Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That was my trouble.


Arthur Meighen: The Bill will be printed as amended immediately Parliament decides how it should be .amended. For the purpose of the committee now, I may say that the Bill will read in this way generally: The first four clauses of the old Act will remain as they are, that is, the sections before we come to Part I. The first section



IX, 1917

[Stage Direction]
defines the Act as the Dominion Elections Act. The -second, section gives the definitions ,and interpretations. The third -section states that no one can be a candidate unless his consent is given. The fourth section requires the presence of -agents. Those -stand a-s -they are. Then everything in Part I is struck out until we come to 32.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: You are striking that -out.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but we are substituting another section. When we come to section 32, we strike it out, for the reason that section 32 defines the old qualifications in Alberta -and Saskatchewan. That is] the qualifications of voters fixed by the Dominion Parliament is applicable to those provinces. This Bill takes the provincial qualifications in those provinces exactly the same as in those other provinces. Consequently we take section 10, which was in Part I, and we substitute that for the old section 32. The present section 32 on the first page of the Bill is- section 10 of the old Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the Secretary of State secure a dozen or two dozen copies of the Act as -amended for distribution?


Arthur Meighen: I have just managed to get one compiled for myself. I show to the committee the size that it is.


Jacques Bureau: Has the minister copies of the old Act as printed before, so that we can follow the amendments? .
*


Arthur Meighen: I had that done. I had a large number of copies of the old Act set up for distribution.


George Green Foster: I cannot find
them.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know where they are. I thought hon. members had them.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: When was that done?


Arthur Meighen: Four days ago.


William Pugsley: I was unable to get one.


Frank Oliver: I applied to the Printing Bureau on my own account, and I secured two copies.


Arthur Meighen: I asked that copies be sent to the distribution office for the table of the House.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: 
Arthur Meighen: Copies of the Dominion Elections Act, with all the amendments up to date, will be distributed.


Louis Audet Lapointe: An ordinary man would lose himself amongst all the amendments. For a man like myself it is very hard to understand the whole thing. I would suppose, that a -gentleman like the Secretary of State, with all his- talents and capacity and with all the workers at his disposal, could have presented, us with a Bill complete by itself without any reference to the old Act. In a few days more he could have given to the committee a complete Bill -that hon. .members and the general public could understand. I defy anybody to understand this measure. I have already heard the most talented lawyers complaining that they cannot understand one bit of it. Would it not be a good thing to adjourn this debate until the Government-and I refer in particular to the Solicitor General, with his talent- draw up a measure that the Government would understand?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh. I defy hon. gentlemen opposite, except possibly the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General who may understand the Bill, to tell us what it means. They are at sea just as I am in regard to this legislation, but they will vote for it no matter whether they understand it or not. I beg tlie Government, and especially the Secretary of State, to frame a law so that the ordinary citizen of this country will understand it. Is this a trap? I want to find that out. I do not believe so; I believe the Secretary of State is honest in this respect, but the Government should not play with the people as they are doing by this piece of paper. By the first section the minister strikes out sections 1 to 31 of the Dominion Elections Act. Does any hon. member know if he has struck out enough or too much? Then after section 32 everything is upset, and the Secretary of State takes the precaution of saying: When we enact a section between sections 33 and 34, it is section 33A. I am in earnest in asking that a measure be framed so that tihe general public will be able to understand it,



and with the capacity of our hon. friends, that should be done in a day or two. In Quebec, when we amend an Act, we have to repeat the whole section that is amended. We do not only say that we strike out section 5 and replace it by section 4, but we repeat the whole section, and we put the new matter in brackets so that we know exactly where we stand. What I am asking for the people of this country, and especially for the people of my constituency, is that we should have a law that we can comprehend.


Arthur Meighen: 
William Pugsley: I have gone carefully
over the Bill and I quite agree with the Solicitor General that as discussion proceeds we shall begin to understand it more and more, and in the end -it will no doubt be pretty clear to us. But the ordinary man reading this Bill finds it very difficult lo understand.


George Green Foster: What do you
mean by the ordinary man?


William Pugsley: 
Arthur Meighen: We are a long way from: those clauses of the Bill as yet.


William Pugsley: No, you are not, because the moment you strike out the heading, " Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and Yukon Territory " you make the law applicable to the whole of Canada, which, of course, includes those provinces^ where they have the provincial lists.


Arthur Meighen: I think this discussion-would be more appropriate on the substituted clauses prescribing the methods by which this enumeration s-ha-ll be made. However, as the subject is up, I know that the hon. member for St. John has made one important omission in his speech. He does not say before what tribunal, or by what machinery, -these additional voters are to be put on the lists in his or any other province. It must be remembered that these votes are scattered over the length and;

breadth of very large constituencies. The constituency of Halifax in Nova Scotia, for instance, is over seventy-five miles long.
Mr. PU'GSLEY: Mine is twice as long as that.


Arthur Meighen: We must have some
means of getting these names on the lists. The hon. gentleman suggests that we have some short clausees in the Bill providing for it. That is just what we have. The quickest way to do it is to make it the business of somebody to get it done, and that is	what we have done. It
is true	that	a great, many new
names will have to added, but very few names in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, for instance, will have to be struck off, and unless we make it somebody's business to look after the enrolling of these new names they will never get on in time. You cannot make it the business of judges to go over the length and breadth of these counties, if we are to have an election in reasonable time. The method has worked fairly well in the western provinces. There has been complaint that there were no safeguards for the Opposition, that the enumerators appointed by the Government in power had an advantage. But we have given safeguards here that are just as much to the advantage of one side as the other.


William Pugsley: I have not been able to discover many safeguards.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know of a more expeditious or simpler method of getting the additional votes that we have provided.


Charles Marcil: In the rural constituencies of the province of Quebec the lists are prepared by the secretary-treasurer for the municipality. He is the man who prepares the assessment roll and knows everybody in the municipality, and he acts under the control of the local municipal council. The lists are prepared by him and transmitted to tne registrar of the county, and by him sent forward to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and eventually they become the official lists. Speaking for my own constituency, of which I have more particular knowledge, I know that the minister will be unable to find in any parish or township ;t man better qualified to prepare these lists than the secretary-treasurer of the municipality. He has the advantage of having all the information he needs in his hands. There will be no question of politics in it, because in one municipality the secretary-treasurer might be a Conservative, and in the next a Liberal. I certainly think this 357H
officer would he the best man that could be got.


William Pugsley: It is the same in the province of New Brunswick.


Arthur Meighen: If you do that it simply means that you are making them enumerators.


Charles Marcil: Why not make them enumerators? They are the very best men you can get?


Arthur Meighen: I am not so sure of that. If we use the machinery that is now in the provinces, the length of time that the Quebec law allows would lengthen out the whole contest. Furthermore, you have to have men who make it their business to understand this law. It is their peculiar business to find out who is entitled to vote under this law and then to put their names on the list. I do not know any reason why municipal officers would be the proper men in Quebec, when all along, ever since 1905, special officers have been appointed for the purpose in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. They have never used the secretary-treasurer of the municipalities there. Personally, I think the secretary-treasurers would resent very much having this made a part of their duties.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the newer provinces we have, and shall have for a certain number of years, a shifting population. There are many residents of the United States who own large tracts of land in Canada. As was explained to me by an hon. friend from the West last night, municipal government in the West is as yet only in embryo.
My hon. friend from Ronaventure (Mr. Marcil) sayis we have an old settled population in the province of Quebec. That is perfectly true. Everybody knows everybody else. The municipal officer is a trusted official of the municipality; he acts on the school commission; he is clerk of the justices of the peace, and so on; he is secretary-treasurer of the municipality, .and generally speaking he attends to all public functions in the municipality; he knows everybody; he knows the Topes, so 'to speak.


Arthur Meighen: What would be the population of some of your larger munici-. palities?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The population varies; it would be anywhere from 300, 400, or 500 up to 1,000, or, perhaps, 1,500. I can assure my hon. friend that, if he will look into the matter he will find that the muni-

cipal officer is the best and moat trusted officer in the municipality, and I daresay, fox a small remuneration, better work could * be got from him than if a stranger were brought in from the city, or if you were to appoint a lawyer from the shire town. I can assure my hon. friend that the municipal officer would give better satisfaction to the public. He knows every man, woman and child in the community, and if you avail yourself of his services I am satisfied you will find it much more convenient.


Arthur Meighen: The isiz-e of the municipality, if nothing else, makes it impracticable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What do you mean by that?


Arthur Meighen: The population ,and the extent of the municipality. The scheme of this Act is that the work shall be done quickly by a large staff of officers who are paid a reasonable amount for their work. You cannot have it extended over a great length of time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my 'hon. friend will allow me, if you utilize the services of those municipal officers in the parishes and in the villages, and then have one enumerator for each constituency or each county, those municipal officers could report to the chief enumerator. But, to reach the people, to know the people and to enumerate them, no better means could be adopted than to avail ourselves of the services of these municipal officers.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has '
not quite seized the scheme yet. It woulti not do to have a municipal officer to take charge of all those in the municipality. An enumerator is responsible for a single polling division, and there must be one enumerator for each division, because he must sit at a certain place near the poll, for ten days before the voting, and he must sit at the poll or close to it on the polling day, so that if a man is not on the list he may go there and get a certificate to vote, or a certificate of refusal. It is true the lists compiled by these municipal officers will be used, and these lists are final as far as they go.


William Pugsley: Are they final? As 1 read the Act the enumerator can strike off or add to the list according to his own judgment.


Arthur Meighen: I think my hon. friend is wrong. The intention is that in Ontario, *Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia,
[Mr. Lemieux.J
the enumerator cannot touch the list except for two [DOT] purposes-he can strike off but only for alienage, he can add to, but only fox tlhe female relatives of soldiers.


William Pugsley: I do not so read it. If my hon. friend's statement is correct, it would be an improvement.


Arthur Meighen: That is the intention, and if it is not clear in the Act it will be made clear.


Frank Oliver: While the provisions for compiling the voters' lists in the prairie provinces have been suitable and applicable to the conditions in those provinces, the reason is because there were peculiar conditions to be met, and the fact that the method adopted there was the best available method does mot by any means settle the question that it is the best available method for other and entirely different conditions. The work of an enumerator in compiling the lists there was necessary because of what might be called the fluid character of the population, and the widely scattered settlements. It was the only way to arrive at any sort of knowledge as to who should or who should not vote. The method was not adopted because it was the best way to secure a sound and proper voters' list, and as a matter of fact it has not been found to be a good way where population is dense in the prairie provinces. It is not a good way in the cities, for instance. It is, however, the best method available in the scattered outlying rural 'settlements. While I aim not sufficiently versed with conditions in this part of the country to criticise the Bill as applied to conditions here, I merely wish to point out for the information of the committee that the reason this system, is used in the West is because of the peculiar conditions existing there, and not because the method is inherently or necessarily the best. I know of cases where an enumerator covers more than one polling division in the West, the reason being that the population is	so very scattered that it
would	be unjust	to include the
total area in one poll, because it would be too far for the people to travel and at tlhe same time it would not be worth while to appoint an enumerator for the small population voting at a single poll. Those are conditions peculiar to that country. Another point is that in regard to the actual casting of the vote, the fact that a man can swear his vote on, as we say, does not render the amendment of the list by the enumerator a serious matter there.


Arthur Meighen: The feature that has existed of enabling one enumerator to act in more than one polling division in sparse populations is eliminated in this Bill. Otherwise, you could not carry out the provisions of the Bill, The enumerator must be there in order to make applicable the provisions of the Bill which we look upon as the safeguards. He hias to be there to give a certificate, or to give a certificate of refusal, consequently, we have an enumerator for each poll.


Frank Oliver: I am only pointing out
that when the Secretary of State instances the conditions in the West as a reason for the provisions of the Bill in the East, the reason is not adequate.


Arthur Meighen: There is a lot of force
in what my hon. friend from Edmonton says. The provisions as to enumerators are not as applicable to thickly settled districts and large cities as they are to less thickly settled districts. That is one of the reasons why this Act only puts Alberta and Saskatchewan on the same plane as British Columbia and Manitoba. There is no great difference in conditions between British Columbia and Alberta, and there is no great difference between Manitoba and Saskatchewan. When we come to the eastern provinces, however, where the population is more dense, and where theie are larger cities, then we adopt the provincial lists that are here, and in the larger cities we provide for revision before we go to the poll, that is to say, we only partially adopt the enumeration system in those eastern provinces. Indeed, we only adopt it for the purposes of putting on the women who are now entitled and taking off the aliens who are disentitled.


Mr. McCRANEY:: When I spoke the other day I suggested to the Government the desirability of making provision for registration in the cities of Saskatchewan. I confined it to my own province, but I have no doubt that it would be applicable to Alberta as well. In the city of Saskatoon, or Regina, or Moosejaw, or Prince Albert, there are many people moving about, commercial travellers and others, and it would be very difficult to pursue the system which is outlined in this Bill where votes may be challenged on election day, where the right of the voter to vote becomes the subject of investigation and where it will be necessary for the voter to hang around in continual readiness to prove his right to vote. On that account I suggest to the minister that it would be desirable to have registration under officers appointed by himself. Appeals can be taken and the lists will be completed in plenty of time before the election. I hope he will give that consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are wandering over several clauses of this Bill, and I d.o not think we can make progress or discuss it in any intelligible way unless we take it up paragraph by paragraph. I suggest we take it up paragraph by paragraph and stick to it.


Arthur Meighen: We are at paragraph 32.


Mr. NEELY:: Upon this paragraph, 32,
I would like to know if the Government cannot see their way clear, as the Secretary of State told us yesterday that this Bill was for the purpose of enlarging the scope of the franchise, to enlarge it a little further. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert .Borden) yesterday, in referring to the difficulty of extending the franchise to women generally spoke of matters of naturalization and some other things which should not stand in the way. There are things that could be easily obviated, by designation as we do designate in paragraph 33 (a) certain things with regard to women relatives of men in the overseas force or who have been overseas. I would like to know if the Government have given this consideration and whether they are prepared to shut out from the franchise, in view of the recognition of the female relatives of men who are serving overseas, all the women in this country, say, of British birth and British origin, who have given all they were able to give, their time, their energy and their ability to war work. Surely a difficulty as to the naturalization might very fairly be overcome by designation. I would like to know if the Government will not consider enlarging the franchise in this regard.


Arthur Meighen: This subject comes under paragraph 33 (a) rather than 32 but I might as well give my answer now as we have virtually passed 32. Thirty-two is really a clause of the old Act any way.
With reference to 33 (a), the Government has given very long, careful, if not prayerful thought to the subject that the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) has brought to our attention. The difficulty in regard to naturalization is only one of the difficulties in the way. I noted with very great interest that, while the hon. member for Humboldt thought it could be got over by designation, he did not suggest any designation of those who should be included

and of those who should be left out. That was our difficulty too. If all were included that difficulty of naturalization would be insuperable.


David Bradley Neely: I did say British by birth.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. 'member means to include all who are British by birth?


David Bradley Neely: And Canadian.


Arthur Meighen: Then about three-fourths of the argument of yesterday directed against this whole question of discrimination would be levelled against us if we adopted that because that is discriminating against those who are British subjects now and have not the franchise while all the rest get it. The speech of the leader of the Opposition would Teach us with direct force if we adopted that course., With naturalization on its present basis-and it cannot be altered very well now without an Imperial understanding-it is not just and right that those others naturalized should
4 p.m. be in a Jbetter position than those who are naturalized by personal application. That is one of our difficulties. The other difficulty which most distinctly applies to the suggestion of the hon. member for Humboldt that all other women of British birth be included is that if all of British birth are included then this franchise extended to the female relatives of soldiers loses its representative value altogether. It is nothing to the soldier if 'all women described in that way are included. It is making no' quid pro quo to him because he in part loses his franchise and wholly loses his influence. Of the soldiers who have gome to the front 26,000 are dead 'and several thousand are prisoners of war. That is giving him nothing in lieu of what should be made up to him in a war-time election. Once you go as far as my hon. friend suggests, then the women's franchise loses its representative character and value altogether and the main necessity for the Bill is wiped away. I know of no way else to draw the line which will at the same time meet the difficulty as to naturalization, and, on the other hand, and moie important in my estimation, make the women's vote representative of the soldiers overseas.


George Ewan McCraney: I appreciate the point of the Solicitor General in desiring to make up during the next election for the loss of the influence which those overseas would have if they were here by giving their relatives the franchise which, to some extent, 
might compensate 'them for that. While this has been mentioned before, it is put forward so prominently now by the minister that it strikes me that this feature is not a feature in the enfranchisement of women. It is doubling the franchise of men. It is not put forward as a measure of suffrage to women because they are women. It is multiplying the influence of men and it is put forward on that ground.


Arthur Meighen: Not multiplying-just
keeping up the regular standard.
Air. AleCRANEY: It is very irregular, because the female vote may be from one to half a dozen in case of some soldiers. I am not complaining about it. I am only showing the character of it. Perhaps it is not always possible to be consistent. The Government does not profess to be consistent on all occasions, and I do not know why members on this side of the House should be expected to be. I would not ask the Government, in the view which they hold, to extend the franchise to the women of the country on the same terms as it is extended to men. My chief objection to this Bill is the fact that some will be disfranchised, who now have a vote. Perhaps we would not enfranchise some of them, if we were starting de novo. But I feel that there is a great body of earnest women in this country whose sentiments are loyal, and who are showing those sentiments by the work they are doing. If the suggestion of my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) has made, that women who are British subjects be enfranchised were adopted, it would go a long way. It would not enfranchise those womep who have become British subjects by operation of law, and, perhaps, in declining to enfranchise them my hon. friend has in mind the wives of the men whom he proposes to disfranchise, and probably he objects to their becoming enfranchised.


Arthur Meighen: I want the hon. gentleman to understand that the wives, sisters, daughters, and mothers of that class who may be overseas are enfranchised by this Bill, just the same as any other.
Mr. AleCRANEY: But the Prime Alin-ister's statement is that that class are not accepted as recruits, and if they become soldiers they must represent themselves as Russians, or some other nationality.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Aly hon. friend does not draw one distinction which he ought to dTaw. I was not speaking of wo-

men of any nationality. In the observations which I made yesterday in regard to naturalization I was speaking of women who were not British subjects by birth.


George Ewan McCraney: I quite understand the statement of the Prime Minister in reference to that, but I am assuming-and no doubt the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that the reason women who are naturalized by operation of law, through the fact' of their husbands being naturalized, are not included in the franchise, is because the Government realized that it would enfranchise that large body of women who are wives of the foreign clajS which they propose to disfranchise.


Arthur Meighen: This Bill affects the alien enemy foreigner, but to enfranchise women generally would enfranchise the wives, sisters and all the other relatives of men born in other countries, not alien enemy at all, not speaking the alien enemy language, but speaking Norwegian or Russian, and people from all the countries of the world. It deals with a very much wider class.


George Ewan McCraney: If the measure enfranchised the wives of all British-born subjects, I would be satisfied if it enfranchised, in addition to those, the wives of all who came from other than alien enemy countries. It strikes me the reason the Government is confining the franchise as it does is because it fears to enfranchise the wives of the men whom they are disfranchising.


Arthur Meighen: Well, in part. But the hon. gentleman will follow me in two small steps of reasoning: in the first place, had we taken that course, and enfranchised the British born, and the British born alone, then the argument advanced by the leader of the Opposition, that persons resident in Canada, naturalized-and consequently given this pact as he describes it, if it is a pact-are discriminated against, would come with crushing force on us. That is the argument the hon. gentleman is advancing now. He could not endorse the position taken by the hon. leader of the Opposition yesterday, and stand where he is to-day. The second point-and in my judgment a much more important point- is that to enfranchise all the British-born women of Canada would be no remuneration to the soldiers overseas for what they are denied by virtue of a war election. There would be no compensation for them in that, and the Bill would lose its main
purpose, and, indeed, its main justification.
1 think the hon. member for Saskatoon will see that this is impracticable. How can we go through an election, and say to those overseas:	" Those who stay at
home can use their influence, canvass, go from door to door, make their appeals, and all the weaker passions of our nature can be played upon by the demagogue and i everyone else, but you men overseas, who have other motives and principles, cannot do so, and we will hold an election while you are 4,000 miles away, and deny you the right to exercise any personal influence whatever, and will also deny you 50 per cent of your vote." That is the condition we are endeavouring to repair. But if you give all the British-born a vote, you do not repair that condition in any sense at all. In peace times, it would be justified, but if you give it now, you deny to the soldiers overseas that influence which it is the purpose of this Bill to give.


George Ewan McCraney: My hon. friend is emphasizing that point very much. I am quite satisfied that if the women of the city in which I live who are British subjects by birth were enfranchised, they would support the soldiers at the front.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


George Ewan McCraney: The Solicitor General is assuming that they would be antagonistic. I am putting forward this argument, because day after day the women are going to the Red Cross room, and carrying on such activities, and I would like, without laying myself open to charges of inconsistency, to try and work out something practicable, so that these women, other than those entitled to vote because of ties of relationship, shall have some say, and shall be able to exercise their influence in the same direction as those who have ties with the soldier.


William Pugsley: I do not think the Solicitor General puts the ground for giving the right of voting to the relatives of the soldiers upon the right basis. I do not think it is intended to give to the relatives of the soldiers the right to vote in order that they may represent the soldiers, but the vote is to be given to the women because of the sacrifices they have made, by reason of their relationship.


Arthur Meighen: Both reasons.


William Pugsley: It seems to me the
latter is the true reason-that they have made the very greatest sacrifice a woman

can make in parting with those dear to them; I think that it is the true ground upon which the argument should be based. If I were a soldier I would rather trust the ordinary women of the country than my own relatives to see that I was treated fairly in everything. The ordinary women of the country would not be interested especially through ties of blood; they would be interested as citizens, as women of Canada; and I am satisfied that they could be relied upon to see that absolute justice was done to soldiers in the matter of their support at the front and of proper provision for them on their return. In the matter of allowances to their relatives, in the matter of separation allowance, in t'he matter of pensions, do you not think that the ordinary woman would be even more generous in her demands than the relative of the soldier would be? It seems to me that the Secretary of State does not present any argument against the extension of the franchise to those persons whom the member for Montreal, St. Lawrence, Mr. Bicker-dike) called the loyal and patriotic women of Canada.
The Prime Minister makes objection to extending the franchise to women generally on the ground that conditions affecting the naturalization laws have to be considered. Surely that difficulty, if it is a difficulty, must have presented itself to the Prime Minister two- or three months ago when he assured the women's delegations who waited upon 'him that the franchise would -be extended generally to the women of the country. On the 16th of May last, the following resolution was moved by the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland):
That, In the opinion of this House, the question of extending- the franchise Ito women should engage the attention of the Government at the present session.
That resolution was received sympathetically by the Prime Minister; he gave the women of the country to understand that the Government would act upon it. During the course of the discussion I moved the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and tlje following substituted therefor:	.
"the Dominion Election Act should be so-amended at the present session as to make uniform the right of women to vote for members of the House of Commons in those provinces which have granted to them -the provincial franchise."
That (amendment was ruled out of order by t'he Speaker. He said:
The member has on the Order Paper a resolution No. 6, following this one, which it seems 
to -me, although it is not in the same terms, is substantially the same as the one which he now submits by way of amendment. Bourinot says, page 301, [DOT]'Nor is it regular to move as an amendment to a question a motion of which notice has been given and which appears in its place on the notice paper."
The question being again proposed on the amendment, the Prime Minister moved the following amendment to the motion of the member for South Oxford:
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this House the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of Parliament -before an appeal to the people is made."
And the question being proposed on the 'amendment, I moved an amendment to the amendment in the following words:
That the following words be added thereto: "and it is therefore desirable that a measure having this object in view should be submitted to Parliament by the Government during the present session."
A debate arose upon that, and on the motion of the member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) the debate was adjourned. On a number of occasions since then I have been (assured by gentlemen- leading the H-ouse [DOT]that an opportunity would be given for the discussion of this motion, of the amendment -moved by the Prime Minister -and of the amendment to the -amendment moved by myiself. Bat the -important thing is that my right hon. friend moved as an amendment that the matter of extending the franchise to women should engage the (attention of Parliament before -an appeal to the people was made. That w-a-s an assurance to the House and to the wo-men of the country that the Government wa-s favourable to -extending ithe franchise generally to the women of Canada. There is no doubt -about that; the women of Canada so understood it; they expressed themselves as thankful to the Government for having at last decided to ask Parliament to grant them equal rights of suffrage. My right hon. friend put forth objections of a fanciful character as an explanation why the right of suffrage is granted to a few-I admit that it -should be granted to them; they have strong claims to it-and is refused to hundreds of thousands of other women who are equally entitled to it. No harm can come from extending the franchise generally to the women of Canada;
I am satisfied that every possible good would come from it. The Government ought not to let this session pass, it ought not allow this Bill to be disposed of, with-

out making provision for extending the franchise to women generally. If there are any objections on the ground of nationality or naturalization, then let the franchise be limited to the British-born women of Canada. That would extend the franchise to several hundred thousand women who, as I said yesterday, have shown during this war, by the unceasing work which they have done and the splendid patriotism which they have evidenced, that they are as capable of exercising the franchise as the men. They have shown that they are just as much concerned in the good government of this country and in the welfare of this Dominion as the men who exercise the franchise to-day. I was much struck by the remark of a lady who was very much in favour of suffrage and who spoke many times on the subject in the western provinces. Somebody suggested that the women might make a mess of politics. Well, she said, a much worse mess could not be madp of it than is being made to-day; the women could not do very much worse than the men. That is true. The men do it as well as they can, but I am satisfied that the women, if they were given the right to vote, would in many cases do very much better than the men. No good reason can be urged against giving the women the right of the franchise. I appeal to the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution to which I have referred to repeat the arguments which he presented on that occasion. The women of this country are waiting to receive a message that the Government will carry out their pledge. My right hon. friend says that some of the women, recognizing that the Government have gone quite a distance, believe that the Government ought to receive the thanks of the women. That may be so, but these women have been, deceived; they have been led to believe that this is simply a War-time Elections Act, the effect of which will end when the war is over. That is not true. It is nowhere provided by legislation that there is to be a new general election when this war is over. But the men, whether they will be Liberals or Conservatives, who will be elected under this proposed franchise, will be the representatives of the people and will have charge of the administration of affairs for the next five years, Supposing this war should end in a year, they will be in charge for four years after it is over. I am satisfied that, when the women of this country realize that they are to be debarred from the exercise of the franchise, of having any control over the affairs of this country during the next
five years, my right hon. friend will hear from them in very loud tones. I am told that even to-day my right hon. friend has been requested to receive delegations in order to hear their representations. I have been given this telegram from Vancouver, dated the 8th of September:
Have wired Premier following United Suffrage Societies' protest against Election Act now before House re woman suffrage which disfranchises women of British Columbia. Object to any extension of franchises to women except on same terms as to men. Demand federal franchise for women who are qualified as men are qualified.
(Sgd.) United Suffrage Societies.
I am told that is a very large, representative, influential organization, having its headquarters in Vancouver, and I am satisfied they represent the feeling of the women throughout this country. They have been demanding the franchise; they have been led to expect that they will receive the franchise, and as I have said, at last they thought they had the absolute promise of my right hon. friend that the franchise would be given to them. The attitude of my right hon. friend at first-some two or three years ago when, a delegation of women waited upon him, was that it was a matter for the provincial legislatures to deal with. He led the women, of this country to believe that whenever the provincial legisla-ures extended to women the Tight of suffrage, ipso facto, they would have the right to vote for members of this Parliament. Five provinces of Canada have given to women the right of suffrage. Under the assurance that was then given by the Prime Minister, they had a right to suppose that, at all events as to those provinces, the right of suffrage in voting for members for this Parliament would be extended to them. When the matter came up in the House, the Prime Minister hesitated to ask Parliament to enact Legislation which would carry out that view. I remember, either one or two sessions ago, when I introduced a resolution expressly providing for that, feeling sure that I would have the hearty support of the Prime Minister, he called upon his supporters to vote down the resolution, and, in consequence, it was defeated. During this session, my right hon. friend has led the women of this country to believe-at least so I am informed, because I was not present at the meeting, but the matter was reported in the press-that a general right of suffrage would be granted to them. Certainly, his attitude in this House when he
COMMONS moved the amendment to the resolution of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mt. Sutherland) that the question of extending the franchise to the women should engage the attention of Parliament before dissolution, was one that was calculated to lead Parliament and the people of the country to believe that a general measure of franchise would be submitted to Parliament at the present session.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend apparently forgets that, when he proposed a motion at the present session-the motion to which he has just now alluded-he phrased it in this way:
In the opinion of this House it is desirable that provision be made either to grant to women who are qualified to vote for members of a Provincial Legislature, the right also to vote for members of the Dominion Parliament, or to grant to women throughout the Dominion the right to vote for members of Parliament, subject to such provisions and limitations as may seem reasonable to Parliament.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The proposal
of my hon. friend in the first instance, made one or two sessions ago, was that we should enact in this Parliament legislation making it possible for women who had the right of provincial franchise to exercise that right of franchise in federal elections. A good deal has been said about discrimination. I imagine that the women of Canada, in the provinces in which they have not hitherto received the franchise in provincial elections, would look upon that as a very grave discrimination, if the Government should carry it out. But I pointed out also to my hon. friend-although he speaks lightly of the question of haturalization to which I alluded yesterday-that, in the tends of the motion I have just read, he himself recognized the importance of certain provisions and limitations which might seem reasonable to Parliament. I do not wish to repeat what I said yesterday on this point. I endeavoured to make myself perfectly clear, and I hope I did so. My hon. friend now suggests-along the principle of his motion of two years ago, but entirely in opposition to the view put forward by his leader yesterday-that we should amend the provisions of this Bill by providing that women of British birth should have the franchise and- that women torn in other countries, who were not of British nationality, should not have that right. The leader of the Opposition urged, with all the force at his command, that the provisions of this measure

would prevent people from coming to this country as immigrants. W'hat my hon. friend is urging just now would be a very much wider example of discrimination. Women who came to this country from the United Staes of America, or who came from France and other Allied nations, would be discriminated against by the proposal of my hon. friend. The observations of the leader of the Opposition would have very much greater force if directed against the hon. member for St. John than they had when directed against the proposal embodied in this Bill.
I realize at once that there are .in this country many women who, under the provisions of this Bill, will not have the vote at the coming election. I realize fully also, that at least a great majority of the women have worked untiringly and devotedly in aid of the purpose of Canada in this war. So far as these observations of my hon. friend are concerned, I entirely fconcur in the appreciation he has expressed. But we have to deal with conditions as they are in this country to-day. We have to deal with the situation which I described in my remarks of yesterday. I adhere entirely to the opinion that I have already expressed more than once in this House, namely, that the women of Canada generally are entitled to the franchise, and if the people of this country should give to me a mandate at the next general election, 1 undertake to carry out the purpose that I have already proclaimed. I propose to carry that out according to those lines and subject to the observations which I made on this point yesterday. Therefore, so far as that general principle is concerned, there will be no departure from it so far as my action may control it. But we are dealing now with an election in time of war. We are dealing with this question at a time , when the life of Parliament will expire in less than four weeks. We are dealing with it under conditions of an unusual character in many ways. When we come to consider the question of naturalization, we have to take into account that it has been the purpose of the statesmen of all the selfgoverning nations of the British Empire to have one uniform system of naturalization, and that the naturalization so established shall be effective throughout the Empire and not, as previously established, effective only in the Dominion or in the nation where the naturalization was granted. So when we come to look at it in the aspect which commends itself to my mind, wq find ourselves confronted with this situa-

tion: The women of this country,, if they are entitled to the franchise, are entitled also to determine their citizenship. I do not think any hon. gentleman in this House or any man or woman in this country would gainsay that. If a woman is entitled to her full voice in the affairs of this country, then that woman is entitled to determine her citizenship for herself, and not to have it determined for her by the mere fact of her marriage. But in order to bring that about, and to remove the anomalies which the present system creates, it will be necessary to pass legislation which will have to be very carefully considered, and as to which there ought to be negotiations with the Mother Country and with the other self-governing dominions of the Empire if we are to preserve the uniformity which at the conference of 1911 was regarded as essential, and if we are to preserve one type and form of naturalization for the whole British Empire. I am sure every one in this icountry will realize the absolute impossibility of accomplishing all that between now and the 7th of October, when the life of this Parliament expires.
My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) reproaches me because he considers I have not given sufficient attention to the subject during the past six or seven weeks. I would point out to him that we have had half a dozen matters engaging the attention of the Government during this season, any one of which under ordinary conditions would have been regarded as a sufficient undertaking for a government during one whole session of Parliament. We have had to grapple with these questions as best we could, and it may be possible that owing to those circumstances, and not to any indisposition on my part, adequate attention has not been given to the particular feature which I brought to the notice of the House yesterday. That has been our misfortune, and not our fault. At all events, we are dealing with conditions as they are now, and I say once more: it would be impossible for this Parliament in the limited time which will elapse between now 'and the 7th of October to give to that question the consideration and the attention which "it deserves, .and, more than that, to have the communication with the Government and Parliament of the Mother Country and of itihe Overseas Dominions which would be necessary if we are to preserve the essential feature of uniformity in naturalization throughout the Empire which was laid down as a guiding principle at the conference of 1911, and
which was carried out so far as the Mother Country and some of the Dominions iare concerned, by the legislation enacted in 1914.
I realize fully that there may be women in tins country-there doubtless are-who will not be entitled to the franchise under this Bill .and who may feel aggrieved about it. But I am .also convinced that when they come to realize and comprehend the situation which confronts the Government at this time, .they will give the Government credit for dealing with the question in a fair and reasonable way, and for doing what they could to give the franchise to a very large body of Canadian womanhood- and this Bill will undoubtedly grant the franchise to a very large number of the women of this country. I know that there are those who have worked unceasingly and devotedly who have not immediate relatives *at the front, but who are as earnest in their purpose and1 in .their endeavour as any woman in Canada could be. I hope and believe they will understand and comprehend this situation.
As far as we are concerned, I repeat onct more that we have endeavoured to frame this Bill on the guiding principle of service and of sacrifice. While I give every credit that could be given to those devoted women in Canada who have not relatives at the front, but who nevertheless have thrown their whole heart and soul into the national purpose, yet it must be conceded, even by these women themselves, that those women have made the greater sacrifice who have sent to the front those who are nearest p.nd dearest to them to fight for our institutions, for our liberties, and for the preservation of this Empire.


David Bradley Neely: We all recognize that in giving this Bill its second reading Parliament was recognizing the principle of discrimination so far as the franchise is concerned. The Government recognized that the Bill was open to criticism from the fact that m extending the franchise to women they had to draw a line somewhere. The Prime Minister had just admitted that injury may be done to many of the women of Canada who have given splendid service since the outbreak of the war, and who will not be enfranchised by this Bill. I presume that in the matter of disfranchising the electors the same holds good, and that the Government are not satisfied with the cfegree of disfranchisement this Bill proposes. They would go further if they could, or it' they dared; but they have gone as far


David Bradley Neely: I do not know about that. Is there not an insinuation in the position taken by the Secretary of State that the only women in this country who can be trusted to multiply or increase the influence of the soldier overseas in an election are his own immediate relatives. I think this Bill puts an imputation, on a percentage of the women of this country, which is absolutely unworthy of this- Parliament. While I know that the eliminating effect of this Bill, so far as the franchise is concerned, dees not go as far as the Government would like, is there any justification or any reason why in provinces where women's fran-
chise has already been adopted, and the principle is accepted, where *we are by this very Bill trusting the men to vote, we should not also trust -these men's wives? I quite understand that the proposal of the Government is to disfranchise certain of our male electors, and presumably they will not trust the wives or daughters of these male electors, at this forthcoming election, hut is there any reason why in those provinces where women's franchise has already been granted, the wives and daughters of electors who have not been disfranchised should not have the right to vote? That is standing by the underlying principle of the present Dominion franchise, namely, that in so far as possible we adopt the provincial standard of qualification, and it is the Government's intention and hope, they would have us believe, that they are trying to depart from that principle just as little as possible in the present Bill. That obviates all the difficulties the Prime Minister was speaking about. Stick by the provincial franchise and provincial standard of qualification, except in so far as the Government is determined to disfranchise a certain class of the electors. That, of course, we presume will naturally tell against the wives and the daughters of those electors as well as against -the men themselves. I think it is a sound principle to adopt the provincial franchise, and as far as we adopt the provincial franchise if we trust the male elector to retain his franchise, we should also trust his wife and daughter.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman intimates something -about my not trusting any woman except those who have sons overseas. That is not the point at all. If is not a question of trusting the women- of Canada to stand by the war. There -are differences of opinion as to how practically to stand by o-ur boys and by the war, and in the judgment o-f the Government those who would most likely share the opinions of the men overseas as to the best -method and the only method of doing so would be their near relatives. It is not unreasonable to presume that the sentiments of the overseas force would be best reflected by Canada in their own immediate relatives. I do not think that is illogical or unreasonable. That is as far as I have gone, and that is as far as I need go to justify the measure. The amendment moved by my bon. friend looks to the adoption throughout Canada of the provincial franchise. If it is passed, then wherever or whosoever she -be, a woman

who can vote in any province can vote in the Dominion elections. Let us get the full meaning of this, so that the House may understand it, and with this in view, I think it is just as well that the amendment has been moved. In the four western provinces all naturalized British subjects, no matter how they are naturalized, get the vote. If a woman comes from Germany, or Austria, *and marries three weeks after she arrives, she becomes naturalized, and is entitled to the vote.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not according to the other provisions.


Arthur Meighen: Not according to the
other provisions, because they are in direct conflict with this. The other provisions are in accord with section 32 as it stands, but you cannot change paragraph 32 if the other provision stands. The contention of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) is that we shall adopt the provincial franchise as to women. Let hon. gentlemen understand what the effect of that would be. If a woman who has been a week in Canada marries a naturalized citizen, she thereby becomes a naturalized British subject. That is the law of the land to-day.


David Bradley Neely: She would not he entitled
to vote,


Arthur Meighen: She would be entitled to vote immediately she had the residence required by the province.


William Pugsley: Does not the minister see that by this paragraph the qualifications necessary to enable any male or female person to vote at a Dominion election in any province shall, except as by this Act otherwise provided, be those established by the law's of that province. Could it not be easily worked out in some other sections?


Arthur Meighen: If this passes who would be able to vote, and who would not?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend thinks it desirable to disqualify men of alien enemy origin, I presume he would also disqualify the wives of men of alien enemy origin. That could be easily done because if the majority of the House determines that those men should be disfranchised, naturally their wives would also be disfranchised.


Arthur Meighen: I would like to get the intention of the hon. member for Humboldt. Is it his intention by the amendment that there would be disfranchisement of the wives of Germans, Austrians, Turks, and
Bu'garians, naturalized within the last fifteen years?


David Bradley Neely: Most assuredly. I said
we should recognize the principle of discrimination; you would have to do so.
'Mr. MEIGHEN: That would not be the effect of the amendment if it passed although of course, other clauses could be changed accordingly to bring about that effect. In so far as the alien enemy born are concerned, any one of them naturalized within the last fifteen years would not be able to vote, whether male or female, but in so far as Swedish bom are concerned, a woman would be a naturalized British subject the moment she landed in Canada if she then married, and as soon she acquired her residence in the province, whatever it might be-it is one year-she would be entitled to vote. Is it the intention of the hon. member for Humboldt that the man should be required to be here three or five years, before he could become a naturalized citizen and have the right to vote, and that the woman could get that right in one year?


David Bradley Neely: She will only have the right to vote and come under the operation of the franchise if she marries a British subject. So far as I am personally concerned, I would say in answer to the Secretary of State, .that I would be perfectly willing to trust with the franchise a Swedish woman married to a British subject for one year, in war time or any other time.
Mr. MEIGiHEN:	A naturalized British
subject?


David Bradley Neely: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That would make her
a British subject. Of course, if she was born in Germany, she would have to be here three years and the man would have to be here five years, but a Swedish woman who marries a naturalized British subject of German origin, after one year's residence, is entitled to a vote. Would the hon. gentleman support that legislation?


David Bradley Neely: That is a side issue. Cases of that kind would be exceedingly few.


Arthur Meighen: There are thousands of them-.


David Bradley Neely: As we are discriminating
we can very easily provide for cases where women marry British subjects of alien enemy birth. If you are taking the franchise away from a man of alien enemy birth it is a simple thing to say that his wife shall not have it.


Arthur Meighen: If she marries a British subject of alien enemy birth, she will not be entitled to the franchise?


David Bradley Neely: She will not.


Arthur Meighen: If she marries a British subject who was not of alien enemy birth she will?


David Bradley Neely: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: Is not that discriminating against a British subject of alien enemy birth? Is that not exactly-what we were warned against yesterday by the hon. gentleman's leaders?


David Bradley Neely: I am not trying to bo consistent because I recognize that the whole Bill is^ q ipass of inconsistencies. We are recognizing the principle of discrimination all through this Bill. We are passing this special Act to get away from the usual Dominion Franchise Act and to do that by a process of discrimination. My point is this:	Keeping, as we hope to do, as near
to the provincial franchise as .possible, where a man has a vote his wife should have a vote also.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Secretary of State has given as an illustration the case of a Swedish woman who came hare and married a naturalized British subject who, under this Act, would have had to be here since 1902. We take it for granted that he would be a proper British subject if he had been here during that time. I would be .perfectly willing to give that woman a vote. I have no dread of that sort of a voter. I have no such dread of the naturalized 5 p.m. alien as my hon. friend has. [DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Why not give the same right to the man?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why not? I cannot see why not.


Arthur Meighen: If a woman was a
naturalized British subject. and a Swede came to Canada and .married her next day would my hon. friend be prepared to give that 2n.an a vote?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the Swede were here
a year and if he had become a British subject I would give him a vote.


Arthur Meighen: A naturalized German woman who has been here since 1902 is entitled to a vote. A Swedish man comes here and marries her the next day after he arrives. Would the hon. gentleman give that man a vote?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, not the next day.


Arthur Meighen: That is what he wants to give the woman.
Mr. hESBITT:	He would have to wait
a year.


Arthur Meighen: He would have to wait a year by the law of the province but lie would be a British subject next day after his arrival. My hon. friend would give him a vote after a year's residence in Canada?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Sure I would. I do not object to giving these men votes. There are lots of men up in my constituency who will be disqualified and who are just as loyal and just as good citizens as the Secretary of State is.


Arthur Meighen: I only want to know
what the hon. gentleman intends. If he intends that, all right.	,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Sure; that is what I intend. I would not cut them out. My hon. friend here (Mr. Neely) has moved a resolution which I am going to second and which follows the provincial law. The provincial Act does not say that if they are here a month or a day they shall be naturalized as British subjects. My hon. friend knows that.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, they can become British subjects in a day.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No.


Arthur Meighen: They would not have
a vote in a day but they would be naturalized.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What .is the use of splitting hairs in that way? The hon. gentleman, the House, and the country know what I mean. I am not a bit alarmed about these aliens. I have aliens in my constituency, many of whom are serving in the war, who are just as loyal as the Secretary of State is or any gentleman on the other side of the House.


Mr. DEVLIN:: We have in that riding a respectable body of Indians, several of whom have enlisted and have gone overseas. Will the squaws in that case have a right to vote?


Arthur Meighen: Not under the Bill as it stands, fox this reason, that the Bill requires women to qualify as to age, race, and residence in accordance with the laws of the provinces, iand under the laws of the provinces the Indian race has not a vote.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend the Secretary of State yesterday took credit

for having granted the franchise to a new class of voters, to the women who are relatives in near degree of the men who have enlisted. So far so good; nobody quarrels with that. But my hon. friend, while actuated 'by this praiseworthy motive, cannot conceal the fact that he is taking away the franchise from many female subjects of His Majesty who ought to have it if the law were properly carried out. I understand that my hon. friend proposes to maintain the principle of the provincial franchise in this Bill; and wants to depart as little as possible from the laws that exist to-day except that he proposes to extend the franchise to the female relatives of the men at the front, and that he is taking it away from voters of alien origin. As the law exists to-day in five provinces, women have the franchise. We had this discussion yesterday, but we are now considering the framing of this measure, and it is perhaps as well that we should have a little more discussion on it. Section 6 of the Dominion Elections Act, which we are now amending, reads:
For the purposes of any Dominion election held within the limits of a province, the voters' Lists shall, except as herein otherwise provided, be those prepared for the several polling divisions established, and which, on the sixtieth day next preceding the day fixed for the nomination of candidates for such Dominion election, were in force, or were last in force, under the laws of that province, for the purposes of provincial elections.
Mark the words with which this section begins: For the purposes of any Dominion election held within the limits of a province, the voters' lists shall, except as herein otherwise provided, be the voters' lists for a Dominion election. My hon. friend told us yesterday what is well known to be a fact, that in Manitoba and British Columbia the ' lists which are now in existence have the names of female voters upon them.
I would think that, if a Dominion election were held under the Act as it stands, these men and women who are on the list in Manitoba and British Columbia would have a right to vote. The Secretary of State shakes his head. Yesterday we were told that the law officers of the Crown, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, and the Deputy Minister of Justice, were of opinion this this Bill did not give the franchise to women. Of course, every man has his own way of interpreting the law.
I may be right in my view, or the interpretation placed upon the Bill by the law offi-' cers of the' Crown may be the correct one, but we have to accept the opinion expressed
by the law officers of the Crown. I should like to have a judicial interpretation, but that is not possible. In my view, the language is as plain as plain can be. I think that the lists have to be taken as they are, and that the provincial franchise in any province is the one upon which the law is to be administered, and under which the Dominion elections are to be held. The minister told us yesterday that section 6 did not apply to women. I do not (understand why it should not apply. If the law of the province makes a person an elector, and that elector has the right to vote in a provincial election, I cannot understand why he should not also have the right to vote at a Dominion election. There is no question in such a case, if it be- a male voter, that he has the right to vote at a Dominion election, but it is said that a female voter has not the same right and I cannot understand why. The law officers of the Crown have decided otherwise, and we must abide by their decision. If the law to-day is that women in the five provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, and British Columbia have the right to vote at provincial elections, there is one thing certain, namely, that these women expect to have the right to vote at Dominion elections, and they will all claim it. My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) states that the Premier has been deluged with telegrams from women protesting against being excluded from the operation, of this Bill, and if section 6 of the Dominion Elections Act is not sufficient to caver the point, and grant the right of suffrage to these women who have had it in the five provinces, why should it not be provided that they should have it? My hon. friend has Tather played upon words, in his answer to the hon. .member for Humboldt a moment ago. He puts the case of a Swedish woman marrying an alien, and he stated that she would not have the right to vote. That is a very nice point. These women would have to choose between the husband on one side, and suffrage on the other. A woman would have to decide whether she would rather have a husband and no vote, or a vote and no husband. What reason can be urged why these women who have the provincial franchise in these five provinces should not .have the franchise for tlhe Dominion? My hon. friend's Bill reads:
The qualifications necessary to enable any male person to vote at a Dominion election in any province shall, except as in the Act otherwise provided, be those established by, the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such

male person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election.
In a subsequent part of the Bill there are provisions to exclude some of the women who to-day are voters in the provinces. Those of .alien, origin who have been naturalized since 31st March, 1902, are excluded. If tihe amendment of my hon. friend from Humboldt were accepted, the Bill would read:
The Iqualiflcations necessary to enable any male or female person to vote at a Dominion election in any province shall, except as by this Act otherwise provided, be those established by the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such male or female person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election.
Necessarily, if this provision were accepted, it would have to be qualified later on by the same provision which excludes men of .alien birth from voting. That would follow as a consequence; a certain number of those women might be excluded also, and in the .s*ame way a certain number of men are excluded from the franchise. At all events, the franchise would remain to those women who are not wives of aliens, but the wives of British subjects by birth or otherwise. That cannot be contemplated by the Act, and it seems to me that no good reason has been advanced by the Secretary of State why the amendment of the hon. member for Humboldt should not be accepted. It all comes back to this: Shall women have the franchise or not. My hon. friend has stated, and the Prime Minister repeated, that the only basis for suffrage for women was service and sacrifice. Well, there are different degrees of sacrifice. There is greater service and there is less service. It is a question of degree. But, at all events, nobody can deny that there has been service. It is freely recognized by the Prime Minister, and by the Secretary of State, that all classes of women have been serving. Some have served to the limit of their ability, but all have made more or less sacrifice. Under the circumstances, if the principle is to be adopted it should be followed in all its consequences, especially in these provinces where the women have the provincial franchise, and where it is thought by a majority of the electors that they should be permitted to participate in the rights exercised by men. '


Arthur Meighen: I draw attention of the leader of the Opposition to the fact that section 6 provides the list, and does not give the franchise. Section 6 says:
 <
For the purpose of any Dominion election held Within the limits of a province the voters' list shall, except as herein otherwise provided ....
What is "otherwise provided''?
Section 10 reads:
The qualifications necessary to entitle any person to vote at a Dominion election in any pi-ovince shall, except as herein otherwise, provided, be those established by the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election.
And other sections say that' minors and judges shall not vote. The franchise is provided for in other sections. This section provides how the list of those qualified in that way shall be compiled as the list for the election. The courts havie held, rightly or wrongly, that the word "person'' as used in relating to the franchise, cannot be held to include both sexes, i im not arguing whether the law courts are right or wrong. The law officers of the Crown iiave advised-and I have looked into it as carefully -as I can-that that is the effect of the decision.


William Pugsley: Has the question ever come before the courts in Canada?


Arthur Meighen: The question never
came before the courts of Canada, but it has been decided in the courts of England under precisely similar conditions.


William Pugsley: It is very different there.


Arthur Meighen: I want to explain the
reason why our point of view was arrived at. I did not rely on my own opinion in the matter. The opinion given by our law officers is very powerfully supported. It is quite true that, if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Humboldt were adopted, by a few changes later oil, the law could be made to adjust itself and have the effect the hon. leader of the Opposition contends for, namely, that of including in the female franchise all those who are in a similar position to those included in the male franchise. But I contend that that would not be a fair effect, for three reasons. First, because of our naturalization laws many women would be enabled to get the franchise after one year's residence in Canada. Second, the representative compensating character and value would be altogether removed from the franchise. A great dead would be done, it is true, in the way of giving the franchise to the women of Canada, but no special compensation would be

given to the soldier. From 'the electoral standpoint, the provision would be of just as much service to the slacker at home as it would be to the soldier overseas; indeed, it would be of more service to the former. Lastly, the change would not follow a clear, bold line of sacrifice. I know that there are other lines of service than that of having a son or a brother at the front; there is very useful service, frequently the best that any woman can give. But you cannot measure that kind of service. We were asiked yesterday to include in the provisions of this Bill those who knitted socks for the soldiers. How many socks? Half a sock, one sock, two socks or a thousand socks? We have to adopt a bold, clear line; we have to take the line that differentiates those who make the highest sacrifice from those who make what must be described as a minor sacrifice.


William Pugsley: My horn, friend is seeking to cast ridicule upon the work of the women in making .socks for the soldiers.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.
Mr. PUGSLEY; The women of this country, as has been admitted, have made every sacrifice it has been possible for them to make in connection with the war. I submit that no argument can be offered against the desirability and justice of giving them the right to vote. I am willing to support the amendment moved by the member for Humbold (Mr. Neely). If nothing more can be done for the women of the country, at least the franchise ought not to be taken away from them in the provinces where they now enjoy it. The Solicitor-General knows that he is taking away the Tight of franchise from some of the women of Canada. He puts in as the qualification for voting the words which are applied to Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon, and he repeals or suspends during the period of the war this section which gives the qualification to women in those other provinces. The qualifications for all the provinces but Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon are the provincial lists, whether they include men or women. Section 10 of the Dominion Elections Act, which is suspended by this measure, reads as follows:
The qualifications necessary to entitle any person to vote at a Dominion election in any province shall, except as herein otherwise provided, be those established by the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election.


Arthur Meighen: That is not what we
suspend.


William Pugsley: Why did not my hon.
friend continue that section as the section providing the qualification? He docs not do that; he provides that the qualification set out in, section 32 shall be the quali-i fication throughout the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


William Pugsley: In other words, instead of providing for the smaller portions of Canada-Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon-the same qualification that the Dominion Elections Act provides for the rest of the Dominion, he provides that the qualification in respect to those three districts shall apply to the whole Dominion. He suspends the operation of section 10 and brings into force the operation of section 32. As he knows, section 10 applies to all of Canada, except Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon, 'and section 32 relates only to Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Arthur Meighen: We do not do that at all.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend does, because he suspends the whole of part I.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has
made a curious mistake.


William Pugsley: I have not made a curious mistake.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has it exactly upside down. We repeal section 32 as it is and we adopt section 10 and put it in this Bill.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong. By section 1 of the Bill it is provided that during the war and until the completion of demobilization after the conclusion of peace, the operation of part 1 of the Dominion Election Act shall be suspended.


Arthur Meighen: But we take section
10 and put it in; and we repeal section 32.


William Pugsley: No, my hon. friend
does not put in section 10.


Arthur Meighen: We do, but we use the word " male."


William Pugsley: Instead of using the
word " person- " as it is used in the whole of the Dominion Elections Act except'that part of it which applies to Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon Territory, my hon. friend puts in the word "male." Notwithstanding the advice of the Justice Department, he is not willing to take the



chance that the word " person " means male person. He inserts the word "male," and thereby limits the franchise to male persons in Canada. Surely that is altering the law with regard to women having the right to vote. I affirm, notwithstanding what the Minister of Justice says, that if a woman, whether married or unmarried, is a person in the eye of the law, .she has the right to vote in every province where her name appears on the provincial lists, except in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon Territory. My hon. friend says that he goes by some judgment of a court in England. Well, that judgment was given a long time ago, in a special case, and at a time when women in England were looked upon not as persons, but as chattels. They were the property of their husbands, to all intents and purposes; when they were married whatever they had in the way of personal property went over to the husband by virtue of the marriage contract. That judgment was delivered at a time when people were imbued with the idea laid down by Blackstone that the English law was very tender in dealing with the married woman when it permitted the husband to beat his wife only to a moderate degree. That was the view held in those days as to the status of woman. But through legislation and the decision of the courts, the status of woman has gradually become enlarged. To-day the law of England and of Canada recognizes her as a person, having civil rights just as a man has, and entitled to be recognized as a person. I believe that all the courts of the country, if the question came up, would recognize " woman " as a " person." But as I have said, the Solicitor General is afraid to rest upon the interpretation which would be given to the word person, and so afraid is he of that, and so desirous is he of making it sure that the women of Ontario. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia shall not be allowed to vote, that he puts the word "male" before the word "person." My hon. friend says that- he also rests upon the view of the Department of Justice. 1 happen to have before me an opinion which has been expressed by a gentleman who formerly occupied the position of Deputy Minister of Justice in Canada, an eminent lawyer, a gentleman who stands at the very top notch amongst the legal men of Canada, a gentleman of great learning and a very high authority. I refer to Mr. Z. A. Lash, and 
this is his opinion as expressed recently in an address to the University of Toronto: After the Ontario Aot giving votes to women has been finally passed, as the Dominion election law now stands women, whose names are on the Ontario voters' lists, would be entitled to vote at Dominion elections. This affords a remarkable illustration of the interlocking or Dominion and provincial jurisdictions and machinery, all working together smoothly and in accordance with the spirit of the constitution.


Mr. MORPHY:: How does the hon. member, apart from any court decisions, get over our own Dominion Act as to what constitutes a voter?


William Pugsley: In what way?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: On page 90 of this book of instructions, we find "Information for electors," which says:
The following is the qualification of electors as prescribed by the Parliament of Canada: Every male person shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: What section is that?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is in one of the schedules arising out of the Act.


William Pugsley: I will tell my hon. friend hc.w I shall get over it. My hon. friend happens to be reading the instructions to the electors of Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: One further question. Mr. PUGSLEY: That is the answer to tins first.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: On page 97 there appear the oaths to be taken by electors. The first oath is:
You do swear that you are of the male sex and a British subject.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will read the oath carefully, he will find that those are the instructions to and the oath to be taken by the electors in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and in the Yukon-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Oh, no.


William Pugsley: -and only in those provinces and in that territory. Let me show my hon. friend that I am right. This is very important, and I am glad my hon. friend called attention to it. If my hon. friend will look at section 35, which starts with the words-
In the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
-he will find that it refers to the proclamation in Form G. Section 32 of this Bill. It says:

In the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, except as in this Act otherwise provided, every male person shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act, who, not being: an Indian, is a British subject and of the full age of twenty-one years, and has resided in either of the said provinces for at least twelve months.
I am sure my hon. friend will find that the information to which he has referred is the information relating entirely to the voters of Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon Territory.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: How about the oath?
Are you going to make a woman swear that she is a man?


William Pugsley: I am answering one
thing at a time. We shall now come to the oath. The oath, which my hon. friend dwells upon and which is to be found upon page 97, says:
You do swear that you are of the male sex and a British subject, that you are not an Indian, that you are of the full age of twenty-one years, and that you have resided in the province of Saskatchewan or Alberta or the Yukon Territory (as the case may be) for at least twelve months.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: All right.
Mr. PtJGSLEY:	If my hon. friend will
turn to section 61 he will find that that form is the form provided specifically for Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Yukon Territory.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The electors must be
males.


William Pugsley: Section 61 says:
Every deputy returning officer in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory may, and shall, when he is required so to do by any candidate or agent of a candidate, administer to any elector either one or both of the oaths set forth in Form Z.
That is the form to which my hon. friend has referred and which I have just read, and the form which is limited expressly to Saskatchewan, and to Alberta, and to the Yukon Territory.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It deals with male persons, not with female persons, There is nothing about females there.


William Pugsley: Of course, it deals with male persons, because part II, relating to Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Yukon Territory, expressly limits the franchise to male persons.


Mr. CURRIE:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


William Pugsley: Just wait one minute.


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend might explain why all the French Canadian members except one have left the Chamber, and that one i6 now leaving.


William Pugsley: I suppose they have a perfect right to leave, and I am gratified my hon. friends have remained while I am ad>-addressing the committee. I have a good attendance before me and I have not felt the loss of my French Canadian friends. I will refer to section 153. I feel my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) is entitled to have an answer to his question, because he does not suggest ridiculous things in this House.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Take your time.


William Pugsley: Section 153 says:
Except in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory, an elector, if required by the deputy returning officer, the poll clerk, one of the candidates, or an agent of a candidate, or by any elector present, shall, before receiving his ballot paper, take such oath of qualification as by the laws of the province he may in the like case at a provincial election be required to take, such changes having been made in the form of oath as are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held, and there being added to such oaths, or substituted therein for any clauses dealing with the like matters or any of them, the clauses set forth in Form Y.
Let us see if Form Y, which is on page 97, says anything about being a male voter. Form Y says:
You swear (or solemnly affirm),-
That you have not been disfranchised under the provisions of the Disfranchising- Act, or for corrupt practices under the Dominion, Elections Act;
That you have not voted before at this election, either at this or at any other polling station ;
That you have not received anything, .	.	.
That you have not, directly or indirectly, paid or promised anything to any person either to induce him to vote or to refrain from voting at this election.
There is no oath or affirmation there that the voter is a male person.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: This only gives the corrupt practices part of it. It does not make the voter swear that he is a British subject.


William Pugsley: Can my hon. friend
show me where in the Dominion Elections Act the voter is required to swear that he is a male person except in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Yukon Territory?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have not searched for that.


William Pugsley: Well, I have. I did so when I moved a resolution in this House

two sessions ago. My hon. friend can [DOT] search the Dominion! Elections Act from beginning to end and examine all the forms, and nowhere will he find the requirement that the voter shall be a male person. The requirements of the statute, and the forms, proclamations and oaths which relate to male persons are limited entirely to those provisions relating to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory. I can assure my hon. friend that he has only to look at the statute to see that I am absolutely right. But the Secretary of State in this Bill is taking away the right of the women to' vote; at all events the right of the women of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and British* Columbia, where if they are persons they have the right to vote. My hon. friend may say they are not persons, but I say they are; a woman has always been recognized as a person in reality and in law, though law sometimes differs from reality. The women of Alberta and Saskatchewan are also on the provincial lists, and this Bill takes away the right which those women have by law to-day to cast their ballots at an election for the Dominion Parliament. My hon. friend has made it clear he is doing that, because he has put in the words "male person" and has made it applicable to the whole of Canada. Therefore, no matter what franchise may be given by any provincial legislature in Canada, when this Bill goes into force, notwithstanding any provincial franchise giving women the right to vote, their names will be struck off the provincial lists. That is wrong, and therefore I am prepared to vote, and vote heartily, for the amendment of my hon. friend from Humboldt.


William Erskine Knowles: The question whether the amendment 'Should carry is one of especial interest to a province like my own, where the (franchise has been extended to our women citizens. I am a supporter of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Humboldt, believing that it is an improvement on (the legislation which, the Government has brought down. I am not quarrelling with the legislation which the Government proposes on this particular feature, but I submit that the Government should give more consideration to the possibility that their legislation can be improved upon. It is unfortunate that the Government seems to take the position that because ia suggestion comes from this side of the House it must be laughed out of court, or met with taunt, or sophistry, or something 
like that. The leader of the Government gets up and says that on a certain occasion the leader of the Opposition, or the hon. member for St. John, said something or other. That is the kind of answer we get to a serious suggestion, made with a view to improving the legislation submitted by the Government. It is comparatively unimportant what view the leader of the Opposition, or the hon. member for St. John, held in the past with regard to women suffrage. The question, as I understand it, is whether it is right and just and in the country's interest that we should extend the franchise to the women in those provinces where the franchise has been granted for provincial purposes. Let us address ourselves for a moment to that question.
The Government manifestly has no lack of confidence in the ability of women to consider and arrive at a fair decision on the issues of the day. The very fact of the Government granting the franchise to certain women is in itself ian admission that they believe the women of Canada are so mentally and morally endowed as to be able to pass judgment on the questions before the country. Now, if some women are capable of doing this, are not all women capable of it? No one 'suggests that the women relatives of soldiers are any different from other women, >so far as (assisting at a general election in this country is concerned. I can see no answer to that proposition; it admits of no debate. If we are to go as far as the Government goes we must, if we are to be consistent, go farther and give the franchise to 'all women who are entitled to it under the provincial law.
This legislation is but another example of the old practice of hon. gentlemen opposite, often done in good faith, because they have done it so often it has become a habit with them, of enacting class legislation. This legislation is but another form of privtilegism; it is the last remove from democracy to give the vote to a mere handful of women and withhold it from the rest, for no reason at all except the flimsy, sophistical reason the Secretary of State has given. Now what is his reason? He says that if we were to 'give the vote to all women, it would he no prize to the soldiers' relatives. Those are not his exact words, but that was his idea, framed in his own beautiful language, which I could not for a moment imitate, and the sophistry of which I trust I never for one moment shall. He says it would be a departure from the compensating feature to the soldiers' relatives. That is to say, all women

are entitled to the vote, but we are withholding it from the majority because we wish to give the privilege to the soldiers' relatives. We wish to show them some favouritism, as a sort of compensation for themselves and themselves alone. That is class legislation; the principle is wrong and vicious. The reason given by the Secretary of State is one that will not stand analysis. Let us give to the soldier or to his relatives anything under heaven that will commence to compensate in any real sense for the sacrifice that they have made, but surely the soldiers' relatives would be the very last to be so unreasonable as to say: "Let us be the dog in the manger. Let us, and us alone, have the vote to which all women are entitled." Wlhy should the women relatives of soldiers be thankful because the vote is kept from other women? The Secretary of State does not rightly understand the womanhood of Canada if he thinks these women will rejoice in the fact of being in a position of .solitary majesty of their own, while t'heir .sisters >are not able to exercise the franchise which they have received. I think my hon. friend had better get some better reason than that, and in all .friendship and courtesy I suggest that he ask that this amendment .stand .for a little while that he may consider it, and if there is an. entire absence, as there seems to be, of any real, cogent reason against the amendment, then let the amendment go through. There is no man more ready to admit the accomplishments of the Secretary of .State than myself, but I do think that for some of the reasons he gives in this House when he goes home at night he must be ashamed; I cannot say in Parliamentary language that I think he should be ashamed of himself, but I certainly do think that he should be ashamed of his reasons. We had the Ross rifle for .a while sending our boys to sleep in France and Flanders, when they should have been, full-blooded boys, and the reason the Solicitor General gave for continuing to supply our men with that rifle was that we were liable for an action for damages if we broke our contract. Then he gave us free wheat, because he wanted peace on earth with the farmers out West. Yesterday he told us he was taking away the vote from people of enemy biTth to protect the State, and when I confronted him with the terms of the naturalization certificate, whereby Canada pledges herself to give all political rights in this coum ry to these men, the only reason he had to give was that in Saskatchewan they did something to
the Chinese, and in British Columbia they did something else. There are four illustrations of reasons that the Secretary of State has put up, and I am bound to do him the compliment of saying they are not worthy of him. I trust he will look into all these matters-the reason of the Ross rifle, the reason of the free wheat, the reason for disfranchising the Germans because they did something to the Chinese, and the reason he gives now that he keeps the vote from all women because he says it would not be any special compensation to soldiers' wives if the rest of Canada got it. I would ask that the matter receive further consideration of the Government, and be not turned down for no reason at all that I can see, except it comes from this side of the House.


Frank Oliver: I must admit the Secretary of State has made the position of the Government perfectly clear. It is the deliberate intention of this Government in this Bill, as in the Military Voters' Bill, to establish in the Dominion of Canada a. military voting caste, for the purpose of perpetuating the present Government in power. They are dtoing this without any parliamentary authority, and without the authority of the people, and by Parliament which is very little more than half representative. Such an exhibition of autocracy Canada never saw before, and we must take it for granted that a continuation of our hon. friends in their present position will give Canada more examples of autocracy .such as the Kaiser will be glad to hear of.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) stated that these decisions were arrived at in England in the old prehistoric times when women were chattels, and men beat their wives. As a matter of fact, the decision was in 1909 and is quoted in the Appeal Cases.
Amendment, Mr. Neely, declared lost.


George Ewan McCraney: In view of the defeat of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) and of the objections made to it by the Government, I desire to move the following amendment, which I hope will overcome the objection. I beg to move:
That section 1 be amended by adding- after the word "war" in line 34, the words "or is a natural born British subject qualified as ta age, race, and residence, as required in the case of a male person in such province or in the Yukon Territory."
The effect of that would be to enfranchise every woman who is a natural born

British subject, and get rid of the objection which the Secretary of State made in regard to the woman coming from Sweden, who lived here for a year and had the right to vote.


Arthur Meighen: It gets rid of the objection as to the anomaly of naturalization, but it does not meet the main points at all, namely, that the whole representative value of the vote is gone, and the line of service and sacrifice is destroyed.
Mr. MARCH,: Referring to the following paragraph, will the Secretary of State tell me what is meant by the words " in any of the military forces." Does it mean the military forces of Britain and Canada alone, or the military forces of the Allies as well.


Arthur Meighen: Not the Allies.
Mr. MARCH,: Why not? We have thousands of Belgians and French who left Canada for the front. Why should not the wives and relatives of these men have the right to vote?


Arthur Meighen: That is worth considering.


William Pugsley: When I brought the matter up first, the Minister of Justice promised me they would have that right.


Arthur Meighen: I will take it into consideration.
Amendment, Mt. McCraney, lost on division.
Ayes 16; Nays 38.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Perhaps the minister
will tell us something .about the words "naval forces" used in paragraph 33a. We have only two warships, or so-called warships. I would like to know what is meant by the qualification, of men serving on the naval forces? Is it confined to men who have been engaged on those two vessels?


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries can give more information as to the exact details of the naval forces. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that in addition to the force he has mentioned there are patrol boats in the Department of the Naval Service. Those boats are doing very good service on the ooast of several of the provinces of Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Canada for instance, was in service .many years before the war. I am not aware that the service on her is any different now to what it was before the outbreak of hostilities. Condi-

tions on the Canada and similar vessels are not changed, so far as I know.


Robert Laird Borden: Speaking generally, and subject to fuller explanation by the Minister of the Naval Service. I would understand it to include all those vessels engaged in war service under the direction of the Department of Naval Service.


Mr. CARVELL:: I feel that I would like to have a little more information on this particular point. As I understand this, boys who enlist in the Naval Service become soldiers or members of the Canadian navy. Many of these are minors. Many of them are trained in Canada. I know that there are many of them in Halifax. On what ground do the Government grant the franchise to the mothers and sisters of these boys who have never left Canada, and refuse the franchise to the mothers and sisters of men who have enlisted and who are at Valcartier or a hundred other places in Canada but who have not left Canada? The female relatives of these men will not receive the franchise, whereas the female relatives of the boys who have enlisted in the navy will. Surely we have sufficient discriminations in this Bill without going to that extent?


Arthur Meighen: There may be something substantial in the argument of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). His apprehension is quite correct that the female relatives of those who have not left Canada are not included in the words "in any of the military forces, or within or without Canada." It may be that there should be a limitation to make the Act fair. The reason generally for using the words "within or without Canada" with reference to the naval forces is that one man suffers just the same as the other. A man engaged on the sea is not in Canada, strictly, speaking, but he is on the waters surrounding Canada. That is why the Act is drawn as it is. If you used the words "within Canada" you would exclude many of these men who should he included. It may be that there are some who should not be included. If there are such as the hon. gentleman describes who 'are simply in training and who have never been in actual service, it may he that a change should he made in the wording of the clause to exclude tiiem. I will look into it at once.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad my hon. friend is going to do that, and 'I hope he will amend the Act so as either not to exclude some or to include many others. The hon.

gentleman has had pointed out to him the discrimination that is being exercised in favour of certain persons and against many others in Canada. I hope that while the Solicitor ' General is trying to recast this Act, he will see if he cannot make it a little fairer to a great many people in Canada. However, we will have a chance of discussing this after recess.
At six o'clock the Committee adjourned.
After Recess.
The- Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 33B-Provincial disqualifications not adopted:


Frank Oliver: I think section 33A was under discussion when the committee rose. The hon. gentleman from Carleton raised a question in regard to the second and third last lines of this section, and asked for explanation.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we will take it up when the hon. gentleman arrives. I think I am safe in saying that section 33B is the same as section 11, part 1 of the present Act, and consequently had to be inserted here, in order to make it applicable to .the whole measure.


Frank Oliver: I may be a little short in my ability to follow the reading, but it *does not seem to me that the connection is well established between the first paragraph and the subsequent paragraphs.


Arthur Meighen: I was troubled in the same way when first reading it. The section reads:
No person possessed of the qualifications generally by the provincial law to entitle him to vote at a provincial election shall be disqualified from voting at a Dominion election merely by reason of any provision of the provincial law disqualifying him from having his name on the list or from voting.
The objects of the disqualification are -the four classes described in the paragraphs following,-first, the holder of an office; second, any person employed in any capacity in the public service of Canada; and so on.


Frank Oliver: I can understand what it means, and I hope the minister Vill not think me pernickety if I say that it does not seem to me to say what it means.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is
quite clear. It is precisely the same form as section II of the Dominion Elections Act which reads, leaving out the immaterial words:
No person shall be disqualified by reason of any provincial law disqualifying him, (a) the bolder of any office, (b) any person employed in any capacity in the public service of Canada.
And so forth.


Frank Oliver: If it lead as the Prime Minister reads it it would be all light. But it does not read that way.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.


Frank Oliver: Well, I withdraw my objection.


Robert Laird Borden: I read it leaving out the immaterial words.


Frank Oliver: But when the words are in it does not read in the same sense.


Robert Laird Borden: The section
reads:
No person possessed of the qualifications generally required by the provincial law to entitle him to vote at a provincial election shall be disqualified from voting at a Dominion election merely by reason of any provision of the provincial law disqualifying him from having his name on the list or from voting-
(a)	the holder of any office; or
(b)	any person employed in any capacity in the public service of Canada or of the province.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why does the minister insert there the word "generally?" If the person has the qualifications he has them, and that is all there is about it.


Robert Laird Borden: We are following precisely the present section in the Dominion Elections Act. It seems 'to me quite plain. No person possessed of qualifications generally which would entitle him to vote shall be disqualified by this provision under 'the provincial law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would he better to say: "No person possessed of the qualifications required by the provincial law." There is no general qualification.


Arthur Meighen: There would be a contradiction in terms if we adopted that suggestion, because the section [then, in effect, would isay: "No person possessed of the qualifications required by the provincial law shall, by reason of some of the qualifications themselves, be disqualified." If he has the general qualifications, this particular section will not disqualify him for Dominion purposes.
On paragraph (f)-Posting proclamation : Mr. MEIGHEN: Under the Alberta and Saskatchewan provisions the list, ias compiled by the enumerators, is posted up

eight days before election day, and we are enlarging that to ten days.


George Ewan McCraney: That is all right. Is it under this Bill, or under the Soldiers' Votes Bill, that you take four weeks between nomination and election? The time between the issue of th^ writ and election day will be much longer under these newer conditions than previously, and it is desirable that we should have a much longer time than ten days for the posting of the lists, because the enumerator will certainly require a great deal ol time.
The returning officer will receive his writs, lay out his polling subdivisions and appoint his enumerators. There will then be, possibly, a month before nomination day, and a further period of four weeks after that before the election is held. But the lists should be put up a good deal more than ten,days before the election.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand why my hon. friend thinks that a longer period between nomination day and polling day should affect this particular provision.


George Ewan McCraney: My recollection is that under ordinary conditions a period of five weeks should be sufficient from the issue of the writ to the holding of the poll. Eight or ten days would then ,be all that could be allowed between the putting up of the lists and the holding of the poll-that is, giving the returning officer and the enumerators time to prepare their lists. In view of the fact that in this case time will be necessary to take the soldiers' vote, a period of four weeks is being set between nomination day and election day. Under the circumstances, that is all right; but that very fact should give you a longer period between the issue of the writ and the holding of the poll. Where five or six weeks was formerly sufficient, you now require probably ten weeks. In view of these considerations, you should have the enumerators lists completed and in the hands of the public by nomination day. The old law provided that the enumerators' lists should be posted up in public places the day before nomination day. There was plenty of time between the issue of the writ and nomination day for getting out the enumerators' lists. Even at ten days, therefore, the period between the posting of the lists and the holding of the poll is altogether too short. If you provided that the lists should be posted up the day before nomination day, yon would give your enumerators as much time as they have had
TMr. Meighen.]
hitherto, and the public would have much better satisfaction. The enumerators' lists are of very little use to the Opposition party if they are put up only eight days before the election.
The Government candidate will likely assist in preparing the lists, and he will have access to them, but the Opposition candidate cannot do that. The Government party has all the material, and the Opposition party has not any. For that reason I think that the principle of the law as it stands should stand now; that the lists should oe put up by the enumerators, the day before nomination d-ay.


Arthur Meighen: It would never do to go that far. My hon. friend's contention is that, whereas five weeks were formerly sufficient between the issue of the writ and the day of the election, more than five weeks will now be necessary, because the period of a week prior to nomination day will not " he sufficient to enable the proclamation to issue.


George Ewan McCraney: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: I think the period of a week is not viery far from sufficient. At. all events, I am informed that the one week will be almost sufficient. It must be remembered that we have already made provision for earlier posting up of the notices- ten instead of eight days before the election.


George Ewan McCraney: How long before election, day will the lists issue from Ottawa?-


Arthur Meighen: Between five and six weeks.


George Ewan McCraney: 
Arthur Meighen: You adopt the provincial poll.


George Ewan McCraney: I am speaking now of a Dominion election.


Arthur Meighen: But in the Dominion election, the provincial polls are adopted under paragraph (g).


George Ewan McCraney: The hon. gentleman will find that the boundaries of the Dominion constituencies do not coincide with those of the provincial constituencies. Moreover, there are provincial polls in Saskatchewan only in the cities and in the country districts the same procedure has to be had as is the case in Dominion elections.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see how there can be no provincial polls in the country districts.


George Ewan McCraney: In Saskatchewan, I understand, the procedure is practically the same as it is in the Dominion. We follow the old Dominion law in respect of rural districts; the polls are laid out at each election, because there are no voters' lists.


Arthur Meighen: But they know where the polls were in the previous provincial elections.	*


George Ewan McCraney: Not always; new settlements are springing up, new conditions have to be met. Of course, the matter is somewhat simplified by having information as to the polls used at the previous election, but in this case much of that information would be lost, because it is six years old.


Arthur Meighen: It is only two or three months old.


George Ewan McCraney: I was thinking of the last Dominion election. In view of the fact that a period of eight or ten weeks is provided between the issue of the writ in Ottawa and the taking of the poll, a much longer time should be given than has hitherto been provided between the posting of the enumerators' writs and the holding of the poll. The law now says that the lists shall be posted up the day before nomination. That should be the law in this case, because the returning officers and enumerators will have just as much time under the amended law as they had before.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is
familiar with the working of the Dominion Elections Act in Saskatchewan and has an acquaintance with the kind of constituency where the period required would be the longest. But we worked this out pretty carefully, and we really think that we can bring the election on within six weeks from the date of the issue of the writ. We may be wrong in that, but we cannot be very far out. Every member in the House -is
anxious that the time be no longer than that, if possible; six weeks between the issue of the writ and the day of the election is just about enough of that kind of stress and turmoil. We are going to try to bring it on within that time. It may be that a slightly longer period could be allowed, but it seemed to us that ten days was enough for all that there was to do. Possibly twelve days might bo allowed; we shall consider that.


George Ewan McCraney: Under the law as' it
now stands the public are to be in possession of the enumerators' lists at the moment the candidates are in the field. The candidates are in the field one week before election day, and one day before that the lists are to be posted up so that the public shall he in possession of the lists when the candidates formally take the field.


Arthur Meighen: There is no real connection between nomination day and the posting of the writs.


George Ewan McCraney: I think the intention
was that when the candidates went into the field, the public should have possession of the lists upon which the voting was to [DOT] take place.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see the connection between the nomination day and the posting of the lists. I do see that the fullest time possible should be given between the time the lists are posted and election day in order to enable a candidate to reach the electors, to provide for his getting about as much as possible, but I do not -see that nomination day has anything to do with it. We shall see, however, if we can make the time any longer.


George Ewan McCraney: What does the minister think about extending the time?


Arthur Meighen: I have made a note of the matter to see if we can make the time longer. All we have to do is to add an amendment to this section. There are some other things that have to be changed also.
On paragraph (g)-Subdivision of electoral district into polling divisions:


Charles Murphy: Do I understand that the words inserted and the words added form ' one new section?


Arthur Meighen: This is all an amendment to section 37.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would suggest that when the Bill is reprinted the addition commencing in line 32 with the words "he may adopt", which is in inverted commas,

be dropped down a line and made to commence a new paragraph. It is very confuting to have words inserted in that way. The same applies to the words inserted commencing in line 25 with the words "except in the provinces".


Charles Murphy: That is the reason I asked the question.


Arthur Meighen: That is right.
On subsection 3-Separate and additional polling stations where polling division has more than 300 voters:


Arthur Meighen: Subdivision 3 comprises exactly sections 28 and 29 of the old Act.


Charles Murphy: This is just breaking up one subdivision into two where there are more than 300 voters.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. -


George Ewan McCraney: In regard to what I had to say as to paragraph (f), I may say that I had the provincial law in mind. My hon. friend need not bother any further making a note of the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was under the impression that this was the law as it exists to-day.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why repudiate it here then?


Arthur Meighen: The reason is this: In our first section we say that, during the present war, part I shall be suspended. But there are two or three sections in part I which we cannot suspend, but which should be brought in in their proper place here.


Charles Murphy: Like section 10 which we discussed this afternoon.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, section 10 was one; section 11 was another, and this is a third.
On subsection 4-Returning officer to obtain documents defining provincial polling divisions:


Arthur Meighen: This is section 22 of the old Act. There is no change at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That could not apply to Nova Scotia then.


Arthur Meighen: It applies everywhere, just as it did before. It was section 22 of part I which applied everywhere outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Frank Oliver: Subsection 4 is not absolutely identical with section 22 of the old

Act. In section 22, there is a paragraph (b), which is not contained in subsection 4. It may not be necessary, but I am calling attention to the fact that subsection 4 is not actually a reproduction of section 22.


Arthur Meighen: I should have mentioned that. The reason is that paragraph b of section 22 of the existing Act refers to provincial lists, As there are none in this case, of course, it is not applicable.
On subsection 5-Certified copies of provincial lists to be obtained:


Arthur Meighen: That is section 23 of
the old Act.	'


Charles Murphy: In connection with the reprinting of the Act, may I add to the suggestion of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) the further one that, where an existing section is reprinted for the reasons stated by the Solicitor General a few minutes ago, that might be indicated by a different kind of type, or by a foot note, or something of that kind. This section is divided up in a different manner from that in which it is printed in the original Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose, after the measure passes, it will be necessary to print part II otf the Dominion Elections Aot with these amendments, as otherwise it would be impossible for a returning officer, or indeed any one else, to understand it without a good deal of study.


Arthur Meighen: We shall have to reprint not only part II, but the whole Act.


Robert Laird Borden: And the Military Voters' Act with it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would suggest
that the latter part of section 33B be made a new section. In the same section there axe two separate amendments very much mixed up. The Solicitor General might keep that in mind.


Arthur Meighen: It may be possible to
have the Act read sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, in which case section 33B can be made a new section. I am not quite sure whether that is possible or not. The usual provisions of a revision will be followed in reprinting the whole Act.
On paragraph :(h)-appointment of enumerators to make lists.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I want to bring to
the notice of the committee the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, the special conditions with regard to Prmce Edward

Island. In that province we have no lists at all either for Dominion or for provincial elections. We have vote by ballot. A good many years ago we had lists, and I heard the candidates, men in public life at that. time, saying that the preparations of those lists and the revision of them from time to time caused them more trouble and expense than the holding of an election.
But that system was abolished. Since then both Conservative and Liberal Governments have been in power in that province, and the present system works so well that nobody thinks o.f making a change. And I feel that if the Government could see its w.ay dear to leave conditions as they are in that province it would be very satisfactory to the people there. There is no insuperable difficulty in the way, I should think. I w>ais very much impressed the other day by the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MoCraney), who is a moderate and a reasonable man, to the effect that the method provided in this Bill for drawing up the lists was practically the same as that which prevailed in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta some years ago, which was found to lend itself to improper practices, more particularly to what is called the tied ballot. I should be very sorry to see anything like that introduced into Prince Edward Island, where we are getting along first-rate, and where there is n'ot even a suggestion of tampering with the ballot or anything of that kind. I think it would be very unfortunate if we now introduced into the province a system wihidh might give rise to a suspicion of improper practices such .as took place in Saskatchewan and Alberta some years ago.
If we had no lists, no enumerators would be required, and that much money would be saved. It might not amount to a great deal, but it would be a saving just the same. I suppose there are .about 130 polls' in the province, .and there would be an enumerator for each poll, at a cost, say, of $100 apiece, which would not be extravagant. That would .amount to $13,000, which the Government might just as well save. I was speaking to the Secretary of State about this matter the other day, and he spoke very fairly about it, .so far as I could judge, but I know he is a clever man, and, perhaps, he w.as just jollying .me a little. He very fairly .and frankly stated, however, that if the .members from Prince Edward Island supporting the Government took the same view as I did, he would see that present conditions, so far as Prince
Edwiard Island was concerned, continued.
I have spoken to the members from Prince Edward Island supporting the Government, and while they have not given me any definite answer, they have very frankly stated that the enumerators under this Bill would practically be organizers for them.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot agree with
them on that.


James Joseph Hughes: The members were not very much interested, but undoubtedly they expected some party advantage from this method which they were unwilling to give up. I have an amendment here that I would commend to my hon. friend the Secretary of State.


Arthur Meighen: If we were to accept it, the Act would have to be very greatly amended.
Mr. .1. J. HUGHES: All that would be necessary, I think, would be to say that the provisions of this Bill with regard -to the drawing up of the lists by enumerators should not apply to Prince Edward Island, but that every other provision would apply. The procedure there is very simple. An elector presents himself at the polling booth on election day .and asks the deputy returning officer for a ballot, and in ninety-eight cases out of a hundred he is entitled to a ballot. In Prince Edward Island we have a homogeneous population and everybody knows everybody else, and the qualifications are very simple. If the agents of one of the candidates think that the man is not entitled to the ballot, objection is raised, and decided upon right there by the returning officer, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred satisfaction is given. If the returning officer has any doubt in his mind he puts the voter under oath. If conditions are left as they are in Prince Edward Island, it could do no possible harm to anybody.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not a fact that under the system which my (hon. friend commends in Prince Edward Island, the candidates themselves are put to the trouble and expense of preparing lists on their own behalf? It is perfectly true, as I understand it, that there are no official lists, but it does become necessary for candidates .at an election in that province really to prepare their own lists.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes. But as I have already said everybody there is acquainted with everybody else, and there is no difficulty. The agents of each candidate prepare a small list for themselves, either

typewritten or handwritten, and there is no expense attached to it.


Robert Laird Borden: Do they not
really have to perform, all the duties which an enumerator has to perform, finding out who are the electors,, where they reside, their names and so forth?


James Joseph Hughes: There is no trouble at all about that, because everybody there is acquainted w'ith all his neighbours. The fact that the local government has adopted the system, and that nobody ever thinks of changing it, is the best proof that I can give to the Prime Minister and the committee that it suits local conditions. The present system saves trouble and expense.
Mr. ME1GHEN: The hon. member spoke to me about it, and I said virtually what he reports to the committee. I said that I thought it was a subject on which I might well be advised 'by the members from, that province, Liberals as well as Conservatives. I have not had an opportunity since then to see any of the. other members, but I have made inquiries from other sources, and I find there is this difficulty: If we were adopting entirely the same franchise as before, then in a province like Prince Edward Island, where there is little actual movement in. and out of the population, and where, everybody knows everybody else to a degree that does not obtain, in other provinces, it is conceivable that perhaps the most convenient way would be to do without this. But even under those conditions I can remember hon, members from that province complaining to me at other times that they had to make their own. lists, and that it was a matter of great expense to them. That might not be the case in the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. J. J. Hughes), but in a constituency like Charlottetown, for instance, I can quite understand that it would put considerable extra expense on a candidate. I can remember that the figure was given to me as over the thousand dollar mark.
But the point is this: The same franchise is not adopted. Everybody of the male sex had the vote before, and it was easy to tell who did not vote, because virtually everybody did. Now it is very different. There may be some disfranchised as aliens, I doubt if there would be many, and there are certainly many of the female sex to be added. There will be many of the female sex who will be entitled to vote, and there will be very many who will not. Consequently, the question as to who votes, and

who does not vote, is a much bigger question and requires more decision now than before. That is why we need the lists, otherwise it will be all left for decision until election day. I have not seen the other members from Prince Edward Island since my hon. friend called on me, but it would appear that it would be in his own interests to have the lists compiled in the same way as in the other provinces. It must do good, as far as it goes. There will' be no extra work done that has not to be done in any event, and the line between the voter and the non-voter of the female sex will be clearly drawn and known before election day.


James Joseph Hughes: There is some expense that the candidates have to bear in this way. The official lists would be very useful if they wanted to send reading matter from Ottawa to their constituents, but for the sake of an election they are not so useful. If the Secretary of State cannot see his way clear, or the committee cannot see its way clear, to adopt the suggestion I have made and have no lists or enumerators at all, I have another suggestion, to make. We want to have a fair election, and to take no advantage of anybody, Conservative or Liberal. Let us give the Liberals one-half of the enumerators.


Arthur Meighen: I am sure if my hon. friend will consult the members from Saskatchewan and Alberta, he will find he is quite wrong about that. They will assure him that enumerators are needed, not as organizers at all.


James Joseph Hughes: I know that some of my colleagues from Prince Edward Island expect to get some advantage in that way.


Arthur Meighen: They will be deceived.


James Joseph Hughes: They may be deceived. As I understand it, the Secretary of State would not think of the suggestion I have made that we should have one-half of the enumerators?


Arthur Meighen: Neither side will have any. The enumerators will be officials of the country; they will not be officials of either side.


James Joseph Hughes: Who will recommend them?


Arthur Meighen: The returning officer appoints them.


James Joseph Hughes: Who will the returning officer be?


Arthur Meighen: His name has not been determined on yet. He will be a very fair man.


James Joseph Hughes: I suppose those things cannot be helped. I had. occasion to say a few words on the conscription Bill when it was going through the House, and my idea was then, and it is still, that the best thing to do was to have a general election. I felt that would clear the air better than anything else. I made the statement that if the Government would hold a fair election, and was' returned to power, whether I should be in Parliament or out of Parliament 1 would give them every assistance I could in carrying out the law. I would like to keep my promise in that respect, but it is coupled with a fair election. There will be no difficulty in having a fair election so far as our province is concerned, whatever difficulties may arise in the other provinces where, perhaps, people go to greater extremes. I feel satisfied that if we can have conditions there as we have had them for many years, it would conduce greatly to give our people the impression that we were having a fair election, but if new conditions are introduced, and we have such a system as they had some years ago in Saskatchewan and Alberta, which lent itself to improper conduct in regard to elections and provided facilities for crooked work, I fear our people will come to the conclusion that we are not likely to have a fair election, and may thinx that there will be some improper work carried on. However, I cannot do any more than present my views to the committee, and say that I wish very much the Secretary of State would consider whether my suggestion is or is not practicable. I know it would be possible to carry it out, and 1 believe it would be practicable to leave conditions as they aTe in that province.


Arthur Meighen: There is the very great difficulty that it would leave to election day the determining of who votes as a' woman voter, and who does not. I am afraid it would be a pretty big problem to deal with this on the day of the election. It is very different from what has taken place before.


Jacques Bureau: Before six o'clock, the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) asked the Solicitor General if the wives, sisters and other female relatives of those who are British subjects and are serving in the French or the Belgian army would have the right to vote, the same as the wives and sisters of those who are serving in the British army. The Solicitor General said he would look into it.


Arthur Meighen: The fact of the matter is that is the way the Bill read in the former draft I prepared, but I made up my mind it would be unfair and dangerous. I thought if it was in the Bill there would be very great objection from the other side of the House. I felt it would be unfair to include it, and I will tell you why. It would be too difficult to ascertain whether the allegation of a person w1k>
wanted to vote was correct or not. For example, how could we find out whether the mam. was serving in the Russian army? There are all manners of population in our western country, and the enumerator might, if he was the least unscrupulous, perhaps encourage some people to think they had brothers or relatives in the Russian army. How could that ever be checked? The same would apply to any other army. We can check them in our own army, or in the British army, and can get their numbers, but if we are going to open it to the Allied armies,
I am afraid it might be subject to very great abuse.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think it would be so difficult. All those British subjects who lived in the cities, such as Montreal, Quebec, or Three Rivers, for instance, are well known. The enumerators could get evidence from persons whose word could be taken or whose oath could be taken.


Arthur Meighen: There would be cases
of that kind, of course.


Jacques Bureau: The French Consul, for instance, would, know of those men who were British subjects and who enlisted in the - French or Belgian armies. He would know exactly where those men are. I do not see any reason why the wives, daughters, widows and mothers of British subjects who are fighting in the ranks of the Allies should be deprived of their right to vote, if the relatives of other soldiers are granted that right. [DOT]


Arthur Meighen: There would be cases
that could be ascertained. In my own constituency I would very much like to have this in the law, because there are many French reservists who have gone over from there. But if you open it to one you must open it to all. If you open it to those who claim they have relatives in the Russian army, the Japanese army, the Roumanian army, or any other army, how could you ever check the claims that will be made? I think it would be impracticable and dangerous.


Jacques Bureau: The burden of proof
would, af course, be upon the applicant.

If a woman could not establish to the satisfaction of the enumerator, or the judge, or whoever it is, that .she is entitled to vote, of course she would be refused. It is better to refuse twenty than to refuse a whole class who are entitled to vote.


Arthur Meighen: It would be just a matter of credibility, because the applicant would have no way of establishing it, in the majority of cases at all events, except by swearing to it and perhaps getting somebody else (to swear to it. I do not think there would be any documentary evidence that could be produced in one case in a hundred.


Jacques Bureau: There might not be any documentary evidence but they could accept the oaths of people who know them well. I do not think there could be anything like the conspiracy which the hon. gentleman mentions for the purpose of procuring the vote for a man. The list of the enumerator will show that his application for a vote is supported by the oaths of persons who are credible, who have known him for a long time and who believe that he has a right to vote, and the enumerator can thus satisfy himself that the application is correct.


Mr. PROULX:: In the Military Service Act the Government is leaving the appointment of certain members of the local tribunals to the judges. I think it would be a good provision to be put in. this Act that the enumerators shall be appointed by the judges. Where there are district judges, they know the people in the different localities very well and I think it would be safer that the enumerators should be appointed by them. They would not be as partisan as if they were appointed by the returning officer, who will be appointed by the 'Government.' The returning officers are generally partisans who are recommended to the Government by the members supporting the Government or the defeated candidates or the persons who hold the patronage. The judges would be more impartial in the appointment of enumerators.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member (Mr. Proulx) has made rather a cruel attack on the fairness of the measure passed by his very distinguished leader and in force for many years. These officials have always been appointed by the Governor in Council or the returning officer. I do not see how the judges could very well come in there. The returning officer is the man who has charge of the constituency for election purposes. He has charge of the

working out of the whole machinery of the Election Act applicable to the constituency. He divides it up into polls, and goes about from place to place and appoints enumera-[DOT] tors. I do not think that as a rule the returning officers are partisan. I may be very innocent, but in two elections I contested, where I was the Opposition candidate, I did. not think that there was any partisanship, and I do not see how there could have been to any great extent. I believe that these men, appointed to' responsible positions, intend to observe their oath of office and to discharge the duties that the oath requires. It would be impracticable to bring the judiciary into this. We had better leave the judiciary out of something.


Edmond Proulx: These officers always belong to the party which has control of the appointments. The enumerators can do more to the detriment of the Opposition party, probably, than the re-9 p.m. turning officers. The returning officer only carries out the law.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney), or the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), can answer -that better than I, but I think they would say "no" to the allegation of the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx).


George Ewan McCraney: As 'the Secretary of State calls me as a witness, I would say that .in my experience there has always been great difficulty in getting a returning officer. The duties are very arduous as compared with the remuneration. When a returning officer is willing to accept the office, a great part of the clerical work is thrown on the Government candidate. The returning officer does not know the riding as a rule. It is hardly as the Secretary of State has explained-'that he lays out the polls and appoints the enumerators. The whole riding has to be laid out, and men who know the districts have to take the enumerations and they must be partisans, but the Government candidate -has to assume the responsibility -and see that there is a fair election. I w-as glad to hear the -tribute the Secretary of State paid to the persons appointed by the late Liberal Administration.


Mr. McCREA:: 
Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member (Mr. McCrea) very much over-states the phase of the subject that he is drawing attention to. I think he is multiplying by about ten.


Francis N. McCrea: I am stating what the hon. member for Parry Sound said.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member said hundreds instead of thousands. All overseas forces are treated alike. It would be utterly impossible to discriminate between the merits of the men in the overseas forces for the purpose of the franchise just as it is impossible to discriminate between the individual merits of men in Canada. We had to take the class. The relatives of all overseas men will be treated alike.


William Erskine Knowles: If it is possible to discriminate between people in Canada and those overseas, is it not quite possible to. discriminate between those in England and those who are in the danger zone at the front?


Arthur Meighen: We do that. We take
all in England, of course, because they may go from England to Prance any day. It would be impossible to say that only the relatives of those in France should vote, because many of those in England may go to France any day at all.


William Erskine Knowles: Many of them will go
at no day at all.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that is
very likely.


Charles Murphy: May I ask if the hon.
gentleman's statement as to inability to discriminate between members of the expeditionary force serving overseas will apply to those who are engaged in the Canadian War Office-if that is what you call it [DOT]-in London?


Arthur Meighen: Any who are employed there, who are not members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, would never be included in this Bill.


Charles Murphy: If they are members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?.


Arthur Meighen: If they are members of tthe Canadian Expeditionary Force they will be included. I think a great many of them are returned soldiers who have seen service and are back in that office in London unfit for further military service.


William Erskine Knowles: Does it apply to men
who are still within the borders of Canada, who have not left, but who are liable to go at any time now?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: I should think that even if the man. has only got as far as Halifax, the sacrifice made by his wife or mother is as great as the sacrifice made by the wile or mother of the man who is twirling a cane and walking up and down the Strand or Picadilly, and who never goes any further.


Arthur Meighen: There is a very great difference. There is no question as to the man in Canada. We know whether he has gone across the ocean or not. But it would be perfectly impracticable to work it out on the other -basis, and say that the relatives of those who are still in England should have votes, because by the time the enumerator makes up the list these men might have gone to. the front. That is not so in regard to the men in Canada. I would have no objection to giving a vote to the relatives of those who are still in Canada. But there might be an incentive for men to join the force in some capacity, not altogether too bona fide, in order to get the votes. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to enfranchise the female relatives of soldiers in Canada, we will consider it, but I really do not think they want it.


Charles Murphy: There was some evidence given before the Returned Soldiers' Committee by the Auditor General. Speaking of the investigation into that London office, he told us under oath that it would have saved the country thousands of dollars-I think he said hundreds of thousands-if they put a lot of the men out on the street and got them out of the way.


Arthur Meighen: What office was that?


Charles Murphy: I do not know whether it was the Pay Office or what department. I would not like to say at present, hut I can get the information, for the minister. If there are men, there who are not real soldiers, but are just playing at the game, I think the discrimination to which my hon. friend referred should properly be exercised. In order that the matter may come under the observation of my hon. friend, I will send him a copy of that evidence, because my recollection is that the matter was gone into rather in detail, and the statements of the Auditor General were confirmed by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R B. Bennett), who, I think, had some personal knowledge of the conditions existing in that office. That occurred only a few months ago.


Arthur Meighen: I think the whole matter has been cured now. It can have no application to this Bill. This Bill deals w!th the members of the expeditionary force. If they were playing at soldiering at that time, they must now be in active service, to come under the provisions of this Bill.


Charles Murphy: When was it cured?


Arthur Meighen: When we know there is a disease we immediately cure it.


Charles Murphy: Not in the case of the Ross rifle.


Arthur Meighen: I have not seen the evidence to which the hon. member refers.
I think this discussion will be dealt with better on some other occasion.


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) is under an entire misapprehension as to the purpose of this Bill, or he would not have brought up the point he mentioned. He must know that this Bill is for the purpose of manufacturing votes for the Government, and he must surely know that the man who is drawing pay, without giving service, under the authority of this Government, is surely more certain to cast his vote for the Government, when the time comes, than the man who is compelled to render service, for which he is paid.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As we are talking on the question of enumerators, I think this is perhaps as good a time as any to talk about the condition of things which this Act is going to introduce into my own province I think the Prime Minister will sympathize with me in the difficulty which I experience in regard to this Act. We have a most happy condition of things in regard to the list in Nova Scotia, and in every other

province, I suppose, as well. There is no such officer as an enumerator in our province, and no disturbing elements about the list. About the first of January in each year a man begins to look around, and see that names are properly put on the list. About the 1st of April, the sheriff's court is through with them, and the list is handed in to the county clerk, certified by the sheriff, and a copy of that list is sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. That is done every year in every county in Nova Scotia. The machinery runs along smooth-Ij. The revisers are appointed by the county council, and the town councils and' city councils look after the lists. Nobody complains, and everybody gets his name on the list if he has a right to have it there; and if a name gets on the list when it has no right to be there, it is taken off. When it comes to election time, the returning officer gets this list from the Olerk of the Crown in Chancery at Ottawa, and that is the end of it; nobody interferes with it. Now we are up against a condition of things that we do not know really where we are. I cannot gather from this Bill when the list is to be completed, or whether a complete list is to go to the returning officer who is appointed, say, for my own county of North Cape Breton and Victoria. The Government appoints a returning officer for the county. I do not know where he is going to get his complete list. I find some machinery by which twenty or thirty people will go round the county making lists. I find nothing in this Act providing when they are to begin, or what kind of system is to be followed as to where they shall sit, or how they shall conduct the business, or what opportunity one has for getting a name off or on. I must say to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that it is introducing into the province of Nova Scotia a very disturbing element indeed, and one which is capable of creating a lot of confusion. If there is any way by which the present machinery of making the lists can be utilized in Nova Scotia, I am sure it would satisfy the people very much better than this measure. The present officials are not partisan. Whatever the complexion of the council may be in Nova Scotia, whether there is a majority one way or the other, each Councillor has always bean permitted, so far as I know, to name his own officers. If there is a Tory 'councillor for the district, as a rule he has Tory officers, and if there is a Liberal councillor, although there might he & Tory majority in the county, he gats his own officer.


Arthur Meighen: How is the sheriff ap pointed?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is appointed by tha provincial government, I never heard any complaint as to him. The county officials have been men of high standing, and I have jjever heard aniy complaint about them. I think the same is true of every sheriff in Nova Scotia. I appeal to the Prime Minister in this matter, and I tell him that if the machinery now in vogue in Nova Scotia for looking after the lists were utilized, every one would know where to go, and how the thing was to be done, and it would work out, I think, very much better. As it stands, I must admit, I do not know where it begins or where it ends. Ait present the lists are to be fixed and tinkered with right down to election day, which must necessarily he unsatisfactory to us who are unaccustomed and unacquainted with anything of that kind.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I ask the Secretary of State if I am right in thinking that in 33 A, the words "who is serving or who has served without Canada" will include those that have been sent home and been honourably discharged?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Robert Laird Borden: In regard to
what_ the member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has said, I am afraid that the members on this side of the House are not quite so well pleased with the lists in Nova Scotia as he is. I am bound to say that, as far as my own county is concerned, Donald Archibald, the sheriff who acted as returning 'officer in many of the elections and who was final arbiter on the lists, was as fair a man as could he found in Canada, and I have not a word to say against him. As far as I know, the same is true of the present occupant of the office. But I have had reports from gentlemen on this side of the House in regard to some other sheriffs that are not precisely of the same tenor. One hon. gentleman has asserted to me that 192 names were dropped from the lists in his county by the sheriff without his knowledge and after it was supposed that the lists had all been settled. He gave me pretty definite information as to that. My hon. friend knows that for many years past there has been an effort in Nova Scotia to obtain judicial revision of the lists, but that demand has not yet been complied with. I am quite sure, therefore, that the view entertained by members on this side of the House in
regard to the condition of the lists in Nova Scotia is not quite the sarnie as that which has been expressed by -my hon. friend. However, so far as the operation of this Bill is concerned, I do not think that there will he any difficulty. The enumerators will commence work as soon as they are appointed, and their work must he completed under the terms of the Bill as it is at present, at least ten days before election day.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How are they to go on with their work? Are they to have a court, sitting in some particular place? .


Robert Laird Borden: They go on precisely in the same way as they have gone on for the last twelve years in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The provisions of this Bill so far as enumerators are concerned are based on the provisions of the law as it has existed in. those provinces. The only difference is that this Bill provides certain safeguards which have not been enforced in Alberta -and Saskatchewan during the period of twelve yeaTS to which I have referred.


Wilfrid Laurier: In Alberta and Saskatchewan there are no lists, but in the other provinces for which we are now preparing new machinery they have lists- in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We are giving the enumerators power to recast those lists. What is the object of that? So far as I can see, it is simply, on the one hand, to eliminate the names of those who, according to this Bill, should not be on the lists because of their being of foreign origin; and, on the other hand, to place upon the lists the names of female voters who, under this legislation, will have the right to vote as relatives of soldiers. The enumerators take off names here and put on names there, but as a result of their work there is no official decision; the vote can be challenged at the poll and it is provided that a judicial authority shall afterwards determine whether or not the name was properly put on or taken off the list. If the work of the enumerators settles nothing, what is the use of having the work done? Let the lists be taken as they are. A man goes to the poll to vote; objection is taken to him on the ground that he is of alien enemy birth. If he persists in his claim to the right to vote, he easts his ballot and the question whether or not he had the right to vote will be decided after the election by judicial authority. What is the use of having all this machinery? The great advantage of the lists in all the provinces is that the right



to the vote is settled by the presence of the man's name on the list; no one can be challenged if his name is on the list. It seems to me that this work is of absolutely no use.


Robert Laird Borden: It is true that there were no lists in Alberta and Saskatchewan; therefore, lists had to be made. It is true, also, that in various provinces of Canada there are no complete lists-


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes there are.


Robert Laird Borden: There are no complete lists for the purposes of this Act, because names must be added and names must be struck off. It is necessary, therefore, to make new lists. If we had followed in their entirety the provisions of the Act which my hon. friend thought was good enough for Alberta 'and Saskatchewan for twelve years, there might be some ground for complaint. As I understand the law of that province, a man could obtain the right to vote by making 'an -affidavit; there was no appeal against that, and no remedy in respect of it afterwards.


Wilfrid Laurier: The same as it will be here.


Robert Laird Borden: The man went on the list; he disappeared the next day; no one could find him; there was no remedy. Gentlemen from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have pointed out that the enumerator there w-as in touch with one candidate and not in touch with another, the result being obvious. If we had adopted the method that my right hon. friend 'thought was* a fair method for 'those two provinces for 12 years, I admit that we might be subject to some animadversion. But we have not done that. We have provided in this Bill that the vote of -any .man whose name gets upon the list through his making an affidavit may be afterwards challenged. Any person who goes on in the regular way is subject to having his right to vote challenged afterwards. So that there is, in effect, ta judicial revision of the lists-'that revision, if any is necessary, is to take place after, not before, the voter has deposited his ballot. The safeguard is the same in one ease as in the other, and that safeguard was absolutely wanting in -the provisions of the Act that my hon. friend kept in force in Saskatchewan for twelve years.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Act with regard to Saskatchewan- -and Alberta was framed in 1905, when the provinces were

created. We took then the provisions that we found in the existing law. We took them as they were. We could do nothing else. There could be no provincial list, because there was no province.
"Sir ROBERT BORDEN: Why could my right hon. friend not have provided a judicial revision in Alberta and Saskatchewan?


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr. CROTHERS:: It can be challenged at the poll.


Wilfrid Laurier: The list is revised by the judicial authority, and his decision is final.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If a man is asked on election day to take an oath, he has to do so.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, he cannot be asked to do that. When the judge is revising the lists, a man may be disqualified, but after his name has been put on the list, there is no challenge; the matter is fixed finally. This- Bill is very complicated, but if I understand it aright, the list will be made by the enumerator. That officer will take the list which is made today, which, would be final and the present law, and will strike off names and add on names, hut the question whether those names have been properly stricken off ot added remains to be decided after the vote has been taken. If that is to be the law, why not leave the lists just as they are? Suppose a man's name is put upon the list by an enumerator, and it so happens that he* was born in an enemy country. He comes to the poll and is challenged. He may claim that he has a right to vote and may ask for a certificate from the enumerator. The enumerator will give him a certificate; his name will go on the list, and his vote will be* taken subject to its being accepted or rejected afterwards by the judge. All

this revision is of no benefit. You will have no saving of time or expense; in fact, you will have all the trouble and expense of the enumeration to reach the same conclusion to which you can attain to-day under the law as it is.


Arthur Meighen: the point is just this, that the work is 90 or 95 per cent done instead of the judge having to do it afterwards. s,If the right hon. gentleman's reasoning was correct, we might as well never have a list and simply have a challenge on election day. That would mean that the judges of Canada would have to revise 1,750,000 votes, whereas by having lists made up by the enumerators as carefully as their abilities can do it, you reduce to a mere fraction of one per cent the work that a judge would have to do.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What section ,re we at?


Arthur Meighen: Paragraph (h), section 42, at the bottom of page 3.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not understand that the former clause was passed.


Arthur Meighen: We are not passing anything; we are passing from one to another.


Mr. GRAHAM:: They are touching them all.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the procedure in Alberta, at one time the procedure embodied in this measure was partially followed in that province. The provision was made that the man whose name was not on the list could swear his vote on, and that vote was subject to subsequent adjudication before a court.


Arthur Meighen: That is in the provincial election only.


Frank Oliver: 
Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend suggest that we had better have the proposed judicial revision eliminated from this Bill and make it precisely as it is now in Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to take the responsibility of introducing the legislation that my hon. friend sees fit to introduce.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is trying to give suggestions.


Frank Oliver: The Secretary of State has laid emphasis on the statement that be is following the conditions in Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Robert Laird Borden: But providing safeguards.


Frank Oliver: I am pointing out that, if I understand the matter correctly, he is following conditions as they have been, but abandoned in Saskatchewan and Alberta for reasons that prevail there but that may not be valid in other parts of the country. I am only desirous that there shall not be a misunderstanding on the part of the committee as to the facts of the case, and that the committee -may not be impressed with the idea that the provisions of the Bill are desirable in application throughout Canada because it has been found necessary, owing to special circumstances, to apply them as they are applied in Alberta and Saskatchewan. What did occur in Alberta when the principle that is contained in this Bill was embodied in the provincial law was this: Ballots were tied up vexatiously, for the purpose of improperly influencing the election in this way: A number of votes would be challenged, and they would be tied up. They would not be counted at the general count. Then there would have to be a semi-judicial investigation as to the validity of those votes, and there is always the possibility of manipulating the evidence that might be brought to bear, and if the first count seemed to be to some extent indecisive, then the election had to be fought all over again in the courts in regard to those tied ballots. It was not because the principle was not theoretically sound. The, principle was,theoretically,absolutely sound, but in practice it did not work out properly, and, if I understand the matter correctly, the authorities decided rather to take the chances on the occasional count of a vote that w-as not valid than to prejudice

the conclusion of the whole election by reason of dilatory legal proceedings.


Robert Laird Borden: I imagine my
hon. friend has a wider experience as to the effect of such provisions than any other member of this House, and naturally any suggestion that comes from him based upon biis long experience are entitled to very careful consideration. I understand him to state as a result of that experience that the system of judicial revision having been tried, and the system without such judicial revision having been also tried for a number of years, it was found that the latter system was on the whole .the more satisfactory of the two.


Frank Oliver: The lesser of two evils.


Robert Laird Borden: And that for the reason which he states very forcibly, namely, that the uncertainty, the delay and inconvenience attending a judicial revision rather outweigh any danger which might result from the lack of such judicial revision. I shall take his view into very careful consideration, as there is a great deal of force in what he suggests, and his suggestion is based upon a very long experience of both systems. Perhaps the matter might be allowed to stand over for the present, and I will confer with the Secretary of State in regard to it.


Frank Oliver: I only wished to inform
the committee as to the actual facts of the case, and I was led to do so by what I heard the leader of the Opposition say. I am not sufficiently familiar with the Act to know whether I took the right point or not, but I thought that where provincial lists are adopted, and insofar as they are adopted, it would not be an improvement at any rate to provide for any tying of ballots on account of challenge of those votes which were on a fixed list.


Arthur Meighen: In so far as the lists are adopted, there is no tying of ballots at all. It is in so far as the lists are changed that there is a tying of ballots.


Frank Oliver: But not the fixed lists?


Arthur Meighen: No.


George Perry Graham: I want to make sure that I understand this Bill correctly as it applies to the older provinces, particularly Ontario. The list which will be adopted in tlie province of Ontario, subject to change by reason of this Act, will be that list which was finally revised in the autumn of 1916. The method of that revision is well known. Tiie list is prepared from the assessment

roll, and finally revised on appeal by the county judge, except in cities, where they have registration. Do I understand that that is to be the basis of the list in Ontario, subject to the changes made by the enumerator owing to the provisions of this Act? Voters who are disfranchised under this Act will have their names removed from that list.


Robert Laird Borden: There will be
changes resulting from both enfranchisement and disqualification.


George Perry Graham: And the enumerator will have to add to the list the new voters who are enfranchised by this Act? As I understand the proposition of the Government, so far as the list of 1916 as finally revised in Ontario is concerned, there will be no rejection of ballots, except by the ordinary form of challenge. Under ordinary conditions the scrutineer challenges a vote for any cause. If the voter takes the oath prescribed by law the vote is counted. Under the present law that vote will still be counted. So far as new votes are concerned, which are to be added by the enumerator, if objection is taken to any vote it is placed in a separate receptacle tand not counted, except under proceedings which may become necessary on account of the closeness of the vote. I imagine that what my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) had in his mind w.as that the tied ballot wou_d apply to the fixed list as well, but that is not the ease. There is a good deal to be said, however, for his contention as to the merits of the two methods. Whether more will be gained or lost by placing those challenged ballots in .a separate receptacle, is a question for the committee and the Government to consider very seriously.


Robert Laird Borden: There are advantages and disadvantages in both methods.


George Perry Graham: There is another point in connection with clause 48. As I understand it, the voters' list as finally prepared by the enumerators will not be posted, in Ontario, until ten days before polling day. In the county of South Renfrew, for instance, ten days would not give the candidate an opportunity of any practical value of having in his possession a voters' list, which is a very necessary thing for a candidate to have. In a constituency that is over a hundred miles long, and where the electors, particularly ini winter time, can only be reached by team, it would be impossible to make any use of the voters' list if it were not posted for a longer period

than ten days before polling day. Even in a small constituency it would be very difficult to make practical use of it in such a short time. Of course, the candidate will have in his possession the list of 1916 as finally revised except for the changes to be made by the enumerator, but the names of the women voters who are to be added will not be in his possession, and those are the ones about which he will show a great deal of solicitude, and have probably little or no information.


Robert Laird Borden: I would point out that the similar provisions in force in Alberta and Saskatchewan provide for only eight days before polling day, and that in a country which some years ago was very sparsely settled, and is not as thickly populated to-day probably, as the portion of Ontario to which my hon. friend refers.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is eight days before nomination day.


Robert Laird Borden: No, eight days before election day.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The old Act says eight days before nomination day.


Robert Laird Borden: In the Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts it is eight days before election day, and if their Acts would work satisfactorily under conditions such as I have described, it would seem to me there would hardly be the difficulties that my hon. friend anticipates in the county of Renfrew or in any other county in the province of Ontario. However, the Secretary of State has already said in reply to the hon. member for Saskatoon that we will consider extending that period of ten days, and we are going to consider it.


George Perry Graham: I have no knowledge of conditions in Saskatchewan and Alberta, but I take it for granted that practically every resident there would have a vote, so that a candidate travelling over a constituency out there would not be likely to miss many voters.
But with this new addition of the women voters the situation will be a little different. You will not be in a position to know, unless you inquire intimately, whether they have relatives at the front. The situation is different from what it would be if you were dealing with men living in the vicinity who you would take it for granted, bad the right to vote.
- Mr. MEIGHEN: There is one matter I want to make clear, because I am very anxious that there should not be any mistake whatever in regard to the meaning of this law,- and I invite the attention of the hon. member for Edmonton to the point. When I stated to him and to the hon.. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) that there were no tied ballots in relation to the lists that are not adopted and fixed, but the tied ballot appertained to the work of the enumerator only, that is true in spirit, but it is not absolutely accurate. In this sense: all the enumerator can do is to add the names of women who aTe entitled to vote. All he can strike off are those who should be struck off for alienage or as conscientious objectors. Suppose he should strike off a name saying that the party was a conscientious objector, and if that were not true the man whose name was so struck off, if he was on the original list, -could go and vote. Then the ballot would go into an envelope and become tied; so that, strictly speaking, a .man on the list might get into the tied ballot list.


George Perry Graham: The work of the enumerator is subject to the tied ballot system?


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing reviewed by the judge except the work of the enumerator. A man should not he on the list, let us say, because he has moved awiay, but the enumerator cannot strike his name off for that reason, and even if he does the man can vote.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As it is at present in our province, if you are going to move to have a name struck off the list, there is one day in the year on which it can be done and that is the fifth day of March, the day on which the revising hoard meets. You must serve the man with a notice that on that day you are going to move before the court of revision to have his name struck off. In this case the enumerator has the power of the revising board; he has the power to strike a name off. What opportunity do you give any person to be heard, and upon what facts does this enumerator strike a name or names off?,


Arthur Meighen: He gets as good evidence as he can get, and he acts on that. But the party do:es not need to appeal, because all he has to do is to go and vote. He can make affidavit that he is entitled to a certificate of refusal, and. he votes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But his vote is not counted.


Arthur Meighen: It is caunted, if the judge finds he has the right to vote.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose a hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred names were struck off the list by the enumerator-


Arthur Meighen: There are only 300 on the list.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am speaking of the electoral district.


Arthur Meighen: You have to consider the polling division as the unit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Say there should be 300 of these men struck off in an ordinary constituency. I want to tell you that if you had to deal with some of the people we have to deal with in the Maritime Provinces, you would know how easily it could be done. These 300 votes would not be counted, they would be placed in envelopes, and would finally reach the judge. Think what a burden that would impose upon the candidate, to bring those 300 witnesses in order to prove they are qualified voters. I confess I never had any experience in preparing lists by enumerators as hon. gentlemen in this House from the West have had, and they would know very much more about it than I do. At the same time, it seems to me it makes the enumerator practically a dictator. That is so repugnant to the ideas we have always had in the East in regard to the preparation of voters' lists, that I view it with the greatest alarm.
I hink of a man, who is always a political supporter of course, being chosen to go around the country and make up a list of the female voters, and who would also be allowed to strike from the list the names of any voters who are aliens, or former aliens, or conscientious objectors. So far as the Maritime Provinces are concerned, I think the number of the aliens and conscientious objectors is practically nil. This enumerator starts to make out a list of the female voters. There seems to be practically no appeal from his decision. He works in the dark, or at night, and anywhere he has a mind to, and strikes off practically whomever he pleases. All we know is that ten days before the election one of these lists is put up in the post office, and that the enumerator is to be at some place for two hours each day after that to listen to objections. But suppose he will not listen to them? It seems to me this work should be done by the same officials who are making up the lists at the present time, at least in the provinces east of the Great Lakes. Almost invariably, these enumerators are representative of both political parties. In, the province of New Brunswick you will find once in a

while a board composed altogether of Liberals or altogether of Conservatives, but that is a very* rare occurrence. Each party has a chance to be heard. Before a man's name is removed he must have notice, and. after the list is made it is posted up and notice given that at a certain time the board will meet to revise it. I should think some arrangement of that sort might be arrived at. They have had this system of enumerators in the West, but we have never had it in the East, and I can see all sorts of trouble looming up. I would like the Government to consider if there is not some way of utilizing the machinery already existing for the preparation of those lists.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to
ask the Secretary of State if subsection. 2 so numbered, at the top of page 4, refers to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan alone.


Arthur Meighen: The four western provinces and Prince Edward Island. Wherever the enumerator makes a whole list, he uses as a basis any information he can get.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: If the minister had stated that before, I think it would have cleared up the matter to a great many gentlemen on this side. It would be a very unfair provision to apply in my own province at least.


Robert Laird Borden: Why?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I feel very much as my hon. friend does. I had to leave last Friday and I took a copy of the Bill with me. I thought I would have plenty of time on the way down to digest it. I might as well have been reading a Latin grammar that I had never seen as to read that Bill. It was not Latin, it was Greek, to me.


Robert Laird Borden: It would have been perfectly plain to my hon. friend if he had had a copy of the Dominions Elections Act with him.
Mr! CARVELL: I did not have a copy of it. If I had had half a day to myself and a copy of the election law, I might have arrived at some conclusion as to what the Bill meant.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend will find that it is not as difficult or complicated as he imagines, when he grasps the basic idea of it, which is that the polling subdivision is the unit for the preparation of the lists in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That law is the basis of this Bill. They adopted the principle in the Act of 1905, based upon a previous Act, that the polling subdivision should be the unit for the preparation of the lists. It rather impressed me with its simplicity, and I do not think it will be difficult to understand this Bill if we keep that idea in mind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it not possible to carry out my suggestion about having the Bill printed?


Arthur Meighen: It will be possible. I did not want, first of all, to go to the expense, and, secondly, the delay, of printing a large number of copies until we knew what would be its final form.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Only Part II would need to be printed.


Arthur Meighen: That would not be complete, because Part III is essential to an understanding of the effect of Part II. I intend to have that printed, and indeed we could start to-night and print it, but if we did we would likely have to amend it substantially before it got through committee. I know that the two hon. gentlemen who
have spoken will have no difficulty with a copy of the Election Act before them. I could get on without a copy of the Election Act at all. Certainly, the Bill itself is not very likely to have much meaning without the Election Act read with it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Some <5f us on this side of the House, with a little labour, could understand the Bill, but a great number would have difficulty in even understanding it. It is only right that they should have some proper understanding of the Bill before they are asked to consider it.


Mr. ROSS:: I would like to back up the suggestion made by tihe hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) with regard to the machinery in connection with this Act. It is all very well for the Prime
10 p.m. Minister to say that it is based on the polling subdivision. Let me state what that would mean, and for the purposes oif my illustration I will take the riding of West Middlesex in which there are eighty polling subdivisions. It means that you will have to appoint eighty enumerators in that riding, and that they will have to sit for ten days .before polling day to prepare these lists. That is going to put an immense expense upon -the country. In the 234 ridings, supposing there are eighty subdivisions in each and you have an enumerator for each polling subdivision, the expense is going to be very heavy. /1 think it would simplify matters if this provision of the Act were reversed. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Carleton is sensible and practical. He says: Why not use the present machinery? Speaking of Ontario particularly, this work might be left to the township and municipal clerks in each municipality who have the preparation of the lists in charge.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not applicable to the Maritime Provinces.


James Hamilton Ross: I am speaking of Ontario.
There is no reason why the Act should not be made applicable to Ontario if a more sensible and less expensive method is proposed than the one suggested. In rural and town municipalities-it may not apply to cities-why should not the township and municipal clerks prepare these lists, and, during the ten days when the enumerator sits, why should not the township clerk sit at the township hall and revise the lists in the ordinary way? He is more familiar with the lists than any other person in the county. In West Middlesex there aTe sixteen municipalities, and sixteen township clerks would do the work. Under the sys-

tem suggested by the Secretary of State you will have to appoint eighty or ninety enumerators who. are not familiar with the lists or with the people as the township clerks are. You .save a great deal of expense in not having to appoint all these enumerators, you have the lists perfected, and on election day one man, the deputy returning officer, will do all the work that you are asking the enumerators to do under this Bill. That would simplify the matter very much, and you would be able to carry out the spirit of the Bill much more intelligently and much less expensively than if you adopt the plan suggested by the Secretary of State. That ihon. gentleman said a moment ago that the enumerator would only have the power to add the names of the female relatives of soldiers and strike off the names of people of alien birth and conscientious objectors. He said that he would have no right to strike off a non-resident if he came back to vote. Are we going to have non-resident voters undeT this Act? If a man has gone from West Middlesex to Carleton, say, and is on the voters' lists, although he is living in Carleton, will he be allowed to come back and vote?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the law stands in that regard as it was if no Act were passed.


James Hamilton Ross: Under the present law he
could not vote at all.


Arthur Meighen: Then, if he cohld not vote at all, he could not vote under this.


James Hamilton Ross: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that that man could come back to vote.


Arthur Meighen: I gave that as an illustration. If a man on the list in Ontario cannot, by virtue of the Ontario law vote, because of being a non-resident, although he is on the list, he cannot vote under this Act. I did not know that. If that is the case my illustration has not any force. I will give another. Suppose that the enumerator says that a man is not of age.


James Hamilton Ross: He could not do that.


Arthur Meighen: He could not do that. That man will go on and vote. It does not enable a non-resident to vote if, according to the Ontario law, he cannot vote.


James Hamilton Ross: I would like the Secretary
of State to consider the suggestion I made because I think it is far more practicable than the plan proposed.


Mr. EDWARDS:: In suggesting that the township clerks take the place of the enum-
erators who will be appointed for each polling subdivision does my hon. friend (Mr. Rose) propose that the township clerk should go to each polling subdivision within his township and ascertain the names o'f *the women who may be added under this Act?	*


James Hamilton Ross: I do not see any reason why he could not. No man is more familiar with that township, and all the persons residing in it, than he is, and if you have, as a protection to the voter, a further pro' vision that the township clerk shall sit in the town for ten days, to have names added to the list or names struck off, I think you have every protection to the voter.


William Cameron Edwards: There would not be very much saved, in the matter of expense, if the township clerk had to go around and do the work of the men who were appointed at these various polling divisions to attend to the work. There is another feature of this question; my hon. friend must remember that each township clerk is, first of all, a servant of the township. It might * be that under this Act he would be required to be present at a certain time to investigate conditions at some polling division and at the same time the township council might require his services along some other line. The township is entitled to his services first. The advantage of appointing an enumerator at each poll, in preference to appointing any one man who lives in some particular corner of the municipality, is obvious. Some one man in each polling division would be better acquainted with all the people in that polling division than an outside man could possibly be. I do not think the township clerk of any municipality would know what men were entitled to be placed on the list under this Act in every corner of the municipality. He might know most of them; he might possibly know more than any other one man would, but I do not think he could possibly be as well acquainted with each polling division as some person selected from that polling division.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not much concerned about whether we nominate the township clerk, on account of the saving of expense, although I think there is something in that, but I should like to see some public official appointed so that the suspicion of political partiality in the matter will be removed. The township clerk in Ontario has something to do with the preparation of the list. If you take the revising officer, or the revising board as we

call it in New Brunswick, which prepares the list, or if you take the, secretary treasurer in Nova Scotia who,
I understand, prepares the list subject to supervision, you give it a final flavour. T,he people for generations, in the old portions of 'Canada, have been used to having their lists prepared by municipal authority, and while they have their own troubles, and probably some unfairness, yet the system works out very well. They know how to meet one another and how to .argue these matters, i&nd we get a pretty good list, as ia rule. But I view with a great deal of suspicion, in eastern Ontario, the provision by which the Government is going to appoint its own political friends. They will start out to make a list, .and I cannot see, after reading the Bill over hurriedly, any provision by which any person can appeal to that man and have a name added or a name taken off. He can go to them, but there is no provision for .making an affidavit. You can go to a man and say: "Here is 'a certain woman who has a son at the front," .and the official .may say: "No, she has not a son at the front; .he is at Halifax, and I will not put the name on." What is she going to do?


Arthur Meighen: Vote.
Mr. CARVE.LL: Yes, but her vote will not be counted. She has to go before a judge later on.


Arthur Meighen: But supposing the system in Ontario were adopted, and you had to go to the judge first, and have the name put on, you would be put to the same expense as in-'the other case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. The local revision is all done within a very small compass. Yon can get the affidavits of the proper parties, and prove to the municipal authorities that the party is or is not enitled to be placed on the list, and you make your revision beforehand at practically no expense, because it is all done locally in each .municipality-we call them parishes in the East, or polling districts. But when you force them to vote under protest you call it a tied vote. Then the court meets, and you bring all those people to the shire town. In my constituency I might bring people some seventy-five miles to prove whether they bad a right to be on the voters' list. I do not know whether my hon. friend has appreciated whiairthis thing means. If yon change this provision, so that the municipal authorities would re-revise the list, or
add to the revised list, it would be an improvement. If you have municipal authorities in my province, or in any province in eastern Canada, who have the jurisdiction and the right to make the list of male voters, surely you could be able to hand over to the same authorities the power to make the list of female voters. You are introducing something we never heard of before in eastern Canada, and I can see no end of trouble and misunderstanding, and there would be no end of mistakes. An hon. member near me suggests that they will pick out the female voters who will vote the right way. I am not so very much afraid of that in the East, because people are known to one another, and if the different political organizations take hold o.f the thing and work hard enough, and they have an enumerator who is not too violent a partisan, you may get a fair list. But you have always the suspicion that it is not straight, and you may get hold of a political partisan-and I am sorry tc say we have in the East, on both sides of the fence, men who will do things you can hardly imagine-and if you send a man like that around making up the lists by himself, without any one having the right to -go. to him, it will not be fair. He makes up his list, he is the man to whom you must appeal, and he may say, "I will change it," or "I will not change it." It seems to me you will have all kinds of trouble and unfairness under that system, whereas if the old machinery were adopted people will know what they are doing. The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) referred to subsection 2 which provides that the enumerator has the right to strike a name from the list on the ground that the party was a former alien or a conscientious objector. My friend might say, "Oh, well, if he strikes a man off improperly the man still has the right to go to the tribunal and make an affidavit. But this is so foreign to our ideas down East in regard to removing names from the voters' list that I cannot accept it for a moment. We look upon it as an outrage to strike a man's name from the- voters' list, unless you give him notice.
Surely a man ought to have the right to protect himself. He ought to have the right to say:	I am hot a German; I am
not an Austrian. He ought to have the right to say: I am a person of Austrian birth, but I was naturalized sixteen years ago. Under this Bill you give the political friends of the Government the right to re-

move the name of that man from the list, and he has no alternative but that of swearing his vote. Later he may have to travel fifty or seventy-five miles in order that he may satisfy a judge that he had the right to vote.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does this Bill
provide that persons qualified to vote under the Military Voters' Act shall have their names added to the list by enumerators:


Arthur Meighen: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The names of a great number of such are not on the roll.


Arthur Meighen: If a man qualifies under the ordinary civil law, he has the right to go on the list even though he is a returned soldier. But if he does he can vote only once; the Military Voters' Act provides that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There will be a large number of soldiers in Canada who are not registered but who will be entitled to vote by simply coming to the poll and taking the oath.


Arthur Meighen: Such men could not get on the list in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Quebec on that ground, because the Bill provides that only female relatives of soldiers can get on.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Most of the persons whose names will be removed from the electoral lists by reason of alienage will be found in the western provinces. Why should their names not remain on the lists and the oath be put to them when they come to vote? If they swear that they were qualified prior to 1902, they will be entitled to a vote. If anybody is of opinion that they were not naturalized prior to that date, they may be required to take the oath; if they decline to take the oath they lose the vote. Outside villages or any incorporated town or city in my constituency I should Ibe willing to let the wives, mothers and sisters of soldiers vote without their names being on the lists. They would be wall known in the several communities in which they resided, and if an oath were inserted in the Act which could be administered to those asking for tire right to vote, that would cover the case. In larger places lists could be made.


Arthur Meighen: On the same principle you might as well not have a list at all. If you do things that way, the whole election will have to be revised by the judges. Good list-making involves this: as much work as possible should! be done before the

contest; everything that can be finally decided should be decided before the contest. Such as cannot be agreed upon is subjected to judicial decision; but let us not leave everything to judicial decision. If every woman could vote by merely swearing that she was the relative of a soldier-and she might so swear quite honestly-thousands of votes might be polled that should not be polled at all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My suggestion, of course, is applicable only to rural districts, where it would be almost impossible for any woman to claim improperly the suffrage under this Act.


Arthur Meighen: It is possible to conceive of an enumerator who would defy the obvious rights of a person who should be on the list, but such an enumerator would be notoriously crooked and notoriously stupid. Suppose the enumerator declines to put on Mrs. Smith whose son, everybody knows, is at the front. He could not do more harm to the candidate whom he is supposed tr favour than he does by taking that course. Whenever that becomes known the people begin to feel that they had better vote the other way. It arouses disgust at once.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not the way it is done down East. They manipulate the votes not by refusing to put a man on who is entitled to be registered, but by putting on men who are not entitled to be registered. That is where the difficulty comes in.


Arthur Meighen: Then the names are
posted up, the public become aware of the fact, and the same revulsion of feeling sets in. It may be suggested that this provision might be abused on polling day by too many challenges, -but the same check exists in that respect. If people are sworn -recklessly on polling day, it hurts the candidate whose -agent does the swearing.. The friends of those sworn make up their minds that they do not like that kind of work.
I have known votes to- go the other way as a result of instances similar to this; the thing works out all right in the end. It has worked out all right in -Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the people there are not a, bit better than the people down -in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; the enumerators are not a bit better or -worse. It is in the interests of all concerned that the enumerators do the work in such a way that it will -be acceptable to the public. It is suggested by some hon. gentlemen that we employ the township clerks to assist in making up the lists. The insuperable difficulty in that respect is that a township includes

many polling divisions and yon cannot work this Act out unless you have an enumerator for eadh division. That is the basic principle of the Act. The polling division is the unit and the enumerator attends to that division; he is right there on polling day; he does his work as best he can; he has to make out his certificates of refusals. If we appointed township clerks we would have to have many deputies.


James Hamilton Ross: 
Arthur Meighen: No, the deputy returning officer has not been doing the work all along. The enumerator has been doing the work, or, in the case the hon. gentleman suggests, the township clerk. He knows the lists; he knows Mrs. Smith; he knows why John Brown is off the list. He is in a position, consequently, to do the work well on election day. On the contrary, the deputy returning officer would be a new man on the job. He would have his other duties to attend to, and you could not reasonably heap these new duties upon him.


George Ewan McCraney: Very frequently in the West we have to appoint enumerators as deputy returning officers, because there are many districts in which you cannot get two men.


Arthur Meighen: Where there are small polls it might be necessary.
-*r. L. A. LAPOINTE: It is half an hour since my suggestion of this afternoon, that this Bill be reprinted, was endorsed by my hon. friends from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean).


Arthur Meighen: It is half an hour since the Bill went down to be reprinted.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I am glad to hear that the order has been given. We have lost half an hour, because it is difficult to understand this Bill as we have it. I hope that the Secretary of State will present a Bia with a proper classification of the clauses so that we shall be able to understand it. I suggest that we should discuss cne clause at a time, so that everybody will know what is being discussed. I am glad that the Government has acceded to my request to have this Bill reprinted so that it may be presented in proper form.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Perhaps the committee is not. acquainted with all the facts with regard to the ordinary ridings in Ontario. The member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) suggests that the township clerks Should prepare the list of names to be added.
If he will think for a moment, I am sure his experience will tell him that the ordinary township clerk has something other to do than the business of a township clerk. In one township the man may be a druggist. The ordinary township-I aan not .speaking about those which are irregularly shaped-is about twelve miles by fourteen miles. Surely you would not expect a druggist or a merchant-and many country merchants are township clerks-to go over an area of twelve miles by fourteen miles in order to ascertain which women in that area may be entitled to be put upon the list under this caption. That would be quite without the mark. Let us consider another fact. The ordinary polling division, at least in my county, comprises at least between 150 and 200 names. If you have an enumerator in that district, he will be able to cast his eye over it and recall the names of the men in that district wno have enlisted. It is then an easy matter for him to tabulate those names and prepare the list. Surely not much expense will be incident to that. As to the question of the enumerator remaining as it were in appeal, the Bill says:
The enumerator shall attend at the time and place so designated for at least two constcu-tive hours on each of said ten days,
And so on. That will not mean much expense. Our hon. friends from the Maritime Provinces speak of all those officers being appointed, as it were, by law. As a matter of fact, in Ontario in many municipalities the same man may not be township clerk for two years running:	He is
simply appointed by the township council or the town council. One man may be assessor this year. He may become disgusted with the smallness of the salary, or he may have some other cares that take up his time, and may give up the position. The assessor is a "come and go" man. Yet the basis of the lists of the whole township comprising 600 or 700 names is prepared by a man who may be an assessor this year and who may never be an assessor again. He is in no sense an official of a Government, either provincial or federal; he is simply the creature of the township council for that year. The ordinary township clerk may be a farmer or a merchant. Surely you can expect an enumerator to put on the names of ten or twenty women in a division that will have from 150 to 200 names when you can trust him to put on the names in a township of 600 or 700 people. The matter is simple. No man in a polling division is going to be so grossly unfair to his

neighbours as to exclude one woman or one girl who may be entitled to vote on account of being a wife or sister of a soldier at the front. As a matter of fact, the names will all be disclosed, because under this measure the man has to post up the list, and if he left one person's name off it would show that he was a partisan, and the mistake would in any event be corrected. Although the system is new in the old-settled districts of Ontario, it is not new in the unorganized districts such as Thunder Bay, Nipissing and parts of Muskoka and Parry Sound. This system of enumeration has gone on in those districts year after year, and I have never heard any complaint about it. The whole system of enumeration is so simple, it will prove so inexpensive, it is so summary and the people are so brought face to face with their individual enumerator, that there can hardly be any cause for complaint. When the facts are realized by hon. gentlemen from the Maritime Provinces-, they will see, that at least in Ontario, the -matter is a very simple one and should commend itself as being perfectly plain.


Mr. LABOR:: I understand that the 1916 list is the last revised list we have in On-tar-io. What are the duties of the enumerators that are appointed? Do they simply add the names of the women voters to the list of 1916? Is that list the adopted list, or is there a means of putting qualified voters, other than women, on the list?


Arthur Meighen: In. Ontario, excepting cities or towns of over 9,000 population, the list, as'prepared in 1916, is final, except that the enumerator may strike off any one because he is an -alien or a conscientious objector and add o-n women- who are- qualified as being relatives of soldiers. He cannot do anything else. Further, as to the suggestion that has been pressed latterly, it may be recalled that Ontario now adopts the enumeration system, They call the enumerator a registrar, but he is an enumerator, in fact, even more so than he is under this Bill, because he is directed by tihe Act to go from house to house and to enumerate the voters. He must go out into -the highways and byways and compel them to go on the list. It is not his duty to sit and wait until -they come to him. We do not instruct the enumerator Iku* he is to do his work. His duties -are so local that it might not be -necessary for him to go ou-t at all, but he must get the names.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The difficulty with accepting the list of 1916 is, I am afraid, that a -great deal of injustice will be done to many electors. The -hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) -mentioned non-residents. Many people move from one county to another, or from one town to another. In Ontario such people cannot vote in the riding they hav-e left, having ceased, to be residents. With us their names -are put on- the list for the place in which they have taken up residence. This is done each year by means of a court of revision. I would lik-e to see a similar provision in this measure by which such men could get on the -lists an the place in which they reside. In the town in which I live there are many qualified voters who will not be on the list at all because there is no machinery provided by which they can get o-n. The enumerator should be given the power -to accept affidavits, as is done in the court of revision in Ontario. By -means of affidavits, or by presence in -a court to which he might go, a man should be able to get on the list. I am sorry to hear that there is n-o provision made by which these people may get on the lists.


Louis Audet Lapointe: As it is decided to have this Bill reprinted, I would suggest th-at where there is -a new section, or where there are one or more words inserted or added to a section, those new words or sections should be put in brackets, so that we shall know exactly what is old and what is new. If there was only a -slight amendment to a section we could pass it very quickly. In that w,ay, by reading section by section, you will find out what is changed. T-h-at is done in the province from which T come. *


Frank Oliver: Might I draw the attention of the Solicitor General, following out the suggestion of -the hon. member for Montreal, St. James, (Mr. L. A. Lapointe), to the fact that recently the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) submitted to the House amendments to the Dominion Lands Act prepared in very complete form for the information of the members. I do not know whether it is too late now for the Secretary of State to adopt -such a suggestion, but I do wish to say that the form in which the Minister of Interior submitted to the House his amendments to the Dominion Land Act was most complete in t'he information given, both by comparison and by explanation, and I would recommend very strongly that the Secretary of State adopt the same form in regard to this Fran-

chise Act. The Minister of the Interior would be able to explain just what the character of the preparation was. I can assure the minister that to have an amending Bill placed in the hands of members in the form in which the amendments to the Dominion Land Act were prepared would save an enormous amount of time and discussion, and give the members full information in regard to the changes that are being made.


Mr. MICHAUD:: In the province of New Brunswick the local custodian of the lists is the secretary-treasurer of the county, and at every provincial election he is called upon to deliver the voters lists to the returning officer, and on declaration day the returning officer makes a parcel of all these lists and sends them to the Provincial Secretary. We had a provincial election in New Brunswick in the month of February last, and the lists of 1917, which were prepared in 1916, are no longer in the hands of the Provincial Secretary. All that he could give to the enumerator under this Bill would be a copy of those lists. But if that would be satisfactory to the enumerator, well and good.


Arthur Meighen: The lists are now filed with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and have become the official lists.


Pius Michaud: And the enumerator could get them from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.	Answering
the hon. member for Haldimand, if his suggestion were carried out and the provisions of the western provinces were applied to the province of Ontario, and that would mean making a new list from the ground up, using the old list as a basis only. I fear there would be no justification for that in the province of Ontario. Even if the present law were applied without any new Act at all, it would mean the adoption of the very same lists and the consequences of that adoption. As to the printing of this Bill it seems to ime it would not be impossible to have the amendments in italics, and I will endeavour to have that done.


George Ewan McCraney: Is my understanding of the matter correct, that the principle of the tied ballot has been taken from the present law of Alberta, or has it been repealed?


Arthur Meighen: My understanding is not the same as that of the hon. member for Edmonton. I have not looked at the statute, but my information-and it comes from one
who certainly ought to know-is that the tied ballot exists in provincial elections in Alberta to-day. We have the same principle here, although much enlarged and improved. In Alberta all they can do is to vote on oath, and if they vote on oath that ballot is tied. They cannot challenge a vote, tie the ballot and have it submitted to a judge. We allow that here. In Alberta all that is done with a tied ballot is that some Justice of the Peace tries the case the next day, or within a few days. We subject it to a judge.


George Ewan McCraney: I have not had any , experience of the tied ballot since the provincial election of 1905, and my recollections of it may be somewhat at fault, but in Saskatchewan we had the same provision at that time, I suppose, as they had in Alberta, because both elections were being run under the same law. My recollection of it is that any person challenged would have his ballot put in an envelope and it would be laid on one side as a tied ballot. Before the voter left the polling booth he would be handed an appointment by the deputy returning officer naming an hour within a couple of days when he was to appear before one of two Justices of the peace, near the place of polling, and the right of the voter would then he tried out.
I understand from what the Secretary of State says that while this law introduces the tied ballot there is no local tribunal and everything is held up pending a recount. I attended some local tribunals in connection with the elections of 1905. There are always a number of votes tied up, but these cases are very often quickly settled:	to the satisfaction
of all parties before a Justice of the Peace, without any need for referring them to a judge. That is t-o say, the fact that there is the right of examination and of investigation will obviate the necessity of taking an appeal from the local tribunals to the judge. At the last election I had a county 130 miles long and 60 miles wide, with 147 polling places, and nearly 10,000 votes were cast. Under such a system as this Bill provides it would surprise me very much if there were not at least ten per cent of the ballots tied up. The very cumbrous machinery which makes it so difficult for a person whose ballot is tied, and who lives sixty or seventy miles away from a judicial centre, is a great inducement to an opponent to tie up a vote. If there was a local tribunal where both sides could get information, it would settle a great deal of that. I do not like these tied ballots at all, and

the Secretary of State will find that our elections in the West are going to get into a terrible mess if there are one or two thousand votes-and I venture to say that that will occur-which will have to came before the judge for trial. Imagine the examination of several hundreds of people, even in a judicial matter, with other witnesses possibly coming in.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has forgotten, or possibly has not observed, the conditions under which a ballot can be tied. First, the enumerator must have refused a man the right to vote. ' Now those cases would not be many. .
My hon. friend feels that there may be a g-reao many challenged ballots, but there is a great check which never was used in the provincial contest. The agent must take an oath that he has grounds for believing, and dees believe, that the man appearing to vote has not the right to do so, and he must swear to the reasons for so believing. Of course, he may take oath lightly, and there are some who will, and there would then be a number of tied ballots; but I do not think the election will be in a " mess " on that account. It would hurt the candidate if they tied too many ballots. In any event, supposing they did, it simply means there will be some delay until it is decided. In this contest, in war time, there is bound to be many a delay before we know who is elected, because the soldiers' votes count will not be here for many days after.
I apprehend that in this coming contest many a one will not know whether he is elected or not for many days after the election. This is unfortunate, but it is true.


George Ewan McCraney: I think this is going to be an uncertain election for probably a month after election day. We will not know absolutely who is elected, and who is not, for perhaps that length of time after the polling day. MJy recollection is that in the election in the city of Prince Albert in 1905, there were over 300 tied ballots.


Arthur Meighen: There was no check,
though.


George Ewan McCraney: Not of this character.
I do not know that the objection is removed very much, because I think if you post up a list and perhaps only ten days before the polling day you have several hundred names -


Arthur Meighen: Just 300; that is the maximum.

Mr. MeCRANEY: My hon. friend says just 300," but in some places you will have 500, because you are going to take the township as your unit, or something like that, and you will find it necessary to have polling places where there will be only half a dozen, It is just as easy to take 300 votes in one ballot box, as to take 200, if it is a convenient place for voting. You will have some polling places in which there will be a very large number of ballots in one box, and in which 'there must be a tremendous amount of information obtained. I have spoken to the minister with regard to registration in cities, and he expressed the view a few moments ago that it is desirable to have as much finality as possible. Will lie tell me whether he has given consideration to the proposal to have a registration which will be complete with all proper appeals taking place in our cities. Because it is there the great difficulty over this tied ballot will come. There will be more chair lunges and so on on account of lack of information, whereas if the applicants for registration have to take the oath before they come on, it is a very simple matter.


Arthur Meighen: Of course, in Ontario cities is done. The provincial authorities have a regular board on which sits a judge to do this work, and we simply have to adopt the machinery.


George Perry Graham: That is the registration.


Arthur Meighen: It is called that. It is really enumeration. In the west, there is no such machinery. We would have to reerect the machinery and would have to constitute the whole board. We would have to apply the law to suit the times and conditions. I think we would be obliged to have something different in each province. In British Columbia for instance, there is machinery for revision, but it is revision by a provincial officer. Of course it would not do to accept that. In Alberta, there is no machinery at all, neither is there in Saskatchewan. I think there is some new machinery in Manitoba, created by a later Act, I am not just sure what it is. It would be much more difficult to do it in the western provinces. I thought of trying to have something in the western provinces similar to what there is in Ontario, but it did not lend itself to the application of that principle nearly so well as it suits Ontario, and we shall use all our means to try to get it in the western provinces as we have it, and trust to the check to safeguard it, and provide for the

revision afterwards. We have not regarded it as vital even if we have to know the result later on in those western constituencies, because the result will be all the more dependable and more correct after the judges revise it.


George Ewan McCraney: I do not altogether agree with my hon. friend's statement. I think the fact of having so many ballots tied up, and people going out of town, and so on, means that the result of the revision would make a more unsatisfactory election than if you have the registration under your own officers. It seems to me that if the sections were taken right from the Saskatchewan Act into this Act, and if you appointed your own officers to carry out your own registration, had the same system of appeals and everything else, you would get a satisfactory list, in the cities at any rate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is quite evident we cannot make very much progress to-night, and with the new Bill printed and in our possession to-morrow I think we, on this side of the House, will be in a position to contribute more to the passage of the Bill than we can possibly do now. Our last session was very long, and I would suggest to the Secretary of State that the committee rise for the evening. I do not think there is very much to be gained by sitting longer now.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I agree to some extent with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Mc-'Craney) as to the necessity for some system of registration. I think it should be extended to towns of 2,000 people. I know from my own experience in working on voters' lists in the province of Ontario, if we adopted the lists of 1916 and made no provision whatever for adding names, we should disqualify a good many citizens.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I think the new
law with regard to voters' lists passed by the Ontario Legislature at the last session made some provision along the lines suggested by my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor), and I was a little surprised to hear the Solicitor General state that no such provision was made in this Bill. I thought the tied ballot covered those who tHight move from one constituency to another. If the lists of 1916 are to be used in the province of Ontario, a great many persons outside of the places of 9,000 and over will certainly be disfranchised. There has been a great movement, of population. For instance, people working in munition
factories in towns of less than 9,000 have moved, and will be disfranchised unless some provision is made. I do not see any reason why the tied ballot should not cover cases of that kind. In the rural districts, a great many tenant farmers change in the spring of the year. A man might move just across the line from one constituency into another, and if no provision is made for it, he will have no redress and cannot tender his vote. The towns and cities of 9,000 and over have always had a great advantage over the rural districts in that respect, because they have registration, and their lists are right up to date when the election comes on.
In view of the length of time that has elapsed since the lists were made _ up in Ontario and the great changes that have taken place because of people working in munition factories and other places, I think it is important that an effort should be made to meet this situation.


Arthur Meighen: My only duty now is to make fully understood the proposals that are made by my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) and my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). If their suggestions are carried out it means the making of new lists by enumerators for Ontario outside of the cities commencing right at the very beginning. It means that in any event. It is true, the old lists might be used as a basis, but they would be new lists and the enumerators would have to decide who should go on and who should not, subject to the revision by a judge. Of course, these hon. gentlemen may have had in their minds that you could have a revision first in the counties, the same as in the cities, but you could not because there are not enough judges to have the work done in time to have an election by next March. It is different in the country districts from what it is in the cities. The territory to be covered is too great to enable the people to get there; yon could not do it. The only way to do is to make new lists comnaencing at the beginning and then depending on the tied ballot for a revision afterwards. I am not afraid of the tied ballot. I hope it will not be abused, but still I do not want to resort to It any more than is necessary. The plan of the Bill was worked out and it was realized that in Ontario we would have to put up with the fact 'that there were some people who would be disfranchised. But if we passed no Act at all *that would be the effect of the present legislation. That is the only list there is,

'that is the list in force land we have to abide by it. Of course, it is not impossible to throw away the lists in Ontario, and, commencing at the bottom, make new lists just as we provide in this Act and just as the Ontario Act provides.


George Perry Graham: It is much more lengthy.


Arthur Meighen: Much more lengthy, and it has its disadvantages as well as its advantages. I readily admit that there are going to be quite a number who will be unfortunate enough to lose their votes, and there will be some who will be fortunate enough to get votes who should not get them. But is it worth while to make such a great change?


Donald Sutherland: I would not suggest tbiat you should do away with the old list 'and make new ones, but I had hoped that there would be some possibility of taking care of the voters who -are shifted around. I think it would be >a mistake to do away with the old lists. It would -be much more satisfactory to use the lists as already compiled.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: No very great hardship or injustice would be done to the farming community because the changes are very few. The injustice is going to be done in the towns of less than 9,000 inhabitants. If some provision could be made by which a revision would take place in towns of 2,000 to 9,000 inhabitants it would obviate a very great injustice. In those towns some provision might be made for a revision of the lists before a judge.


Mr. GLASS:: The matter that the hon.
member for South Oxford and the hon, member for Haldimand have referred to seems to me can to some extent be remedied. In Ontario, domicile and residence is essential to the privilege of voting. ' If an elector moves around from one township to another the oath requires him to swear that he is domiciled within the district at the time the vote is taken. Surely we accept the principle that where a man has a vote he must not be deprived of that vote. Why cannot a provision he inserted in the Bill that if a man who is qualified to vote except for domicile moves from one part to another he may go back to the place of his former domicile and vote? There is in this Act, and there has been in the Ontario Act, a discrimination against the country districts, although I do not think there is any very grievous feeling about it. There is provision enabling those living in cities

and towns to apply to a judge to have the names of those who have been omitted and those who have become eligible since the last revision put on the list. There is an anomaly in connection with this Bill to which I would direct the attention of the Secretary of State. There are a number of young men-and this condition more generally prevails in the country districts- who were under 21 years of age when the 1916 lists were revised and who have become of age or will become of age between the time that the last lists were revised and the time when it will be necessary to make the new enumeration. It is an unreasonable and unnecessary anomaly to say that the .sisters, mothers .and female relatives of soldiers who. have become of age shall have votes, whereas the younger brothers, who have been, held at home on the farm to enable the older ones possibly to go to the front, are deprived cf their votes. Provision might he made to include the names of such young men as may be of legal age at the time the enumeration is being made. I think it would appeal to every hon. member of this House that, if we extend that recognition to the female relatives, we might fairly extend it to the younger brothers who have come of age since the 1916 voters' lists were revised.


George Perry Graham: These sam.e points have been argued for a great many years in the legislature of Ontario. No lists can be made under which some person will not be deprived of a vote who under ordinary conditions. would vote. There have been difficulties from time immemorial arising with regard to a man moving from one constituency to another. Provision was made for cheesemakers and clergymen who had moved from one constituency to another.
As to registration in towns of 2,000, I do not know what the situation is now. When I was in the legislature of the province, members objected to registration being extended to the smaller towns on account of the great expense. A man who has not lived in a town or city where there is registration does not understand that he might just as well run an election as a registration. It reminds me of an anecdote told by an ex-Provincial Secretary, of a gentleman whom he approached one day for a subscription to another candidate who was running. This gentleman represented a constituency which only required a candidate to get the convention and his election was assured. When he asked for a little financial aid for a candidate this gentle-

man inquired, " But, has he had hie convention?" and the reply was: ''He is not going to have -a convention; he is a candidate." Then this gentleman said: "What does he need the money for, if he is not going to have a convention?" Hon. gentlemen who are asking for registration may not find it so convenient when they have the registration. I would just about as soon have an election as a registration. One of the difficulties is that the lists are left at loose ends in large towns, and men pay no -attention and make no effort to get on the list until the time -arrives, and then there is a great -struggle to get on the list. Is this not the situation to-day? If there had been no legislation passed in the province of Ontario, and the law stood as it has been for many years, and we were holding an election, now or within two or three months from now, would we not use identically the same lists that would be -used under this Act, except for the new conditions? So that the conditions are unchanged. The lists of Ontario have not been finally revised, -and would . not be revised, under the old conditions probably, until December. An election held before December would- have been held on the list of 1916, just as this election will be held. So that the difficulties outlined by hon. gentlemen are the difficulties which would have -arisen had the law not been changed in Ontario, no matter when you have the election.


Samuel Francis Glass: In Ontario, where elections have been held when the lists were not completely revised, the lists were used in the townships in which they had been revised. The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) tells me, not for Dominion elections. I am not talking about that, but I know in certain townships within my cwn riding, where the lists have been revised within 60 days, which is necessary in order that they may be used, the lists of that- current year were used, whereas in the other townships the lists of the previous year we-re used.


George Perry Graham: Not -many of them are revised at the present time.


Samuel Francis Glass: Some of them were revised in the first month.


Arthur Meighen: I desire to refer the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) to sections 151 and 152 of the Dominion Elections Act, which provide for residential voting. They are repealed in this Act, consequently the list stands just 360
as it stood for each polling division in Ontario. Though a man may have moved into another division, he still has his vote in the old division.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Where he is on the list?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: That is not fair. Supposing a man had not been on the list any place, and he moves into another riding, the enumerator has not power to put him on. He has only power to put females on.


Arthur Meighen: That is all.


James Hamilton Ross: I have not been influenced by anything said by the hon. member for Haldimand, or the hon. member who has just spoken. It seems to me that I am absolutely right in regard to the clerk doing the work which the hon. gentlemen proposes that the enumerator shall do, and for many reasons. This Government has made a great many sanctimonious protestations that it wants to be absolutely fair, and not partisan in regard to the soldiers' vote and in regard to this Act, and the minister says he is willing to consider amendments. Let me make a suggestion with regard to these clerks as far as Ontario is concerned. The voters' lists of 1916 are to be used in Ontario. How will they prepare the lists? The assessor prepares his assessment roll, and hands it to the clerk. The clerk copies it off, prepares his voters' list, and passes it on, and that voters' list is revised by the judge. The clerk in each municipality has more thorough knowledge in regard to the lists than any other man in the township. He has gone over the lists of appeals made by the various parties before the judge and court of revision. Every soldier, whether across the seas or at home, appears in that list, and the clerk knows who each soldier is. The consequence is that, if we appoint the clerk of the county instead of the enumerator, he is necessarily seized of the names of the soldiers, and he knows who they are. On account of the prominence of the co-unty clerk, in my part of the country he is absolutely acquainted with the -township, and all the people in it, and he consequently knows who the soldiers and the soldiers' wives and mothers -are. That does away with th-e objection of the hon. m-em-ber for East Bim-coe (Mr. W. H. Bennett). The clerk does not require to go through the township to find out who the women are, because he knows them on his own knowledge, -and the soldiers are already on the list.


Arthur Meighen: If he knew the names of the soldiers, would he know the names of the sisters, mothers and wives?


James Hamilton Ross: To a great extent he would.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is it not a fact that, in
many .municipalities, the clerk has become a very old man?


James Hamilton Ross: In some cases he is. My
ihon. friend is justifying my argument that the clerk is a prominent official, and if he is a very old man, he has been there a long time, and is all the better acquainted with the soldiers and their relatives, so that he does not have to go around the township, as the ihon. member for East Sim-coe suggests. But even if he had to go round the township, he could do it in less time than any one else. Under the provisions of this Act, if any person is left off, there are ten days within which to make application, and they can imake application to the clerk just as well as to the enumerator. One of my hon. friends said the list could be corrected if any mistakes were made by the enumerator. But the list cannot be corrected under this Act, except on a recount. Under section 62 of the Bill, as I read it, there is nothing the deputy returning officer could do that the enumerator could not do. Section 62 of the Act as amended by this Bill will read as follows:
Subject to the provisions of section 65A of this Act, any person whose name is not on the voters' list of a polling division, hut who claims that it should he thereqn, may, at any time during which the poll is open, apply to the enumerator of such polling division.
On what ground can he or she apply to be a voter? Just because she is a relative of a soldier or on the ground that she has been improperly rejected by the clerk as a.n alien? These are simple things. What are they to do? They have simply to make an affidavit under this Act, showing that they are not aliens, or that they are entitled to be on the list as soldiers' relatives. Surely the deputy returning officer can go into that matter, as well as the enumerator.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman think a returning officer has time to take down the names of soldiers, their relatives and antecedents? Has the voting all to stop while he is doing this?


James Hamilton Ross: My hon. friend said a little while ago that there would be few of such men. Each polling subdivision accommodates 300 voters. The fact is that this Government proposes to appoint anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000 enumerators.


Arthur Meighen: There would be just as many under my hon. friend's plan.


James Hamilton Ross: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; there would be no such thing.


Arthur Meighen: There will not be much pay for each one, because his work will be neither long nor heavy. You cannot work this Act unless you have some one to take care of each poll-some one who has made the list for the poll and knows all about it. I do not see why my hon, friend did not raise this point years ago, because the same thing has been done in Alberta and Saskatchewan and his objections would apply as much in that case as in this.


James Hamilton Ross: Does my hon. friend deny
that 15,000 enumerators will be appointed by the Government?


Arthur Meighen: I have not counted the number, but there will be someone to do the work at each poll. There will have to be 15,000 deputy returning officers, and fhere will have to be so many returning officers. The deputy returning officer cannot undertake the revision of the lists on the day of polling. In some polls he might, but not in a poll designed to accommodate 300 voters.


James Hamilton Ross: I am not asking that the deputy returning officer make up the list. My hon. friend does not appreciate my point. The clerk makes up the list and is most familiar with it. The only thing the deputy returning officer does is this:	if
a man comes on polling day and says he should be on the list but was struck off by the clerk, the deputy returning officer examines his qualifications. I am asking that my hon. friend add to the duty of the deputy returning officer that, of deciding, the comparatively few cases that will arise whether a man was wrongfully on the list or was wrongfully eliminated from the list. I ask him further to apply a non-partisan system to the choice of those who shall make up the list in Ontario, rather than an utterly partisan system which lends colour to the suspicion that the Government does not wish to be fair in the administration of this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that the language of my hon. friend is rather extravagant. I call his attention to section 42 of the Dominion Elections Act, which in part is as follows:
In the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Governor in Council may appoint

enumerators to make lists of the electors in the electoral district.
That has been the law of this country so far as these provinces are concerned for twelve years. My hon. friend has only now come to the conclusion that a system of that kind is intensely partisan. Why did this not dawn on him during all these years? Why has he' suddenly awakened to the conclusion that it is an iniquitous thing that the Governor in Council should appoint enumerators? The suggestions that have been made on both sides of the House will be taken into attentive consideration; we will proceed with the Bill to-morrow. But there are other sections of the Bill which have not yet been touched and upon which I should like to offer some explanation. I move, therefore, that further consideration of section 1 be postponed in order that we may proceed to the consideration of section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 2-Part III to operate as amended:
Robert Laird Borden: In accordance with suggestions made from the other side of the House, Part II of the Dominion Elections Act, with the amendments proposed, is to be printed, in order that it may be placed in the hands of hon. gentlemen to-morrow afternoon with a view to a clearer understanding of the Act. Part III is' very long; we should not have time to have it printed by to-morrow. But in any case that is not necessary, because the changes are very few. The changes in Part III are embodied in section 2 of this Act; I will state them now, so that a complete record will be in the hands of hon. gentlemen tomorrow afternoon as to what the Act will be with the amendments proposed to be effected by the Bill now under consideration.
Section 2 provides that in the first place section 143 of the Dominion Elections Act shall be struck out and the section provided here shall be substituted. Section 143 of the Dominion Elections Act is as follows:
143. Where there is a voters' list, each elector shall, subject to the provisions of the next following section, except,-
(a) in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory ; and,
(to) in case of non-resident electors provided for in Part I, of this Act; be entitled to vote at the polling station of the polling division or one of the polling divisions upon the list of voters for which his name is entered as such voter, and at no other.
2. In the province of Prince Edward Island, subject to the provisions relating to officers 360|
and agents employed at an election, every electot qualified to vote in the electoral district in which he resides shall vote in such district in the electoral division, or, in ease such electoral division is subdivided, in the polling division thereof in which he resides, and not elsewhere; and every elector qualified to vote in. an electoral district in which he does not reside shall vote in the polling division thereof in which is situate the property on which he claims to vote, and not elsewhere.
As will be observed, that is struck out and the following substituted as section 143:
143. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each elector shall be entitled to vote at the polling station of the polling division, or of one of the polling divisions, upon the list of voters for which his name is entered as an elector, and at no other.
The next change is in section 136. Section 136 as it 'stands at present in the Dominion Elections Act is as follows:
13 6. The poll shall be opened at the hour of nine of the clock in the forenoon and kept open until five of the clock in the afternoon of the same day; and each deputy returning officer shall, during that time, in the polling station assigned to him, receive, in the manner hereinafter prescribed, the votes of the electors duly qualified to vote at such polling stations.
It is proposed by this Bill to amend that so that it will read as follows:
136.	Except in the cities of Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Regina, St. John, Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria and Winnipeg, wherein the poll shall be opened at the hour of six of the clock in the forenoon, and kept open until five of the clock in the afternoon of the same day; and each deputy returning officer shall, during that time, in the polling station assigned to him, receive, in the manner hereinafter prescribed, the votes of the electors duly qualified to vote at such polling station.
The next section that is touched is section 137, which reads:
137.	In addition to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, the candidates and their agents, not exceeding two in number for each candidate in each polling station, and, in the absence of agents, two electors to represent each candidate on the request of such electors, and no others, shall be permitted to remain in the room where the votes are given during the time the poll remains open.
The section as proposed to be amended will read as follows:	.
137. In addition to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, the enumerator, the candidates and their agents, not exceeding two in number for each candidate in ea'ch polling station, and, in the absence of agents, two electors to represent each candidate on the request of such electors, and no others, shall be permitted to remain in the room where the votes are given during the time the poll remains open.
The next is section 144, which says:
144. Except in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory, the

returning officer, on the request of any elector entitled to vote at one of the polling stations, who is appointed deputy returning officer or poll clerk, or who is named the agent of any of the candidates for a polling station other than the one where he is entitled to vote, shall give to such elector a certificate that such deputy returning officer, poll clerk or agent is entitled to vote at such election at the polling station where such elector is stationed during the polling day, and, on the production of such certificate, such deputy returning officer, poll clerk or agent shall have the right to vote at the polling station where he is placed during the polling day, instead of at the polling station where he would otherwise have been entitled to vote : Provided that no such certificate shall entitle any such elector to vote at suon polling station unless he has been actually engaged as such deputy returning officer, poll clerk or agent during the day of polling and that no more than two agents of any candidate shall have the right to vote at any one polling place under such certificate.
Section 144 as amended by this Bill will read:
144. The returning officer of any electoral district In the province of Ontario which contains in whole or in part any city or town to which Part II of the Ontario Franchise Act, 1917, applies, on the request of any elector entitled to vote at one of the polling stations, who is appointed deputy returning officer or poll clerk, or who Is named the agent of any ot the candidates for a polling station other than the one where he is entitled to vote, shall give to such electors a certificate that such deputy returning officer, poll clerk or agent is entitled to vote at such election at the polling station where such elector is stationed during the polling day, and, on the production of such certificate, such deputy returning officer, poll clerk or agent shall have the right to vote at the polling station where he Is placed during the polling day, instead of at the polling station where he would otherwise have been entitled to vote. Provided that no such certificate shall entitle any such elector to vote at such polling station unless he has been actually engaged as such deputy returning officer, poll clerk or agent, during the day of polling and that no more than two agents of any candidate shall have the right to vote at any one polling place under such certificate.
The further amendments effected hy this section are to strike out the the whole of sections 149, 150A, 151, 152, 152A and 247. It is hardly necessary that I should read all those sections because they are before hon. gentlemen in the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, and a supply of copies ot that Act has been placed on the Table available for their use. I think the rest of the section does not require any particular explanation because it is all embodied on the face of the Bill.


James Hamilton Ross: I understood the Solicitor
General to say that, on account of the repeal of section 151 of the Act, if a voter left a riding in which he was on the list

and went to another riding, he could come back to vote.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: That is not in the Dominion Elections Act. That applies only to a voter who moves to another electoral district in the same city or incorporated town. In that case he could go back to the former electoral district to vote, but if he removed from one riding to another, he could not go back to his own riding.


Arthur Meighen: This Bill provides, by section 2, which has just been read by the Prime Minister, that any elector may vote wherever his name is. That is 'the new section 143:
Except as otherwise provided In this Act, each elector shall be entitled to vote at the polling station of the polling division, or of one of the polling divisions, upon the list of voters for which his name is entered as an elector, and at no other.
The only place where thetfe is any exception at all is in section 151, or section 152. As those two iare repealed, a man can vote wherever his name is.
Mr. 'CARVELL: I was very sorry to see that, although it does seem to follow very largely the provisions of the section as it stood before. In my province there has for some time been a provision that' if a man moves from one electoral district to another he applies to the secretary treasurer of the district or county in which he resided, who gives him a certificate. That is taken to the secretary treasurer of the new district, and a certificate is granted to the man by which he can vote where he lives. In New Brunswick the question of residence plays a very important part. A person can vote only in the county in which he resides. What I am afraid of in this legislation is that you will break up all that idea. If a man's name is added to the list we shall say in St. John, he may have removed to Restigouehe, two or three hundred miles away, and that would mean he would have to go back to St. John to vote. I am afraid that will be the way in which the matter will work out if this section is permitted to go through. While it is true, under the provincial law-and we are taking the provincial law as the basis of this list-they would have the right 'to change that man's name from the county in which he formerly lived to the one to which he removed and make it a part of the voters' list. I am somewhat doubtful, if this is put through as it is, if they would have

.any right to make a new list, or if the provincial authorities would Rave a right to make an addition to the existing lists.


Arthur Meighen: I think they would not have.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can assure my hon.
friend that it ie going to make a lot of trouble with us. It is going to break up that for which we have been working for a long time, and which has given a great deal of satisfaction. There is another thing. I do not know what the Prime Minister means; he is not getting ready to apply closure to-night, I hope.


Arthur Meighen: We have all day tomorrow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If we are going to have the gag applied in that way I suppo.se we might as well face it, but I would like to discuss this measure, as there are many things about it I do not understand. I have not been offering any factious opposition, nor do I think anybody else has, but if the Government is simply getting ready for closure, we are in a minority, and we might just as well simply throw up our hands and say all right.


Robert Laird Borden: We want full and reasonable discussion of this Bill, of course, but I would point out that a whole day was wasted on Saturday that might have been devoted to this Bill, and for no other purpose, so far as we can understand, than to obstruct the discussion of this measure. It began at three in the afternoon and lasted until ten at night.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not here. I was not responsible for it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not blaming my hon. friend for it. I know he is not responsible.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know that any one is responsible. I cannot understand the Government taking the ground that a Bill of this revolutionary character, which violates every principle of the British fair play which we have bragged about in this country ever since I was a boy, is going to be railroaded through Parliament. I cannot understand the Prime Minister characterizing as obstruction what is simply a reasonable amount of discussion. The Government have a majority and we are compelled to submit, but it does seem pretty hard for a man like myself who has not obstructed the Government-I have not spoken two hours altogether on
all the contentious Bills that the Government have introduced this session -to be denied the right not merely of offering criticism, but of getting information, simply because my right hon. friend thinks that two or three members may have discussed something that he regards as not pertinent. That is the situation. However, as we are not gagged at the present time, I suppose I shall be allowed to ask a question or two. I think I know enough about movements to see that closure is coming, and I want to avail myself of this present grace to see if I cannot get a little bit of information before the axe falls.
1 am amazed at the Prime Minister of Canada, I simply cannot get around it, Mr. Chairman. If it was some other member on the opposite side of the House I should not have been surprised, but that a man born and bred in the Maritime Provinces., who knows what justice is, that a man of his education and training, should try to force a measure of this kind through in one day -it simply amazes me. I see that paragraph (g) on page 12, says:
A person shall be deemed to have been born in an enemy country, within the meaning of this paragraph, if he was born in a country which forms part of the territory of any country with which His Majesty is at war; Provided that a person claiming to vote who was a natural born citizen or subject of France, Italy, or Denmark, and who arrived in Canada before the date upon which the territory in which he was born became .part of Germany or Austria (as the case may be) shall not be deemed to have been bom in an enemy country if he produces to the deputy returning officer an unrevoked certificate in the form W|13 in the schedule. Such certificate may be issued by the enumerator.
What an awful injustice will be done to certain people in my constituency if this is allowed to go through. I suppose the clause has been framed to meet some condition in the West. It is about as bad as that other clause empowering the deputy teturn-ing officer to declare a man an alien enemy if he does not like his manner.


Arthur Meighen: This is taken word for word from the Australian legislation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That does not make it any better. If a vicious piece of legislation has been passed in Australia, we are not compelled to pass it here.


Arthur Meighen: It covers the case of those who have come from Alsace-Lorraine and Schlesweig-Holstein.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend had better get out of his mind that there is any deadly purpose in this. The people

who came to this country from Alsace-Lorraine before it became German territory, would be within the meaning of this paragraph.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I imagine this clause
w.as put in to meet conditions in the West, where there is some body of people the Government want to disfranchise, I presume.


Robert Laird Borden: This is an enfranchising clause, is it not?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, a disfranchising
clause.


Arthur Meighen: It is enfranchising.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I can read the English language. It says:
Provided that a person claiming to vote who was a natural born citizen or subject of France, Italy, or Denmark, and who arrived in Canada before the date upon which the territory in which he was born became part of Germany or Austria (as the case may be) shall not be deemed to have been born in an enemy country.
That is, if he arrived in Canada before the territory was conquered he is not an enemy, but if he arrived in Canada afterwards he is an enemy; he is a German. In the county of Victoria there is a large colony of Danes who came from Schles-weig-Holstein after the war of 1864. I cannot say just how many there are, but I am told there are a great many of them. They left that country because they would not live under German rule. As soon as Alsace-Lorraine was ceded to Germany, or shortly afterwards these people emigrated to New Brunswick. They form one of the most thriving and intelligent communities that I have ever been in, and I know of no place in my constituency-it was formerly in the constituency of my hon. friend from Victoria and Madawaska, but is now in my constituency-that it is a greater pleasure to visit. Many of these people were not naturalized for years and years; in fact, it is only within recent years that many of them have become naturalized.


Arthur Meighen: When did they come to this country?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Late in the sixties, or very early in the seventies. Many of them did not become naturalized until recently,
, and I know that some of them have never been naturalized, although they have always been voters. These men who came to this country because they would not live under German rule, who have lived here practically all their lives and raised fami-

lies here, who are intelligent people in every way, are to be disfranchised.


Robert Laird Borden: What would
you suggest?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Cut it out entirely.


Robert Laird Borden: Cut what out?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not see why on earth you want to disfranchise a man who has left a conquered country. Take the man who came from Alsace-Lorraine after 1871, is there any reason why they should be disfranchised if they came here afterwards and within fifteen years became naturalized British subjects? Surely they would not be charged with having German sympathies. I cannot understand what in the world the Government means. It brings me back to my assumption that there must be some body of men in the West they want to get after, and therefore they insert this clause. I would feel that a most serious injustice was being done to these people in my constituency, who are among the very first citizens in New Brunswick, if, by passing this legislation they Were disfranchised. The Prime Minister should give us at least a reasonable chance to go over these things and discuss them. Of course, if we cannot have that chance, we cannot have it, but I think it is carrying the thing to such a ridiculous extreme that it will at least appeal to the Prime Minister as absurd.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it was carried to an extreme when the whole of Saturday was wasted. That is my opinion, notwithstanding any vieiw to the contrary that may be ^entertained on the other side of the House. I think that is where the absurdity began in the first instance. We have no desire to avoid reasonable discussion of this Bill. We would like to have the third reading not later than Friday next, and I think the third reading should take place then, because the time available for this Parliament to deal with this or any other measure is drawing to a close. After the Bill has been disposed of in this House, it will have to be dealt with in another House, and there may be considerable delay there. I am perfectly willing to give to-morrow and the day after for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, and to sit as late on either of .those evenings as hon. gentlemen on the other side may desire, provided that we have an understanding that the vote will be taken on Friday night or Saturday morning at any time hon. gentlemen may select.


Frank Oliver: I took part in the discussion on Saturday, and I have no apology to make to the Prime Minister or to this House


Robert Laird Borden: I am not asking for any.


Frank Oliver: -for having taken
part in a discussion of such importance to the Dominion of Canada-not as important, I wifi admit, as an attempt to disfranchise tens of thousands of citizens, but still a matter of very deep and far-reaching importance. I wish to add a word to what my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) has said in regard to the effect of paragraph (g) of this section. Since I came to the House this evening I received a telegram in the following terms: Winnipeg, Sept. 10, 1917. Hon. Frank Oliver, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-The Bohemian (Czech) National Alliance in Canada strongly objects that Bohemians who are loyal Canadian citizens should he deprived of the franchise by the War-Time Elections Act. The Bohemians in Canada are heart and soul in favour of the Allies, and are anxious that Bohemia, their native country, should, be enabled to throw off the hated yoke of Austria. Bohemians have joined in large numbers the different Canadian battalions, and one company composed entirely of Bohemians was organized and went overseas with the 223rd Battalion from Portage la Prairie. Bohemians are fighting in large numbers in all the armies of the Allies. We would appeal to you to see that Canadian Bohemians are honoured for. their loyalty to Canada, and not deprived of their franchise by the Act. Similar request has been wired to Right Hon. Sir R. Borden on the 5th of September.
We are, Sir,
Tour obedient servants,
August Fibiger, President. Frank Dojacek, Secretary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Following the lines suggested by the'hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), I would say it would be most unjust to put this Bill through by the application of the closure. The Bill should at least have been prepared in a decent way. There can be no defence whatever for putting a Bill drafted in. this way before Parliament. Surely the Prime Minister and his friends can hardly expect members of the House to grasp the purport of such a Bill quickly and easily. What is proposed to be done for us to-mortow, should have been done in the first instance. If hon. gentlemen will look at what is clause (g) of 33b on page 2, they will find two amendments in one clause, and the amended portions are so inserted that they are only recognizable because there are quotation
marks at the beginning and end of the amendments. I never saw or heard of a Bill *presented to Parliament in that form. There may be nothing difficult to understand about the Bill if one had an opportunity of going through it thoroughly and carefully, but this, of course, would take some time. I think the Bill should be allowed to stand until to-morrow, when we can have at least a portion of it in the form m which it should have been presented to the House at first. We have not yet discussed the greater portion of section 1, which covers ten pages. One clause of a Bill covering ten pages is confusing to most mamlbeiH of the House. I think we could make very substantial progress tomorrow if Part II is printed in the manner intimated by the Prime Minister. We must also remember that the officer designated as enumerator is an unknown quantity in the Maritime Provinces, and also in Quebec.


George Perry Graham: And in the older districts of Ontario.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill was not even explained to ns in a very complete way before being taken up by the committee. In introducing it, the Secretary of State simply discussed two or three of the main principles involved, that is, the disfranchising clauses, and the enfranchising clauses.


Arthur Meighen: And the list-making
clauses.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Very little else. I would have expected that on the second reading he would explain the purport of many of the sections, as is customary. He explained the principle of the Bill on the first reading, but said nothing whatever about it on the second reading. The Bill was prepared in a way that would confuse one, and on that ground alone I trust the Government will consider the matter of postponing further consideration of it until to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: What do you say
about Friday night?


George Perry Graham: I think at the present juncture it is hardly fair to ask us to say that the Bill must have a third reading on Friday night. So far as I have heard, there is no desire to retard it, and if the Government is under the impression that such a desire exists, they have a wrong notion. I do not know how they got it into their minds, but they seem to me as if they were to have a head-on collision.


Robert Laird Borden: We thought we had a pretty good object lesson on Saturday.


George Perry Graham: No one knows better than the Prime Minister that the question discussed on Saturday is one of the most vital questions affecting the people of Canada at the present time. Not pretending to know more than any one else in this House, I feel that the hon. members do not understand in detail the significance of Saturday's discussion, but perhaps they will later on. I do not think Saturday was wasted. I think the future will show that Saturday's discussion was a very important one. After all, it took up only a part of Saturday and this Bill was proceeded with on Saturday night.


Arthur Meighen: How about those divisions on points of order?


George Perry Graham: I was not here for those divisions. The Prime Minister thought that there was time wasted on Saturday. I say it was not wasted, and I ask hon. gentlemen to postpone their judgment for a few weeks and then come to a conclusion as to whether it was wasted or not. In a House that has been in session for month after month is it reasonable that the Government should object to one day extra for the discussion of a Bill of this magnitude? Outside of not .more than twelve men in this House, noit one understands 'this Bill, and I am not Including myself in the number. I have read the Bill and I have had something to do with the preparation of voters' lists for the last thirty years. I am going away beyond the limit in putting the number at twelve. If closure had never been conceived in the mind of the Secretary of State we would never have dreamed of rushing this Bill through in .this time. If closure be applied to-morrow hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House cannot make the suggestions which they want to make and we cannot make suggestions from this side. When you have made your speech you must sit down. A free and easy discussion, back and forth, in which a question can be asked and answered and information, which we all need, elicited is much better If notice be given to-night that the motion will be made to-morrow that is excluded and this Bill will go through the House without members understanding it. I do not think that is reasonable. This Bill has been introduced, the Government admits it was not introduced in proper form, and it is going to
lMr. Graham.]
make a rearrangement to meet the suggestions which have been made. If this Bill had been brought in with explanations as to the changes proposed we would have been in a different position. The lawyers might know by looking at it by chapter and paragraph what it all means, but there is not a man, outside of the dozen I have named, who knows what the chapters referred to in this Bill mean. There is no desire as far as I know to retard this Bill or to prolong -the session. Under these circumstances, I submit, the Government ought to accept the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Carleton and let us go on with this Bill to-morrow, when we shall be in a position to discuss it more intelligently. If there are signs of obstruction tomorrow I will have no objection to the Government giving notice that they intend to apply closure, any more than I always have to applying closure because I believe it is an unfair way of doing 12 m. business. But we do not know on either side of the House many of the details of what we are discussing, and I would ask the Prime Minister to accept the suggestion I make.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty about it is that if we do not have the vote on the third reading on Friday we cannot very well have it until the following Tuesday.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why not Saturday?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not Monday?


Robert Laird Borden: I am told that hon. members on both sides of the House do not want the vote, on Saturday or Monday. They :say it is very inconvenient to have t'he vote on either of those days.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What harm would it be? There are still three weeks before Parliament is dissolved. Does the Prime Minister think that the Senate is going to hold this Bill up for three weeks?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what the Senate is going to do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot understand
this unseemly haste. There seems to be some reason in the mind of the Government for it, but there has never been any indication of an intention to obstruct the passage of this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Hon. members
on both sides are agreed that the session ought to come to a conclusion,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is true.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the opinion on tooth sides of the House. I am most anxious to give every opportunity for the reasonable discussion of the Bill, but we do not want to stay here any longer than is absolutely necessary for the purpose of affording that opportunity. I have had a good deal of regard foT the intimations given to me by hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House to hurry up the business of the session and let us get away. I had that in view when I made the proposal to hon. gentlemen. We have had two days in committee on this Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, one day.


Robert Laird Borden: One on the second reading and one in committee.


George Perry Graham: That is not very much for a Bill of this kind.


Robert Laird Borden: We have had two days on the Bill. When I proposed that we should have two days more in committee and one day for the third reading I thought it was a reasonable proposal, especially as I accompanied it with the statement that we would sit as late on those evenings as hon. gentlemen might desire, but no later.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the right hon. gentleman will allow it to go as it is and then, if there is any sign of obstruction, and I personally have on intention to obstruct-


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend
will see that if we should be driven to the expedient of a closure we could not apply it on Saturday night unless we sat until two o'clock on Sunday morning, which would be undesirable, and probably we would not be able to take the vote until Tuesday next. We know that hon. gentlemen are desirous of bringing the session to a conclusion, if possible, not later than the end of next week. I think that in this I am expressing the views of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. If we were to have any reasonable assurance that this could be accomplished I am sure I would not have .any objection, tout I understand that my hon. friends on the other side cannot presume to speak for the other House. I do not expect them to, but perhaps they might give their impression.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot speak for the
other House and I do not intend to try. I am only speaking for myself. I am not obstructing the Bill at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not claim that any hon. friend is obstructing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I feel pretty seriously
over this matter and pretty bitterly too.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend's criticism has been reasonable.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Government delay
a measure of this importance until Parliament has been in session fo.r seven months and then they coime down and say:	We
must get through here next week. It means as much to me as to any other man in this House.


Robert Laird Borden: Would there be any objection to having the third reading on Saturday?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As far as I am concerned, I have no objection but I cannot bind anybody else.


Jacques Bureau: I listened to the hon.
member for Garleton (Mr. Carvell), and I understand that if closure is applied and if you put a question you have to sit down and cannot go any further. The first part of the Act as to enumerators is absolutely new in the province of Quebec.
I have been watching my chance to ask the Secretary of State what qualification this enumerator would require to possess, whether he would require to be resident of the particular polling subdivision, or the particular municipality wherein the alien resided. There is a lot of information which we have not got. We know nothing about the work of these enumerators, and I think it would be unfair if we did not have a chance to ask questions and get the information. We would like to have it, because we want to he prepared to meet this enumerator when he is appointed.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would the Secretary of State answer the question asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau)? It is a matter which interests the province?


Arthur Meighen: There is no examination or educational test, hut the returning officer selects him as a man capable and available. I think the difficulty will be to get men available, but they will have to be got.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will it be the returning officer who makes the selection?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is the way4it is done.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The Bill does not say that. It says that the Governor in Council-
66%


Arthur Meighen: Yes, if the Governor in Council does not appoint them, the returning officer makes the appointment. That is exactly the provision in the old Act, and that is the way they have been appointed in the province for years. It was always left to the returning officer, because in practice, nobody else could do it. We leave the Act as it stands.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no possibility of that here, because section 42 says:
Subject to the provisions of 65A of this Act, the Governor in Council may appoint enumerators in each province to make lists of the electors in each electoral district, and the returning officer of each electoral district shall assign one of such enumerators to each polling district therein.
So that the Governor in Council must make the appointment, and once these men are appointed the returning officer has the right to assign them to their respective places.


Arthur Meighen: But the next subsection says that if the Governor in Council does not appoint, the returning officer makes the appointment.


Jacques Bureau: Whether the returning officer appoints them, or the Governor in Council appoints them, makes no difference. The Act says the enumerator shall be taken from the particular municipality where he is to act. There is nothing in the Bill which I have seen which provides for that.


Arthur Meighen: The, hon. gentleman, I understand, suggests that they should be from the same municipality.


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I should think that would be inevitable. They would have to he in the neighbourhood, or they could not do the work.


Jacques Bureau: It is very easy to say this man should be a resident of the municipality where he is called to act as enumerator. There is nothing to prevent the returning officer or the Governor in Council from appointing a man in another place.


Arthur Meighen: No>
but the returning officer would not do it, because the man could not do the work. The Act has always been in that form.


Jacques Bureau: We never had any enumerators in Quebec. We know .nothing about the working of that branch of the Act. We have clerks and secretary-treasurers and municipal councillors, and

secretaries of the school board. These men would know every man, woman and child, and would know where they lived. They have been there for years. The objection made by the Secretary of State to the appointment of such men was the fact that they would have too large a territory to cover.


Arthur Meighen: They could not be in two or three places at once. They have to be at the polling place on election day, and they have to take care of each individual poll. That is the reason we cannot appoint a clerk of the township to take care of the township.


Jacques Bureau: There are few municipalities that I know of in Quebec where they have more than two clerks; they seldom have three. This enumerator could take care of two polls. There is a great deal of information we desire to obtain from the Solicitor General, and many suggestions we wish to make, to guard against any appointment being made that would not assist in the working out of the Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it the intention of the Bill to disfranchise persons whose place of origin was Switzerland?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would those who are residing in Canada, who are naturalized not [DOT] be disqualified because the mother tongue of more than one third of them is German?


Arthur Meighen: If the mother tongue was German, and they came to Canada and were naturalized in the last 15 years, they would be disqualified in this election, and if the hon. member knew all the facts I do not think he would consider that was any variation of the principle of the Bill, nor any injustice.


Frank Oliver: I might give an instance which would have some bearing on the case. Mr. A. S. Rosenroll, a native of Switzerland, was M.L.A. for the district of Wetas-kiwin for several terms in the local legislature. When the war broke out, his eldest son voluntered in the Princess Pats. He was disabled for life, and then his second son volunteered, and I am afraid he has -m?t a similar fate.


Arthur Meighen: He would be entitled to vote on three grounds.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I understand.


Arthur Meighen: Firstly because he has been a member of the legislature; second-

ly, because the first son volunteered, and thirdly, because the second son volunteered.


Frank Oliver: Why should the people of Switzerland be considered pro-German when, in this particular instance, the evidence we have is that they certainly were very anti-German?


Arthur Meighen: There are certainly instances where they are pro-Ally.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would the Secretary of State tell us what would be the evidence required by the enumerator to prove relationship in the case of the female relatives of soldiers? We are not accustomed to enumerators in Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: It would be anythin?, that convinces the enumerator that the woman applying is of the relationship provided in the Act. Her word will be sufficient, if he has no reason to disbelieve it. But if it is not sufficient, or if the enumerator accepts evidence that it is insufficient, then there is the right of review before a judge as provided by the Act. and the judge will then accept such evidence as he would accept in an ordinary action in court.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Before six o'clock the member for Carleton raised a point in connection with section 33A, page 1 of the Bill, regarding the enfranchisement of the wives, mothers, sisters and daughters of those engaged in the naval forces of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: The naval forces of Canada are defined in chapter 43 of the Naval Service Act, section 2, as follows:
"Naval forces"' means those naval forces organized for the defence and protection of the Canadian coasts and trade or engaged as the Governor in Council may from time to time direct.
I have consulted the Minister of the Naval Service, and he states that any persons who are attending college would not be included in the naval forces of Canada. Those cadets from 16 to 18 years of age and older who are on the boats actually engaged in patrol work would be included- there are about 200 of them, I think. Only those actually engaged in training in connection with this war would be included.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mine-sweeping is carried on only in Halifax and Sydney harbours. It is, not a dangerous occupation, and can hardly be regarded as being within the naval service. I doubt very much whether there is any necessity for that work at all.


Robert Laird Borden: My horn, friend had better not say that unless he is prepared to put his opinion above that of the Admiralty.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That may be the opinion of the Admiralty. They are 'making preparation for the establishing of quite a patrol service in the Maritime Provinces. For the past several weeks, even months, forty or fifty men have been living in a hotel in Halifax. They have no boats; I do not know what work they can be doing. Of course, one cannot get very far in offering opposition to a suggestion of the British Admiralty, but in my judgment there is absolutely no work otn our coasts for these patrol boats. If the suggestion has been made by the British Admiralty, the Government of Canada should 'suggest to them that the work is purposeless.


Arthur Meighen: Before going further, I want to move some amendments which are not substantial; I think they are chiefly misprints. They amend the Bill as follows:
By striking out the words and letters "and (h)" from paragraph (d) of section 2 of the Bill and inserting instead "(h) and
<i)."
By striking out the figure 3 which appears in the Bill as denominating section 3 thereof and inserting instead of said figure the figures and letters 67B, and constituting said section 3 as paragraph (f) of section 2, by inserting immediately preceding said figures and letter the following: "(if) by adding .as section 67B immediately following section 67A, the following:"
By enclosing within brackets the figure 4, which denominates section 6 of the Bill and constituting said section 4 as subse-tioin (4) of section 67B of the Bill.
These amendments do not affect the purpose of the Act in any way; they simply make the arrangement of the sections more symmetrical and correct some misprints.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will female relatives of soldiers living in unorganized territory in the province of Quebec have the right to vote, and where will they vote?


Arthur Meighen: They will vote in the polling division in which they reside-at the place where they would vote if they were enfranchised under 'the provincial laws of Quebec.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like to have something more definite about the enfranchisement of the female relatives of

those engaged in the Naval Service of Canada. I do not see any reason why they should be enfranchised. I do not believe that they will appreciate it. Many female relatives of the men engaged in the Naval Service will be laughed at by their neighbours if they exercise the right of franchise under this Bill. Is the mine-sweeping in Halifax harbour now carried on by tug boats or small steamers chartered from private individuals? I do not think that the crews of those boats are within the naval service; yet they are engaged in mine-sweeping and the Secretary of State says that their wives and sisters and other female relatives will have the right to exercise the franchise.


Robert Laird Borden: As to the first part of my hon. friend's observations, consideration will be given to them. As to the second part of his remarks, I think that he is mistaken. The mine-sweeping is done by boats chartered by the Department of Naval Service and the men engaged on those boats are in the service of that department. I move


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that
this Bill was to be reprinted?


Robert Laird Borden: At the suggestion of hon. gentlemen on the other side we are printing Part II of the Dominion Elections Act as it will stand after the amendments affected by this Bill have been adopted. This is being done in order that hon. gentlemen may have before them a clear view of what Part II of the Dominion Elections Act will be with these amendments. This course is not usually taken, but I thought that the request was a reasonable one; having regard to the way in which this Bill is framed. I move that


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Before the Prime Minister moves that fatal motion, I should like to point out to him that the suggestion was made to-day that the Bill be reprinted.


Robert Laird Borden: We are not reprinting the Bill. We are printing as I have already explained more than once, Part II of the Dominion Elections Act as it will stand after the amendments effected by this Act shall have been adopted.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have been in my seat since three o'clock. I have not asked many questions, but as a result of this legislation a good deal of new law will apply to the province of Quebec. I direct the ah tention of the Prime Minister to the fact that up to the present moment there has been no Bill before the committee. We

have been considering amendments to an Act that has already been passed, amendments to a law already in existence. What we are considering is not a Bill proper; it will be a Bill when the law is reprinted containing the amendments. It is really impossible to say that we are considering a Bill until we have the Bill before us.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend and I hold the same view although we express it differently. If we have not a Bill before the committee, I do not know what we have been engaged in considering all day to-day or what we were engaged in considering yesterday.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: \Ve have words before us, not a Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I move:
That the further consideration of this section be postponed in order that we may proceed to section 3.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 3-Questions to naturalized aliens:
Robert Laird Borden: Are there any observations with regard to this what we ought to take into consideration before we come back to-tmorrow? I do not think it is a very important section.


Mr. PARDEE:: I did not know that the Prime Minister was going to move that we proceed to another section. Why does the Secretary of State go hack to the nonresident vote? That has been done away with long since. What is the object of nonresident voting being brought into vogue again?


Arthur Meighen: The non-resident vote is done away with p.rovincially, I presume because the man who moves from one place to another can get on the list in the other place. Now that he cannot get on anywhere else because we maintain the lists as they are, and the enumerator has not power to put him on, we prefer to give him the right to vote where he formerly resided than that he should have no vote at all.


Edmond Proulx: Suppose an elector leaves my county and comes to the city of Ottawa to reside, there will be registration in the city of Ottawa and he will be put in the list here.


Arthur Meighen: He can get on the list where he resides, but he can vote only in one place, although he may have his choice.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As a matter of fact if he moves out of a district after a certain time, he would not have a vote at all because he would not get into the city in time to have his name placed on the list.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Prime Minister asked if we had any suggestions to make as to section 3. I cannot understand this section, although I suppose there may be some explanation for it. I cannot .understand why you should disfranchise a man who is a naturalized British subject, who was bom in an Allied country but whose mother tongue was that of -an enemy country. There must be a body of people of that class, because otherwise the Government would not have inserted this .section. Every one of these sections means something; they are put in this Bill for a purpose. Will the minister please explain why he proposed to disfranchise people who speak the German or Austrian language, but who are not Germans or Austrians by birth and who are British subjects by naturalization? I presume there may be Russians of that class who might speak the Austrian language.


Robert Laird Borden: German or
Austrian.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be more likely Austrian than German, because we know that in southwestern Russia, Russians and Austrians intermingle and are practically the same race. Why is it that if a man is Russiian-born but speaks the Austrian language, and still is a British subject, he should not have the right to vote?


Arthur Meighen: There are a number of the very class described by my hon. friend, and the fact of the matter is that in their sympathies, in all their feelings in relation to this war, they are distinguishable from the German or Austrian-born. I presume in most cases they have very recently come from Germany and Austria. Moreover, in some cases they have developed a hatred of Russia.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am speaking about the man who came from Russia, the man who was bom in Russia.


Arthur Meighen: He may have developed a hatred of that country. You may look up his naturalization certificate and see where he was bom, but beyond that there is no distinction in sympathy whatever between those foreign people, provided they speak the enemy language, whether [DOT]they are born in Austria or across the border. I do not know how many of them there are.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is putting a tremendous power into the hands of a returning officer. It is about as vicious a feature as I have seen in this transaction.


Arthur Meighen: If a man claims that he is wrongfully disfranchised, all he has to do is to vote and have his case tried.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend knows
how valueless that is to any man. If he gets his vote tied up in that way, he might as well throw it into the river.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is on a par with the rest of the Bill. The Government are disfranchising Austrians, Germans, British subjects; they are disfranchising women, in fact, it seems to me that they are disfranchising any one who they think will vote Liberal.


George Ewan McCraney: Near the town of
Rosthern in Saskatchewan there is a settlement of Russians from a community formed by them in province of Saratov, which is in the Ural mountains away from the German border altogether. Their ancestors went there over a hundred years ago. They speak both Russian and German, but German is the language of the community. So far as I am aware, their sympathies are not with the Germans in this war, but under the provisions of this Bill as it is drawn, those people will be disfranchised.


Arthur Meighen: If their mother tongue is Russian, they will not be disfranchised.


George Ewan McCraney: But the language which is used in their homes, their mother tongue, is German. They belong to the Lutheran church, and their associations rather are German.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there not in Canada a number of Belgians who speak German?


Arthur Meighen: I have never heard of any.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is the language of about one-third of the Belgians.


Arthur Meighen: Some of them speak Blemish, but not German.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are a great number employed in the coal mines of Neva Scotia, and I know some of them speak German. It would not do to give the power to a returning officer to distinguisn

between the German and the Flemish language. It is quite probable that some Belgians might be disfranchised by this Bill, and that would hardly be fair.


Arthur Meighen: I never heard of a Belgian speaking German, but many of them speak Flemish. If a Belgian speaks German-
Mr. A. IC. MACLEAN: He is gone.


Arthur Meighen: -I would not like to presume he would be done an injustice by this Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Some of the enumerators might think if a man was talking Yorkshire, he was talking German. Might I suggest before closure goes on, that in subsection 48 you increase the ten days a little, say to fifteen days?


Arthur Meighen: We shall try to do that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And in 65A I would suggest you increase the three days to five days.


Arthur Meighen: We shall try to do that if we can.


James Hamilton Ross: Will the Secretary of State consider the question of the voting of nonresidents? Under the provincial law as it exists in Ontario to-day, non-residents will net be entitled to vote, and there are always some men who are deprived of a vote and who were deprived of the vote under the old law. It may be an injustice to some, but not to a great many. At the same time, however, if the law is to be as this Bill provides, it is going to re-introduce this question of bringing back non-residents to vote throughout Ontario, a thing we have been rid of for the last fifteen years, and not a desirable thing at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I move that further consideration of section 3 be postponed and that the committee proceed to section 4.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 4-Names of disqualified persons not to be put on lists:
George Perry Graham: There is a provision in the Bill which deals with men who have not responded to the call for military service. What provision is made for the enumerator striking these men off the list if they are already on? Has he to take the whole responsibility? What proof will be required, and where will he get his proof?


Arthur Meighen: We do not make-the enumerator the judge. There has to be a conviction before a conrt of competent jurisdiction.


George Perry Graham: That is not shown in the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: It says, "any man convicted."


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This section does not
apply to Italians?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


George Perry Graham: In the riding I represent there is quite a large number of Poles, and I have been trying to discover jnst how the Bill will affect these men. Some of them may have owed allegiance to Germany, and some to Russia.


Arthur Meighen: Poles as a rule speak the Polish language. Consequently, they are not affected by the Bill at all, unless they were born in Germany or Austria. If they were born in that part of Poland that at one time formed part of Germany or Austria, they come under the provisions of this Bill no matter what language they speak, but if born in Russia, they speak Polish and do not come under the Bill at all.


George Perry Graham: I think they all speak the Polish language.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do the citizens of Norway and Sweden speak the same language?


Arthur Meighen: A great number of them speak the Norwegian language and the Swedish, language, and some of them, I think, speak the German language.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It might be worth while considering another clause to this Bill in the event of Sweden becoming an enemy of the Allied powers. A great number of Norwegians might be disfranchised in this country, and I hardly think the Government would like to disfranchise the Norwegians. I should like to ask what prompted the Government to provide for the opening of the polls in the cities of Canada at six o'clock in the morning. So far as Halifax is concerned, I do not think it will be of any practical value, and I do not think the citizens will care for it. I do not think it is desirable, but I aim not objecting to it if other cities in Canada desire it. I 'thank, however, it would be much better to keep the polls in the cities open .an hour

later in the evening. It is very inconvenient opening the polls at six o'clock in the morning, particularly if we are to have [DOT]a winter election.


Arthur Meighen: Representations have
been made, chiefly on the part of the railway and labour men. Indeed, we have been asked to try and provide for the railway and commercial traveller vote outside of the county, but the expense and the difficulties in the way of an extra-constituency vote make it impracticable. We are therefore endeavouring to meet the case by opening the polls at six o'clock. This will enable nearly all the railway men and most of the travellers, especially if the election should be on a Monday, to put in their ballots. The labouring population, which, of course, is of much greater consequence, because there are a larger number of them, would also be able to get their votes in before seven o'clock without losing any time.


Robert Laird Borden: I move that further consideration of this section be postponed and that the committee proceed to section 5.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 5-Interpretation:
Arthur Meighen: I move to amend this section by striking out the figure 5 and substituting the figure 3. This is just a rearrangement of the clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How is the enumerator to receive evidence of the qualifications of those to be enfranchised? Can an application be made on behalf of other persons?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I move that further consideration of this (section be postponed, and that the committee proceed to the schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the Schedule:
Jacques Bureau: This afternoon I asked the Secretary of State about "complete mobilization." He said the clause would stand and that he would look into the matter and give us a definition of it. I understand the Chairman is trying to have the clause carried.


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Who signs the form W4? Is it the enumerator?


Robert Laird Borden: The candidate or his agent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What I really had in mind a moment ago was section 4. In effect it means that the enumerator is the judge as to whether or not a man who has lost his certificate of naturalization is a British subject. I think that should be left to some higher tribunal.


Arthur Meighen: It is the simplest thing in the world. A man's certificate is proof of his naturalization. It is just a piece of paper that he keeps in his house. If there should be an error it is subject to review as any other error.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is easy if he can produce his certificate; but supposing he can not?
'Mr. McCRANEY: My experience is that there must be thousands of certificates of naturalization on file with the Department of the Interior. When a homesteader applies for a patent he gives in his certificate with the application. Sometimes it comes back and sometimes it does not. I have written over and over again and had certificates taken off the files of the department and returned to the homesteader. I am sure there are many of them who do not know where their certificates are, while they are safely on file with the Department of the Interior.


Arthur Meighen: Of course they will know now that the certificates are of value to them, and they will have ample time to get them.	*


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As I understand it, the certificate must be produced.


Arthur Meighen: That is the proof to the enumerator, but if they will swear they are naturalized they can vote, then they can establish their naturalization even if the certificate is lost.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On recount proceedings.


George Perry Graham: I would like to call the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that if closure is put on to-night and the motion made to-morrow, h will not be allowed to make any amendment except one; he will have made his speech then.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what the arrangement is, but I want to remind the hon. gentleman who is leading the Opposition that all the clauses can be considered now and the notice given. I do not think

the notice need apply to any particular day, as long as it is given at a previous sitting. I think a day might intervene under the closure rules.


George Perry Graham: If the notice were given to-night and the motion were made to-morrow, then closure would apply automatically after the motion was made, if it be made. If notice be given to-night and if the motion is made to-morrow, the Secretary of State could move one amendment, and then he would be through. He would have made his speech in the twenty minutes, and could not move any further amendments.


Robert Laird Borden: Some one else could do it.


Arthur Meighen: The closure simply says that a member can speak not more than once on any one clause, and for not longer than twenty minutes.


George Perry Graham: That is if the closure is on one clause; but if the closure includes all the clauses, as the conduct of the Government to-night would seem to indicate to be their intention, then the Secretary of State would be through in twenty minutes. If he can speak twenty minutes on every clause, every other member of 'the House can also speak twenty minutes on every clause.


Arthur Meighen: I think so.


George Perry Graham: But if the closure covers all the sections, as I think is intended to be done judging by the manoeuvres of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State would be confined to twenty minutes on all the clauses.


Arthur Meighen: My understanding is, although I do not say I am perfectly sure I am right, that any member can speak twenty minutes on any clause, and speak twenty minutes on any other clause.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: May we discuss the Bill to-morrow much after the manner we have been discussing it to-day? Could you not postpone the motion after giving notice to-night?


Arthur Meighen: I think so. Notice may be given to-night, and perhaps we may come to an arrangement.


George Perry Graham: I would not suggest either that the Government put it on or that they do not. They are at liberty to do whatever they like. When the Bill was before us the other day we were allowed 20 minutes each and then we were through. That covered all the clauses. I suppose that will be the

case to-morrow, and I would suggest that the Solicitor General should distribute whatever amendments he has among the members of the Government.


John Allister Currie: The Secretary of State can speak on each clause, but where the axe catches hon. gentlemen on the other side is that the debate must close at two o'clock in the morning.


Robert Laird Borden: If all the clauses should be considered, any hon. member may speak 20 minutes on each clause. I move that further consideration of the schedule he postponed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: I beg to give
notice that at a future sitting of the House, or the Committee, I will move that the further consideration of sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the schedule, and the title, be not further postponed, and shall be the first business of the Committee. I give this notice in the hope -that we may make arrangements to-morrow morning by which it will not be necessary to make the motion. As I have already explained to the House, vie are all anxious to get through with the session, ana I do not think any one is more anxious than I am. I am in hopes, from a conversation with the hon. member from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), and with the Chief Whip of the Opposition (Mr. Pardee) that we can make an arrangement to-morrow morning which will render it unnecessary for me to propose the motion of which I have just now given notice.


Louis Audet Lapointe: On the basis of the proposition just made by the Prime Minister, I hope there will be no arrangement with tire Government come to, especially in view of the fact that even though the Bill has not yet been put in our hands notice of closure as been given by the Prime Minister
Progress reported.
On 'motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wednesday, September 12, 1917.