1917-08-21

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: I desire to inform the House

that the Minister of Public Works has resigned, and that his resignation has been accepted. The correspondence which has taken place is under my hand, and His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to give'me his permission to communicate it to the House. I shall accordingly read it:
Ottawa, August, 15, 1917. My dear feir Robert,-
Never during the six years that I have endeavoured to faithfully and loyally serve you as leader of our party do I know of any part of my efforts that have ever been kept secret from you. In that same spirit of loyalty and devotion let me say a plain word, and it is this that, in my opinion, as a party we are face to face with very serious difficulties, difficulties, to my mind, that have largely been created by our kindness to our opponents. The question with me is, "What are we doing about it?" Our opponents are strong:, active and hopeful. They do not hesitate in adopting: the most sordid methods imaginable. They have been covering the country for months past with literature of the most damnable character. They have a strong press, through which they are promoting a most cowardly malevolent campaign. I am often made the target for many of their attacks-attacks which they are unable to support with any substance. However, with them it is not a question of substance, of truth, or of common decency. They simply follow their instructions to attack any one that they regard as a menace to their success.
And what are we doing? Nothing that I know of except going on treating the promoters of this slanderous campaign as gentlemen. Surely it is plain that there is only one end to all this. Hard and difficult as it is for me to do so, let me say that if our present inaction and indecision are to continue, may I with feelings of the greatest possible respect and with feelings of the very deepest regret, ask that at your convenience I be relieved from sharing the responsibility for the results that will be sure to follow continued inaction and indecision.
Never in my long experience have I witnessed more clearly than I do to-day the opportunity that rests with us for great good. We have only to remember that we are in a war in which Canada's all is at stake. If we do not win, then the plans for Canada's future development will not be made in our own, capital city of Ottawa, but in the capital city of some foreign country. There is no use deluding ourselves upon this point, for a great, fat, tempting prize like Canada would never be allowed to escape were she to go undefended by the full power of a victorious British Empire. Canada's hope for the fulfilment of her full share in this great struggle largely rests with the party that you represent. Therefore, our responsibilities are great. We must be equal to them, and above all we must be equal to our obligations to our gal'ant soldiers. Under the banner of loyalty, decision and action, we can accomplish these high purposes We cannot afford to delay. We should waste no time tarrying and disputing with opponents whose apparent purpose to-day is to prolong Parliament until the end of its term. In

the hope that if they succeed in this they will he able to add a new chapter to their slanderous campaign by attempting to make it appear to the country that we are hopelessly helpless.	'
When Sir Wilfrid Laurier two months ago refused your most generous proposal for coalition, surely, then there was only one course left, and that was to proceed determinedly and fSarlessly with our task. X can, of course, well realize that you delayed in honest, hopeful expectation that some strong action for union would be taken at the Winnipeg convention. True, you have not had the opportunity to know and understand the method, and the designs of those in western Canada who stood up in that convention in support of Laurierism. Under normal conditions, in times of peace, it is always inadvisable and dangerous to have either truck or trade with your enemies when you know them to he such. It is a million - times more dangerous at this solemn moment when the fate of our country is hanging in the balance.
The Canadian people understand that at the outbreak of the war, and every day since the Government have had forced upon them conditions the like of which no Government in Canada had ever before been called upon to meet. Loyal Canadians everywhere realize this, and I am confident they appreciate to the full the many difficulties the Government have had to contend with, and above all they know and understand the sordid means being employed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as the leader of our domestic and foreign enemies to defeat our honest efforts to faithfully fulfil, in Cam ada's name, a full and worthy part in this great war. Therefore, to my mind, our course is plain. It is this:	"Carry on" without delay and with resolute determination to assist to the fullest extent of Canada's power in preserving the unity of the Empire and the future destinies of our own country.
As for myself, let me say whatever the outcome may be, X will in the future as in the past ever remain loyal and devoted to my country and to my friends, prepared at all times to respond whenever and wherever duty calls.
Yours sincerely,
(Sd.)	r:. Rogers.
Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
To that I made the following reply:
Ottawa, August 17th, 1917. My dear Mr. Rogers,-
I have given attentive consideration to the views expressed in your letter of the 15th inst. which reached me last evening.
You do not specifically define the lack of action of which you complain, hut you do in general terms declare that there has been during the past three months continued inaction and indecision and that you desire to be relieved from responsibility therefor, or for its continuance. I am unable to accept your conclusion nor am I aware of the slightest foundation for the view which you have thus expressed.
As to inaction let me call the following considerations to your attention: Since my return to Ottawa in the-middle of May numerous questions of the very highest national importance
have been taken up and dealt with. I realize that you have not taken so active a part in their consideration as some other members of the Government, but I know you appreciate the immense difficulties and complexities by which many of them have been surrounded, and the vast amount of labour which has been involved in their determination. To refresh your memory let me enumerate some of these matters.
1.	Compulsory Military Service. All my colleagues know the enormous amount of time and labour bestowed upon this question and in the preparation of the measure in which it is embodied. That measure was introduced by me on the 11th June and has passed the House of Commons and the Senate, and it now stands for the consideration of some minor amendments made in the Senate. Its importance in providing needed reinforcements for our gallant men in the trenches cannot be over estimated.
2.	The imposition of a Tax upon Incomes above a certain amount. This subject required the most attentive study in the consideration of its scope and details. After much deliberation the measure was perfected, passed through its various stages in the House of Commons, and. now stands for Third Reading.
3.	Extension of the Parliamentary Term. While this subject did not involve long del)a^ the course of the Government had to be most carefully considered; and you will agree that in importance it does not rank below any of the great questions which have been determined by the Government during the present session.
4.	Railway Legislation. Only those who have been called upon to face the problems with which the Government have been confronted can realize the difficulties and complexities which had to be met in dealing with this question. It has demanded and received the most earnest and unremitting study and attention ever since my return. After long deliberation the policy of the Government has been formulated in the Bill which has recently received its Second Reading in the House of Commons and which as I believe embodies a policy greatly in the interest of the country. This subject alone would under ordinary circumstances have been regarded as sufficient to engage the attention of a government during an entire session.
5.	Military Voters Bill. It is apparent that under the conditions which have developed during the past two years and having regard to the greatly increased Canadian forces in France and in Great Britain the Act of 1915 has become wholly unworkable It is most essential that all the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force shall have every possible opportunity of exercising their franchises. The holding of an election in Canada alone necessitates the comprehensive provisions embodied in the Dominion Elections Act to insure full opportunity for voting and every reasonable safeguard to prevent fraud. But under present conditions we must hold an election not only in Canada but in Great Britain, France and other countries as well. The holding of such an election abroad requires equally comprehensive provisions to cover not only the ordinary arrangements for an election in Canada but the very different and highly complex conditions presented in extending the franchise to an army of 300,000 men in the midst of military operations. I am sure that you realize the magnitude of the task thus presented to the Government in order to insure full opportunity and at the same time adequate safeguards. This we have en-

deavoured to accomplish in the measure now before Parliament.
6.	The Government also gave close attention to arrangements for assisting the settlement of returned soldiers upon the land and suitable provision for that purpose was made in the Soldiers Settlement Bill which has passed both the House of Commons and the Senate.
7.	Conduct of the War. In addition to this vast programme which has been carried out since the middle of May the Government has had to consider and deal with many problems arising out of war conditions. As you know, questions of the first importance are presented for our consideration almost daily. During the period mentioned we have established a Board of Grain Commissioners to regulate the price of grain and to provide for the greatest possible exportable surplus. We have appointed a Food Controller and conferred upon him extraordinary powers of regulation. We have appointed a Fuel Controller and given him power essential for the provision of fuel at a reasonable price. We have dealt with a difficult labour situation in Western Canada through the appointment of a Director of Coal Operations whose efforts have been attended with notable advantage to the public interest. Besides all this the administrative activities of various departments for war purposes have been incessant. Large purchases of food and supplies for the British and Allied Governments have been made, the funds necessary to pay for these purchases and for enormous supplies of munitions have been provided for the British Government and our part in the war has been thoroughly sustained m the midst of a very active session.
Under these circumstances your suggestion that there has been inaction on the part of the Government seems entirely unwarranted. So far as I am concerned I cannot recall any period of my life when I was more actively and intensely occupied or when I gave my time and energies more abundantly and unreservedly to the duties that lay before me.
I do indeed1 admit (and perhaps your charge relates to this) that during that period I have not occupied myself in party controversy or resorted to partisan attack. That has been my course since the outbreak of war and I propose to maintain it. I have defended the administration from attack when I thought such defence necessary and I shall pursue that course in the future.
It is perfectly true that the official Liberal Press Bureau has been disseminating throughout the country in vast quantities for many months, campaign literature of a most unworthy and offensive character. I have sufficient confidence in the good sense of my fellow countrymen to believe that such gas attacks will not prevent victory for the right when the time comes.
You express the apprehension that the Government will encounter obstructive tactics in the House of Commons. While I do not share that apprehension, I may assure you that any such tactics will be met and firmly dealt with.
You charge also indecision. My duty never lay clearer before me than I have seen it since my return in May last and not for one moment have I swerved from the purpose which I then reached. I arrived at the conviction that a union of both political parties was necessary in order that Canada might obtain the united effort of all those earnest in their desire to throw our full national force into the war. On the 25th May I proposed to Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
that a coalition should be formed in which both political parties should be equally represented outside the Prime Minister. Negotiation went on for about two weeks but eventually he declined my proposal for the reason that he was opposed to compulsory military service. I then determined that I should ask those Liberals who supported compulsory military service to unite in the formation of a government in which they would be fairly and equally represented. It was and is my purpose to include in such a government special representation of agricultural and labour interests. In seeking to form such a government I naturally placed my proposals before those Liberals who are in active public life and who must thus be regarded as leaders or representatives of their party. Negotiations with them have since continued but have not yet been concluded. I regret that my efforts for the formation of a government based upon a union of all elements prepared to carry on this war to a successful conclusion have not hitherto met with the success which I think they deserved. I am possessed, however, of considerable patience and persistence and I have not discontinued my effort. If Liberals in active public life to whom naturally one must first resort are not prepared to play the part which I think they should play in forming such a government it will be my duty to invite prominent Liberals not in active public life to join with me in consummating the national purpose which I have in mind. Thus I see my duty before me. I cannot agree that it is a time when the fortunes of the country should be entrusted solely to the determination of one political party. I hold on the contrary that at this juncture when the destiny of our Dominion and the whole Empire hangs in the balance I should, notwithstanding every discouragement, persistently seek to bring about a union of all men of good will in both political parties who are animated by the patriotic desire and determination of throwing Canada's full force into the winning of this war.
It is apparent from the terms of your letter that your views as to what has been accomplished and what remains to be accomplished, as to what conditions have demanded in the past and as to what they shall require in the future, are extremely divergent from those which I entertain. I greatly regret this; but under the circumstances I cannot urge you to reconsider your decision and I shall submit immediately to His Excellency the Governor General your desire to be relieved from your responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown.
Let me assure you in conclusion that I appreciate most deeply and sincerely the loyal service which you have given as one of my Colleagues during the past six years.
Your faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. L. Borden.
Hon. Robert Rogers,
Ottawa.
To this, I to-day received the following reply, dated August 18:
Ottawa, August 18, 1917.
My dear Sir Robert.
I have yours of yesterday's date and regret that it still seems impossible for you to see and realize the force of my reference to inaction and indecision. With every possible respect let me say that in my humble judgment, to me this is very plain.

You recount various Important measures that have recently engaged the attention of the Government. In my letter of the fifteenth I was clear, and I was equally clear In our conversation of yesterday, in pointing out that it is, of course, accepted everywhere, that since the outbreak of war the Government have had forced upon them conditions the like of which no Government in Canada has ever before been called upon to meet.
I am indeed truly sorry to note your rather implied insinuation regarding political controversy. I think that on reflection you will admit that this was undeserved, or perhaps it is that you may have misunderstood me. It is quite true that I have always observed and always will observe respectful loyalty to my party, the party to which I will ever plead guilty to being devoted. When our opponents violated that now famous so-called truce and carried on, as they are carrying on to-day, their slanderous campaign, I believed then, as I believe now, that it wag our duty to have taken steps in the interest of our party to counteract the effects of such campaign.
I entirely share your regret that your efforts for coalition during the past three months have been so unsuccessful. You well know that you had my earnest co-operation and support when making your proposals to Sir .Wilfrid Laurier as official leader of thb Opposition. You also had my support in your efforts to effect union with other leading Liberals in the House of Commons, for I quite appreciate that such a strong union under the present circumstances would have been most desirable. Of course, as you say, you still have a chance of a union from outside. I fear that at this period of our crisis that any such union that leaves the official Opposition intact is not likely to inspire much confidence.
Under these circumstances, I of course cannot help but deplore your admission that the fortunes of our country should no longer be entrusted solely to the party you represent. This admission, I am sure, will be read with feelings of pain by your friends in all parts of Canada.
V can assure you I will welcome the time when His Excellency the Governor General may be pleased to approve of my request to be relieved of my responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown.
Believe me, my dear Sir Robert, I am,
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd) R. Rogers.
The Right Honourable
Sir Robert Borden, G.C.M.G.,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
I have nothing to add to what is disclosed in the correspondence except that I desire to disclaim any intention to cast a reflection upon Mr. Rogers in that portion of the letter to which he alludes in his reply of the 18th August. I was merely stating my own position and I did not intend to cast the slightest reflection upon him.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, the resignation of the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) had been expected, as everybody knows, for some time past. It takes nobody, therefore, by surprise, but it comes under circumstances which had not been anticipated. The expectation had been that it was my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) who would ask for the resignation of the Minister of Public Works, but, it is the Minister of Public Works who tells the Prime Minister that he is not satisfied with his leadership of the party. The whole question resolves itself into one of party tactics; a difference between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Public Works. As to that, of course, neither we on this side of the House nor the country need have any opinion. The matter resolves itself, into not merely a party quarrel but a domestic quarrel, a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and a prominent member of his cabinet as to the manner in which the Prime Minister sought to carry on the business of the country. If the resignation had come on a question of principle, I would have been justified in offering some comments upon it, as it would have been my duty to do, but it being a party and a domestic quarrel altogether, I do not feel warranted in offering any suggestions or observations. I have only this to say that, while I have had differences of opinion with my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden), yet on this, as upon all occasions, it has been my endeavour to discharge the duty with which I am entrusted according to the best light I possess, and to further the effort in which we are all concerned, viz., to participate in the most effective way possible in the high task in which we are now engaged.



PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise
to a question of privilege. On my return to Ottawa yesterday my attention was called to an alleged report of a speech by me which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of August 20, and which is headed:
Declare Laurier will save country.
On page 4, column 6, there is a report purporting to give what was said by me at a meeting at Joliette on Sunday, the 19th August. Among other things, it is stated:
Particular stress was laid upon the crisis which the province of Quebec is facing to-day by Hon. Jacques Bureau, M.P. for Three Rivers.



Here are the words to which I take exception :
He declared emphatically that, without Sir Wilfrid Laurier at its head; the French Canadian race would he extinct in a few years.
I declare emphatically that I never said any. such thing. Mr. Speaker, it never has entered my mind that the French Canadian race would ever be extinct; I am a firm believer in the survival of my race. Further, it is stated in this report in quotation marks, as if it were the ipsissima verba of what I said:
The English are trying to provoke us in order to exterminate us.
I deny emphatically ever having used that language or any other language which would justify or even suggest any such interpretation. Further, this newspaper reports me as saying:	;
They will not be content with killing us; they will violate our wives and daughters; they will treat us as the Germans did the Belgians and the inhabitants of Northern France.
I never uttered those words nor any words that would carry such a meaning. I used no language which could be construed in any such sense. Not only did I not use such language, but I can sincerely say that no such idea was ever in my mind. I characterize this report as malicious and false, and as attempting to convey the impression that I insulted my fellow Canadians of English origin, and tried to stir up strife and disunion. What I did say was absolutely the contrary of what is represented in this report. In every word I uttered, I counselled, insisted, and prayed that the sentiments that should prevail ought to be sentiments of tolerance, of peace, and of moderation. That was the tenor of my remarks when I spoke about conscription, and that was the idea in my mind. I again qualify that report in the Montreal Gazette as being absolutely malicious and false.



COLONEL WILSON.

Sir SAM HUGHES:: Is the Prime Minister, or the Government, aware that Col. Wilson, one of the most distinguished medical officers in the service of the Dominion, has been degraded and sent to France, the only excuse that we can find for it being that he happened to be a member of the Bruce Commission? Has the right hon. gentleman any information in regard to it?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I have not heard of the matter to which my hon. friend al-

ludes. I shall make inquiries in regard to it.



THE MILITARY VOTERS' ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 127, the Military Voters' Act, 1917-Hon. Mr. Doherty-Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 4, subsection ,1, clause (c), special returning officers.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: This clause ought, I
think, to be considered in connection with clause (d). I have grave doubts whether the leader of the Opposition ought to assume the responsibility of taking a part in the appointment of these special returning officers unless he also has the right to take a part in the appointment of the presiding officers. The presiding officers are the important officials; they are the ones who make the appointments as to the time of taking the vote, and, while they are called presiding officers, they are actually taking the same place as the returning officers in the carrying on of an ordinary election. It is to my mind absurd to convey the impression by this Bill that this is to be an election in the carrying on of which both parties are to have an equal voice, and yet, in respect to the most important officers, the men who have most to do with the holding of these elections, have the appointment controlled entirely by the Government of the day. These elections, so far as the soldiers' vote is concerned, are to be held under very extraordinary circumstances. Ordinarily when an election is held under the Dominion Elections Act there are voters' lists, and there are special days appointed for the nomination and the election, of which the entire public has notice. The candidates and their agents have an opportunity of being present. There is every opportunity to see that a fair election is held. In the case of the soldiers, there are to be no lists. 'Certain qualifications are called for under this Bill, but the only qualifications are that the soldiers shall be British subjects. Provision is made that if it is necessary in order to enable the soldier to cast his vote, the presiding officer may take his vote without any notice to the special returning officer or the scrutineers, or without any opportunity being given to exercise any care whatever in the taking of the vote. Therefore I say that, in order to give any appearance of fairness, the presiding officer ought to be chosen by both parties, just as are

the special returning officers. I should like to have the minister allow this to stand' in order that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who, I regret to say, is not very well, may have an opportunity of expressing his view with regatd to this section. I have expressed my own sincere opinion with regard to it. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman would be prepared to accept the responsibility that is thrown upon him in reference to these minor officers, when he is to have no voice in respect of these important officers designated presiding officers under section (d).


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: I agree in the view expressed by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that the retaining in the power of the Government alone, without consultation with the leader of the Opposition, the appointment of the party who is to take the vote, is a most anomalous proceeding. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has intimated the great desire of himself and the Government that everything in connection with this matter should be done with perfect fairness, and yet my hon. friend picks out the one particular official who has to do with the taking of the vote and retains the appointment of that official along partisan lines. Recently the votes of the soldiers of British Columbia were taken by returning officers appointed by the Government of that province on a referendum as to prohibition. Charges were made as to the manner in which these votes were taken by the officials who had power similar to that given under this Bill to the presiding officers.
Mr. TURGE'ON: That vote was taken in England?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In England and in Prance, and these officers had powers of the widest description. My hon. friend here provides for the appointment of presiding officers by subsection (d) of section 4, which says:
(d) A sufficient number of Presiding Officers, who shall be military electors. They shall have and may exercise over designated camps and other places, subject to the provisions of this Part, the like powers, privileges, and functions as returning officers, particularly the power to appoint and direct sufficient Deputy Presiding Officers and Poll Clerks', who also shall be military electors. Deputy Presiding Officers shall have and may exerclce in the camps or other places to which by Presiding Officers they may be assigned, subject to the provisions of this Part, the like powers, privileges and functions as deputy returning officers ;
300i
These are the officers who are to take the vote, and to have the ballots marked. An investigation has just been concluded in England and France by the committee appointed by the British Columbia Legislature, and that committee found that the election was conducted by a partizan returning officer appointed by the late Government in such a way that the whole referendum vote would be set aside on account of the numerous irregularities. My hon. friend takes great credit because he provides that after the marking of the ballot his partizan officer has the right to appoint certain officials to count the ballots. He states that the presiding officer can go around the camp with a bag, but there is no provision that it shall be locked. He gives this gentleman carte blanche to take the votes with or without scrutineers being present. He is not obliged to notify the scrutineers when he is to take the vote of the soldiers-the Act gives him absolute power and control, without anybody to supervise him. With all these possibilities to do various things open to these officers, in the light of what -transpired in the vote on the referendum in British Columbia, the Minister of Justice says: Come and admire us for all our generous and fair provisions in this Bill, because, forsooth, after opportunity is afforded for -all the harm to be done that could be done, we provide that, after the ballots -come -back, the scrutineer can have access to them. My hon. friend, after professing to be iso particularly unctuous, is going to leave this essential part of the Act in its present absolutely weak condition.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: As was stated last night by the minister, it is clearly a difficult matter to draft, in a satisfactory way, a statute to meet -all the unforeseen conditions which may arise in the taking of the military vote. We all realize the difficulty in the mere drafting of such a statute.. Under section 4 we have a multiplicity of officers, -and it is very difficult to understand clearly what the duties of the several officers to b-e appointed under this section will be. I admit that this is a very difficult matter to make clear, arid it would be difficult for any body of men to draft -a statute which would meet everybody's views and demands. I suggest for the consideration of the riainister that, instead of having an -assistant clerk to the Crown in Chancery, a general returning officer, a special returning officer, a presiding officer, deputy pre-

siding officers .and scrutineers, it might be worth while considering the appointment of a non-partisan commission of six or eight, half of whom would be appointed on the nomination of the leader of the Opposition, and the other half by the Prime Minister, granting to this commission all the powers which the Bill proposes to give to the several officers mentioned in section 4. A great many questions may arise during the taking of the military vote, in Europe and Great Britain particularly, which one cannot foresee, and, therefore, cannot provide for in the statute. It seems to me that if- a Commission of six or eight, which was non-partisan in character, were given general powers sufficiently wide to meet all the exigencies which might arise overseas, possibly that would be the best method of taking this vote. I submit the suggestion to the committee and to the minister for consideration. Such commission, in which the House and the electors of the country generally would have confidence, would be better machinery for the taking of the vote than the appointment of the officers designated in the Bill.


Mr. DOHERTY:: In reference to the observation of the hon. gentleman from St. John and the hon. gentleman from Pictou, I only wish to say that they seem to me to be wasting their time in demolishing the foundation for claims which I do not recollect having put forward. I may say at once that I have neither the ambition nor the anticipation of receiving their admiration. I am not particularly concerned with what people may think about my purposes with regard to this Bill, but I .am very much concerned in getting as effective a Bill as can be got to attain the purpose in view. I do not think I am making a profession of any superior virtue, or being particularly unctuous, when I say I desire to work out the measure on as fair a principle as it can be worked out on, but while I desire to do that, I am not prepared to accept the .suggestion that, with regard to this election, and to the law that should govern the election, this Government should abdicate the functions that belong to it, and which have belonged to the governments of Canada so long as there has been an election law. We must be responsible for this law. We are, because we happen to be the Government of the country, carrying all the responsibility with regard to all those matters which, under the general election law, have been in the hands of

the government of the day as long as we have had an election law. -
The suggestion is now made that we should hand this responsibility over to, or, at all events, share it on a footing of equality with the gentlemen who happen to be leading the Opposition. That comes pretty near to asking me to admit that this Government is unworthy of confidence; that I should alter the whole law of the country so as to take away from the Government all the ordinary functions that belong to it, and hand them over either to a combination to be formed of representatives of the Opposition and representatives of the Government, or, according to the suggestion of the member for Halifax, to a commission. At first glance, the latter suggestion appears to be not as absolutely objectionable as the first idea which evidently underlies the complaint of the two other gentlemen. Both these hon. members have pointed out that this presiding offiorr is precisely what the returning officer is in this country. Under our election law the appointment of the returning officer is made by the Governor in Council. Why should we depart from that in regard to the man who is to perform similar functions over there? The member for Pictou seems to have a very special objection to the man who is actually to take the vote; he looks upon him as specially untrustworthy because he is going to use a bag instead of a tin box. Do hon. members realize that he is not going to be appointed directly by the Government? This Government is going to appoint the presiding officer-that is to say, the man who will hold a position equivalent to that of returning officer in this country-.and that presiding officer, who, it is stipulated, shall be a military officer, will appoint the deputy presiding officer.
Mr. MURPHY; He is to be a military officer?
Mr. GRAHAM; A military elector?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He shall be a military elector. Under the letter of the law, he may be a private soldier.


Mr. GRAHAM:: But he will not be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: to stand over, and I have no objection to doing that, because I do not want to preclude any observations the right hon. leader of the Opposition may think it proper to make. I think I am correct in saying that subsection (e) is simply reproduced from the existing Soldiers' Voting Act, dealing with the provision for scrutineers.


Mr. NESBITT:: I quite agree wditih the minister that the presiding officers and returning officers have always been appointed by the Government in power, but he must bear in mind that no provision is made here for scrutineers to be present.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The presiding officer does not go into the booth at all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He goes around and takes the vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He appoints deputy presiding officers to take the vote.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Just as the returning officer appoints deputy returning officers. But the minister must bear in mind that under the Elections Act each party has a scrutineer in every polling booth, and I am unable to find any similar provision here.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Subsection (e) of section 4 provides for the appointment of scrutineers, and confers upon them all the powers that scrutineers have on this side. Then subsection 3 of section 8 provides that:
Where conditions make it reasonably possible, the deputy presiding officer shall give public notice of the time and place of an intended poll, and, in cases of polls to be held without Canada, a special notice to any person whose appointment as a scrutineer or deputy scrutineer has been communicated to him, with, the request that he so notify.
So we have been at pains to provide for scrutineers wherever it is at all po-ssible.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If -the minister will read subsection 5-


Charles Joseph Doherty: That provides for the exceptional case.


William Pugsley: That is where the sting is.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the two subsections are going to stand I have nothing more to say at present.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman's remarks would, perhaps, be more pertinent under subsection (e).


William Pugsley: Are not the subsections so interlocked that we should consider them all together? We are conferring upon the
tMr. Doherty.J
deputy presiding officers extraordinary powers, which you do not find in the Dominion Elections Act, and which would enable the deputy presiding officers to succeed in having a large number of ballots put into the box or bag and counted, when the other party would have no opportunity of being present or having a voice in the matter at all. If the minister will pardon me for the suggestion, I would think that if these clauses stand the whole section should stand, because subsection 2 and paragraph (e) are so closely connected, with the subsection we are now discussing. I think it would be of great advantage to allow this section to stand and proceed with section .5.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In subsection (e) we are simply reproducing the provision with regard to scrutineers that exists in the present Soldiers' Voting Act, which was passed after a good deal of conference and discussion, and which I understand met the requirements as far as the appointment of scrutineers is concerned. I should like to pass those subsections that do not call for criticism, if there is anything in this Bill that does not call for criticism, and subsection (e), as I have said, is simply a reproduction of the provision in the present Soldiers' Voting Act. It is to enable each party to be represented, and the scrutineers are appointed by the Government only to this extent: six scrutineers are appointed by the Government, three on tjie nomination of the Opposition, and three on the nomination of the Government. Those six have unlimited power to appoint deputy scrutineers, who will have all the powers of scrutineers on this side. This provision has nothing to do with the administration of the Act itself. It is simply providing machinery to enable the respective part:es to appoint all the representatives in the way of scrutineers that they desire, and conferring upon those scrutineers and deputy scrutineers all the powers and priviliges that belong to a scrutineer, or to the agent or representative of a candidate, under the Dominion Elections Act.
On subsection (e)-Scrutineers:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The necessity for taking every possible care to prevent the contravening of this Act, is apparent to any one who looks at what has occurred in previous elections held. I have under my hand a report of the findings of the commission -appointed to inquire into the

overseas prohibition ballot, published in the Vancouver Daily Sun of August 15th, which deals with the methods in which votes were taken on the other side. It is only right the committee should be acquainted with the facts before the question oj scrutineers is settled. In the report I find the following:
The evidence taken at the military records office will be found in the stenographer's report of the fourth day's proceedings of the commission. For convenience* however, we refer to one or two examples of what appeared to be fraudulent voting. The first card selected for examination was that of William Brillat, No. 155063. Brillat is supposed to have voted at Crowborough on the 22nd of December, 1916, whereas the military records show that Brillat deserted on the 16th September, 1915, and had not since been reported.
The second card selected was that of Arthur Bacon, No. 429173. The military record showed No. 429173 to belong to Albert Alfred Bacon. In the one case the residence of A. A. Bacon is given as Vancouver, and that of Arthur Bacon at Victoria. Captain Sellon produced the military record of Albert Alfred Bacon, No.. 429173, which showed that this man went to France on February 3rd, 1916.
Another card selected for examination was that of Alfred John Knight. It appears that four votes had been cast in this man's name, and in each case the number is given as 707244. The records show Alfred John Knight, No. 707245, 103rd Battalion, and Mr. Helmore's cards prepared from the poll books show that he was a resident of Victoria on three of the occasions when he was supposed to have voted and on the fourth occasion a resident of Vancouver. In each case the votes were cast at Epsom convalescent hospital, three times under the name of Lonergan as presiding officer, and once under the name of H. A. Douglas as presiding officer. The correct number of Alfred John Knight was 707245, the only other A. J. Knight on the records was No. 80, and he belonged to the C.A.M.C.
Another example of a fraudulent vote was found in the case of Oscar Edward Hawes, No. 487388, he was returned as having voted at Crowborough on December 22nd, 1916, the records show that Ortho Ewart Hawes, No. 487388, was killed in action on October 8th, 1916
Another case of illegal voting was that of a man who voted as Walter Lyness and William Lyness respectively, and in the one case the number is given as 183060, and in the other case no number is given. In one instance the residence is given as Vancouver, and the other as Alberni. He is supposed to have voted at Hastings on December 15th, 1916, and at Crowborough on December 21, 1916. The records show only one man of the name of Lyness, and his number is 183060, but his name is Wilbert Lyness, belonging to the 7th Battalion, who was reported missing on October 12, 1916.
Out of the total number of 132 parcels of votes, the following in England were taken without any notice to the scrutineers acting for the prohibition party and were therefore not sealed by the prohibition scrutineers: Parcels No. 25, 26, 27, 31 to 41 inclusive, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 to 60 inclusive, and 82. In
France, the parcels of votes taken without notice to the prohibition scrutineers were as follows: 83 to 89 inclusive, 9-5, .98, 99, 100, 107, 115, 117, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 128 and 131.
According to Mr. Bayley's evidence the voting in France was in charge of Regt-Sergt-Major H. A. Douglas and Sergt. Pyle. Douglas did not, while he was in France, have any proper receptacles to put the ballots in as they were polled by the voters, but he and his deputy returning officers appear to have carried them around with them from place to place and finally deposited them with the Agent General in London-


William Pugsley: That is what this Bill provides for.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -on January 12, 1917, in proper cardboard receptacles. It would further appear that although Bayley requested Douglas to allow him to put his seal on all parcels of votes which he had, he, (Douglas) did not allow him to do so and also that a large number of polls were held in France of which the scrutineers of the prohibition party had no notice, or such short notice that it was impossible for the scrutineers to arrange to be present at the polls either personally or by deputy.
From our own personal experience in visiting military camps in France, we think there was no legitimate reason why such notice of every poll held in France could not have been given as would have enabled the scrutineers for both parties to be present at the taking of every poll. In connection with the taking of the vote in France, between December 14 and December 31, it is worthy of note that, in a letter from general headquarters by the adju-dant-general for the commissioner-in-chief of the British armies in France, dated November 25th, 1916, a statement appears to the effect that at that time the number of men who had not voted was estimated at 2,533. The votes purporting to be taken in France between the dates mentioned, numbered 4,131, according to the report made by Douglas.
A number of witnesses were called before the Commission and examined. The first witness was Pte. Carl Henry, No. 154254, C.A.MT.C. He stated his residence to be Vancouver, and that he had voted twice. He understood one was an election and the other a by election. He was" not positive whether he had voted on prohibition the first time, but was definite as to voting on prohibition the second time at what he believed to be a by election.
The next witness was Pte. Leith Gordon, No. 22058, a Winnipeg man. He testified that while he had signed some papers he had not taken any oath whatever, but that he had marked a ballot. This witness stated that he had been told by someone in the camp that any man who had resided in British Columbia could vote. "When did you reside in British Columbia?"
"I resided there six or seven years ago." Sergt-Major George Parker Cruikshank, No. 54014, testified that he belonged to the 18th Battalion of London, Ontario, and that he had enlisted in Galt, Ont., his place of residence at the time of enlistment, that he had never lived in British Columbia. Cruikshank stated that he had argued the point with his senior as to his voting and was informod "that it does not matter whether you have lived there

or not so long as you have been there." Cruik-shanlc swore that he had just signed an envelope and had not marked any ballot paper.
Sergt. John Beauchamp Daly, No. 432441, gave evidence that his place ot residence was Edmonton, that he had only been in British Columbia on two occasions, once in Vancouver for three days, and once in Fort George for a day or two. This witness stated that he had voted against prohibition. He was asked the question: "How did you know about the poll?" He answered : "I was coming in the gate of Pass and was called into the orderly room just inside the gate. They said: "Have you ever been in British Columbia?' 1 said 'Yes. I was in Fort George once and Vancouver another time.' They said: 'That is all right then. You are entitled to vote". They gave me a form and I voted."
Pte. Creil Everard William Reginald Durden, No. 147890, 78th Battalion, Winnipeg, stated that he signed an envelope, but did not mark a ballot.	[DOT]
Sergt. Lee Bernard Cogan, No. 6316, stated that his residence was Detroit, Mich., and that he had never been in British Columbia and did not vote, though his name appears in Loner-gan's poll book as having voted.
Pte. Edgar Field, 8th Battalion, No. 45, gave his residence as Winnipeg, and stated that he had not actually voted, but that he had signed an envelope on the outside.
Pte. John Gage, 2nd Battalion, Eastern Ontario, No. 401017, stated his place of residence was Detroit, Mich., that he had voted but did not know on what question. He had signed an envelope which had not been read over to him.
Sergt. Cecil A. Hamilton, No. 13106, 5th Battalion, gave his residence as Saskatchewan. He stated that he had voted at the polling at Epsom Camp in the fall of the year. He signed the affidavit form but did not take an oath.
Corp. Frank Taylor Harrop, No. 108274, stated that his residence was 1146 Zuill street, Medicine Hat, Can. He voted at the election but stated that some one marked his ballot for him. Pte. Vivian Potter, Battleford, Sask., stated that he had signed an envelope at the time of the polling at Epsom, but had not voted, nor was he sworn. He had not resided in British Columbia with the exception of six months in the winter of 1909-10.
Sergt. William Henry Bradley, No. 13081, 5th Battalion, stated his residence to be Saskatoon, Canada. He had been in British Columbia from the winter of 1911 until July, 1912, but not since that time. He signed his name to an envelope but did not take an oath.'
Corp. Ralph Percy Biggs, No. 12968, 5th Battalion, stated his residence to be Swift Current, Sask. Some one asked him if hq would vote for a wet province. He signed hia envelope and marked his ballot.	i
Pte. Samuel Egginton Hodgins, No. 464666, Manitoba Hotel, Yates street, Victoria, swore to having voted twice on the prohibition referendum, once in London and once at Epsom. He stated that Sergt.-Major Lonergan, the presiding officer, told him that the first voting was off and he was to vote a second time.
On July 3, 1917, your commission proceeded to Seaford and the following witnesses gave evidence:	Major Pringle-
That is the Dr. Pringle of Yukon fame.
-senior chaplain at Shomham camp said that he notified Sergt. Trim that he had been ap-

pointed scrutineer for the prohibition party and to notify him when the vote was to he taken. Major Pringle asserts that he received no notice and Sergt. Trim admits that he gave none.


Mr. CURRIE:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. What has this to do with this Bill?


An hon. MEMBER:: Everything.


John Allister Currie: We have had obstruction of all kinds, but this is the most flagrant obstruction we have had during the session.
I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether this is in order.


George Perry Graham: This shows how the Bill will work out.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rainville):: 1
understand this is going to be used by the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) as a reason why this law should not be enacted. I understand that the hon. gentleman proposes to use what he reads as an argument against the Bill.


John Allister Currie: He proposes using it to stop the passage of this Bill; to hold it up.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Currie) interrupts me to distract attention from the point. (Reading):
Major Pringle was in a position to act at any poll held by Trim had the latter given him notice.
Corp. William Harrison Welsh, iNo. 703426, '02nd Battalion, said that his residence was Vancouver and that he had voted for the second time on the B. C. prohibition referendum at Epsom during the first week in January, 1917. He stated that the man who took hi*
[DOT] vote at that time was Regt. Sergt.-Major Lonergan. He told Lonergan that he hadi voted before at Bramshott at the end of July ' or the first week in August, 1916. He was informed at Epsom by Lonergan that they were only holding the prohibition by-election. The votes before were not good. They had been ruled out or something.
Asked how he fixed the date of his second, vote as the first week in January, 1917, he replied: "I left Irmstone hospital at Eastbourne on the 30th day of December, and it was not till eight or nine o'clock that night that we got into Epsom convalescent camp; and it was four or five days after that I went out and voted."
On being asked the following question by the chairman:	"Were there many who voted
at the same time you did?", the witness replied :	"There was a big line-up. They voted
there three or four days."
Then this evidence goes on-


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it all.


John Allister Currie: Read the ads. too.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I hope my hon. friend will be instructed by this, although

I have no confidence in my ability o! being able to do that.


John Allister Currie: It is not relevant at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do not worry about that. (Reading):
Private Henry Ashdowne, No. 706108, 103rd Battalion, residence 950 North Park street, Victoria, swore that he had voted twice on the prohibition referendum, once in September at Bramshott and once in December, 1916, at Seaford. At Seaford he Informed the sergeant that he had already voted at Bramshott. The sergeant replied:	"That does not matter, the
voting is being taken over again."
Corp. Harold J. Cowherd, No. 706880, 103rd Battalion, residence Victoria, said he also voted twice, once at Bramshott and once at Seaford in December, 1916. This witness gave as a reason for voting the second time the following:
"It seemed they came around and told us that the vote was cast out, or irregular. We naturally thought it was in order."
Pte. Arthur Leadbetter, No. 706995, 103rd Battalion, 1211 Pembroke street, Victoria, said he voted once at Bramshott, and stated: "When we came down again they said there was something the matter with the election so they called a parade again and we all voted.
Pte. Arthur Page, No. 70T235, Victoria, voted once at Bramshott on the prohibition referendum and voted again at Seaford in December, 1916, on the same question. He was asked the following question:
Q. Would you mind explaining to the commission how you came to vote a second time?
A. We were given to understand that the first vote was no good.
So they go on in detail in regard to this matter.
Sergt. Pyle stated that when taking votes in France in September, 1916, there was always a scrutineer present at the polls he took,
Which shows that there is no reason why a scrutineer should not be present.
__but there was not always a scrutineer
present during the polling in December. Sergt. Pyle stated that he had no receptacles for placing envelopes in-that he simply tied the envelopes up with tape or string and sealed them with wax.
Now, I have concluded this report. The commission reported that the evidence before them indicated:
That grave frauds and irregularities were committed and that the regulations laid down for the taking of the vote were in many instances not observed.
The commission go on to deal with specific classifications of votes and they point out cases where the identification numbers and names do not agree with the record or else the numbers given had never been *allotted.
It is noted by the auditor that more than one-half of these 532 cases were polled at Epsom Convalescent hospital, and that the
voters concerned had no connection with British Columbia, either through themselves or their relatives.


John Allister Currie: Was this a non-partisan
commission appointed by the legislature of British Columbia?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Mr. TAYLOR:: Thj hon. gentleman is
entirely wrong. This was a commission of three partisans.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In this case it must be observed that what they were dealing with was a non-partisan question.


John Allister Currie: How can the hon. gentleman draw any conclusion with regard to this Bill from the reading of a report that is not relevant to it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am dealing with the taking of the votes under an Act of the legislature.	-


John Allister Currie: A different Act altogether from that we are considering.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman
does not know anything about the Act I am talking about. He has not seen the Act dealt with in the report. The point I am making in regard to this matter is that I am here dealing with a matter which was a non-political question. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) will not dispute that. The political parties in British Columbia did not divide on the question of prohibition according to whether they were Liberals or Conservatives and on taking that vote on a non-political question the circumstances under which the vote was taken were as they are disclosed by this commission. The point I want to make in regard to this is that, when we are undertaking to deal with the taking of a vote on the question as to who are to be the members of this Federal Parliament, the provisions of the Act ought to be such that it would not be possible for conditions to arise such, as this report indicates, did arise in the taking of the vote on this non-political question. There we have evidence, for instance, with regard to the question of scrutineers. The direct and positive statement of this commission after having investigated the matter was that there was no reason why there should be any provision for dispensing with scrutineers even in France, much less in England, where the men are in camps or in hospitals and where the whole thing can be done as regularly as it can be anywhere else. Even in France the position is such

that provision should be made for scrutineers where a presiding officer may be appointed who would not be absolutely nonpartisan as he ought to be.
I submit that, with respect to the clause concerning scrutineers and, in fact, all of the provisions made here, we on this side are seeking only, and my object in reading this extract from the report of conditions in British Columbia was only to impress the Minister of Justice and the Government with the fact that these irregularities, errors of the gravest possible character' double voting and voting in the names of men, who were dead, or in prison, or absent, were conditions that would only entail scandals on this country after an election, no matter what the result was, and why should we not endeavour to so frame this Bill as to prevent the occurrence of these things?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are on a section which provides unlimited power of appointment of scrutineers to the respective parties. That this may have some bearing on a subject that arises later on in the schedule, is the strongest possible argument in support of this particular subsection which is providing the unlimited right of appointment of scrutineers to each party. When we come to the question later on as. to their being notified, etc., we shall try to deal with that; but surely the hon. gentleman does not suggest that what he has read is a reason why we should not provide scrutineers, and this subsection is simply providing for scrutineers.


William Pugsley: They are all so connected together that it is entirely proper-


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman seriously thinks this is so connected with the others, it can stand with them.


William Pugsley: I want to convince the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would do it without being convinced.


William Pugsley: The minister cannot throw me out in that way.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: If my hon. friend must speak, we cannot stop him without closure, I suppose.


William Pugsley: I should like to say to my hon. friend that he has no right to stop a member of this House at all, and he has no right to threaten any member of this House with closure.


William Sora Middlebro: Later on. fMr. Macdonald.!


William Pugsley: My hon. friend can apply closure whenever he pleases. But let me tell him that In the discussion of an important Bill he cannot throttle the members of this House. He has not the power to do it.


William Sora Middlebro: The minister said he was quite willing to do as the hon. gentleman laisked without the hon. gentleman speaking, but he is not sat'sfied.


William Pugsley: I have a perfect right
to state my views, and I want to take the opportunity now of calling the attention of the minister to the fact that, under the clauses of this Bill which provides for the appointment of a partisan presiding officer who- is to take the position- of the returning officer and allowing that man -to appoint the deputy presiding officers, in whose appointment the leader of the Opposition is to have no voice, the opportunities for irregularity and fraud will be far greater than they were in the case of the taking of the vote on prohibition- in British Columbia.
I wish to call attention also to the provision with regard to scrutineers. It provides that the deputy returning officer may go around with a box or hag and take the votes of the soldiers and that while provision is made for giving notice to scrutineers, yet if the deputy presiding officer chooses to do so, he may take the vote without any notice to scrutineers. Then I would call attention to this fact, that all these deputy scrutineers are to travel about without pay, they are to follow these deputy presiding officers whenever they are taking the votes, and they are to get no pay. They are not even to get their travelling expenses.
IMr. CURRIE: When did the hon. gentleman pay Tory scrutineers?


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: When he was a Tory.


William Pugsley: If my -hon. friend thinks he can justify a Bill like this, which will enable the will of the bona fide electors to be thwarted, on any ground that these deputy scrutineers should not be paid even travelling expenses, he is welcome to entertain that view. What I say is, that under the provisions which the minister has made with regard- to these deputy scrutineers, these partisan deputy presiding officers may take the vote, may travel as they please, if +his Bill is to go through in its present form. I think the minister ought to see, and I trust he will see, -that it demands consideration and

that the suggestion we have made that these presiding officers should be non-par-tisan^is a reasonable proposition. All we on this side want is to see that the soldiers' vote is honestly taken, to see that the soldier votes once and only once, and to see that the votes of the honest Canadian boys at the front shall not be overturned by the votes of the people who may be willing to vote two, three or four times, just as was done in the case that has been cited.


Mr. WRIGHT:: How does the hon. gentleman propose to have any man appointed whom somebody could not charge with partisanship?


William Pugsley: Just as the minister proposes in regard to the inferior officers. He proposes that, in the appointment of the special returning officers, the leader of the Opposition shall name one and the leader of the Government shall name one alternately. I would do the same with returning officers.


William Wright: You propose that there should be two returning officers, one appointed by the Government and one by the Opposition?


William Pugsley: Not at all. I would suggest that they should agree upon one and if they fail to agree he should be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Bill provides that the Prime Minister shall name one special returning officer and the leader of the Opposition shall name the next one, alternately, until they get the requisite number, and the leader of the Government shall name a clerk and the leader of the Opposition a clerk to the extent that may be necessary. But in respect to the important officer who is to appoint all these deputy presiding officers who are to control the election, I say he should not be partisan, and the fact that no provision is made for the payment even of the travelling expenses of the deputy scrutineers would show the very strongest reason why the presiding offilcers, who are really the returning officers to hold the poll, should be non-partisan so far as their appointment is concerned. That is why I think all tfiis section should stand if any clause ought to stand, because they are all so linked one to the other. I would again urge upon the minister what has been urged so well by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that it is necessary that every possible safeguard should be placed in the Bill in order to prevent fraud and irregularities.
That is especially important, where there are nodists and the vote is to be taken by the presiding officer travelling around from camp to camp. I think the suggestion of the hon. member from Halifax, that a nonpartisan commission should be appointed for taking the, votes, is a good one. That is one alternative, and the other alternative is that the returning officer be appointed jointly by the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition.


Mr. STEVENS:: I merely wish to clear from the minds of the committee a misunderstanding which might result from the statements of the hon. member from Pic-tou. The investigation which was held into the taking of the British Columbia soldiers' votes referred only to the taking of the plebiscite regarding prohibiten and which was extended beyond the time for the general election in the province, from September 14 until December 31. With regard to taking the soldiers' votes in the regular election, there was, I think, perfect satisfaction on both sides. A lawyer from Montreal, Mr. A. Reeves Hall, represented the Liberal party in Great Britain and France in taking the soldiers* votes, and at the conclusion of the election he wrote a letter in which he stated he was perfectly saFisfied with the manner in which the vote was taken. I am not aware of a single criticism or protest being filed regarding the taking of soldiers' votes during the period of 42 days previous to September 14, which related to the election of members of the legislature. But by the Bill of the British Columbia Legislature, the taking of the plebicite for prohibition was extended beyond the date of the election, until December 31, as a result of that, certain irregularities were alleged, and I believe the commission which was appointed by the British Columbia Legislature demonstrated to the satisfaction of the public that these irregularities occurred. But my hon. friend from St. John and the hon. member for Pictou are needlessly alarmed regarding the taking of the vote under regular arrangements and regulations, such as are provided in this Bill.


William Pugsley: Why?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For the reason that this Bill provides that both political parties in this House shall be represented by scrutineers.


William Pugsley: Not always.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why, most certainly.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The difference is that, as my hon. friend suggests, instead of the Government naming the presiding officer, he shall be named jointly by the leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister, and if they disagree, he shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. My ton. friend knows perfectly well that where two political parties are concerned they are naturally going to name their friends as officers to represent them, but this Bill provides that, in addition to the presiding officers, 'there shall be scrutineers at every poll, named by the leader of the Opposition, so far as ithe Liberal party i3 concerned, and named by the leader of the Government, so far as the Government party is concerned.


William Pugsley: I want to correct the hon. gentleman. It is not necessary in all cases that scrutineers shall be appointed. That is left, in certain cases, .to the judgment of the deputy presiding officer as to whether (there shall be notice of the poll, and it is also left to his judgment to say whether he shall take the vote without -any polls being held at all, if he thinks it is reasonably necessary to take a man's vote. Thus, if it should appear that *a man would net be able to attend .the regular poll, his vote may be taken.


John Allister Currie: That applies to taking the vote of the wounded men. How could you take them any other way?


William Pugsley: It is not limited to the vote of the wounded. It is left entirely to the judgment of the deputy presiding officer. If he thought a man was going to .leave England within a certain time he could take his vote. No one can review his judgment, and, therefore, the result is that you allow the partisan deputy presiding officer, at his own whim and pleasure, to take hundreds or thousands of votes, and nobody would ever have the right to question whether it was necessary to do so or not. My hon. friend says that notice must be given in every case. That is not so. Section 8, subsection 3, says:
Where conditions make it reasonably possible, the deputy presiding officer shall give public notice of the time and place of an intended poll.
But he is to be the judge, and the sole judge, as to whether it is reasonably possible or not. I mention these things for the purpose of meeting the suggestion of my hon. friend from Vancouver, that we 
have no right to demand that the presiding officer should be non-partisan in his character.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suggest to the hon. gentleman that we are not on section 8. We will come to that some time to-morrow, perhaps, but we are now discussing the question of scrutineers.


William Pugsley: But does my hon. friend not see that, if we go along step by step, and the various sections are carried, finally we will have the whole Bill carried, with all these iniquitous, unfair and unexampled provisions in it, and we are powerless then. If we pass this section, when we get on to another section which is related to it, we are told that section so-and-so was passed, and we cannot refer to it again. As one member of this committee I shall endeavour to the best of my ability to point out, if I can, in a way to convince the minister-if not to convince the minister then perhaps it would not be unreasonable to hope that I might convince some members of the committee on the other side-that that provision is unreasonable, and ought not to be adopted. We cannot make a perfect Bill, but we want to make it reasonably perfect. We say that the Bill as we now have it is absolutely imperfect. It provides no guarantee that we will secure the expression of opinion of the honest voters, but it gives an opportunity for dishonest deputy presiding officers, and for dishonest voters, to override the will of the honest voters. The Minister of Justice has stated that he has never heard any complaint as to the conduct of partisan returning officers and deputy returning officers. My hon. friend has really and truly been in a state of innocence during his political life if he has not heard any such complaint.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the hon. gentleman ought to keep himself somewhere near the section. This section makes it possible to appoint scrutineers, and it goes no further. Has the hon. gentleman stated one word of objection to the subsection.? He does not say that he does not want the scrutineers. He is discussing a lot ol other things he wants, and, among them, two subsections which, at his request, I allowed to stand. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it is difficult to carry irrelevancy further than that. We should have to sit here and listen to a discussion with regard to those two subsections, which, at the request of the hon. gentleman, I have allowed to stand. I submit we ought to proceed according to rule.


William Pugsley: Does the minister raise a point of order?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William Pugsley: Before the Chairman decides the point of order, I would like to call his attention to the fact that the reason for not passing paragraph (e) at the present time applies equally to paragraph (c) and the hon. minister yielded to the request as to paragraph (c).


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might have added, that about three-quarters of an hour ago, at the request of the hon. gentleman from St. John I agreed to let subsection (e) stand.


William Pugsley: If the minister allowed that section to stand, that is something gained. Does xhe minister not think he should let subsection 2 stand, because that provides that the deputy scrutineers shall not be allowed even their travelling expenses? If there is not to be a non-partisan presiding officer surely some provision ouhgt to be made for the payment of actual travelling expenses incurred by the deputy scrutineers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That subsection is not yet before the committee.


William Pugsley: The minister has been dealing with other provisions which were not read.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have been lead into temptation.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The minister has
pointed out something that I think the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) should not overlook; that is, the desirability of keeping as closely as possible to the clause under discussion. I know that it is difficult to adhere strictly to the clause under consideration, but hon. gentlemen are old parliamentarians, 'and I hope that they will endeavour to keep within the rule.


William Pugsley: If the minister is going to be pernickety about that, I suggest that the whole section be read. We are taking an irregular course, at the minister's own suggestion, of dealing with particular subclauses.' The proper course is to take up the whole section. [DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I correct the hon. gentleman? His persistence in making statements in regard to which he is mistaken is Temarka'ble. We began reading the section right through and it was on the suggestion of the member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that we proceeded to take the matter up subsection by subsection. I think that was a very reasonable suggestion; if we wanted to deal with one thing at a time, it is the most desirable way of proceeding.


William Pugsley: I was not complaining of the suggestion of the member for Halifax. What I complain of is that the minister is trying to confine us to one particular clause. The very idea of having a number of clauses in ia section is that those clauses axe related to each other. It very often happens that you cannot with propriety adopt one of those clauses without knowing what is to be the final language of another. All these sub-clauses are closely related. For instance, there is the question whether these presiding officers are to be non-partisan, and there is the question of the power given to a party to have scrutineers and deputy scrutineers. If you are going to have a partisan presiding officer, the least the Government could do is to provide that the Opposition, that has no voice in the appointment of presiding officers or deputy presiding officers-men who may be of a most partisan character-should be allowed something to pay the travelling expenses of scrutineers. These men are to be the watch-dogs who will see that, in some measure at all events, these presiding and deputy presiding officers discharge their duties in an honest and non-partisan way. You cannot intelligently discuss one of these clauses without having some reference to the others. I think the minister was unduly critical of my course. It is our duty to consider this Bill as carefully as we can.


Mr. MORPHY:: As I read subsection 2, the scrutineers may be paid their actual travelling and living expenses. The matter, therefore, that the hon. gentleman complains about is apparently provided for in the Bill.


William Pugsley: The three scrutineers are allowed their travelling expenses, but the deputy scrutineers, the men who are to go round and see that these partisan deputy presiding officers do their duty, get not even their travelling expenses. Let me read the provision for my hon. friend.


William Wright: With regard to that
point-


William Pugsley: One at a time, please.


William Wright: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Older. If the member for St. John objects to the interruption, he has the right to proceed.
. Mr. PUGSLEY: The member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) made the statement- inadvertently, I am sure-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There was no inadvertence about it; I read from the Bill.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said that these scrutineers "were .to be paid. In subsection 2 it is provided that the deputy scrutineers shall not be reimbursed out of the funds of Canada any sums whatever.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I was referring to the hon. gentleman's direct statement that scrutineers weie not paid anything for expenses.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend was not listening carefully, because I. used the words " deputy scrutineers."


Mr. COCHRANE:: The Conservative
scrutineers are not paid, so that they are all on the same footing.


William Pugsley: Does the Minister of Railways desire to speak? We should all Welcome his special opinion.


Francis Cochrane: If others would not speak so much we would get on much better.


William Pugsley: I am glad to see that the Minister of Railways is getting back to health and strength again. He is a good fighter, and we should all be glad to hear from him with regard to this Bill. What I say is that we ought not to be asked to consider subsection 2 until we know
5 p.m. what the Government proposes to do with regard to the appointment of these presiding officers. If they are to be non-partisan, then we need not be so particular about these deputy .scrutineers.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: 
Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The point of order is well taken. Subsection (e) stands; subsection 2 is not before the committee. Rule 55 says:
In proceedings in Committee of the Whole House upon Bills, the preamble is first post-, poned, and then every clause considered by

the committee in its proper order; the preamble and the title to be last considered.
I would prefer to read, so that order may be preserved in the committee, ithe remainder of the section before the discussion is proceeded with:
(2)	Such officers and functionaries and their deputies, clerics and assistants, except scrutineers and deputy scrutineers, may be paid and reimbursed as the Governor General in Council may provide, authorize or allow >
scrutineers may be paid their actual travelling and living expenses only, at a rate to be fixed by the Governor General in Council deputy scrutineers shall not he paid or reimbursed out of the fund of Canada any sums whatever.
(3)	Before in any manner acting under this part, the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, general returning officer, his chief election clerk, and every presiding officer, special returning officer, deputy presiding officer, poll clerk, and clerk of a special returning officer, shall be sworn to the faithful performance of his duties.
(4)	The Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, the general returning officer and his chief election clerk, shall be sworn before a judge of a court'of record; presiding officers, special returning officers and clerks of special returning officers, before the assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, a regimental or battalion commanding officer, notary public or official authorized to administer oaths under the laws of the country where such duties are to he performed; deputy presiding officers before a presiding officer or any of the officers or functionaries hereinbefore named; and poll clerks before a deputy presiding officer.


William Pugsley: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I rise to a point of order. The committee has decided that the clause regarding the appointment of presiding officers shall stand, but the hon. gentleman persists in discussing that clause, when what is before the committee is the question whether payment shall be made to certain officers or not. I have endeavoured to be considerate to the hon. gentleman and have met eyexy request that he has made, but I cannot help seeing at this moment that when I accede to one request for a subsection to stand he makes that the ground and reason why the next one should also stand. To be perfectly frank, there was absolutely no reason advanced by the hon. member for St. John upon which one could rest a contention that the section

relating to scrutineers should stand, but I consented to let that stand because he asked for it. As I have already pointed out, this provision already exists in the Soldiers' Voting Act, and so does the subsection we are dealing with now. If we are going to make progress with this Bill at all, the hon. gentleman should realize that it is hardly reasonable to ask that every section and subsection, as it comes up, shall . stand. The reason I consented to the standing of the provision with regard to special returning officers was that it was represented to me that the right hon. leader of the Opposition was not present, and Would like to speak on it. I, of course, would not reiuse a request based on that ground, but I would point out to the hon. gentleman that he is getting to a stage where it is impossible for me to close my eyes to the fact that he is simply endeavouring to abuse my readiness to try to meet him, by endeavouring to have every section ordered to stand as it comes up. This Bill is before the committee to be dealt with. I do not want to curtail fair discussion of any portion of it, but I cannot undertake .to say that we shall allow all the subsections to stand after the hon. gentleman has talked *all he wants about each one of them, and then further goes on discussing them after they have been allowed to stand. I think we must try to get down to some regular method of procedure, and I appeal to the hon. gentleman's own sense of fairness. We are here to do business, and we cannot do business if, after we have allowed a section to stand, we still have persistent argument about that section and are prevented from going on to the consideration of other sections as they come up.


William Pugsley: If the minister has allowed the section to stand, that is all right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I allowed the provisions with regard to the payment of presiding officers and the subsection with regard to scrutineers to stand. We are now on subsection 2, and I have not as yet heard the hon. gentleman address himself to the discussion of that subsection, except that he has suggested that it ought to stand because of certain arguments that he made with regard to a previous subsection.


William Pugsley: I think the minister does not desire to see that I am addressing myself to subsection 2. I do not want to offend the minister, but I do not propose to allow him to lecture me in regard to the course
I shall pursue in this committee. The minister has one course open to him: he can gag discussion in this House if he chooses, by applying the closure. Hon. gentlemen may do it; they are in the majority.


An hon. MEMBER:: We can do it.


William Pugsley: Let them try it. I invite hon. gentlemen who make these threats to try it.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Why does he want to talk on the section after it has been allowed to stand?


William Pugsley: I shall exercise my own judgment. The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken if he says that subsection 2 has been allowed to stand. If that is so, I will take my seat.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Subsections (c), (d) and (e) were allowed to stand. The subsection now before the committee is subsection 2, relating to the payment of election officers.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I do not want a bad precedent to be established. I think the Minister of Justice is entirely in error when he says that because a section has been allowed to stand, either by the leader of the Government or some one else, hon. gentlemen are precluded from further discussing the section. It very often happens that hon. gentlemen who may not be present on future occasions wish to place their remarks on Hansard when they have the opportunity. The minister will remember, if he was faithful in his attendance last week, that after the Minister of Finance had decided at a certain hour that the Canadian Northern Railway Bill should be held over till this week, discussion proceeded for an hour afterwards.


Angus Alexander McLean: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is not addressing himself to the question before the House. I think it is about time that something was done to get the business of this country proceeded with. The people will not stand for this deplorable waste of time; it is ridiculous.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The hon. member for Moosejaw was rather questioning the decision of the chairman.


William Erskine Knowles: I was answering the Minister of Justice.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I have ruled on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not understand him to raise a point of order. I should like to know what his point of order was.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: His point of order was that as subsections (c), (d) and (e) were allowed to stand they could not be further discussed. I ruled that the point of order was well taken, although, of course, I should not interrupt an hon. gentleman who was making a passing reference to the subsections that had been allowed to stand.


William Erskine Knowles: If you will allow me to respectfully make one observation, I would submit that a minister cannot shut off discussion on a section by skying that it shall stand. He must have the consent of the House before he can pass from that section. I submit, therefore, that I was quite in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: If it is desired to reopen the discussion on the subsections that have been allowed to stand,- I have no objection, but as we are now on subsection 2, I should be glad if the hon. member would confine his remarks as much as possible to that subsection.
Mr. McKEiNZIE: Would you decide that because we are on subsection 2 we cannot deal with any other part of the Bill which has relation to subsection 2? As I understand Your Honour's ruling, it is that we must take the clauses in order, and that implies and involves we must discuss them intelligently as they relate to other portions of the Bill. That is all we ask.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have no desire to delay the committee, but I would like the minister to take into consideration what my hon. friend from St. John has said with reference to clause 2, that the deputy scrutineer's expenses are not paid. I see no reason why ;[DOT]their travelling expenses should not be paid, if they have to travel any distance.


Mr. OOCHRANE:: It is as fair for one as for the other.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Surely, as far as that is concerned. At the same time, if they have to travel any distance, I think it would be only .fair to pay their expenses. I only put this forward as a suggestion to the minister, because I think he wants to do what is reasonable and right in the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I have already
stated, this provision, as well as. the preceding one, are reproduced from the existing Soldiers' Voting Act. With regard to
[The Chairman.]
the suggestion that we should pay the expenses of deputy scrutineers, their number is left entirely in the discretion of the party which is to he represented, just as on this side of the Atlantic the Candidate determines how many agents or representatives he requires. If we provided for payment of those deputy scrutineers, we could hardly undertake to allow the liberty which I think each party ought to have to provide the number of representatives it requires. On this side of the Atlantic the parties provide their representatives, and there has never been a suggestion that the people of the country should pay for them. The suggestion now made is that persons who are there purely as representatives of political parties should be paid, by the general public. I must confess this hardly commends .itself to my judgment. It would certainly be a new departure. Both parties at every camp and every place where there will be voting will have their adherents. No. one suggests that in any camp there will not be many Liberals as well as many Conservatives. The deputy scrutineer at a particular camp would in all probability be a man appointed from that camp, so that if the parties act reasonably in providing their representatives there will be very small expenses involved. In any event, the function of these officers is purely and simply to be party representatives, and in all our past history I do' not know of a case where the public authority has been asked to pay the expenses of purely party representatives.
'Mr. NESBITT:	As ia matter of fact the
candidate pays it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is paid by the candidate, or the party, or whoever the funds may come from. In any event, it is not paid by the Government of the country, that is, by the people generally. This is another instance in which we are merely following what is >a general and well-established practice and custom, and to pass a law providing for the payment of the expenses of such an indefinite number of party representatives might entail upon the country an expense which certainly I am not in a position to foresee at the present time. Aside from that, it would be a new departure in principle if we should provide for the payment of the travelling expenses of party representatives. It may be suggested that we have departed from the principle to the extent of the six scrutineers 'who are to be jointly appointed. But at the time Parliament passed the existing legislation, that

action was thought justifiable under the circumstances, so that if it were considered necessary or desirable by either or both parties to send three representatives from this country to take charge from the party point of view of the conduct of the election, that they at all events would be enabled to go over there and have their expenses paid. Then it was put into their hands to provide all the deputy scrutineers they thought proper for their respective parties in the manner they thought most effective and best. I do not remember that at the time this legislation was adopted it was urged that we ought to pay the expenses of those party representatives.


William Pugsley: I think a moment's reflection will show that subsection' 2 ie closely related to paragraph (d). I do' not see how we can fairly dispose of the former until we know what disposition is to be made of the latter. If those presiding officers as provided for by paragraph (d) are to be non-partisan, selected by the leader of the Government,and the leader of the Opposition, then there is not the eame necessity for scrutineers, because they will be careful to have the deputy presiding officers also non-partisan in character and fairly representative of both sides. I submit to the committee, however, that if the minister should insist that we are not to consider paragraph (d) open for amendment, and that the right to have partisan presiding officers should be retained, then the Liberal party should not be compelled to pay the expenses of deputy scrutineers to go around to the various camps in England and in France and see that those partisan deputy presiding officers do their duty. I do not think that would be reasonable, and that is why I respectfully submitted my suggestion to the minister, not imagining for a moment that I would arouse his ire, that subsection 2 and paragraph (d) of subsection 1 should be considered together. The minister says that under no circumstances should those deputy scrutineers be paid. It is all very well for the minister to say that, when he has the appointment of the men who are to carry on the elections, who are to control the elections, who are to take the vote, and who may go around, as provided for by the other dispositions of the Bill, in charge of the ballots. It is all very well for the minister to say the Government party will pay their own scrutineers, hut our position is different. If subsection (d) passes in the language in which if is at present drawn, we would have no voice in the appointment of
those deputy presiding officers. They would be appointed by and in the interests of the Government party. However, if the minister insists upon subsection 2 being considered now, without waiting to dispose of paragraph (d), of course there is nothing for me to do but interpose my objection to it.
It has not been made very plain how these votes are to be taken. We have been told how the vote shall be counted, that the ballots are to be put into this bag, but I submit to the committee that the important thing is that the votes shall be properly put into that receptacle. So far all I have been able to learn about these officers, whose pay we are providing foT, is that somebody will go round the country with a receptacle into which he is permitted to put votes. We are told that we may have scrutineers. I have no idea how many of these men will be engaged in taking the vote or at how many places those votes will be taken at the same time. Will there be any particular number of those places at which votes will be received? How many scrutineers will a man naturally need to have in order to be represented at these polls? It is absolutely impossible to apply the machinery of an election in Canada to the branch of the election which is to be conducted as provided for in the Bill. It is no use to attempt to apply that machinery whilch is made for the ordinary home election to an election taken in France, ot Great Britain. The minister says to us: " You can appoint your scrutineers at home; why not do the same thing abroad?" When an election is gding on in my own county I know a few people in every polling district. I can trust my friends in each polling district to see that the poll is being properly conducted. A great many of them would not ask any payment for doing it-perhaps none of them would- but here we are told that the same machinery is to be transferred to France, where I do not know anybody, where I have not the faintest idea of how many polls there are going to be and in regard to which this Bill does not help me. The minister says to me: " You fcan appoint a scrutineer." I do not know how many places I will have to arrange for; I do not know who may be taking the vote; but the minister says: ''this is what happens at home and this is what you must do abroad." What ha3 been suggested by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) is what strikes me as the only fair



and decent way to everybody; that is to appoint a non-partisan commission. Let them all meet together, and go around together and take these votes.
Then there should be confidence and an opportunity of avoiding those horrors which happened in the British Columbia election. As to asking us to pay for the scrutineers and giving us an opportunity of doing so, I regard it as absolutely impossible for myself to be represented in England, France, Belgium, Scotland and all those places where a soldier may be found and in which I have not the faintest idea where a poll will be held. If I had the money of a Vanderbilt, and was able to pay all the men whose employment is suggested under this Bill, I cannot see how the thing could be done. The whole thing, as the Prime Minister has said, is absolutely impracticable and impossible.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: With respect to clause 2, it has occurred to me that the Minister of Justice has got into trouble because he has been too fair. It is difficult for me to conceive of anything that is fairer than this clause. Hon. gentlemen complain that scrutineers are not paid. Paragraph 2 says:
Such officers and functionaries and their deputies, clerks and assistants, except scrutineers and deputy scrutineers, may be paid and reimbursed as the Governor General in Council may provide, authorize or allow; scrutineers may be paid,, their actual travelling: and living expenses only, at a rate to be fixed by the Governor Genera] in Council; deputy scrutineers shall not be paid or reimbursed out of the fund of Canada any sums whatever.
The functionaries mentioned in that section are to be paid.


William Pugsley: Who are they?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Such officers and functionaries, and their deputies, clerks and assistants, as are taking the election, except scrutineers and deputy scrutineers-


William Pugsley: All appointed by the Government.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Never mind by whom they are appointed; we will come to the question of partisanship later on. They are to be reimbursed as the Governor in Council may provide, authorize or allow. Scrutineers may get their actual travelling and living expenses. Outside of this second paragraph, there is a paragraph referring to scrutineers and deputy scrutineers. Who are they? If you will refer to subsection (e) you will see that it provides that:
Any scrutineer may, by writing, appoint any necessary deputies-

Any necessary deputies. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) says: We do not know how many there will be. There will be as many as may be necessary and each party shall name its own particular scrutineers. There are allowed to the Liberal party under this Act three scrutineers and they can appoint as many deputies as they like and they can send them where they please. The Conservatives can do the same thing for the conduct of the election. There is absolute fairness between the parties. The minister has gone further in this Act than any minister has ever been known to go in the history of partisan politics in Canada when he has given to the Opposition the right to appoint scrutineers to represent thetn, to preside over the election and to count the ballots. To my mind the hon. gentlemen opposite are unfair in their criticism. The Minister of Justice has brought it on himself because of his extra fairness in departing from what has been from time immemorial held as a Government prerogative that governments conduct the elections by their own officers appointed by themselves. The moment that this Government gives a concession to hon. gentlemen opposite, we have the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) talking, and talking, and talking by the hour over a clause which he was told was to be allowed to stand.


William Pugsley: Not by the hour.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, really by the hour. Although the clause had been allowed to stand the hon. gentleman talked persistently and travelled entirely abroad from the clause, apparently approaching pretty close to the idea of obstruction. Is the hon. gentleman wishing to cast an aspersion on the ability or intentions of their own scrutineers? Does he mean to cast an aspersion on the conduct of this election by the men whom his leader will appoint? Can he not trust anybody? Can the hon. gentleman not trust men appointed by his own leader? What is the matter? What has gone wrong with the mental attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite who are imbued and thoroughly soused with suspicion about what is one of the fairest clauses ever put upon the statute book, giving hon. gentlemen a chance of preventing unfairness, giving them the right to name officials contrary to the past practice, applying the principle of fifty-fifty, three Liberal scrutineers to three Conservative scrutineers and giving them every facility to see that the election is conducted honestly, and yet the suspicion is still

there, still engendered in the individual minds of, I am thankful to say, a few only of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would tell me at how many places and by bow many officers .the vote will be taken on the same day.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is not for .me to say that. I suppose that is all worked out in the Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the good of having these six scrutineers when we may have thirty places at which votes are being taken?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Deputies could be sent there.


George Taylor: If hon. gentlemen would think a little .about the conditions they would not see so many difficulties about the deputy scrutineers. Deputy scrutineers would be soldiers residing and on duty at the place where the ballot was to be taken. They would have no travelling to do in ordinary cases, because a strange soldier would not be nearly as proficient to act as scrutineer as one familiar with all the men stationed at that polling place. Then these men are already under pay as soldiers. Their pay would not be diminished, and if they had to travel, as some hon. gentlemen apprehend, they could only travel by permission of their superior officers. The Government, both in France and England, control the railways and issue transportation to soldiers, who cannot travel except by permission, so that in practice there would be no difficulty about travelling expenses of deputy scrutineers or their living expenses while on duy.	'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: May I point out the difficulty. Suppose a vote is being taken at a certain camp in England. There may be dozens of people from my county there of whose whereabouts I do not know, and I should be absolutely helpless in trying to find .some one to represent me.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The hon. gentleman is no worse off than any other member.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was speaking generally; every one is the same.


William Pugsley: Every other hon. member is the same except in this, that the Government appoints the men to carry on this whole business of taking the vote and the country pays for them. The Liberals of this country pay as well as the Conser-
301 i
vatives. We pay all of these returning officers and deputy returning officers.


James Arthurs: Not the scrutineers.


William Pugsley: You do not need scrutineers if you have deputies. You will be careful, il I know you well, to have the right kind of men as deputy returning officers and as deputy presiding officers.


William Sora Middlebro: Good, honest men.
' Mr. PUGSLEY: I have no doubt of that. But unless the minister changes his mind there is to be no voice by the Opposition in the appointing of the presiding officer or the deputy presiding officers. Take myself or the hon. member for Cape Breton as an example. What do I know about selecting a deputy scrutineer in France? Will the commanding officers allow the. soldiers to act as deputy scrutineers? I doubt very much if they will. They have other duties to perform and it will simply mean-	.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Perhaps they would not let them vote because they have military duties.


William Pugsley: That is different. They might let them vote but might hesitate about letting them perform political work in the way of representing a political party.


James Arthurs: It is quite impossible in most cases, especially in France, to have other than military scrutineers, as civilians would not be allowed to go to the lines where it would be necessary to hold most of the polls.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister is proposing an election which would be similar to an election held in Canada without the opportunity for people to be represented at the polling places, and I submit again that the only way to do that is by a commission.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I think the proposal isa reasonable one and that the minister-should consider whether the deputy scrutineers should be paid their travelling expenses. It has been pointed out that tue Government appoints the returning officers ai;d they will naturally be friends of the Government. They will be men in whom the Government have every confidence, and they will feel that the election will be held fairly, as far as they are concerned, by the officers whom they appoint. The only officer who will represent the Opposition at the poll will be the deputy scrutineer. There are six scrutineers, but I presume these six will be reserved for the counting of the ballots after the election is over and that

it is not pretended that these six scrutineers who are appointed and whose expenses will be paid can he present at the various polls where the election is held. Consequently there is no- way in which the Opposition can be represented at the different polls excepting by the deputy scrutineers, and as the officers who take the poll are Government officers, appointed by the Government and paid by the Government out of the funds of the country, is it not fair to consider whether the deputy scrutineers should not also be paid? I think it is. I think it is a proposition the minister ought to consider. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice desires to give us a fair ballot and that there should-be fair play on both sides. We all know it would not be likely to be a fair election unless both sides were represented at every poll where ballots were taken.


Samuel Hughes: Did the hon. member say both sides?


John Howard Sinclair: I did.


Samuel Hughes: I thought there was only one side now.


William Pugsley: Then they have all
pome to the Liberal side?


John Howard Sinclair: I should say that officers should be present to represent the [DOT]Opposition in every poll where votes are taken, otherwise you cannot expect to have a result in which the people will have confidence. It is not like an election in Canada, where a man has his friends in every polling district, who take an interest in his election. That we all know is the practice in Canada. But it is a very different thing when we are carrying on an election in a foreign country among men scattered in various places, none of us knowing where they are and it being impossible for us to be fully represented. Consequently the circumstances are so entirely different that I think the minister ought to take that question into his consideration.


William Cameron Edwards: Is the hon. member
contending that the Opposition should have the privilege of sending men from Canada to England or France to act as scrutineers in the interest of the Opposition?


John Howard Sinclair: No, I would not suggest that it would be advisable to do that. I do not think that could be done. I have no doubt that men on the other side, soldiers or civilians, will be selected who will have leisure to attend to these matters. It would be very expensive indeed to send

men across the ocean, and I do not think that would be practicable. But there may be some expense in connection with travelling and attending to places where the vote is taken, and I think that that would be a legitimate expense for this country to bear.
The language of the section is rather peculiar. It says: " the deputy scrutineers shall not be paid or reimbursed out of the fund of Canada." I do not know any money that is described as the fund of Canada. I have heard of consolidated revenue, but I do not think this is the ordinary legal language. The impression given by this section is that there is a fund somewhere that is not the fund of Canada on which one side, at all events, professes to draw in order to pay its officers. I suppose that is the inference; it is a fund but not a fund of Canada.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman from North Perth should not complain about hon. members on this side of the House discussing this question, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that one of the questions which occasioned the Government a great deal of care and worry for a long period was in regard to the soldiers' vote, as is referred to in the correspondence with the ex-Minister of Public Works, when the Prime Minister pointed out that the Government had spent a long time in preparing this Bill and bringing it to Parliament, with tremendous detail. I think the hon. member should withdraw the suggestion that we are discussing this Bill unduly. Voting is to take place in France and England, and hon. gentlemen say there is no use in arranging for civilian scrutineers, as the scrutineers must be in military service. Where is the provision that, if a man wants a vote taken in a particular camp, he is to have the right to go there, and that transportation will be given to him? My hon. friend from Cape Breton might discover some friend over there whom he would like to have appointed scrutineer in a certain district. This man may come along and get his rations, but he is not going to get any money for his trip. The Government has the lists of all the men overseas, and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are not in the same position in that respect. How are people to know, when engaged in a contest in a county here, whether the interest of particular candidates over there are being looked after?


Francis Cochrane: Our three men from the Opposition will nominate the scrutineers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: These men are not going to be omniscient. Suppose the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton has a battalion in a particular place, and desires to appoint some friend to be deputy scrutineer, to see that the vote is properly taken, how would it be worked out? Apparently the voting is taking place simultaneously all over; the soldiers are not going to vote in one camp one day and in another camp another day.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman from Cape Breton would have nothing to say about it. The three men nominated over there would have the say.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But they do not know everybody from Vancouver to Sydney, and the only way they could know would be by my hon. friend from Cape Breton, or some one else, writing them and saying he would like to have a certain man appointed scrutineer.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Every member is in the same position.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know that. How is the man he might want to have appointed scrutineer to get his expenses? I should like to have that question answered.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I have explained several times that this is the section that exists in the Soldiers' Vote Act, and the question was all threshed out when that Act was passed, and this is an entirely novel suggestion that the people of Canada should be called upon to pay party representatives. The hon. gentleman asks: where are we going to get the transportation for the gentleman the hon. member for Cape Breton will select as scrutineer, and who will have to travel from place to place? If an election ie being held in Montreal and I determine I would like to have a man from Vancouver to act as my scrutineer, I do not know what reception I would get in the House, if I came and said the people of the country should pay the expense of that gentleman from Vancouver. I must confess I have difficulty in following the reasoning that suggests that the expenses of party representatives on each side should be paid by the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman is discussing this question as though the hon. member for Cape Breton was going to select his personal friend to be scrutineer for him. If hon. gentlemen look at the Bill they will see we are not undertaking any gigantic scheme to provide scrutineers for individual candidates. If any hon. gentleman thinks he can afford that luxury, we will not prevent him, but we are following the method which met the approval of this House when the Soldiers' Vote Bill was passed. That leaves it open to the party to provide themselves with such representatives as they desire. We give them absolute liberty in that regard, and recognize all the representatives and give them machinery to provide for representatives, but we feel that, when we have done that, we can hardly be called upon to go further, andy pay the expenses of these representatives.
Just as candidates in Canada find scrutineers available at .the places where they are required, I should think the representatives of the respective parties would be able to find persons at the different places where polls are going to be held whom they could appoint as deputy scrutineers. It was not really incumbent upon Parliament to make this legislation to provide for party representation at all, but we have done it because it seemed to us a fair thing to do, under the circumstances. To suggest that it .should be pushed further, and that we should impose upon the people of Canada the expense that properly belongs to the respective parties is a suggestion which it is quite imposible for me to accept.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No person, so far as I know, is looking for any charity from the Minister of Justice in regard to any legitimate election expense that the candidate should bear, but we are looking for an opportunity for proper representation of each party at every place where the poll is to be taken. Let the minister form a camimis-sion under this Bill; let the Government appoint some competent man .as chairman, with whose appointment we will have nothing to do. Let an equal number of men be selected on each side, and let the Opposition pay their share of the expense, and the Conservatives pay theirs. Then the commission could report, and could assure us that every vote .was taken.
Then we shall know that things will be o'one in a proper and honest way. Under this provision certain persons have the right to travel around the country trailing bags after them, with the opportunity of piling into those bags the ballots of men that they meet on the streets. Yet I am told that we have nothing to complain of. The hon. minister says: a scrutineer will be appointed; we will not pay him; you can pay him if you like. Is that a satisfactory answer to the suggestion that these officials will be trailing bags around with them and filling them up with paper; that the fate-

of the people so far as government during the next five years is concerned will depend upon what those officials put in those bags? That is what I complain about. The provision is not fair; it is absolutely partisan; it is capable of producing absolutely scandalous results. We have evidence from British Columbia that on a non-partisan question-that of whether liquor shall be sold in British Columbia or not-corruption of the worst kind developed; there was double and treble voting; rascality in its worst form was perpetrated. If these things happened in such a case as that, what will happen in this case, during the full force and agitation of a Dominion election? We have reason to suppose that under this law conditions will be a thousand times worse than those that prevailed in British Columbia. I have to run my election in Cape Breton county and so far as the vote of the soldiers is concerned I shall be absolutely unrepresented. The minister says that if he should want a scrutineer to look after his poll in Ste. Anne division, he himself would have to pay for that man's services. That is no answer; that does not touch the point at all.


Mr. MURPHY:: As thejion. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said, this is not a matter that affects any particular member. It affects every member of the House; it may affect each member in the same way.
I have listened to the discussion during most of the afternoon, .and I have not heard any reason why the number of deputy scrutineers who may be appointed by the scrutineers is unlimited, I assume from what the minister said that the deputy scrutineer will correspond to the scrutineer who acts inside the polling booth during an election in Canada. If that be the fact, I should like to know why an unlimited number of these scrutineers may be appointed. I should also like to have an explanation from the .minister with regard to the expression referred to by the member for Guys borough (Mr. Sinclair): "the fund of Canada ".


Charles Joseph Doherty: To answer the last question first, I think that probably the letter " s " has been left out; it being intended that the word " .funds '' should be used as designating the moneys of Canada. It is not intended to convey any other sense than that no money of Canada shall be paid to these people.


Charles Murphy: Then it should not pass in that way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will have that corrected. As to why we allow an indefinite number of scrutineers, it is not possible for us to anticipate how many .scrutineers each party may require in order to provide themselves with .representatives at the polls and at all the different operations of counting *that will be carried on. We therefore leave it to each party-each party being represented by its three scrutineers-to name the deputy scrutineers. The reason why we do not limit the number of deputy scrutineers to be appointed i% in order that each party may be able to provide whatever number it deems necessary. It is prescribed how many representatives each party may have at a particular operation, such .as the taking of the vote. We are now dealing with how many people may be empowered under this Act to act as representatives or agents. We leave it to the discretion of each party as to how many they may require. I do not see that we could definitely prescribe the number. One party may think they need more than another; neither party is in a position to determine at the present moment how many persons they may require as agents. That will depend upon the number of polls that may be held. The intention is to provide as many polls as may be needed to enable us to offer opportunity to all the soldiers to vote. Just in proportion as the voters may be more or less scattered, you will have to have a greater or less number of polls. It is impossible, therefore, to define how many occasions there may be for a party needing the services of a representative. When we come to the particular operation, of course each party is entitled to .a definite number who dhall be present, say, at the taking of the vote. At the taking of a poll each party is entitled to have one representative, but where a number of polls are held at the same time a party may need large numbers of representatives, if it is to be represented at all, at each of the polls. That is why we left this mater to the discretion of the respective parties.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. MURPH1 : When the House rose for dinner the .minister had just explained the reason for not limiting the number of deputy scrutineers to be appointed, and the probable disposal of them in case of an elec-

tion. Did I understand him to say that there was some provision in this Bill similar to that in the Dominion Elections Act, which prohibits more than two agents for each candidate from being in the polling booth at the same time as an elector?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the provision will be found in subsection 4 of section 8, which provides that:
The deputy presiding officer shall permit any scrutineer or deputy scrutineer, or, in the absence of both, any one military elector, to be present at any poll, and to act thereat as agent on behalf of any party, with the powers of an agent of a candidate at a poll held under Part III.
The only difference between this provision and the similar provision in the Dominion Elections Act is that we are imposing on the deputy presiding officer the obligation of permitting one scrutineer on behalf of each party rather than two. We cannot, of course, provide for representatives of the individual candidates, or we might have to have 468 scrutineers at each taking of votes.
Subsection agreed to on division.
On subsection 4, section 4-Before whom sworn:


Charles Murphy: I observe that some of these officers may be sworn before a regimental or battalion commanding officer. Is there any authority empowering a regimental or battalion commanding officer to administer oaths other than that contained in this Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only other provision that I know of for their -administering the oath is when the soldiers attest. The Military Voters' Act of 1915 confers this power upon the officers.


James Arthurs: I would suggest that the minister add, after the word " officer," in line 6, the words " or officer in charge of an independent unit." I have 'in mind certain cases where large bodies of our troops in France are not in charge of a regimental or battalion commanding officer. For instance, the three Canadian tunnelling companies who are now -at Y-pres, and have been there for the last year and a half, are under the command of a captain or major. They are called independent companies and number about 800 to a company, the three companies comprising in round figures about 2,500 men. There are other cases of this kind where isolated bodies of Canadian troops in France are not in charge of a regimental or battalion commanding
officer-in connection with the divisional trains, for instance.


Charles Murphy: Would the suggested
amendment of my hon. friend be wide enough to cover cases similar to the ones he has cited, though perhaps not exactly analogous?


James Arthurs: I think so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: While I am willing to accept the suggestion, we are dealing here only with oaths to be taken by officers under this Act, not with oaths to be taken by the individual soldier who comes to vote. Most of these captains would probably be able to find some other officer who was empowered to administer the oath. But I am quite willing to accept the suggestion, as it might be useful.


Charles Murphy: Is the form of oath to be taken by these different officials included in the Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No form is provided. The provision is that they shall be sworn to the faithful performance of their duties. It did not appear to be necessary to make a special form.


Charles Murphy: I am not so particular about the form. But what record will remain as evidence that the oath was administered and taken? There should be something of that kind among the papers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think it is necessary for us to specially prescribe here that a record shall be made of the taking of the oath. This whole provision is to form part of the Dominion Elections Act. We are prescribing for those things which are to be done differently from the procedure under the General Elections Act, and what we -are providing here to be differently done is as to the persons before whom the oaths may be taken. I am rather under the impression that the form with regard to these oaths under the general law, whatever it is, would apply here, but I will look into the matter and make sure.


Charles Murphy: The record of these oaths is usually returned in an envelope with the ballot box.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do the deputy scrutineers have to be sworn?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They would require to be sworn if they took any part in an open vote, just -as scrutineers have to be sworn under our present law, if I remember

rightly, when a man has his ballot marked for him. But for the ordinary performance of his duties, the scrutineer is not an official acting on representative public authority in any way, and there is no provision requiring him to take the oath merely because he is a scrutineer.


George Perry Graham: He takes the oath of secrecy?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, in cases where he is called upon to be present when a voter marks his ballot.


Charles Murphy: He takes oath at the
beginning of the poll, and that applies to the whole day?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will look into it. If the general Act requires it, of course it will be followed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would the general Act
apply in this case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision that this part is to be read as forming part of the general Dominion Elections Act. It is really made part 4 of that Act. We make exceptional provL.ons in this part. As I understand it, the rest would apply where applicable.
Subsection as amended agreed to.


William Pugsley: Why not take up paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 4?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before we take them up,
I might point out that I was asked to let them stand, because it was suggested that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition would probably desire to say something upon them. As he is not present now. would it not be as well to let these paragraphs stand and take up some of the other sections, because we will probably have to come back to theee sections when he is present.


William Pugsley: The leader of the Opposition told me he was unable to be present to-night, and he authorized me to state his view to the committee. As the minister seems anxious to get along, I would not like to have these paragraphs delayed, and it is not the desire of the leader of the Opposition that there should be any delay. He stated to me that he regards it as extremely unfair that he should be given the right to name a certain number of the inferior officers, who really have no control whatever over the election, and in regard to the presiding officers, who take the places of the returning officers where the election 
is held in Canada under the ordinary provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, he should have no voice whatever, and that the Government should have the whole right of appointment, thus making them partisan officials. He thinks there should be in paragraph (d) exactly the same provisions as are contained in paragraph (c). Therefore, in order to make them conform, I move in amendment, seconded by Mr. Lemieux:
That paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 4 be amended by inserting the word "even" after the word "sufficient" in line 1 of the paragraph, and by inserting after the word "electors" in line 17 the words "half of the number of such presiding officers shall be nominated by the Prime Minister and the other half by the leader of the Opposition."
If I have the permission of our genial friends who occupy seats behind the treasury benches, I would like to make a few remarks in respect of this amendment.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The hon. gentleman recognizes his masters.


William Pugsley: I submit this is an
eminently fair and proper amendment, and if it is not accepted it will afford to the people of this country conclusive evidence that this Bill has been so designed as to permit fraud and irregularities in the taking of the soldiers votes. That is the conclusion which inevitably will be drawn from the course of the Government in respect of the Bill. The Bill provides now that the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition shall have the right to nominate an equal number of special returning officers, also that the leader of the Opposition shall be allowed to nominate three scrutineers to act jointly with the scrutineers nominated by the Prime Minister. The reason for making that provision is because it is recognized that the soldiers' vote is to be taken under most exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. It is recognized that there are a large number of votes to be taken, and that it is desirable there should be some provision made in the way of safeguards to prevent unfairness. In the case of an election being held in Canada under ordinary circumstances, no such provision would be deemed to be necessary, and no such provision has been made. But, admitting it is necessary to create safeguards along those lines, I would ask you if it is fair simply to allow the leader of the Opposition to have a voice in the naming of the inferior officials, of the men who have no real control in connection with the

holding of the polls and the taking of the votes, and to decline to give him that right and privilege in respect of the higher officers who have all to do with the taking of the vote, with the holding of the polls, and who should exercise absolute fairness and impartiality in order to assure a fair and honest election.
The greatest possible opportunities are necessarily afforded by this Bill for fraud and irregularities. My hon. friend from Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald) cited instances of gross fraud and irregularities in the taking of the votes of soldiers from British Columbia at the front in respect to a question which was not in any sense of a partisan character. If that were likely to occur in that case, how much more likely is it to occur in this case where there are partisan deputy presiding officers and where there will necessarily be, as there always is in elections, a partisan spirit and a desire on the part of those to whom is entrusted the machinery of the election to win the election for the party with which their sympathies are and the party which has appointed them to discharge this duty. We might avoid that to a very great extent if the presiding officers were appointed jointly upon the nomination of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. I can see no reason why the Government should allow this in the case of the inferior officers and refuse it in the case of those who are really the important officers and upon whose impartiality and fairness rests the proper conduct of the election. 1 am authorized by the leader of the Opposition, upon whom is imposed by clauses (c) and (e) the duty of joining in the choice of the inferior officers, to state that he considers this Bill will fall far short of giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for an honest and impartial election if the same right is not conferred upon him under clause (d) to join in the appointment of the presiding officers.
The Bill gives very wide powers to these presiding officers, particularly to the deputies who are appointed by the presiding officers. They have very great powers. They are allowed to exercise a wide discretion and in many cases, if they see fit to do so, they may take the votes without any notice whatever to the scrutineers and without the candidates of either political party having any opportunity to say a single word in regard to it. I do appeal to the Minister of Justice, if he cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that there should be a nonpartisan commission to attend to the whole matter, to accept the suggestion and act
upon the request conveyed through me now by the leader of the Opposition, who is not able to be present to-night, that the same provision be inserted in clause (d) with respect to the appointment of the presiding officers, as the minister has inserted in clauses (c) and (e) with respect to the special returning officers and scrutineers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the hon. gentleman is moving in amendment that clause (d) should be made to correspond, in so far as the nominations are concerned with clause (c) and that we may take it that (c) is not objected to. I would like to get at it in a regular way so that we could take up the discussion of the amendment to (d) and therefore I would suggest that we dispose of clause (c) first.


William Pugsley: I would think that the three clauses ought to go together.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not quite see what we gain by allowing clause (c) to stand while we are dealing with (d) and moving to amend it by applying the principle of
(c)	to (d). Unless it is assumed that the principle that underlies (c) is approved, why should we be seeking to add it to
(d) ?	.


William Pugsley: While the leader of the Opposition might be fairly called upon to perform the duty of taking part in the nomination of presiding officers, special returning officers and scrutineers, a duty which he is quite willing to perform, I think it an outrage-and I think I can speak for him when I say it is an outrage -that he should be called upon to perform that duty with respect to the minor officers and should be refused the privilege of performing the same duty in respect to the higher officers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Am I to understand that if the amendment to (d) were not carried then clause (c) would be looked upon as an outrage to the leader of the Opposition? As 1 understand that the reason why we cannot deal with clause (c) by itself is that if we do not amend clause (d) then clause (c) stands as an outrage to the leader of the Opposition? I have heard many observations during the course of this discussion that have surprised me, but I confess that none has surprised me more than the suggestion that it is an outrage to the leader of the Opposition to confer upon him this right which is conferred by clause (c). I can grasp the complaint, although I do not think it is a well founded complaint, that the same authority is not

given him in regard to those officials to be appointed under clause (d). But I have a good deal of difficulty in seeing where the outrage presents itself in the fact that we extend the right to the leader of the Opposition to nominate half of the gentlemen who are to do the counting. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) has spoken of the minor and inferior officers and people of no importance at all in the conduct of this election. I respectfully beg to differ from him in that regard. I ask the House what criticism we should have been subjected to if, when we, dealing with a new class of officers-a class of officers that does not exist under the Dominion Election Act, a class of officers for whose services there is no occasion in a general election, a class of officers who are to be responsible for the proper counting and return of the ballots-we had not given the leader of the Opposition the right to have a say in the selection. That strikes me as a very important part of the work of an election. There was a very wise gentleman, who wrote a large number of articles replete with wisdom, and written in a most eloquent brogue, who put it forward as a suggestion for the settlement of the difficulties which eventuated in the Boer war that if he had been allowed to he could have settled the matter perfectly-that he would have been quite satisfied to allow them to give votes to whomsoever they chose provided only that they would allow him to count the ballots. I think that there is no operation of more importance than the counting of the ballots.


William Pugsley: It is more important to get them in the bag in this case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will come to that in a moment. To represent it as an operation [DOT]of no importance, of so slight an importance that it is an outrage on the leader of the Opposition to give him the opportunity of *appointing one-half of the people who are going to do that counting and, furthermore, to provide that no counting shall be done without one officer of his nomination being present at it, is a statement that I frankly confess I am incapable-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The member for St. John will probably withdraw the word " outrage " if the minister will tell us he will accept the amendment.


William Pugsley: Call it an insult.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am asked to agree to an amendment to clause (d) as a condition 
to my refraining from making any observations about the section that is objected to. I cannot quite grasp what the objection to clause (d) is. It has been offered to withdraw the word "outrage". If that word is withdrawn, then I would understand that the objection made to clause (d) is withdrawn, because thait is the only objection I *have heard. However, it is for the leader of the Opposition to determine what is the proper course for him to take in regard to clause (c). It was not inserted with any intention of offering offence and it is a matter of surprise to me that it should be suggested that there can be a word used to indicate that there is anything offensive in *it. As regards the amendment, I do not *know that it would be useful for me to go over what I said this afternoon. When we come to deal with this amendment we are dealing with a class of officers who have existed under the Elections Act so long as we have had elections; and the universal practice has been that the Government should appoint them andi be responsible for their appointment, as the Government must be responsible for the carrying on of the election. Now we are asked to abdicate that function simply because it is soldiers whose votes are going to be taken under the direction of each presiding officer; for it is not a question of the deputy presiding officer but of the presiding officer. It is soldiers' votes that are to be taken in France and England and the suggestion is that because that happens it necessarily follows that we ought to call m the Opposition to share with us the duty of appointing these public officers and, naturally, the responsibility for the carrying on of the election. I have not heard any *reason advanced that could not be equally applied to the appointment of returning officers in tlris country. I am not at all prepared to accept the argument that because a mah is appointed to a public office to do the business of the state, by the Government, that he is necessarily a partisan, and such a partisan as will abuse his position to give advantage to the party to which the Government which appointed him happens to belong. In all frankness, do we all stand here charging the returning officers in all the constituencies of Canada, ever since there has been a Dominion and we have had elections, with having been that kind of partisan and with having subjected the members of this House to injustice? I think the implication is most unfair and not justified by the facts or by experience. There may be cases

where a returning officer, because he was appointed by a certain government, or not so much because he was appointed as because he individually happened to be an unscrupulous partisan, has abused his position. But I have been through two elections and in each case the party to which I was opposed was in power; they appointed the returning officer and he appointed deputy returning officers, and I never had ground to complain against that gentleman;
I never saw that he did not perform his duties perfectly fairly and impartially from start to finish, and I am quite satisfied that hon. gentlemen from every other constituency can give the same testimony. I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that because a man is appointed to this important public office by the Government, that necessarily means that he is going to be a partisan of the type that will violate his oath and abuse his office for the purpose of favouring the party represented by the Government which appointed him. That is the one reason that is advanced. We have never heard this presiding officer mentioned to-day without the prefix " partisan. The prefix, of course, applies necessarily, if it applies to him, to every returning officer and every deputy returning officer who has acted in any election in this country, and to all of those who will adt in the election that is to come; and yet we have not had any suggestion that in this country the Government should abdicate this function and duty of appointing the returning officers. I can see no reason why we should depart, with regard to these precisely similar officers, from the rule which has been the custom for so long and that is still the law in this country.


William Pugsley: In view of the minister's statement that the Government should not at all abdicate its exclusive right to conduct an election, why has he given to the leader of the Opposition the right to name one-half of these special returning officers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the fault found with me is that I gave that right to the leader of the Opposition, then, of course, it is with some little surprise that I discover that fault is found, but to avoid criticism for having done that I would consent to withdraw the clause giving that power. If consistency is so precious a jewel that, rather than I should lose it, the hon. gentleman would prefer that I should not extend that power to the leader of the Opposition, I will be willing to withdraw that clause. I have said what I have to say on that clause, and
I have pointed out that the reason this .provision was made is that this is the first time that there has been occasion for the services of officers of this kind. We are dealing now with a very special office, one that has not existed in the past and an office the holders of which are to perform duties, in my opinion, of the very first importance. We are also providing for an operation where there will,be very material advantages to result from the fact that the same individual fills the public office and also acts, perfectly frankly and fairly, as the representative of his party to see that things .are done Tight. And that brings me to a moment's consideration of what is proposed here. With regard to counting officers and returning officers, they are to act in couples. This operation will be carried on by the two together; the one .and the same operation is participated in and controlled by the representatives of each parly. What is in the mind of the hon. gentleman with regard to presiding officers? One-half of them will be named by the leader of the Opposition and one-half will be named by the leader of the Government.
Those two presiding officers do not act together, and the reason put forward for requiring this is that the man named by the Government will necessarily be a partisan of the Government. It is not unfair, then, to conclude on the same reasoning, that the man named by the leader of the Opposition will be a partisan of the Opposition. With a nomination of that kind, we withdraw from the man who holds the position any idea that, whatever the complexion of the government that appointed him he is a representative of the whole state .and is charged with the duty of being faithful to the whole people. When you divide them up in this way, -and have one of them the nominee of the Opposition, and the other the nominee of the Government, it is notice to them that they are to be representatives of political parties, and what is going to happen?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why did the minister appoint special returning officers, half of whom are to be nominated by the leader of the Opposition, to do the counting and recording? Ordinarily the counting is done by the returning officer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was the purpose of this provision?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Ordinarily the counting is done by the returning officer. I should

like to ask the hon. gentleman from Halifax how he would suggest that, in the taking of the soldiers' votes, the presiding officer should count the ballots. The hon. member, when he suggests that, must certainly forget that the deputy presiding officer will be taking the votes of a group of soldiers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, that is not the point.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I would be glad to understand it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I simply asked why in this Bill power is taken to permit the appointment on the recommendation of the leader of the Opposition of one-half of the special returning officers. I do not object to it. I think it should be there, and I do not agree with the hon. gentleman from St. John in that respect. But why give that power to the leader of the Opposition in that case, and not in the other case?


William Pugsley: I wish to correct my hon. friend. I said exactly what the hon. gentleman says. I says it is an insult to the leader of the Opposition to have the provision in respect to the inferior officer and refuse it in respect to the important officer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I take it that the clause is adopted? Here are hon. gentlemen vying with each other to say how perfectly satisfied they are that that should be done with reference to the returning officer. The hon. member for Halifax asks me why I did that. I must express my regret that I have such a marked incapacity for conveying my ideas. Whether the reason be sufficient or not, just a few moments ago I gave the reasons which led me to do that.
I will be glad to repeat them if it is necessary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. minister did it because he thought it was a fair thing to do, and would eliminate suspicion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not apply the same idea to clause (d)? '


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did it because I
thought it was a fair thing to do, and because we were dealing with an entirely new phase, conferring functions upon this man to be carried out under conditions absolutely different from those under which the counting of ballots is ever done. I did not do it to avoid suspicion, I did it because I believed it to be fair and unobjectionable. If I had done it in the hope

of avoiding suspicion, I may say that I would have been grievously disappointed, because all I seem to have earned by it is a grave suspicion with regard to the presiding officer. This assortment and counting of ballots as proposed will very probably have to be done under conditions where there will be a number of acting returning officers and a number of clerks busy assorting ballots from numerous different constituencies and counting those ballots at the same time. If one sought to provide for representation of the party merely by scrutineers or agents, it might present very serious practical inconvenience to provide agents for both parties to watch the operations of these numerous groups of acting returning officers and their clerks and it seemed to me that there was a direct practical advantage in providing that the people doing the work should really fill the dual office of assorters or counters of ballots and of representatives of the party. I had a new function to confer; it was one, in my mind, of very great importance; and I thought that it would be, as the hon. gentleman says, a fair thing. Because I did that I am now asked to abdicate what has been the function of governments even since we have had elections with regard to an officer whose duties are on all fours with those of the ordinary returning officer-in fact not as important, because he has not to do with the official return with regard to the election. I am not prepared to accept the doctrine that this Government is incapable of appointing to a position of that kind any except a partisan, those capable of using the office for the purpose of fraud and of partisanship; men who will see to it that every deputy presiding officer they appoint shall be equally a partisan capable of violating his oath and using his office for the purpose of fraud. I am quite satisfied there is no foundation for the suspicion which I have aroused by my simple desire to guard this new and very peculiar office with what I am prepared to admit is a most extraordinary precaution. While I was not doing it to ward off suspicion, certainly it was one of the last things that I could have imagined would have brought upon me all this suspicion.
As regards the amendment, I certainly cannot, for the reasons I have given, accept the proposal, and I trust that members of the committee will agree with me that it is not a proposal which I can fairly be expected to accept.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hope the minister will reconsider his position in respect to the amendment offered by the hon. member for St. John, and will yet accept it. It is a pity we should take up a whole hour getting nowhere, and having the whole issue befogged, when we might make progress by the minister accepting the amendment. I rise particularly to second his amendment. The conditions surrounding the taking of the military vote in Europe are in no respect similar to the conditions surrounding the polling of votes in ordinary elections. I make the suggestion to him in a friendly spirit that I do not think he gave the committee any reason to justify the position he took a moment ago in refusing to accept the amendment.
He has stated that the Government should not be expected to forego a function usually exercised by a government during election time. Quite true; but the premise is wrong; the conditions are dissimilar. In taking an election in Canada in ordinary times, it does not matter much who the returning officers or the deputy returning officers are. In the constituency of Halifax in the Dominion elections half the deputy returning officers are Conservatives and half Liberals. Although the returning officer in that constituency is a Liberal, he will likely be the returning officer during this election, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative party is in power.
Mr. R. B. BENNETT He is probably the sheriff.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: amendment should have a seconder, hut if *it is, I desire to second it.


George Taylor: I do not know that I
could give a 'better reason than that given by the Minister of Justice why the Government should not abdicate its function to the Opposition with respect to the conduct of this election, but I think I can give a very good reason from the military standpoint why the amendment of the member for St. John should not be accepted. These presiding officers and their deputies are to ibe military electors. The issue before the imen in the camps in England and in France will be whether the Parliament of iCanada is to send them assistance or is to leave them there unaided, to be destroyed 'by the enemy.


George Perry Graham: Is that what they are
going to place before the soldiers as the issue? The cat is out of the bag.


George Taylor: The member for South
Renfrew asks: Is that the issue that they *are going to place before the soldiers? I answer him that that is the issue that the Liberal party in this Parliament, or such of them as support this policy of obstruction of a measure of aid to the soldiers are placing before them to-night. Such being the issue, I should not like to be one of those stigmatised before his fellows in the trenches as the nominee of the political leader in Canada, who refuses to send him assistance, to protect the interests of that leader in the voting. It appears to me that there is a very special reason why that kind of politics should; not be obtruded upon the soldiers at the front. The provision in this Bill providing for the nomination of counting officers is of a very different type. But to go into every camp and to tell the men in those camps: this officer represents those who would help you; this officer represents those who refuse to help you, would, it seems to me, be a most deplorable condition.


George Perry Graham: It would not be true.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Who would do that?


George Taylor: Who would do it? Any person who told the truth would do it.


George Perry Graham: Then the returning officers are to be political agents?


George Taylor: The horn, member for
South Renfrew asks again if the returning officers are to be political agents. I say, God forbid; that is why they should be appointed by the Government of the day and 
not by one political party or by another political party.


William Pugsley: By such a wonderful
non-partisan Government.


George Taylor: The Government of the
day represents the whole of Canada; it speaks for the whole of Canada. As we were told by .the member for Halifax just now, the Government of the day-


Mr. DEVLIN :: I rise to a point of order. I am here, as a member of this committee, to listen to reasons for or against the acceptance of an amendment to subsection (d) of section 4, and I am not here to listen to abuse of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The hon. gentleman will have to be more specific if he wishes to make a point of order on which I can rule.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I claim that the remarks of my hon. friend are not relevant to the question under discussion.


George Taylor: Speaking to the point of order-


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: There is no point of order before the Chair.


George Taylor: If there is no point of order before the Chair I am quite satisfied, but if there is a point of order I desire to speak to it, and to say that I am not satisfied to sit in this House and have the freedom of debate exercised by critics of this side of the House when we in turn are not expected to reply in kind. There is no one more desirous than I am of keeping strictly to the rules of debate, but if latitude is allowed to any hon. member to depart from the rules, surely any other member who desires to make reply to him should have the same privilege. The events in connection with the voting in the province of British Columbia have no bearing upon any part of this Bill, yet a great part of the time of the House has been taken up to-day by one hon. gentleman after another in relating those occurrences. I wish to say on behalf of the province of British Columbia that that province had very little part in creating the occurrences which have been recited here. As to the recital itself, it is that of a partisan commission representing only one side of the issue before the electors, and representing the political faith of the government appointing it. I have not read their report, and all I have heard of it is what was read to the House to-day by the hon. member for Pictou.

But that had nothing to do with the taking, of the soldiers' votes on the political issue as to which, as explained oy the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) no fault has been found. What occurred was that when they came to the vote on prohibition, the prohibition party abandoned any attempt at scrutineering, and allowed the other party to complete the vote without any surveillance at all. Is it remarkable that frauds should occur under those circumstances?-circumstances which are not at all contemplated by this Act, and circumstances which have a parallel in the province of Quebec, where a vote was taken on the question of prohibition under precisely similar circumstances. I say this in justice to the province of British Columbia, where, with one solitary exception, we have been entirely free from political voting scandals.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If any further reason could possibly be needed in support of the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has given it. He has given us an excellent illustration of what may happen in the taking of this vote. I had no idea that such a thing might be done when we were discussing this Bill on former occasions, but the hon. gentleman apparently knows what is intended to be done. He is, however, labouring under a difficulty; he expresses sympathy for the officers who will represent the right hon. leader of the Opposition. He need not worry about that, because I can assure him he will not be asked to be one of them. Nor do I think he need worry about the other officers who may be asked, because I have no doubt they will be just as capable of looking after themselves, and of fighting at the front, as my hon. friend. I would point out to the Minister of Justice that probably only a few presiding officers will be appointed under this Bill, and they will have the right to appoint deputies. For that reason, if for no other, I think an equal number could very well be appointed, and they could then consult together as to the appointment of their deputies, and I have n'ot the slightest doubt that they could easily agree upon the .appointment of deputies who would be practically non-partisan; and it is only to avoid partisanship that we want this done. The amendments to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) seem to me to be perfectly all right. As to the minister's point, that the Government always appoints the deputy returning officers in
Canada, his comparison is not on all-fours with this case, because in Canada every candidate has a scrutineer to help him not only in the taking of the vote, but at the counting of the vote. The scrutineer generally knows his business, just as the deputy returning officer does, and is right there to represent his candidate. If I may turn to section 8, subsection 3, I would point out that it says: "Where conditions make it reasonably possible the deputy presiding officer shall give public notice," etc. Subsection 5 says: "The deputy presiding officer may take ^uch vote otherwise than at a formally held poll." I think that if the minister would accept this amendment he would remove to a very great extent the faults we find in this Bill. I do not believe there are many, if any, hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who do not want to see the Bill go through as rapidly as possible, but at the same time they want to see it made as perfect as possible. Nor do I believe that hon. gentlemen opposite, as a general rule anyway, wish to gain any advantage in the taking of this vote. I know a great many of them would never dream of taking such an advantage over hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. For that reason I urge the minister to accept the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John, which I think will cover not only this particular section, but, to a very great extent, section 8 also. If the amendment were accepted I think we should get along .much more rapidly


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is not the minister going to accept the amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have already announced that I could not see why I should accept the amendment, although I have been reproached for giving no reason for not accepting it. I Wish to speak with perfect respect for the hon. gentlemen who have advanced what they consider to be conclusive reasons for the amendment. . Speaking with that respect, I venture to say that I have heard no reason that carries conviction to me that it should be accepted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the minister consider favourably the suggestion that those presiding officers should be appointed by the Governor in Council on the nomination of the officer commanding the Canadian forces, General Sir Arthur Currie? Those presiding officers are to be military electors. I doubt the wisdom of this. The officer commanding the forces, should be in a very good position to judge as to what military electors he could nominate for this
47T0


work. The Governor in Council might suggest military electors as returning officers, who might not be able to give sufficient time to the work, because it might interfere with the proper discharge of their usual military duties.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: It would hardly be fair to General Currie. He has not the time to do it.


George Green Foster: General Currie has a good deal to do.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) wants this House to believe that the evidence I read this afternoon from the report tabled in the Legislature of British Columbia, and which was acted upon by the legislature, is of no value to us in considering this Bill. As was shown by the comment and the data which I read, it was not merely a report of the conclusions or findings of the gentlemen who composed the commission, but contained the evidence given before them, and showed that there was fraudulent voting, and repeated voting, and all kinds of disregard of the ordinary rules which apply in elections. This is a fact which cannot be controverted. The fact that under those conditions and at that time it was possible that a total disregard of the rules and laws which relate to proper voting should exist, is ample justification of the position taken by hon. gentlemen that under this Bill there should be no possibility of these things arising, and that we should place upon this vote such safeguards that everybody in the country should feel that the boys at the front were given a full and fair opportunity to express their views, and that their vote was honestly recorded. Hon. gentlemen have indulged in heroics on the question of who should have a vote under this Bill, but, if we send to the boys a Bill under which they are to voice their opinion, no matter what it may be, and that voice can be perverted by officials on whom there are not these ordinary checks which should be provided in cases of that kind, and if we are to have returning officers who are to be permitted to do what was done under the British Columbia Act, how are we oer-forming our duty to the boys at the front?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were no
scrutineers there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I beg my hon.
friend's pardon. There were scrutineers. I read the report very fully this afternoon,

but my hon. friend was not here. It pointed out in one particular case that such a well-known gentleman as Rev. Dr. Pringle was acting as scrutineer, and that gentleman alleged before the commission that he was not notified of a poll being held in the vicinity where he was, and where he could have attended as a scrutineer. The returning officer knew he was a scrutineer-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, there was no scrutineer?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was cited as a
case of the parties carrying on the election in disregard of the law. They failed to notify a man who had a right to be there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So, there were no scrutineers ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There were scrutineers. I read a list of places where the scrutineers had a right to be, but they were not notified, and consequently they were not there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Therefore, there
were no scrutineers there?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Under this Bill, the same possibilities may arise, and we want to provide against that. We want to see that the parties who are to conduct the election are placed upon, the same basis as other officials. I cannot sit down without noticing the remarks of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) which I think were entirely out of order. At this stage, we are not discussing the Military Service Bill. My hon. friend's idea as to what the issues are in this question are very peculiar. Does my hon. friend mean to intimate that gentlemen on this side of the House are not as anxious as he is to give every possible aid to the boys iat the front.
Some hon. MEMBER'S: No, no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then all I have to say is that this is a specie of Toryism which, I suppose, we are going to have inflicted throughout this country at the coming election. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House may differ with regard to methods, just as hon. gentlemen on the other side differ with regard to methods, but none of us in this House, I care not on which side they are, in my judgment differ, in any respect on the point that we must play our part and do everything we can in order to see that every aid possible is given to Great Britain and the Allies. Speaking for myself and hon. gentlemen associated with me, we

.resent any such imputation from the gentleman who has made them. Loyalty is not a mere matter of lip-service. Hon. gentlemen may speak as they please upon the .subject, but the people of the country, and gentlemen on this side of the House know that in their hearts, and in their deeds and in their acts they aTe just as loyal to the cause in every way as are any gentlemen who sit opposite.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not know that it
will serve any purpose to press the minister very much further in regard to this matter, hut I would like to. submit to him that the proposal made by the hon. member for St. John is an eminently fair one. It is of the utmost importance that both sides be represented in every poll where an election is going on. The system my hon. friend from Halifax spoke of as prevailing in Nova Scotia is not confined to the county of Halifax, but prevails in other counties in the province-the custom is when the returning officer happens ,to be of one stripe, the clerk is always of the other stripe. That is fair.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Does my hon. friend
pretend that is the custom in Nova Scotia?


John Howard Sinclair: That is the practice in certain counties in Nova Scotia. If my then. friend was acquainted with affairs in Nova Scotia, he would agree with me that it is the case. lit has been the custom, and the sheriff in such cases has to take care, that if the deputy returning officer is a Conservative, the clerk must be a Liberal, and vice versa. I cannot see why there should be a large number of presiding officers. As I understand (this Bill, the duty of the presiding officer is to appoint deputy presiding officers. One presiding officer who is a man in whom every one .would have confidence-like the commanding officer of the forces-could appoint all the deputies required on both sides of the /Channel, and if we were sure that a man of that character had control of the appoint.-jments, then we should feel assured that the matter would be properly dealt with.
But this Bill provides for the appointment of an indefinite number of presiding officers and these are given power ot appoint any number of deputies. We do not know where we are in connection with this Bill. There is no necessity for more than two presiding officers. A poll will be taken in England, I presume. It may be necessary to have an officer in England to appoint the deputy returning officers to act in the different camps in Great Britain. It
will be necessary to have a returning officer in France to appoint the deputies to act in the different camps in France. It will not be necessary to have any more, because one man can perform the duty better than half a dozen can. I appeal to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who is here listening to the debate, and to the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), who is regarded as an eminently fair man, to influence their colleague with regard to the acceptance of thus proposal. There is a great deal of discussion in the press .and in the country these days about union Government. I understand that many hon. gentlemen opposite favour a Government in which partisanship shall be done .away with and in which we shall all pull together in the interest of the great cause that we all profess to have at heart.


William Cameron Edwards: How do you feel about it?


John Howard Sinclair: I would like very much to see it brought about. Here is an opportunity for hon. gentlemen opposite to show their sincerity in regard to this great question of a union Government. If they are really sincere they will want to go a little farther than they have gone in regard to meeting us on this Bill. This presents .an opportunity, an opening which should not be disregarded by these hon. gentlemen to show to the country that they are actually sincere on the question of getting together in a union Government. If the Minister of Justice refuses out and out to accept any proposal to amend this section, and to make it what we regard as fair, it will be fair to conclude that the proposal for a united Government in this country has not very much meaning. I hope that will not be proven to be the position and consequently I would like the Minister of Justice to still consider either the proposal of my hon. friend from St. John, or that of my hon. friend from Halifax. I want also to be understood as resenting the statement of the hon. member for New Westminster. It comes with very poor grace from an hon. gentleman who took a junketting trip across the Atlantic at the expense of the people of this country, who never went near the front and who took good care to keep himself out of any danger.


George Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I ask that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) be directed to withdraw the statement he has made, as being against



the rules of this House. The hon. gentleman has made the statement that I, as an officer in His Majesty's service, took a junketting trip across the continent and the ocean. I desire to have that statement withdrawn. I took no junketting trip.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is it not true?


George Taylor: It is not true and I wish it to be withdrawn.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I suppose the hon. member (Mr. Sinclair) will not have any objection to withdrawing the statement, because it casts an imputation on the honour of an hon. member, and therefore should be withdrawn.
[DOT] *


William Pugsley: What is the imputation in saying that an hon. member took a junketting trip across the Atlantic?


George Taylor: My complaint is that the statement is untrue and reflects unworthily on me.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman did not say that before.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman will not say that it is untrue that he took a trip across the Atlantic at the expense of the people of the country. If it offends him, I have no objection to striking out the word that he took a "junketting" trip.


George Taylor: I appeal to rule 19 of this House.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Surely the hon. member should withdraw these words. It is an imputation on the conduct of an hon. member who went across the ocean as a soldier, but not at the expense of the people in the sense imputed.


John Howard Sinclair: I have already said, out of respect to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am quite willing to drop the word "junketting." That is the only word that I used that might be taken exception to. The rest I would regard as strictly parliamentary, and I think you will agree with me.


Avard Longley Davidson: I understood the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) to state that it was the practice in the province of Nova Scotia, under the late Administration, to conduct elections so that where a deputy returning officer was of one political faith the poll clerk was of another political faith. I do not know where, in Nova Scotia, the hon. gentleman ever saw a practice of that kind carried out. But I do know that I have participated in elections in eight different counties in Nova

Scotia, and in every single instance I found that probably the strongest party man in the district was appointed deputy returning officer, that the next strongest Liberal partisan was appointed poll clerk, and that even the man who sat at the door and acted as constable to keep order wap a conspicuous supporter of the Liberal party. That was in eight different counties in Nova Scotia, and I have yet to find a county where any such fair and just policy as that described by the hon. gentleman has been carried out. My hon. friend referred to the fact that in the discussion of this matter we should have in mind the agitations that are going on at the present time for a union government. I think he made an improper application of his argument. I hope that the Liberal party in this country are loyal and patriotic enough as a class to consent to the generous proposition made by the Prime Minister, and I hope and trust that a union government will be formed, a government which will represent both the Liberal-Conservative party and the Liberal party. If that is so-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Avard Longley Davidson: What is the objection?
Mr. C. A. WILSON; Union Government has failed to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Chair.


Avard Longley Davidson: If hon. gentlemen opposite will express themselves-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Chair, chair.
1 The CHAIRMAN: The argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davidson) must have some relation to the clause under discussion.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think my point is very much in order, and that I shall be able to make myself clear even to the somewhat befuddled intellects of hon. gentlemen opposite. When this Act goes into force it will go into force, as I hope, under a union government, under a government of Conservatives and Liberals alike; it will be a union government that will appoint these officers and consequently the officers they will appoint will be people who will be in a position to represent both the Liberal and Conservative parties. I think that is a cogent and a relevant argument.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) used the argument for the emasculation of this Bill that some soldiers in a

British Columbia regiment which had gone overseas had voted improperly in connection with a certain referendum held for that province. He quoted from a newspaper report to prove his assertion that because members of regiments who were from points outside of British Columbia had voted in that election who had no right to vote, under another law altogether, that was a reason for emasculating and changing the Bill now before the House. I could not follow him, and I wish to point out to him that if he holds that principle it will be a very dangerous principle and very hard to maintain. Only a few months ago one read in the papers that an election had been conducted in Vancouver in a most disgraceful manner, and that aliens and persons with no residence in this country had been brought in to vote for a certain gentleman named Macdonald who had been Attorney General or afterwards became so in the. province of British Columbia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Order.


George Green Foster: At least I think that you should allow my hon. friend to point his argument, to make the conclusion, which is the conclusive way of showing whether or not an argument is out of order.


George Perry Graham: Make his speech and then be called to order?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: That is what I was going to ask the hon. member, to make his argument, because I did not know where he was going.


Avard Longley Davidson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I sometimes take a devious road, but I always reach my point. My argument is that the hon. gentleman claims that because certain irregularities took place in that election we should tear up this Bill. I say that because irregularities existed in an election that resulted in the election of Mr. Macdonald in Vancouver, that would be no argument for tearing up the law of British Columbia-and I think he will admit that, because only a few months ago he was in Vancouver and at a banquet tendered to this same Mr. Macdonald he said he iwas proud of him as a Macdonald.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Avard Longley Davidson: He said more than
that,-that he was-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Avard Longley Davidson: -that-he was just the kind of man they wanted in Ottawa and he
302J
invited the people of Vancouver to send that man to Ottawa as their member. As a matter of fact, only a few months later it was found necessary because of revelations made to retire Mr. Macdonald from the Government of British Columbia-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Avard Longley Davidson: I say with all possible emphasis that the mere fact of fraud being committed in a certain vote taken among soldiers is no reason to deprive the soldiers of their franchise, is no reason for emasculating an entirely different Bill. Down in Nova Scotia there are sometimes irregularities in connection with elections. I have known of irregularities in connection with the revision of the voters' lists. I have known members prominent in professional life in Nova Scotia to conduct most disreputable affairs in connection with these elections, but that is no argument for tearing up the Franchise Act of Nova Scotia. I think there is very little in the argument of my hon, friend. _


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Before I put the amendment to the committee, I think it is proper by the rules of the House to dispose of clause (c). Shall clause (c) be adopted?


George Perry Graham: If the committee, by the consent of the minister, leaves a section over, you can pass any other section in the Bill. If the minister insisted that he would not take up (d) until (c) is disposed of, your point of order might be well taken. But, as a matter of fact, any clause may be left over by consent of the committee.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The three subsections are before the committee. Rule 55 says:
In proceedings in Committee of the Whole House upon Bills the preamble is first postponed and then every clause considered in the proper order.
The proper order is to take (e) before (d), unless (c) stands.


William Pugsley: The rule that you are reading does not apply to subdivisions of sections, but only to sections. This is a subclause, a paragraph, which with the' consent of the minister, we passed over, and went away down and passed subsections 2, 3 and 4. Now we go back. We are proceeding backwards, and we have a right to take (d) or (c) or the whole thing together. The only possible question is on (d).


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Bourinot goes so far as to say that amendments must be made

in the order of the lines of a clause. He goes as far as that.


William Pugsley: He does not say the linq3 of a subclause.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: If we should now amend clause (d) we could not amend clause (c) unless the clause stands.


William Pugsley: Clause (c) has been standing for some time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Clause (c) may be made to stand. I would point out that, at the special instance of the hon. member for St. John, we came back to (c) and (d) and (e), and he expressly declined to allow us to deal with (c) as a separate thing by itself, insisting that they should both be before the committee together. Therefore it comes that they are both before the committee together, and the rule seems clearly applicable.


William Pugsley: Is my suggestion not right that the three clauses are not before the committee, and I have moved an amendment to subclause (d) and the vote on the amendment is taken first.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I suppose it is better to progress backwards than not to progress at all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The question is on the amendment.
Amendment Mr. Pugsley negatived.-Yeas 43, nays 48.
On section 5-Ballots and custody.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Pugsley: Who said carried? Just give us a little chance to discuss this section. This Bill forms the object of very important state papers referred to in the correspondence between the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the ex-Minister of public Works (Mr. Rogers) in that very able campaign correspondence which has been submitted for the information of the country, particularly the letter of the Prime Minister. Therefore, we should not be blamed for taking a little bit of time.


George Green Foster: Cut out the introduction.


Mr. OROTHERS:: Get down to work.


William Pugsley: If the minister would
keep quiet we should get on more rapidly. The remarks of the minister encourage the other fellows. The hon. gentleman from Annapolis spoke at great length, and obstructed the passage of this Bill.
{The Chairman.]


Avard Longley Davidson: I did not take half
as much time as my hon. friend from St. John.


John Allister Currie: The talk of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) will cost the country a quarter of a million dollars.


William Pugsley: I call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that the form of ballot paper which is referred to in this section, is not the proper form, in my opinion. It is calculated to convey to the voter the idea that he may select a person for whom he wishes to vote, even although that person may not be regularly nominated. He might have anticipated that that person would be nominated. I think there should be instructions which would show to the voter that if he chooses to vote for an individual, instead of voting for the party -the Government, or Opposition, or independent party-that his ballot will not be counted. Form (a) of the Bill is defective in other respects. It says:
The voter to make an X within the white space containing- the name of the party for which he intends to vote, or if the voter desires to vote for any particular person, the voter shall write the name of such person in the first space.
That should be changed to read "Any particular candidate or candidates," because there are constituencies in Canada where two members are selected-for instance, the city and county of St. John, Ottawa and the city and county of Halifax.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
William Pugsley: It is provided by this section that the ballot papers shall be delivered by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the officers in command of any troops in Bermuda. Does that mean that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery must go to Bermuda and deliver the ballots? I should think they could be transmitted to Bermuda by registered letter, without going to the expense of sending to Bermuda.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I thought it was so obvious that the ballots would be sent there by registered letter that no explanation was necessary.


William Pugsley: I would scarcely have thought the language was intended to mean the Clerk of the Crown must go there personally, I think I have examined other parts of the Bill sufficiently to enable me to state that there is no provision for keeping count of the ballots which are printed.

They should be official ballots. As I understand, the officer in England can have as many (ballots struck off as he pleases. There is no limitation. I think it is only a reasonable precaution that there should he a certain number of official ballots, and all the ballots which are handed to the presiding officers should be accounted for. There would be a certain number used, so many ballots returned, and so many ballots spoiled. Any of those official ballots which have not been used should be returned to the proper officers at Ottawa. There is no provision in regard to that. This measure only provides for the commanding officer making returns of ballots, but there is no cheek on the ballot papers which are issued by the officer in London, or by the officer, in Ottawa. It seems to me there should be a careful check upon those ballot papers, so that the number of ballots left on hand would be known, and would be a safeguard against duplication of ballots and against ballots being printed by others than those who are officially authorized to print them.


John Allister Currie: I think my hon. friend will find that his objection is met in section 13.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: Will the Minister of Justice explain what countries are included in the designation: "In any other place without Canada but in North America"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That would cover the entire continent with the exception of Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: What are the places included?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are soldiers in Bermuda; some of our boys are serving in the patrol motor boat service, the headquarters of which are at Trinidad, and there are soldiers at St. Lucia. This provision applies only [DOT] to those places where commanding officers are in charge of troops. Under the last Act we would have been subject to embarrassment because we mentioned Bermuda specifically, and it afterwards happened that some of our soldiers -not a very large number, it is true-were at St. Lucia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is St. Lucia in North America?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand it to be. It is not on the mainland, of course, but I understand that the term "North America" would include the adjacent islands.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: St. Lucia is not adjacent to the continent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is in North America to the same extent that Great Britain is in Europe. Any geography would include these islands in North America.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There were only 15 or 20 men in St. Lucia.


William Pugsley: The member for North
Simcoe (Mr. Currie) said that section 13 would cover the point that I made with (reference to the ballots. I have read the ^section, and I find that my hon. friend is (entirely mistaken. It relates to a different .matter altogether.


John Allister Currie: The section reads:
Notwithstanding anything contained in Part III, every returning officer appointed and acting under that Part in respect ol an electoral district wherein a poll is held, as soon as ho has made the final addition of the votes polled pursuant to that Part, shall, without dec)ar->
ing any candidate elected and without making the return required by section two hundred and eleven of that Part, make, sign and seal a certificate stating the number of votes given for each candidate, as determined by such final addition, and the report required by section two hundred and thirteen of Part Illy and transmit to the general returning officer the writ of election together with such certifi-. cate and report, the stamp furnished him for stamping the ballot papers, and all the ballot papers, including those unused, the original statements of the several deputy returning officers, the lists of voters, the poll books used in the several polling divisions, and all other lists and documents furnished for the election; or which have been transmitted to him by the deputy returning officers.
The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery sends a certain number of ballots to the returning officer, as in an ordinary election, and ultimately gets them back.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will
pardon me; section 13 deals entirely with ian election held under part 3, which is a provision of the Dominion Elections Act.


John Allister Currie: All the Dominion Elections Act applies to this. Where this Act does not apply, the other does.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This section provides, in the form of the schedule, the kind of ballot to be used in this section. The ballot makes provision for the military elector casting a vote for the Government, for the Opposition or for an independent candidate. This is a designation of party upon the ballot which has never existed in any British country in theory or in practice. On that ground I must express regret that the minister has seen fit to adopt that form of ballot. Things may happen before the next election takes place which would make it difficult to determine the exact position

of some candidates in the party 10 p.m. sense. The member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) expressed his hope for the organization of a union Government. If that hope should be fulfilled, there would be a temporary obliteration of party lines in this country, at least to some extent. It would not be binding, however, upon the member for North Sim-coe (Mr. Currie) or upon any other person. The member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) says that even in that event there would be an Opposition. Well, if a union Government were organized it would take some time for an Opposition to evolve. They might not have sufficient time prior to polling day to become a political organization in the sense in which the Liberal party to-day is an Opposition party. Many other things might happen to make a ballot of this kind impracticable and unfair. My view is that the ballot should contain the name of the candidates; no matter what happens, that is the fair thing. It is fair to everybody. The hon. member for St. Antoine shakes his head. What is his objection?


Sir HERBERT AMES:: If you will look through the service roll of any battalion overseas, you will find the battalion is made up of men from probably fifty different points in Canada. If that battalion is at a certain point in France near the front, do you mean, to tell me that you can supply the men with a complete set of ballots for every candidate in Canada?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that the only objection?
! Sir HERBERT AMES: That is one which it seems to me is sufficient in itself.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
William Cameron Edwards: Let us suppose there are three candidates, Smith, Jones and Brown, in a particular constituency. Does the hon. member suggest that we should also print on the ballot paper that Smith was for the Government, Jones for the Opposition, and Brown independent?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not intend any party designation of candidates whatever.


William Cameron Edwards: Then you would be up against a very serious difficulty, because the soldier would in many cases not know whether Brown or Smith was for or against the Government, and he would have to vote blind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is true to some extent, but even then it would be a more intelligent vote than where the ballots are simply marked for the Government or for the Opposition, particularly in cases where the man is not able to indicate an electoral district, when the Prime Minister or the leader of the Opposition really names the candidates voted for.


John Allister Currie: Let us suppose there are four hundred candidates. Now there might be four or five hundred men in a battalion who would wish to vote in some electoral district. In order to insure there being a sufficient number of ballot papers you would have to put two hundred thousand papers, -four hundred multiplied by at least five hundred-in the hands of each deputy returning officer. I want to see the soldiers vote properly, and if the hon. member can suggest any better method I should be willing to support him.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend has suggested a difficulty, but I do not think the difficulty 'is insuperable. In many cases you will find several battalions belonging to one province close together, and then there would be very little difficulty such as my hon. friend suggests. Take my own case, for instance, as an illustration of how this proposal might work a hardship. The hon. member for New

Westminster said a few moments ago that conscription would be the issue with the military elector. Assume that I am a candidate in the next election, which is possible. In my constituency there will he four candidates. The Prime Minister will be one, in support of the Conscription Bill.
I also supported the Bill. Now in that case it would be almost impossible for any military elector from the constituency of Halifax to vote, if the only consideration was the attitude of the Prime Minister and myself upon the Conscription Bill, and that attitude were judged merely by the vote in the House. That one illustration alone raises a very difficult question, and I submit that this form of ballot hardly meets the situation. In the province of New Brunswick they have a form of ballot which perhaps might be used here. The official envelope is provided by the Government, and the ballot is enclosed in it after being marked by the elector. The candidates in a provincial election in New Brunswick prepare their own ballot, having tneir own ' names printed on them if they like, or they can supply the voter with a blank piece of paper and he can write on it the name of the candidate for whom he desires to vote. The protection is in the envelope. The procedure in New Brunswick might possibly be useful in considering this matter. I do not like the idea of giving statutory recognition of party in a ballot. We have never done it in this country, nor has it been done in any other part of the British Empire. In theory there is no such thing as party in our constitution. It may be true, as the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) suggests, that there will be difficulty in the way of printing the names of the candidates. I admit that it may be difficult to meet some of the objections which could be raised against my own suggestion, but I think upon the whole it will be less objectionable than that proposed in the ballot form in the schedule. I do not think there is any difficulty in having the ballot bearing the names of the candidates nominated in each constituency put before the military electors. By the use of the cable the names of these candidates could be in Great Britain and in Europe 25 or 27 days before polling day; then in all the camps, the hospitals and other places where our forces are assembled, the names of the different candidates in each constituency can be printed in the usual manner, and within a period of two or three weeks the military electors will become acquainted with the name of each candidate. In the
British Columbia elections there was a polling held at Halifax. There was an official ballot, but the names of the candidates were not printed upon it. I had something to do with that polling on behalf of the Lib ral candidates in British Columbia. The Government did not even furnish the men with the names of the candidates on either side. Those names were supplied to the voters at Halifax by friends of both parties in British Columbia. I remember in the city of Vancouver there was quite a number of candidates on both sides, and it was found that most of the soldiers voting knew hardly any of them. A good many of the soldiers knew Mr. Bowser's name, because he had been so long before the public of British Columbia, but it was almost the only name upon the ballot that was known to the soldier voters who had to vote in the city of Vancouver. If you have the ballot printed with the name of the candidate upon it, and have the usual notices posted at the camps, gradually the electors will become acquainted with the names of the candidates in the district which they are likely to designate as their electoral district. I submit that this form of ballot should be changed, and that we should endeavour to have the names of the candidates printed on the ballot.


James Arthurs: I listened with some amusement to the hon. member for Halifax working out in his own mind an absolutely unworkable scheme. There is no question about it that a ballot could not be prepared or used in the manner indicated toy my hon. friend, particularly in Prance. There is with each battalion on an average of about one thousand men. Even presuming that the majority of these men are from one constituency, yet a deputy presiding officer would have to carry anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000 ballots in order to be sure he would have a ballot available for a man from any constituency. Many battalions in Canada went over in the first place from one constituency. These battalions have been broken up and the men scattered around among other battalions from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Men have been wounded, have gone back to England, and when they recovered and were sent hack to France again they did not return to their original battalions. Then we have corps like the engineers, raised from the Atlantic to the Pacific. You will find in one small company of engineers, consisting of 700 or 800 men, men from almost every constituency in the country.

Another consideration is this-as has been pointed out by the hon. gentleman himself -the men would be unacquainted with a great many of the candidates. There is also another point. The men at the front do not know, in many cases, what constituency they belong to. We had a revision of the constituencies in this country, and there are men over there now who have no idea as to what constituency they belong to. It is absolutely necessary to get the information from the man himself in some way, perhaps not exactly in the form we have it on the back of this ballot, but the information must be obtained from the man as to the locality from which he comes, so that his vote may be properly allocated to that constituency. The junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) says they will have 27 days to prepare those papers and the ballots, but he must remember that part of those 27 days will be taken up by the voting. Some of the men must vote before the expiration of the last week. Some of the men must vote before they go to the trenches, 'and others after they come out.
Mr. C. A. WILSOij7:	The same thing
happens here. There are many people who cannot vote here.


James Arthurs: That is no reason why the soldiers should not vote. We want to make this Act so that the soldier can vote.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I would like to draw atr tention to the fact that there is a great likelihood of spoiled ballots because of writing in the name. In the province of New Brunswick we have a ballot on which either the names are printed or the voter may write in the name of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote. Because of this conflict between the local ballot and the federal ballot, a great many ballots are spoiled.
It is not am unusual occurrence to. find a cross prat in front of some of the names, thus spoiling the ballot. One danger, I think, would be to allow the voter to write the name of the candidate he wishes to vote foT, unless he had something to guide him. He would likely think that was sufficient, whereas, as I understand it, the ballot would be spoiled unless there was a cross after the name.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not in this proposed
ballot. If the voter simply writes in the space " I vote for Mr. Loggie" that will be a vote for my hon. friend, without any cross, or anything being added to it.


William Stewart Loggie: But, if in addition to that he puts a cross at the end of it, would that spoil the ballot?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


William Stewart Loggie: That covcts the difficulty I had in mind on that score. Another question which presented itself to my mind was the question of the independent candidate. I see that is qualified under another section, rather along the lines that there should not' be more than three condidates, namely, a Government candidate, an Opposition candidate, and an Independent candidate. I can conceive of cases where there might possibly be two Independent candidates.


George Perry Graham: I think there are five
in one Ontario constituency now.


William Stewart Loggie: There may be an Independent Liberal candidate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Impossible!


William Stewart Loggie: Or there might be an Independent Conservative candidate. I simply draw the attention of the minister to the ballot in New Brunswick, where voting in local elections was entirely different from that in federal elections, and we found a great many ballots spoiled because of that. It is very desirable that it should toe made clear to the voters, so that the same thing would not happen in this case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I wdsh to say a word in reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). In the first place the hon. member observed that such a form of ballot had never been used in any British country. I hold in my hand the form of ballot used in the Australian election that is on all fours with ours.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know, but I said that no such ballot had been used in [DOT] ordinary times.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, we are in extraordinary times. It seems to me that'the ballot we propose has all the advantages which the hon. gentleman was claiming for the ordinary ballot, and has in addition the advantage of enabling men, of whom there may be many, who do not know the candidates, and who do not connect them either with the Government or the Opposition, to express their opinion whether for the Government or for the Opposition, while at the same time it does not take away from them the privilege of voting for individual candidates if they desire to do so. When we come to the other provisions of the Bill

my hon. friend will find that there is a special provision for taking all the steps that we could think of to enable the soldier to become aware of who the candidates are. If we are successful in conveying that information to the soldier, and as a result of that information he wishes to vote for an individual candidate of whom he knows, he can do it with this ballot.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does not that only apply to the case of Bermuda and other places outside of Canada but in North America?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, we have made provision for the sending of information with regard to the nomination of candidates to the other side as well as to Bermuda and other places, and we have also provided that the special officers over there shall take means of spreading this information. While we have tried to take every step possible to get the information to the soldier, we cannot, of course, count that every soldier will get the information, nor even that, if every soldier gets the information that John Jones and Peter Brown are nominated in his constituency, he will know what John Jones and Peter Brown represent. To the extent that we get the information to the man, if he had the ballot in the form which the hon. member for Halifax suggests, he would be in a position to use it. Then we hand him a ballot by which he can do identically the same thing, that is, write in the name of the man for whom he wants to vote. If he should happen not to have that information, then we present him with a ballot which leaves him in a position to vote for his,preference for the Government candidate, or the Opposition candidate, or the Independent candidate. By handing out this ballot we do not deprive a man who is in a position to do it by reason of the knowledge which he possesses of the opportunity of voting for the individual candidate. But we make it possible for every man to exercise his franchise to the extent of voting for the Government, or the Opposition, or the Independent candidate. Then, as ha6 been pointed out by my hon. friend from Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards), if a man who gets a ballot with nothing on it but the names of the candidates, may or may not know what it is that these men stand for, he may or may not know anything about them and he may have no personal preference in regard to them. That man with the ballot advocated by the hon, member for Halifax would be called upon to vote in the
dark, whereas with the ballot we offer him, if his reasons are personal, then he may vote for the candidate whom he favours.
If his reasons are not personal, and he desires to support the Government, or the Opposition, or an Independent representative, he still has an opportunity of recording his vote in accordance with his own opinion. We take nothing from the man by giving him this ballot instead of giving him the ordinary printed ballot, but we do afford an opportunity to him, should he be in a position where the ordinary ballot would not be useful to him, to still record his vote in the manner we have provided for. What has been stated by hon. gentlemen who speak with practical experience of conditions over on the other side is conclusive as to the feasibility of carrying out the other plan. In the preparation of the Bill we gave serious thought to the question whether four weeks would be long enough to afford an opportunity to gather in the votes, and if we have to lose eight or ten days in getting these distributed to the proper officers, it will take a very long time. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, if the presiding officer has to go out equipped to take the votes in any possible constituency he will have to carry a tremendous number of ballots. Then, if there were not this practical objection, what I said at the outset is a conclusive proof that a man loses no advantage by this system of ballots. If he is in the possession of knowledge that enables him to vote for an individual candidate, he can do it, and if he is not in that position he may still vote by reason of the form of this ballot.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This form ought to have the word "candidate" after the words "Government" and "Opposition." "I vote for the Government" is rather a meaningless phrase. We should put in "I vote for the Government candidate" or "I vote for the Opposition candidate."


Charles Joseph Doherty: We might add the word "candidate."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You have at the bottom this form of ballot: "I vote for the Independent candidate."


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, because we could hardly describe the Independent candidate without using the words "Independent candidate." The Australian ballot says "Ministerial" and "Opposition" and the voter records his vote by putting a cross opposite the word "Ministerial" or "Opposition."


Charles Murphy: Or writing in the name of any other person.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Or writing in the name of any other person. The printing of the additional word "candidate" will involve the use of the word "candidate" or "candidates." I do not see what is gained by that additional printing because we have a provision in the Act for determining to whom the votes that are given for the Government and for the Opposition shall be applied. We get no further by the use of the word "candidate" being printed on the ballot inasmuch as the provision of the Act is that a ballot marked "I vote for the Government" is counted for the Government candidate or candidates and a ballot marked "I vote for the Opposition" is counted for the Opposition candidate or candidates.


Mr. GERMAN:: Supposing there are more than two candidates in the field; that in certain constituencies there are four candidates, two to be elected. A man wants to vote for one of those who is a Government candidate and for another who is an Opposition candidate. Can he mark his ballot as voting for the Government and also mark it as voting for the Opposition, or write in the name of any other man? How is he to record his vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Such a man would know the candidates and would be able to write in the names of those for whom he wished to vote.


John Howard Sinclair: In the Australian ballot that is all provided for; the number of candidates is mentioned and there is a space for the two names where there are more than two candidates.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is plenty of space to write in two names on our ballots.


William Manley German: Suppose a man voting for Halifax marked his ballot "I vote for Maclean," and on the same ballot voted for the Government candidate, would such a ballot be counted or be defective?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course there may be combinations of circumstances where the man will not be able to record his vote just as he wishes, but I should like to dispose of one thing at a time. I should be disposed to believe that if there was a constituency where a man was entitled to two distinct votes there would be no difficulty in taking his vote.


William Manley German: I had the city of Halifax in mind and there might be two Govern-
TMr. Doherty.!
ment candidates. How would he indicate the Government candidate for whom he wished to vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He would write in the name of the Government candidate for whom he wished to vote. I cannot conceive of a man having a personal preference for people whose names he does not know.


George Perry Graham: \\U11 these instructions be circulated among the soldiers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, instructions similar to those for elections generally.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say definitely whether the ordinary Elections Act applies to the taking of this vote? There are many precautions in reference to the ballot paper itself in the General Elections Act, such as paper of a prescribed weight, which is furnished by the King's Printer, and then the man who prints the vote fyles an affidavit describing the paper and giving the number of ballots supplied, and stating that no other ballot papers have been supplied by him to any one else. These are very important and necessary precautions.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think these provisions apply, and I do not think it would be possible to make them apply. The King's Printer could not furnish the paper on which ballots are to be printed on the other side of the ocean, partly owing to the difficulty of securing transportation, and partly owing to the danger of the ballots being lost in transit. The ballots are to be provided by the acting clerk of the Crown in Chancery in England. The other provisions that have to do with the printing of the ballot in the different constituencies by the returning officers could not be made applicable to the ballots that are to be printed for the use of 400,000 or 500,000 electors overseas.
I think that we can trust the acting Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to take such precautions as may be possible to control the ballots, but under the system provided here it would not be a great evil if some ballots that were not originally printed got into circulation. No ballot will be counted in this election unless it reaches the commissioner's office in France, or the commissioner's office in London, enclosed in a properly sealed up receptacle or box-the word " bag " makes some people nervous, so I would not like to mention it-and marked on the outside as military votes, containing in the interior all the papers

used in the election, with the num'ber of envelopes contained in it set forth and signed and certified by the military officer who is, at the same tune, the deputy presiding officer, and every one of these ballots in an envelope containing the description of the man that voted. Really I do not think there is any great danger to he apprehended, supposing somebody managed to get hold of the ballots in the form provided here. The precautions that are both possible and desirable, when you are dealing with the printing of ballots which are being printed in the constituencies all over Canada, not under one general control or direction, but by different printers scattered all over the country, may have their reason for existence, and may be useful, and, perhaps, even necessary, tout I do not think they are practicable in an election of this kind, and I do not think there is any serious danger to be apprehended by reason of the fact that they are not to be used under this Bill. We have to depart from some things that may be very useful in their way, if we are going to get the soldiers' vote. There is no substantial danger attendant upon the fact that the ballots are not being printed in that way. This question of precautions with regard to ballots was very thoroughly threshed out at the time we passed the Act of 1915, and it was not then found necessary to surround the printing of those ballots with all the formalities that are indicated in that section, and the present section reproduced that law with the distinction that I have pointed out, that as regards the overseas vote, the ballots shall not be sent from here by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, but shall be provided over there by the assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I suppose that by the regulations which are provided for in the Act the officers on the other side will have ballot papers about -the same as we have them here?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, by the regulation we will try to make provision for every detail we can properly control to make the ballot paper as effective a thing as it can be made. Those regulations will all be published, and everybody will know what they are.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think it would be preferable to make a change in the arrangement of the order on the ballot. The great bulk of the voters will vote either for the Government or for the Opposition.
The voters will commence at the top, and read down, and I think it would lead to confusion if the first thing they see is a blank for an individual. They would be very likely, if they knew his special candidate, to write his name in there, and then go further down and mark the ballot for the Government or the Opposition. The proper way would be to have first, Government, then Opposition and then Independent candidate, and if a voter does not vote for one of the three, he comes to the foot of the ballot, and writes in the name of the candidate. The number who write in the name will be small, because 95 per cent will vote for Government, Opposition or Independent candidate. I think there would be less likelihood of mistakes, if the ballots were prepared in that way. The Australian ballot reads in this way: first Government, then Opposition, and at the foot there is a line, and if you do not wish to vote for the Ministerial or Opposition candidate, you can write on the line the name of the man you want to vote for.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the Australian ballot is an improvement on the ballot in the draft Bill. The point I wished to make was not that I anticipated any trouble from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery m England, but the difficulty to my mind is in regard to the printer. If some London printer prints those ballots, there can be no reason why the same rule should not apply to that printer as applies to the Canadian printer. All he has to do is to make a short affidavit, stating the number of ballots he has printed, and that he has not printed any ballots for any one except the Clerk of tire Crown in Chancery or the officer to whom they are to be delivered. That is a proper precaution to be taken, and there is no difficulty in the way of taking it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall look into the
question. If that is applicable it will be made to apply, but as I pointed out, it is a provision about the printing of ballots which is being done for returning officers scattered all over the country. There may be necessity for a greater minutial of detailed instructions to those gentlemen, as to what they are to do, than is perhaps necessary when we are dealing with the printing operations which are going to be entrusted to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to look after, and if I could really see the substantial danger to be apprehended because the printer did not make the affidavit that he did not give some of

these ballots to somebody else, I would be glad to make that provision.


John Howard Sinclair: He might print too
many.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Supposing the awful
thing happened, and he printed too many, what harm would be done?


John Howard Sinclair: I will tell the hon. gentleman in a minute. It is a great advantage to a man who is intending to be fraudulent in an election to have possession of ballots, because he can distribute them to voters, and can mark them, and when the voter goes into the compartment he has a marked ballot in his pocket; he can change it for the ballot handed him, and all kinds of fraud can be performed by having a supply of printed ballots. The minister does not require me to tell him that, because it is one of the difficulties we meet in conducting an election. This precaution in regard to the printer was taken to avoid anything of that kind. It is a proper precaution, and I think the minister ought to adopt it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whether it may be better or worse, the hon. gentleman is talking of a system which is not the system under this part of the Act. Under this section of the Act, as was the case under the Soldiers' Vote Act which is now in force, the provision for protection against that sort of thing is that the elector has to mark his ballot, not in a secret compartment, but where the presiding officer can see that the voter is marking the paper he gave him, but not seeing how he is marking it. This section is already the law, and when we come to deal with it, if we have to go over it again, I shall be glad to explain why it is necessary.
If we try to put minute details in an Act of this kind we may defeat our purpose, because under conditions that exist on-the other side it may not be possible to meet some of the detail that we have insisted upon. We asked the officer who had been, connected with the framing of the Act in Australia for advice as to how to make this Act effective. He made certain suggestions, but the thing that he insisted upon chiefly was that the law be not made rigid. He said: You have to make it as elastic as possible, consistently with the taking of the necessary precautions. If I thought that there was any substantial danger I might be disposed to make provision for the submission of an affidavit in the matter, but that does not strike me as being necessary.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The Minister of Justice seems to have such a clear grasp of the conditions of this Bill that I rise with a good deal of diffidence even to offer a suggestion. I notice that in this ballot there are columns 1, 2, 3 and 4, and that No. 4 contains the words: "I vote for the independent candidate." But there may be three or four independent candidates. There might be a Socialist candidate, a candidate representing the grain growers, or a candidate representing the labour interests. The Australian ballot has the clause: "I vote for the independent candidate whose name is written below." In some of the large centres'-Montreal, 'Toronto or Hamilton, and other cities-there might be three or four independent candidates. It seems to me that the Bill is incomplete in not providing that the name of the particular candidate may be indicated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Australian ballot could be utilized only in the way indicated if the voter knew the name of the independent candidate whom he wanted to vote for. Under our ballot, if he knows the name of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote, he has only to write the name in. According to the Australian plan the voter states two things: first, that he wants to vote for the independent candidate, and, second, that he wants to vote for John Smith. Under our legislatiqn, he will simply say: I want to vote for John Smith -and the result will be absolutely the same in either case. There may be difficulty if you have two or three independent candidates and the voter does not know whom to vote for, but when he knows the name, there will be no difficulty under our ballot.
I confess that I do not quite know how we can provide the means by which a man can vote, no matter what may be his degree of ignorance in regard to the conditions prevailing. The best we can do is to provide the means for the men to vote under circumstances which may reason-11 p.m. ably arise. There may be exceptional instances in which a man, by reason of his lack of knowledge or the lack of completeness of this ballot form, will not be able to find a method of expressing exactly what he wants. I think, however, that we get as near exactitude as we can get-certainly as near as the Australian ballot does get in this particular.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to ask the Minister of Militia if he can procure the information suggested. I think there is a great deal of force in what the hon. member has said as regards the order of the spaces, notwithstanding the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Antoine. With all the means that we are taking to circulate the information as to names, I would rather anticipate that the great bulk of these ballots will be marked by name, because if hon. gentlemen will look at the next section they will see that we have inserted a special provision that the names, addresses and descriptions of the several candidates who have been nominated shall be sent by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to every officer in command of Canadian troops in Bermuda, and to every presiding officer appointed to arrange for the holding of polls within Canada, and the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery transmits the information to all presiding officers of whose appointment he has been notified. We have not specified all the details of what these officers will do. It seemed to us that would be a more proper matter for regulations or for the instructions which it is provided are to be sent out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think every hon. gentleman who knows anything about mili-

tary matters will agree with me that it will be perfectly feasible and of great advantage to have all this information posted up on the battalion board, and I think we ought to have a provision to that effect in the Bill, rather than leave it to the instructions.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When we come to the next section I would have no objection to providing that the presiding officers, when they receive the information, shall post it up in such manner as shall be' indicated. I should he glad to meet my hon. friend's .suggestion as to identifying the ballot if we could do that without creating too much red tape, but I think a moment's reflection will show that it is no small undertaking to impose on the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery the obligation of separating 500,000 distinct ballots, and affixing a stamp on each one of them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are hot that many Canadians on the other side.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are 350,000 then.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not on the other side. My hon. friend has not been following the figures.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will the hon. gentleman object to 250,000?	,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You are doing better.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would be quite an undertaking for the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to sit down and put on the ballots an identification mark that would be of any value. Would it be desirable, if it should happen that two ballots got stuck together, and one went unstamped, and was handed out to a soldier that his ballot should be rejected? While taking all reasonable precautions, I do not want to do anything that would involve the risk of a man losing his vote through non-compliance with a formality of this kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The votes of the men in camp in England could be taken just as easily as if they were in Canada. You have so many battalions in a camp, and all you have to do is to open your poll, and the vote can be taken just as easily as at home. There will be no trouble whatever at the camps in England, and there ought to be none in France, except in the case of the men in the front line trenches.


Mr. NICKLE:: I would like to ask the minister what would be the effect if the name of a candidate were written on a ballot and a cross were marked opposite a

square which was inconsistent with the political affiliation of that candidate? For instance, if it so happened that the name of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) was written in square No. 1 of the ballot, and a cross was marked in square No. 3, would that destroy the ballot?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the hon. member for Frontenac might be combined with an independent candidate. I have some evidence of his qualifications in that regard, but I dare say he would not link up with the Opposition. At first glance I should think we would be face to face with a ballot in which a man had voted for both sides, if he had voted for the hon. member for Frontenac, and likewise voted for the Opposition.


George Perry Graham: Would it not mean that he was voting for the hon. member for Frontenac to go into Opposition?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the circumstances I do not see that we could treat it as otherwise than a vote for both sides, and it would not count. At the same time, I should imagine the predominant intention was to vote for the man whose name was indicated.


William Folger Nickle: That was the point I intended to raise, and that was why I asked the Minister of Justice what his interpretation would be. It seems to me if the name of a candidate is written on the ballot, it clearly shows the intention of the voter to vote for that individual, and I think the vote should be counted for him, regardless as to whether or not there may be any inconsistency in the voter having placed a cross in any of the other squares. The object of the scheme is to secure the registration of the voter's intention, and if he names a man the vote should go to that man, regardless of what the voter may think the political affiliation of the candidate is.


William Pugsley: In the case where there is only one man to be elected for a constituency, I should think that even although the elector voted for a man by name, and then also put his mark in the square for "Government" or "Opposition" if the leader of the Opposition was of the opinion that the man so named was the Opposition candidate the ballot should not be rejected, because there was a clear intention to vote for that man. A greater difficulty might arise in the case of a constituency where there are two members to

be elected. Suppose that in such a case the man wanted to vote for two members and put the name of one and then put a cross. Take St. John, for instance. Supposing the man wanted to vote for Mr. Hazen and myself. Suppose he wrote the name of Mr. Hazen and then put a cross in the space for the Opposition. In that case, could the two votes be counted? Suppose he put a cross in both squares, thus marking his ballot three times, would that spoil his ballot?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not be disposed to think that would spoil his ballot. For instance, a man who says "I vote for the Government" and then marks in "I vote for Mr. Hazen," assuming Mr. Hazen is the Government candidate, I think that man is simply saying the same thing twice, and I do not see any reason why his vote should not be counted.


William Pugsley: Even if he wanted to
vote for me also?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he ako says he votes for the Opposition, the difficulty that would arise would be to say which of the two Opposition candidates the vote ought to go to. Supposing the voter says "I vote for Mr. Hazen," and also marks a cross in the Opposition square. The man has a right to register two votes on that ballot, because there are two members to be elected. I should say if he says "I vote for Mr. Hazen" that vote should be counted for Mr. Hazen. If he says "I vote for the Opposition" that ought to be a good vote for the Opposition, because the elector is entitled to two votes. The difficulty that would arise, as was suggested a while ago, is for which of the two Opposition candidates could you count that vote?


William Pugsley: I think you would have to reject the ballot in that c se.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not see why you should reject the ballot, for the voter had expressed a perfectly clear intention. Supposing he said "I vote for Mr. Pugsley" and he also marked a cross opposite "Government," I would not think it fair that my hon. friend should be deprived of the vote clearly expressed in his favour because of the fact that the other vote is not sufficiently clearly expressed to give it to somebody. That man has exercised one of the two votes in a perfectly unmistakable way. I do not think we should nullify that vote because unfortunately he used his other vote in such a way that we could not ascertain who it should go to.


William Pugsley: Must it not be clear
from the ballot which two candidates he wanted to vote for? Say he wanted to vote for me, in the case you put, and that it was uncertain whether he wanted to vote for Mr. Hazen or for Mr. Hazen's colleague. Under this Bill I think the whole ballot would have to be rejected.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think perhaps we
might leave that for the courts to decide. The principle is that we should, so far as the intention is clearly ascertainable on the face of the ballot, but is not so expressed as to involve identification, give effect to that intention, and I think we should count that ballot.


William Pugsley: There are five constituencies where that very thing may occur.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a special section under which the consideration of these questions may properly aTise. I refer to the section covering the method in which the ballots will be dealt with. We will have to consider the whole question when we take up that section. I think we should adopt any method that can be found to give effect to the intention of the voter.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like to add a
word to what has been said by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) in regard to the case of a voter who has plainly written the name of the candidate in space No. 1. Assuming he wrote the name of the Minister of Justice there.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He could not do much better than that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Probably so. In some
regards, I think the hon. gentleman is quite right. Having done that, there is a specific act on the part of that voter who has perhaps voted for the candidate for non-political reasons, or out of friendship, or through acquaintanceship. Then through confusion of the ballot, or perhaps by inadvertence, he puts a cross in the " Opposition " square. Surely it could not be contended that that would be a spoiled ballot? There can be, no plainer act done by the voter than to write the name in full of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote. It ought to be incumbent upon the minister to make that clear. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has a lot of friends, some of them Tories, who vote for him. It would be a pity if such a mistake should be made by the voter. I would ask the minister to say that it would be an injustice to declare that a ballot shall be spoiled

where the voter writes the name of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am inclined to think that it would be justifiable to accept the writing of the name as overriding the cross that would be put opposite the printed word "Opposition." I have made a note of it because we could only deal with it by way of an amendment to a section which comes later on and which describes how the ballots are to be counted. That would be the proper place to insert a provision to carry out what seems to me to be a pretty generally accepted view.


William Pugsley: I suppose that if we allowed this section to pass it would not be understood that we would be at all committed to the form of ballot but that we could come back to it?,


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be open to any suggestion as to the form of ballot. I was quite impressed with the desirability of carrying out the suggestion of the hon. member for Pictou that we should add a space for a labour candidate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the minister would agree that we would be enabled to go back to it we might allow it to pass. But, we are not over all the difficulties yet.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will make no difficulty about going back to the ballot if there is any suggestion to be made.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) made a suggestion that might be applicable to this section and I think the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) raised a very important point. If we would consent to this section being passed and then adjourn, the minister has assured us that he will have no objection to our going back or to making any suggestions concerning it. The real pith of the discussion is as to the form of the ballot which we have been discussing. Will that be satisfactory?	[DOT]


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On the understanding that if we find that we have to move an amendment we will be able to do it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall not make any objection, if we cannot come to any agreement, to another amendment being suggested as long as the language is not too strong.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
On montion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Wednesday, August 22, 1917.