1917-05-16

THE NEW MACE.


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I beg to move, seconded by Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
That this House do accept the Mace presented in 1916 by Colonel the Rt. Hon Sir Charles Cheers Wakefield, then Lord Mayor of London, and by Sir George Alexander Touche, M.P., and Sir Samuel George Shead, then Sheriffs of London, and that the warm thanks of the House be conveyed by Mr. Speaker to the donors.
The House will remember that shortly after the fire which destroyed the Parliament Buildings we were in receipt of a communication from the then Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of London in which they asked to be permitted to present a mace to this House to take the place of that which unfortunately had been destroyed in the fire. I consulted with my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at that time, and we agreed that the offer should be accepted. The mace has been prepared by the Goldsmiths and Silversmiths Company, Ltd., and during my recent visit to England it was presented to me in order that I might transmit it to Mr. Speaker and obtain the formal assent of the House to its acceptance. The mace is now on the Table, and McC.ea.]
hon. gentlemen have had an opportunity of examining it. I am sure they will all agree that it is a very beautiful piece of workmanship, and that the warm thanks of the House are due to Sir Charles Wakefield, Sir George Touche, and Sir Samuel Shead for their generous gift. This gift and its acceptance form a new link of association between the Parliament of Canada and the great city at the heart of our Empire.
I might perhaps with advantage place on Hansard a description of the design of the mace, which has been prepared by the Goldsmiths and Silversmiths Company:
The general design of the Mace is on similar lines to that used in the English House of Commons. The vase shaped head is divided into four panels by female figures with acanthus leaf terminals. These panels contain the following beautifully embossed emblems. The Arms of the Dominion of Canada, the Rose for England, the Harp for Ireland, and the Thistle for Scotland; above each emblem 'is the Royal Crown and the initials G. OR. are placed on either side. In the spaces above the figures is shown the Beaver executed in bold relief. The Head of the Mace is supported by four ornamental brackets and is surmounted by the Royal Crown, indicating the Royal Authority; beneath the arches where the cushion is usually placed, there is a raised circular space on which appears in relief the full blazon of the Royal Arms of Great Britain and Ireland. The Staff is divided at intervals by two spiral fluted knops, and the whole length is richly chased with the Rose, Shamrock, Thistle and the Maple Leaf. The massive foot of the Staff is decorated with Roses, Thistles and Fleur-de-lys, the plain space above bearing the following inscription:-
'This Mace replacing the original Mace of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, destroyed by fire on February 17th, 1916, was presented by Colonel the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Cheers Wakefield, Lord Mayor of London, and the Sheriffs of London, George Alexander Touche, Esq., M.P., and Samuel George Shead, Esq., June, 1916.'
In its design and execution the Mace forms an emblem of authority well worthy of the great country for which it is intended.
It will be observed that the date of the destruction of the Parliament Buildings is incorrectly stated in the inscription. I am at a loss to know how this mistake could have occurred, but I have no doubt it can be easily rectified. The Lord Mayor of London placed the Council Chamber of the Guild Hall at the disposal of the donors for the purpose of presenting the mace, and he himself attended and presided over the ceremony. Each of the donors spoke and their expressions of goodwill to this country and of appreciation of the part which Canada is taking in the great struggle in which we are now engaged were all that any of us could desire. I am sure there will be a perfect unanimity of feeling in

the House in assenting to this resolution, and I trust that Mr. Speaker will convey in fitting terms to the donors the appreciation and thanks of the House, together with a copy of the resolution which I am now proposing.
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: On Friday, we shall know exactly what my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) has brought back from his visit to England. Yet even to-day we see and must acknowledge that he has not come back empty-handed, but on the contrary he has brought in this mace a very substantial evidence of the work he has accomplished on the other side of the water. This emblem and its presentation are evidences of our connection and growing relations with the Motherland. For my part, though I am a democrat to the hilt, I certainly appreciate all these evidences of our parliamentary history as it has come down to us through the ages. All these symbols and ceremonies have their uses. I-t may be that when a new member comes to this House, he may think it somewhat archaic when he sees the sergeant-at-arms with the mace preceding the Speaker, but when he becomes better acquainted with Parliament, he finds that each of these customs has its significance. One of England's historic personages called the mace a "bauble," and ordered it out of the Commons, but its restoration signified the restoration to England of constitutional government as it exists to-day. Parliamentary government has come from England to Canada, and this gift to us is an emblem of those parliamentary institutions which are so highly prized, especially now that we are under fire in the present world war.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Who is in charge of the Life Saving Station at Whitehead, N.S. ?
2.	What are the names of the crew and the
coxswain?
3.	Was the lifeboat in commission during the whole of the past year?
4.	Was the lifeboat at that station out of commission at the time of the wreck of the dredge Cape Breton?
5.	If so, who was responsible for it being out of commission?
6.	What was the expenditure in connection with the lifesaving station at Whitehead during the year 1916?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	John Phalen.
2.	Coxswain, John Phalen. Crew, Samel Duncan, Levi McDuff, David Duncan, Albert Uloth, Canon H. Feltmate, Adam Fitzgerald. The above men comprised the staff during 1916.
3.	Up to December 16th, 1916, when it was damaged.
4.	The season being so far advanced when the lifeboat was damaged, and navigation being practically over, it was not practicable to have a new boat built and installed at Whitehead in time to be of any use in the current year. A search of the records of the station back to 1910 shews that the boat was not called out for the purpose of saving life during that time.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	$311.11.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT, FRENCH EDITION.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	At what time was the English edition of the Auditor General's Report for the year ending March 31, 1916, ready for distribution?
2.	At what time was the French edition of the same report ready for distribution?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	April 19th, 1917.
2.	The French edition of Volumes I. and III. of the Auditor General's Report for the year ended March 31st, 1916, was ready for distribution on May 5th, 1917. Volumes II. and IV. in French are not yet ready for distribution.


MR. HARVEY TURNER.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Was Harvey Turner of Jordan Falls. Shelburne County, N.S., appointed recruiting officer for R.C.N.V.S.?
2.	If so, when was he so appointed and who recommended him for such appointment?
3.	What qualifications did he possess for such appointment?
4.	What rank was said Turner given?
5.	(a) Was he attached to any ship? (b) If so, what ship?
6.	How much was paid said Turner per day for his services as recruiting officer?
7.	What amount, if any, was paid said Turner, respectively, for wages and expenses?
8.	Were said Turner's services dispensed with?
9.	If so, when and for what reason?
10.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the said Turner was induced to accept the position as such recruiting officer by representations made to him by Wendall H. Currie of Shelburne, president of the Shelburne County Conservative Association, and a defeated candidate at the provincial election in June, 1916? .
11.	Was said Currie authorized to make such representations to said Turner?
12.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not said Turner while in the constituency of Shelburne-Queen's in his capacity of recruit-

ing officer made it a practice to say in public places that he was recruiting for Canada's Tin-pot Navy?
13.	How many recruits for the Navy were recruited as the result of Turner's appointment?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On 12th January, 1917, upon the recommendation of Mr. B. T. Graham, Naval Recruiting Secretary, Halifax, who stated that Turner was well qualified for recruiting service.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Recruiting Petty Officer.
5.	(a) Yes; (b) H.M.C.S. "Niobe."
6.	$2 per day.
7.	Wages to 31st March, $158; travelling expenses, $45.87.
8.	Yes.	.
9.	Turner's services being utilized for recruiting only, he was no longer required after the 31st March, orders having been given to close the recruiting office at Halifax on that date.
10.	No information in the Department of the Naval Service.
11.	Not by the Department of the Naval Service.
12.	No information in the Department of the Naval Service.
13.	From the method of registering recruits at the various recruiting *ffices, it cannot be ascertained to what agency their entry is attributable.


GOVERNMENT STEAMER LAVAL.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Was the Government steamer Laval put in dry dock last year?
2.	If so, what was the cost of the repairs undergone by the Laval when in dry dock?
3.	Why was this steamer put in dry dock?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$13,550.17.
3.	To repair damage to hull.


EDWARD LEVI BAUGH.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not one Edward Levi Baugh was convicted in the Court of General Sessions at Toronto, of conspiracy to defraud and of other offences in connection with the Colonel Stimson case, on the 14th February last?
2.	If so, was he sentenced to a term of imprisonment and to what term?
3.	If so sentenced, has the said Baugh been released from custody?
4.	If so released, was the opinion of the (a) trial judge, (b) of the Crown or Police Authorities obtained as to the advisability of allowing his release, having regard to the serious character of the offence committed and the expenditure of large sums of money in obtaining his conviction?

5.	Was any Medical opinion obtained as to his physical condition and from whom, and If from more than one physician, on what dates and what were the respective reports of each physician?
6.	Has the said Baugh been released on parole and is he bound to report to the Police or to any other Authorities? If not, why not?
7.	Was application made for his release? If so, by whom, and was it in'writing? If in writing, will the correspondence be produced?
8.	Has the said Baugh made restitution of any part of the sum out of which he was alleged to have been proved, upon two trials at Toronto, to have defrauded Colonel George A-Stimson?
9.	Was any provision made for such restitution before his release and discharge was ordered, or has any undertaking been given by him to that effect?
10.	Was the Minister of Justice personally consulted in the matter and did he order Baugh's release?
11.	If not, who was acting as Minister of Justice at the time, and who was responsible for his release?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Five years.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) No.
6. Yes. Penitentiary surgeons. 7th March, 20th March, 5th April.
6.	He was released on parole. No reports to the police.
7.	Yes, by his mother, by letters. Letters will not be produced.
8.	No information before the department.
9.	Not to the knowledge of the Department.
10.	No. The minister was absent at the time.
11.	The Solicitor General.


PATENT MEDICINES.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Have the manufacturers of patent medicines petitioned the Department of Inland Revenue or the Government to prevent the introducing of the new Act, said to be under consideration, concerning patent medicines?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of said parties?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	Yes, in the year 1912. The petition by the persons named below is dated Nov. 12, 1912.
2.	David Watson, President Proprietary Articles Trade Assn., Montreal, Que.; J. Mattinson, The Canadian Wholesale Druggists Assn., Montreal, Que.; D. W. Bole, National Drug & Chemical Co. of Canada, Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Arthur Lyman, Lymans, Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Henry Miles, President, The Leeming Miles Co., Ltd., Montreal, Que.


LOWER ST. LAWRENCE SIGNALS AND TELEGRAPHS.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	In what year did the Marine Department take charge of the lower St. Lawrence Signal Service?
2.	In what year, and by whom, was the authorization given for the payment of $500 per annum by the Department of Public Works to J. McWilliams, Father Point, for Supervision of the Signal Service?
3.	At what office on the South Shore of the St. Lawrence are telegraph messages from Anticosti to Quebec transferred from the Government telegraph line to the Great North Western Telegraph Company?
4.	Has J. McWilliams, Great North Western Telegraph Agent at Father Point, any position in the Government Telegraph Service? If so, what are his duties?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	1882.
2.	In 1902, Parliament granted the sum of $500 under vote 269, page 82 of Estimates for "Land and cable telegraph lines, Gulf of St. Lawrence, etc. Special operator at Father Point, etc."
3 Transfer is made at Gaspe.
4.	The Government telegraph has no wires on the south shore of the St. Lawrence; the work in connection with the shipping and signal service, which is mainly on that side of the river, is performed on the lines of the G. N. W. Telegraph Co., and the Government, to secure efficient service, makes an allowance towards the maintenance of the Father Point telegraph station which is the most important one on the river. This allowance is $500 a year and has been paid since 1902 to the company's agent, Mr. J. McWilliams.


PARCELS TO SOLDIERS OVERSEAS.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What are the postal rates on parcels addressed to soldiers overseas?
2.	Have any requests been made to the Post Office Department or to the Government with a view to materially reduce such rates?
3.	If so, has the Government arrived at any decision in the matter?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Parcels addressed to members of our troops in France are subject to the following rates: For parcels weighing up to three pounds, 24 cents; for parcels weighing over three pounds and not more than seven pounds, 32 cents. The limit of weight is restricted to seven pounds. On parcels for our troops in England, the rate is twelve cents per pound. The limit of weight is twelve pounds.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.


CUSTOMS OFFICES, BONAVENTURE COUNTY.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is the Collector of Customs in Bona-venture County, Quebec, what is his salary, and is it the same as upon appointment?
2.	Are there any preventive officers in that constituency?
3.	If so, who are they, and what are their respective salaries?
4.	Have any reports been received from such preventive officers showing the work done by them?
5.	Are their salaries the same as upon appointment?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Edmund W. LeGallais is collector of Customs at Paspebiac in the County of Bonaventure, first employed Sept. 15, 1913. His salary is $1,050, the -same as upon appointment.
2.	Yes.
3.	Jos Beaudin at Carleton, salary $150 per annum; Thos. Enright, at Port Daniel, salary $150 per annum; H. D. L. McKenzie, at New Richmond, salary $900 per annum.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.


MR. JOHN F. DAGNEAU.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	(a) What is the salary of John F. Dagneau, of St. Omer, Quebec, Inspector of Weights and Measures, and (b) what was his salary when first appointed?
2.	What amounts have been paid him annually for travelling expenses, since his appointment?
3.	Is the same John F. Dagneau, Postmaster of Robitaille; Quebec?
4.	If so, was permission granted him to hold the two positions?
5.	When was he appointed Postmaster at Ro-bitaille, Quebec, and whom did he succeed?
6.	What amounts have, been paid said Dagneau, yearly, since his appointment?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: To 31st March,
1913		$167.95
1914		145.90
1915		154.32
1916		 229.76
1917	193.11


GREEN APPLES, IMPORTATION.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: What was the total amount of duty collected from the importation of green apples into Canada from the United States during the year ending March 31, 1917?


Mr. REID:: 


James McCrie Douglas: What was the total amount of duty collected on green apples imported into Canada from the United States at the Port of Calgary and Edmonton, respectively, during the year ending March 31, 1917?


John Dowsley Reid: Calgary, $17,373.60; Edmonton, $20,038.90.
MR. JOHN COX: MR. ANDREW SPENCE.


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What position does John Cox hold in the Customs Office at Windsor, N.S. ?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	Has he been given the place formerly held by Andrew Spence?
4.	What position is now held by Andrew Spence?
5.	What is said Spence's salary?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Preventive Officer and general work in the Long Room.
2.	$850 per annum.
3.	Mr. Cox has been assigned to duties which were at one time performed by Mr. Spence
4.	Preventive Officer, Acting Landing Waiter and Customs clerical work.
5.	$950 per annum.


MR. GEORGE H. BOYCE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What position in the Public Service is filled by George H. Boyce of Windsor, N.S.?
2.	What was the date of his appointment?
3.	What reports, if any, have been made by him?
4.	Has any allowances for expenses been made to him? If so, how much?
5.	What is his salary?


Mr. REID:: 1.	General foreman, District Engineer's office, Halifax.
2.	5th June, 1913.
3.	He reports to the District Engineer at Halifax, N.S.
4.	Travel and outlay only for which vouchers are certified by the District En-

girieer before payments were made, as follows: 1914,	$484.90; 1915,	$716.27;	1916,
$989.65; 1917, $945.15; total, $3,135.97.
5.	$100 a month.
Mr. R. J. SALTER.


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What salary is paid R. J. Salter, of Brooklyn, Hants county, N.S., as Overseer of Fisheries?
2.	What amount has been paid to said Salter for expenses in each year since his appointment?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Seventy-five dollars per annum.
2.	Disbursements: 1914-15, $310.50; 191516, $464.31; 1916-17, $497.78; total, $1,272.59.


LIEUT. COL. H. B. TREMAINE. M. P.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Has any amount been paid the members of the family of Lieutenant-Colonel H. B. Tremaine?
2.	If so, when, and for what period?
3.	What is the total amount? .
4.	Were any payments or allowances made to Lieutenant-Colonel Tremaine while the 112th Battalion was being recruited?
5.	If so, what amounts were so paid?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes. Separation allowance to wife.
2.	Sixty dollars per month from November 3, 1915, to April 30, 1917.
3.	One thousand and seventy-six dollars.
4.	Yes. Pay and allowance of a lieutenant-colonel, C.E.F.
5.	Two thousand five hundred and seventy-five dollars and twenty-five cents.


STEAMSHIP RAINBOW.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the steamship Rainbow been dismantled, and put out of commission?
2.	If so, when and why?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	It is not considered advisable to publish any information with reference to movements and operation of H. M. C. ships.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
Mr. W. H. NICKERSON.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was W. H. Nickerson, Superintendent of Life-saving Stations, dismissed?
2.	If so, when and for what reasons?
3.	Was there an investigation? If so, by whom?
4.	Who was appointed as his successor, and on whose recommendation?
5.	What salary was paid to M. H. Nickerson, and what salary does his successor receive?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.

2.	By letter from the Department of the Naval Service, dated August 28, 1916, upon representations by the officers of the department that the work could be performed by the officers of the Fisheries Protection Service.
3.	No investigation was held.
4.	The office of inspector of life saving stations was abolished, the work being performed by the officers of the Fisheries Protection Service.
5.	Eighty-five dollars per month paid 'o M. H. Nickerson.


&quot;DEFEAT OR VICTORY.&quot;
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	Has "Defeat or Victory," a book published by Arthur Free and J. Stewart Holden, of England, been prohibited?
2.	If so, why?
Mr. PATENAITDE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


SEED POTATOES AND BEANS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: As it appears the farmers in many parts of Ontario are having difficulty in securing potatoes and beans for seed, does the Government intend to take any action towards assisting farmers to secure the necessary seed and enable a large acreage to be cropped this season that otherwise would have to go idle?


Mr. BURRELL:: The province of Ontario, Department of Agriculture, intimated to the Federal Department early in March their intention to take care of the seed potato situation within the province. They report having purchased and distributed substantial quantities of seed potatoes and are 3till attending to the demands.
The Department of Agriculture has completed arrangements whereby a quantity of seed beans, sufficient to take care of the estimated demand, will be available for that purpose. The department has secured the co-operation of the large canning companies who hold considerable quantities of beans, but who recognize the desirability of planting a large acreage this year.


SHIPMENT OF STEED RAIDS TO FRANCE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	How many tons of steel rails taken from sidings on *4he Transcontinental Railway have been shipped from Canadian Ports to France, to date?
2.	Between what points on the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Edmonton is it proposed to remove the rails for shipment to Fx-ance?
3.	When is the proposed removal of rails above mentioned to begin?
4.	Is the Government aware that there are several hundred miles of double track on the Canadian Pacific Railway main line from Fort William east?
5.	Is the Government aware that from Parry Sound to within a few miles of Sudbury, Ont., the Canadian Pacific and Canadian Northern railway lines closely parallel each other for a distance of one hundred miles through an entirely unproductive country?
6.	Is the Government aware that from Kamloops, B.C., to Yale, B.C., a distance of one hundred and forty miles, the Canadian Northern Railway closely parallels the Canadian Pacific Railway along the Thompson and Fraser Rivers, through a territory furnishing a minimum of local traffic?
7.	Is the Government aware that the traffic upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway west of Edmonton is much heavier than on the Transcontinental Railway from Dfivis, Quebec, to Moncton, N.B. ?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	It is not in the public interest that this question should be answered.
2.	Between Imrie, on the east, and Resplendent, on the west. The whole of the tracks in this district will not be moved, but the tracks will be moved to the full extent possible, having regard to the requirements of the district.
3.	Just as soon as possible, having regard to the character of the work, the issuing of the necessary supplemental Orders in Council and the necessities of providing for the requirements of the district.
4.	Yes. The rail, however, is not interchangeable with Transcontinental rail already shipped, and does not meet the requirements of the military authorities. Over and above this, the Government is also aware of the fact that last winter traffic congestion on the Canadian Pacific east of Fort William was severe and the capacity of the Tailway, double-tracked as it is, taxed. The Government is also aware of the fact that service on the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern to Yel-lowhead Pass is very light, and that the whole traffic can easily be accommodated by one line.
5.	There is an unfortunate duplication. It is also true that, to some extent, the territory is unproductive, although not wholly so. The rails that might here be available again do not meet the military requirements, and traffic conditions in Ontario last winter, speaking generally, were much congested.
6.	Yes. The rails that might be here available again do not meet military requirements.
7. No. While the contrary may well be the fact in normal times, owing to war necessities and the movement of troops, munitions and supplies, the Intercolonial

has been overtaxed and the Transcontinental railway is to a much greater extent than the Grand Trunk Pacific line west of Edmonton.


SALARIES OF LETTER CARRIERS.
Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: Is it the intention of the Government to increase the salaries of the letter carriers during the present session?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: The question of increases to letter carriers and other members of the Civil Service is under the consideration of the Government.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Government received any request from the letter carriers of Canada for an increase in salary?
2.	When was an increase last granted to the letter carriers of Canada?
3.	What was the average salary, maximum and minimum, of letter carriers in Canada during the years 1911 up to the present time?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to grant an increase to the letter carriers, to meet the present increase in the cost of living?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	April 1, 1913.
3.	For the year 1911 and up to April, 1913 the minimum was $1.75 a day, with an increase of 25 cents a day at the end of a probationary period of three months and an increase of 25 cents a day every two years thereafter until the maximum of $2.75 a day was reached. On April 1, 1913, the minimum was raised to $2 and the maximum to $3 a day, with an increase of 25 cents a day each year.
4.	It is under consideration.


OTTAWA BRANCH OF ROYAL MINT.
Mr. TRUAX:: Referring to item in Auditor General's Report, F-41 "Ottawa Branch of Royal Mint," $133,000. (Salaries and Maintenance).
1.	Does the Canadian or Imperial Government pay this amount?
2.	If the former, where can the items be found?
3.	Who has the appointing or recommending of employees to the Mint, (a) to the clerical and technical staff, and (b) to the labourers' and helpers' staff?
4.	Is there an employee named Snyder?
5.	If so, was he recommended by the Minister of Finance?
6.	What was the occupation of said Snyder before his appointment?
7.	If the department concerned has no information on this point, will it endeavour to obtain same?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1 and 2. The amount is expended by the Imperial Government, but provided under

statute by the Canadian Government.
3.	Appointment made under Mint regulations.
4.	There is an employee named Albert Snider.
5	No.
6	and 7. No information.


HOPETOWN POST OFFICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: Concerning the mail service at Hopetown, Quebec, and the answer made by the Acting Postmaster General, recorded in Hansard of May 2nd, as follows:-
"The original contract, which provided for a semi-daily service between Pasbebiac and railway station and for a daily service between Paspebiac and Hopetown, was entered into at the rate of $260 per annum, but, owing to the fact that one train per day which carried mail to Paspebiac was cut off, the service between Paspebiac and railway station was reduced to six trips per week, and a corresponding reduction was made in the rate of payment to the contractor, thereby bringing the present amount paid him to $208 per annum. The contract was awarded on April 12, 1915?"
1.	Is there now a double daily service by the Matapedia and GaspS railway to that post office?
2.	If so, does the Post Office Department intend to re-establish the double daily service at that office? If not, why?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	No.
2.	The question of a semi-daily service to Hopetown has not been under consideration.


REMOVAL OF RAILS TO FRANCE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway west of Edmonton is more substantially constructed and with less curvature and less variation of level and has cost more to build than the parallel Canadian Northern Railway?
2.	If so, why has the Government authorized the dismantling of the more expensive and better constructed railway of the two above mentioned?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1 and 2. The reasons for the Government's action, in. this matter are set out in a letter from the Chairman of the Ra'lway Commission, as follows:


BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 7th, 1917.
Dear Sir:-
I have your letter of to-day's date raising the question as to why the rails of the Canadian Northern through the Yellowhead Pass be not taken up in place of the rails of the Grand Trunk Pacific.

While I admit that the Canadian Northern construction through the Yellowhead Pass is of a high order and with low grades, nevertheless, they have a sub-summit on their track. This the Grand Trunk Pacific has not. The Grand Trunk Pacific, of course, are subject to a considerable operating expense in removing sand from their tracks which regularly blows over them when the water in the river is low. The Canadian Northern is not subject to this disability, which, according to the Grand Trunk Pacific, entails an extra cost of some $25,006 a year for maintenance.
Bearing in mind, not only the character of the Canadian Northern track, but also the disability the Grand Trunk Pacific suffers from, owing to the sand, in my view there is no doubt but that the Grand Trunk Pacific is the better line of the two.
I have gone carefully into the matter of train resistance and economies of operation; and there is no doubt that, on the economic ground, the Canadian Northern rails should be lifted instead of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The difficulty is that I am unable to make any recommendation from a purely economic standpoint. Indeed, from this standpoint, no rails whatever ought to be lifted and transferred to France from the Yellowhead. The long railway haul itself and the use of railway equipment would forbid any such action on economic grounds. Further, this country is itself in need of rails, and when unnecessary duplications are removed, they can be usefully used in the Prairie sections which are to-day in need of railway construction.
The difficulty is that the question cannot be so approached. Canada, having acceded to the request of the Imperial Government to supply rails urgently required for military purposes in France, it became the duty of the country to supply these rails with as little cost as possible to the Imperial Government. This, of course, meant lifting rails in eastern territory, so as to reduce the cost of the railway haul, and also lifting rails where the least damage would be occasioned, not only to the public, but also to the companies owning and operating them, not only in the interests of the companies, but also in the interests of the Imperial Government, who would be expected to recompense the companies, not only for their rails, but also for the damages which the companies suffered.
The first request of the Imperial Government was finally confined to 300 miles of track. This amount the management of the Government railways were able to furnish, and at the same time carry on the business of the line. The rails of the Government lines fulfilled the requirements of the Imperial Government; they were in eastern territory; and, speaking generally, did not necessitate a long penalizing rail haul. The rails could also be lifted without creating liability for damages.
The Imperial Government required rails of a high class. Fortunately the rails of the Transcontinental answered in every respect. The Imperial authorities also required absolute standardization, owing to the fact that the laying of the rails in France would, in many instances, require the greatest despatch, and be laid under conditions of danger and often at night.
Their request for an additional 300 miles of track, to which request, as I understand it, the Government has acceded, requires that the
additional supply of rail should be similar in all respects to the rail already supplied.
While the rail of the Canadian Northern through the Yellowhead is of the required type and weight, unfortunately the engineers of the different lines in their specifications have for reason^ best known to themselves, bored the rails used by their respective companies at different points. This requires, of course, different angle-bars, and does not permit the different lengths being interchangeable, as I am informed for military reasons is necessary.
As personally I would somewhat sooner lift the Canadian Northern than the Grand Trunk Pacific rails, the question of re-boring, practically slotting, the Canadian Northern rails has been looked into. I am advised that this is impracticable, owing to the weakening of the rail. The matter was looked into by one of the engineers of your department, and Major Bell so reports; and Mr. Fitzgerald, of the Imperial Munitions Board, with whom I took this matter up, gives me the same advice.
Under the circumstances, I can only advise the removal of the Grand Trunk Pacific rails, interchangeable as they are with the rails already supplied by the National Transcontinental.
In my view, the proper final solution in the Yellowhead is, however, the retention of the Grand Trunk Pacific right-of-way rather than the Canadian Northern, and that the rails of the Canadian Northern, if these companies are in future to run in joint operation, should be placed on the Grand Trunk Pacific right-of-way.
The Grand Trunk Pacific rails ought to be lifted with care, so as to not injure the roadbed, and the sleepers should be left as they are at present embedded in it, so that other rails, may be there again laid with a maximum of expense. Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) H. L. Drayton,
Chief Commissioner. The Honourable the Minister of Railways and Canals, Ottawa, Ont.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What payments or allowances are to be made to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for (a) rails taken or to be taken from their tracks west of Edmonton for use in France; (b) for loss occasioned by any destruction of ties that may occur consequent upon the removal of rails; and (c) for deterioration, if any, of grade, culvert, bridges or buildings consequent upon such removal of rails?
2.	What would be the cost of new rails as compared with the total cost and damage, if any, resulting to the railway company for removal of tracks as authorized by Order in Council P.C. 1183 of April 28, 1917?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Compensation will toe made to the company under the provisions of the War Measures Act.
2.	The cost of new rails will toe less. The necessity for an immediate supply of rails on the continent is urgent and cannot await their manufacture. Rail mills also are not in a position to accept contracts; their equipment has been changed in order to manu-

faoture steel for munitions. Orders cannot be obtained for immediate delivery of rails from American steel mills any more than from Canadian steel mills. The munition requirements of both countries exhausted the supply of steel available.


Mr. OLIVER:: Referring to the Order in Council of the 28th of April, P.C. 1183, laid on the Table of the House on the 10th day of May, authorizing the granting of three hundred miles of rails for use In France in connection with the war.
1.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not damage will be by such action occasioned to property and business of private individuals dependent on the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway west of Edmonton?
2.	If so, by what means will the amount of damage be defined and who will pay the same?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The Government has taken all steps possible to minimize all damage occasioned to property and the business of private individuals. It is not thought that much, if any, such damage will arise; but in view of the national necessity such considerations can not be considered-the country is at war.
2.	By the Exchequer Court, and the provisions of the War Measures Act.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY PENSION FUND.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Honourable Minister of Railways and Canals to have the medical examination for pension funds on the I.C.R. performed by a physician from Fraser-ville, for that portion of the railway which extends in the Province of Quebec, instead of sending the employees to be examined by an English physician of Montreal?
2.	If not, why?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	It is the intention to have a physician to perform medical examinations for pension funds appointed from some point along that section pf the Intercolonial railway in the province of Quebec.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


NON-RESIDENTS ENLISTING IN CANADA.
Mr. SEGUIN:: What is the number of non-residents who have specially come to Canada in order to enlist here and thus derive the benefit of higher pay, and to what nationality do they belong?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: There is no information on this subject in the Department of Militia.


WEST EDMONTON-FOREST RANGERS AND HOMESTEAD INSPECTORS.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	How many forest rangers are employed in the Federal Constituency of West Edmonton?
2.	How many homestead inspectors are employed in the Federal Constituency of West Edmonton?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Twenty-seven.
2.	Five.


JASPER PARK-DOMINION GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	How many employees has the Dominion Government in Jasper Park?
2.	In what capacity are said employees?
3.	What are their respective salaries?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1. Of the following, six are not at present on duty, having enlisted for overseas service.
2 and 3. Superintendent, $200 per month, at present on military leave without pay. Engineer and actihg superintendent, $200 per month. Clerk, $100 per month. Two stenographers, $75 per month each, both have enlisted and are on duty. One stenographer, $65 per month. Storekeeper, $75 per month. Timekeeper, $75 per month, enlisted; leave without pay. Acting timekeeper, $75 per month. Instrument man, $80 per month, enlisted. Head office teamster, $80 per month. Stable foreman, $80 per month. Janitor, $65 per month. Chief fire and game warden, $125 per month. One permanent fire and game warden, $90 per month. Two permanent fire and game wardens, $85 per month each. Six permanent fire and game wardens, $80 pei month; one has enlisted and is on military duty. Two temporary fire and game wardens, $80 per month each. A foreman on construction work has been engaged on special bridge work at $125 per month. It is anticipated that this work wi'l be completed this month.


CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT MOTOR CAR.
Mr. PROULX:: Referring to the following item in the Auditor General's Report (D-54), Customs Expenditure, Hudson Six "54" Automobile, $3,250 ; freight on car to Ottawa, $61.42; tires, 6, $364.20, less $119.14 allowed on old tires; tubes 3, $36.40 ; black goat robes, 3,	$88.00 ; coon coat for
chauffeur, $62.50 ; raincoat, gloves and overalls, $23.25 ; clock, tool kit and bumper, $43.20; various parts and repairs to car, $69.72; unloading car at station, $7.95; charge for temporary drivers, $37.25; gasolene 442 gallons,

$119.72 ; oil and grease, $11.10; hauling car, $5.0t) ; license for car, two years, $45.00; garage charges to March 31 at $10 per month, $89.- $4,186.07.
1.	Who uses this car?
2.	Is the chauffeur on the permanent pay-roll of the department?
3.	What are his wages or salary?
4.	Was the above a second hand car?
5.	From whom was it purchased?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Minister of Customs and other customs officials on public business.
2.	No.
3.	$75 per month.
4.	No.
5.	Dominion Automobile Co., Ltd., Toronto.


SEED GRAIN IN WEST EDMONTON.
[Stage Direction]
On the question:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	How much seed grain was purchased for distribution in the Federal Constituency of West Edmonton?
2.	From whom was the grain purchased?
3.	Who received the cheques?
4.	At what price was it purchased?
5.	At what price was it sold?
6.	By whom was the grain distributed?


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I did not ask this question, and I do not want to stand responsible for it, Mr. Speaker, and must ask to have it dropped.
Question dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What was the additional amount which it cost the Post Office Department to provide rural mail delivery routes established in the year 1916-17, over and above what the service was performed for in the same localities in previous years?
2.	How many additional rural mail delivery routes were established in the year 1916-17, and what is the annual cost of the same?


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Is the report that appeared in the Times of the 5th February,'-1917, a paper published in Victoria, British Columbia, correct when it stated that a settlement had been arrived at between the miners of the Coal District Number 18 and the operators, whereby the men would receive an increase of wages amounting to approximately $1.75 per week each?
2.	Did the Minister of Labour inform the' operators that the Government would guarantee them to the amount of $1.75 per man per week from November 16, 1916, to February 15, 1917?
3.	Did the Minister of Labour instruct the operators to increase the cost of their product on February 15, so as to provide for the payment of war bonus from that date to the 31st March, 1917?
4.	Has any money been paid over by the Government to the operators under this arrangement?
5.	If so, by which minister or through which department has the money been paid to the operators?
6.	How much money has been paid over by the Government under this arrangement?
7.	To whom has the money been paid?
8.	What steps have been taken to secure the repayment of the money from the Railway Companies and large concerns referred to in the paragraph in the Times?
9.	Were any conferences held previous to the 31st March, between the operators and the Miners' Union for the purpose of making a further permanent agreement?
10.	If so, was a representative of the Government present at such conference?
11.	Was any further arrangement arrived at?
12.	If so, what are the particulars of the arrangement made?



WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of the Government at the present session.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the motion now before the House, I desire to state that I have been very largely actuated by a consciousness of the need of a uniform Dominion Franchise Act for the whole of Canada. For many years past, the voters' lists of the various provinces have been used as the lists upon which the members of the House of Commons have been, elected and they are so used at the present time. That a gradual evolution has taken place since the adoption of these lists is quite evident when you consider the uniformity that existed when the present Act was adopted about twenty years ago and contrast it with the wide disparity which now exists between the franchises of the various provinces. The troublous and trying times through which we are passing have doubtless had a good deal to do with the rapid change that has taken place in the sentiment of the people during the past few years. The present is, I may say, a testing time when the essential qualifications entitling a person to the full status of citizenship become apparent.
The motion before the House refers only to the extension of the franchise to the women of Canada. That this would be a somewhat radical istep I am free to admit but we are living in an age when radical changes are taking place on every hand, when old traditions and conventions are being brushed aside, when despotism and democracy are being tested and tried, and



when we are called upon to exert every energy in the critical struggle in which we are now engaged. It is significant that the newer provinces of western Canada peopled with a young and virile population have blazed the way in the matter of extending the franchise (to the women. In the province of British Columbia woman suffrage is now an assured fact. In the great provinces of Alberta, (Saskatchewan and Manitoba the franchise has been extended to women. The legislature of the older province of Ontario at its last session adopted similar legislation. Today, from the Capital where we are at present assembled westward to the Pacific, the women of all the provinces exercise the full legal status of citizenship. Yet, from the Capital eastward to the Atlantic, that privilege or right has not as yet been conferred upon them. While it is undoubtedly the prerogative of the provinces to enact legislation regulating their municipal and provincial franchises, I feel it to be the duty of this House and of the Government to see that a uniform Franchise Act is adopted for the whole of Canada.
The whole of the people of Canada go to make up the state. The need of the state and the duties of citizenship weie never more clear or well defined than at this hour. I would also embody such provision in the Elections Act as would safeguard the rights of the state and prevent any one who is not -a loyal British subject from exercising the right to say how the affairs of this lD|ominion should 'be conducted. When you think of the people who have come from many of the European countries and settled in our midst, when you realize tl e cosmopolitan character of the population of Canada, some regulation, some safeguard, is necessary at this particular time with regard to the exercise of the rights of citizenship. I would also provide that no loyal British subjects should be debarred from the right of polling their votes in Canada and that is exactly what I have in mind in the introduction of this resolution.
While it may be true, and it undoubtedly is true, that many women do not desire to have the franchise extended to them, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that many women in Canada do desire to have this right conferred upon them. When you reflect that half the people of this Dominion arrogate to themselves the status of citizenship and deny that right to the other half, physically weaker but intellectually their equal, you cannot close your eyes to the fact that Prussian despotism 
is not confined to Germany alone. Freedom and liberty are the watchwords of the hour. Deny to our women the right to- be a participating factor in the affairs of our country and you are in duty bound to see that they have become wards of the state. The Indians of Canada have become wards of the state and have been disfranchised and an Indian Department has been established with the view of providing for their wants and requirements. The Indian is, in the eyes of the law, an infant, yet the Indian, by severing h!s tribal allegiance, can obtain the status of citizenship.
Our women are not wards of the State, nor yet are they the recipients of any favours or consideration that should bar them from receiving the rights which men have appropriated to themselves. It is true that Indians, women and children are the only classes in Canada who have not had conferred upon them the full legal status of citizenship. The Indian, by renouncing his tribal allegiance, can come into that state. The child, if a male, through the passing of time will eventually reach that condition where he becomes a full-fledged citizen of this country with a legal right to a voice in the affairs of state. It is only the women of Canada who are barred from reaching that condition. You cannot close your eyes to the heroic selfdenial, the devoted services, that have been rendered by the women of this country to maintain our laws, and to uphold the traditions of our country, and the devoted services which they have rendered since the beginning of this war. While I say since the beginning of this war, the women of Canada have, since the earliest days of our history, devoted themselves to making Canada the country which it is to-day. I believe, though, that during the past few years the heroic services which have been rendered by them have broken down the prejudice which formerly existed against extending the franchise to them. I believe that their part in this war has established in the minds of every one a belief in -their right to be a participating factor in the affairs of our country. It is surely a sad commentary on our discretion and judgment that we extend to the ignorant and illiterate foreigner, centuries behind us in moral and intellectual development, who comes to our country, concessions that are not given to all the people of Canada, and allow him to establish himself in any community, and, by a short residence among us and compliance with what is to him a very simple condition, give him the full

legal status of citizenship. And yet, in the face of that, we deny to these loyal, patriotic, God-fearing women of Canada equal consideration, when we deny them the consideration that has been given to those people who come here, who very often are not in sympathy with our laws or the traditions of our country. I say that it is a sorry reflection upon the people of this country that such a condition as that can exist, particularly at this time.
I could cite the examples of other countries in which the franchise has been extended to women, but I will not do so; I am going to confine my few remarks this afternoon to our own country. We know the conditions of our own country, and if we want a precedent, there is to my mind one country to which we are justified in looking for a precedent, that is the Mother Country. We find that the women of Great Britain have been promised the franchise by the Government of that country. The full extent of the franchise which is granted to them I do not as yet know; but we may rest assured that when Britain, the mother of parliaments, the champion of freedom and liberty, the champion of the weak, takes the part she is taking in granting to the women of that country the franchise, this is surely a precedent that we can well follow in the Dominion of Canada. I have already stated that the time of trial and stress through which we are passing has possibly made more clear to our minds the injustice which has been, done to the women of this country by withholding from them the franchise. I would not for a moment argue that any special treatment should be given to them. But I do say that we must endeavour to see that a truly national spirit is cultivated and developed among the people of this country, and that the conditions under which we are living at the present time -make it necessary for us to enact legislation whi-ch under ordinary conditions we would hesitate to enact. There are 'people living here within the borders of Canada but who have not yet become truly Canadianiized. Natives of countries with whom we and our Allies are to-day contending are granted- the franchise, and I believe some provision should be embodied in the Dominion Franchise Act to see that these people shall not have the opportunity of injuring or destroying in any way the work that is being done by the men who are waging battle for us at the front. I want to say further that when you think of the costly 94 i
and immortal sacrifice that is being daily offered up on the .altar of freedom, -we must realize that we are called upon to look on these matters from a new viewpoint. We must realize that it is the duty of Parliament and of the Government to deal with these questions with a firm and strong hand. We must also realize that there are many homes in Canada whose bread winners have -already given up their life blood for the cause of freedom, and that many more will do so. That being the ease, there are and there will be many widows and female relations of those men here in Canada who will become responsible for the families of these men, it is just and right that these women should be enabled to exercise the franchise? Yet, under present conditions, they are barred from doing so. I say that justice, humanity and the best interests of society demand that our present Election Act shall be changed, and that provision shall be made so that our women shall have a voice and a fair share in the government of the country. Further than that, I also wish to say that, if some provinces of Canada lag behind in the matter of granting the franchise to the women of those provinces, it makes it all the more imperative on this Parliament and Government to see that equal justice is done to the women of all the provinces of Canada. The old system, under the present Election Act, of using the provincial voters' lists, is, under present conditions, an absolute impossibility, if we are to have equality and justice extended to the whole people of Canada. If, for none of the reasons which I have so feebly endeavoured to advance, or if the chivalrous instincts of every hon. gentleman in this House do not compel -him to vote for the measure now before the House, let me say, if for none of these, then for very shame's sake let us remove the stigma and reproach of despotism from pur escutcheon. Let us prove ourselves worthy of the compliment that was paid us by that great French statesman who was with us on Saturday last, M. Viviani, when he stated that the sons of Britain, wherever they go, bring emancipation and liberty with them. I beg leave to move the adoption of the resolution.


Mr. WILLIAM WRIGHT (Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to endorse the motion of the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), let me at the outset say that I am well aware that a great difference of opinion prevails among the male voters of Canada as to the wisdom of granting the

franchise to our momen. I am no new *convert to the principle of allowing the ladies to have the vote. A proposal was made last year, and a similar proposal has been made during this session, that the women of certain provinces be given the right to vote. I am opposed to the idea of singling out a particular province that may have granted to its women the right of the franchise. I believe that the women of the whole of the Dominion are entitled to the franchise; more than that, I believe that11 they have always been entitled to it. I have been in public life for upwards of thirty years and, having given some thought and attention to this subject, I never could see the justice of men arrogating to themselves the sole right to vote.
What are the objections that are urged against granting women the franchise? We are told that the women should stay in the home. Well, I think that a little break in the monotony of the lives of our wives and mothers would not be any very great detriment to them, to the homes that they live in, or to the people with whom they work from day to day. When I think of the devotion to duty of our women; when I think of the wives of the labourers and the farmers, getting up betimes, even before the stars disappear, or working into the weary hours of night, I realize that they well deserve the franchise, and should always have had it.
We are told, too, that woman is the weaker vessel; that the men have to do the fighting. Well, since when have we adopted a system of avoirdupois in qualifying men to vote? Do we weigh them on the scale, measure the size of their biceps, wrists, ankles, fists, and so on, in order to determine whether they shall have a vote? If we did, where would the Minister of Trade and Commerce be? I am afraid that he would be entitled to only half a vote, and that the right hon. leader of the opposition would be entitled to only three-quarters of a vote. As to the Solicitor General-well, I would hardly like to say just what portion of a single vote he would be entitled to. My idea is that there are just as good brains in the heads of our women as there are in those of the men, and it does not make very much difference whether the head is covered by a creation from a millinery shop or whether the top piece was purchased in a gents' furnishing store. Among the thoughtful men of our country who have considered the question and who are animated by a

spirit of fairness, there has been a willingness to grant to our women the right to vote. The only thing lacking, I think, has been the expression of a well-defined desire for jt on the part of the ladies themselves. It is true that we have a number of women in this country who disclaim any desire to have a vote. Such women have not had the opportunity of cultivating any taste for exercising the franchise. How did the men learn political games; how did they learn to take part in politics? Simply by exercising their right to vote, and the same effect which resulted from the exercise of the franchise by men would follow from giving the vote to the ladies. They will think about these things; they will study them just as the men did, and bye-and-bye they will exercise the franchise with just as great a measure of intelligence.
I was in a house not very long ago in which the younger members of the family and the father were discussing the question of votes for women. The young men and the young women said: mother does not want to vote; she does not care anything about it. Well, when I thought of the poor mother and the opportunities she had had of studying this question, I came to the conclusion that it was not much wonder that mother had no taste for exercising the franchise. I do say that it would make a very desirable break in the usual routine of her life if she was allowed to exercise the franchise and was compelled to step out of the rut into which may years of hard work had placed her.
I believe in the equality of men and women. While a divine and beneficent Providence has not created them exactly alike, or intended that they should follow the same sphere of life, each has been given a work to do. With regard to the enactment and enforcement of laws which affect them so vitally, the women have just as much right to have a vote in public affairs as the men have.
Now, how can this be done? I believe it would toe found necessary to have a Dominion-wide franchise. We ought to have a Dominion voters' list that would cover all parts of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We are met with the objection that this would be expensive, that it would cost more than the present system. As one who has been connected with municipal life during a great many years, and who has a working knowledge of such matters as they affect the province of Ontario, I want to say that the present system costs just as much as the proposed system would cost.

I have had experience with voters' lists under iboth systems. The only difference would be that under a Dominion-wide franchise the expense of the compilation of a voters' list would fall upon the Dominion, whereas under the present system it falls upon the municipalities and upon those who are seeing that the lists are properly prepared. One system, then, is just as expensive as the other. One lamentable defect in connection with the compilation of the voters' list in the organized parts of the province from which I come is that, inasmuch as we usually hold our elections in the late summer, or in the fall, the voters' lists that we use are practically a year and a half old. A few years ago the late Mr. James Conmee, then member for Rainy River, introduced into this House a measure, which was duly passed, empowering the Dominion Government to compile the voters' lists.
So that we have in the part of the country in which I live, in some of the townships which are not yet organized, the anomaly of having the Government compile a voters' list, and that method seems to work out all right there. Frequent compilations appear a little unnecessary if two elections take place in close succession, but if they are a year apart there ought,to be some method of getting the voters' list more up to date. In the hack-woods of Ontario, in those townships that are not yet organized, the voters' lists are more up to date than in the organized parts of the country where many thousands of men, who have moved away or who have come of age after the assessment lists have been made out, are deprived of the right to vote. Some method, therefore, ought to be devised to bring the lists up to date so that when an election comes every one will have an opportunity of exercising the franchise. I think that can best be done by having a Franchise Act passed by this Parliament and the compilation of our voters' lists placed in the hands of some branch of the Service.
The general trend of affairs has been towards extending the franchise to women. Every hon. member is aware that the storms that sweep over this country generally commence in the broad regions of the Pacific and move in an easterly direction, and this storm, if I may call it such, that has arisen has come from the far west and is sweeping eastward so that it will not be long before the ladies have the vote throughout the whole Dominion, and I think we should bring about that result by enactment of
this House so that no stumbling block may be thrown in the path of this movement. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have passed legislation for votes for women. The suffrage has been extended to women in Australia, New Zealand, the Isle of Man, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Yucatan, and the women have municipal suffrage on the same terms as men throughout the British Isles and in Sweden, and a certain measure of municipal franchise rights in some of the British possessions, such as the city of Belize, in British Honduras, Rangoon, Burmah, and Baroda and Bombay in British India. In the United States, the women possess the franchise on equal terms with men at all elections in Wyoming, since 1869; in Colorado, since 1893; in Utah, since 1896;	in Idaho,
since 1896; in Washington, since 1910; in California, since 1911; in Arizona, Kansas and Oregon since 1912, and in Nevada and Montana since 1914. In the year 1913, the Territorial Legislature of Alaska granted full suffrage to women. Under the state law of 1913 in Illinois, it was construed that women could vote for Presidential Elector, members of the State Board of Equalisation; Clerk of the Appellate Court, County Collector, County Surveyor, members of the Board of Assessors, members of the Board of Review, Sanitary District Trustees and all the officers except police magistrates, of cities, villages and towns, and so on. Women have the right to vote in regard to matters connected with the schools, etc., in Connecticut,' Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin and Alaska, which I mentioned before. In Iowa, the women may vote at all school or municipal elections upon any proposition to vote bonds or increase the tax levies. Viewing the question from every standpoint, I consider that the general trend throughout the world is in the direction of extending the franchise to women; I do not know of a single country that, after adopting and trying out woman suffrage, has since discarded it, and I think we shall be quite safe in this country of ours in putting upon the Statute Books a law whereby women and men shall have equal rights in regard to the franchise. I trust, therefore, that this Parliament will see its way clear to place upon the Statute Books of this country a law

extending equal franchise rights 4 p.m. to every woman in every province of the Dominion.
As mentioned by the mover of this resolution, we have in this country a large number of people from foreign lands, many of whom know practically nothing of the affairs of this country, who have not the same ideals that we have, who come from a different civilization from ours and who apparently place no value on the franchise except what may he expressed in a form that may be very objectionable, and that I will not discuss in this House. Under such circum-istances, we ought to discriminate; and if I had my way, speaking for myself, I certainly would have 'an educational test, but I know that would meet with objections from men on both sides of the House. I think, however, that some educational test ought to be applied before we grant the franchise to any one whether he comes from Canada or from some foreign land because I submit that before a person receives the tremendous power of the franchise, he ought to be able to read and write in one of the official languages of Canada and know something of the affairs of this country. In Germany, I believe the franchise is based upon property qualifications; a man there exercises his franchise according to his financial condition; if he is worth a hundred thousand dollars, his vote is worth perhaps a hundred time3 as much as a man who has ten dollars. In that way the wealth of the country commands the situation, and that probably is primarily responsible for the great world struggle in which we are now engaged, because the common, every-day people of Germany have very little voice in determining what the country shall do. I believe we would escape from that result by granting equal franchise rights in every part of Canada; one man or one woman, one vote. The franchise that prevails in one province should prevail in every province, and the ladies should be put on an equal footing with the men. I heartily endorse the resolution moved by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland).


Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John City):: Mr. Speaker, it will perhaps be remembered that at the last session of Parliament I moved a resolution having in view the removal of the anomaly which now undoubtedly exists in the different provinces in respect to the right of women to vote for members of this House. I am not quite sure whether in order to

have the views which I entertain properly presented to the House, it may not be advisable for me to move an amendment to the motion of my hon. friend, because there is a possibility that the motion, which I have renewed at the present session and which stands upon the Order Paper with some alterations and in some wider language than my resolution of last year contained, may be deemed to be out of order under the rule of the House which prevents the same subject matter being twice considered.
I would suggest to my hon. friend who has made the motion and to the leader of the Government, whether it might not be better for my motion to be incorporated in some way with that of the hon. gentleman, and then if it were passed by the House it would be an expression of opinion that the anomaly should be done away with by placing the women of Alberta and Saskatchewan in the same position as the women of Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, or if that were not deemed desirable, the Government could introduce legislation to extend the franchise to women subject to such limitations as Parliament might impose.


Mr. ROGERS:: Where does the difference-come in between the two motions that my hon. friend refers to?


William Pugsley: The difference comes in in this way. The motion now before the House simply recommends to the Government the extending the franchise to women all over Canada. The motion is very general in its terms; it is not definite, but simply urges that the question of extending the Franchise to women should engage the attention of the Government during the present session. Now, my resolution is more definite in form; it declares that the anomaly existing as to the right to vote between the women of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and those of the other three provinces where the women are granted the franchise should be done away with, or a general law be introduced.


Robert Rogers: Would my hon. friend
mind explaining the anomaly he refers to?


Robert Laird Borden: I should be very glad if my hon. friend would go into' that pretty fully, because the view which fie set forth is not the view entertained by the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General.


William Pugsley: I am glad my right hon. friend has drawn my attention to that. I

think the House has been somewhat in the dark as to the opinion of the Minister of Justice on the subject ever since a question was put to him in the session of 1916 as follows:
Q. Is it the opinion of the Minister of Justice that women who are on the voters' list in the province of Manitoba, which province has granted the franchise to women, will be entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons?
The Minister of Justice replied:
It has never been the practice to answer questions of law.


Robert Laird Borden: That is quite correct.


Mr. DOHERTY:: Does the hon. gentleman question that?


William Pugsley: I do on a matter of this kind. I would think that the Minister of Justice ought to advise Parliament as to how the law stands on the subject. If the Minister of Justice is not to advise Parliament on questions of law, upon what subject is he to advise Parliament? Surely not on financial matters, or agricultural matters, or matters affecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries, for these belong to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I would rather suppose upon a question such as this, which has excited so much public attention and which is almost vital for the women of Manitoba, British Columbia, and Ontario to be informed upon, that when a member of Parliament asks the Minister of Justice in the House as to how the law stands in the matter, it would be only reasonable for him to give his view, because undoubtedly his view would be the view of the Government. The Minister of Justice must advise somebody. Even to-day I presume the question must be up before the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in connection with the printing of the voters' lists. I presume that the lists for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, if not Ontario as well, are now in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. If the local officials have done their duty, those lists must contain the names of those women who under the provincial laws are entitled to the provincial franchise. It is the duty of those officials to include all provincial voters on the lists which they send to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and then it is right up to the Minister of Justice, I would say, to advise the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery as to whether under the Dominion law he must erase from those lists the names of all women voters; that is a question which I would suppose the Minister of Justice must decide. However, the Minister of Justice must be the judge of that. I will invite him now, however, or before this discussion is through, to advise the House as to whether or not the women of Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia are entitled to vote for members of this Parliament by reason of their being on the provincial lists.
I do not see very well how the Minister of Justice can avoid giving an opinion upon a question of that kind.
From the study which I have given to the Dominion Elections Act, I have come to the conclusion, and I give it for what it is worth, that women who are on the provincial voters' lists for the three provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, are entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons; I think there can be no doubt about that. Nor can there be any doubt, I think, that women to-day are entitled to be candidates for the House of Commons and become members, if the people desire to elect them.


Robert Laird Borden: In all the
provinces?


William Pugsley: In all the provinces.


Mr. GERMAN:: Women are not on the list in the province of Ontario, and cannot be put on, the list except by legislation of this Parliament.


William Pugsley: Yes, I think it would be ultra vires of the provincial legislature. It seems to me this Parliament must say as to whether or not women should have the right to vote for members of this House. Section 69 of the Dominion Elections Act declares the qualifications of candidates, and will be found on page 17 of Volume 1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906. It says:
Except as in this Act otherwise provided, any British subject may be a candidate in an election for a seat in the House of Commons.
These words are as broad as words can be. It will not be denied that women are British subjects, and in the list of disqualifications there is no provision that the candidate must be a male.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask a question purely for information? Upon what ground does my hon. friend base the proposition that women can be candidates for the House of Commons, but that they cannot vote?

The language is different in the two statutes, no doubt, but is it sufficiently different to justify the distinction the hon. gentleman has drawn?


William Pugsley: That is, as to Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Robert Laird Borden: But as to the
others?


William Pugsley: As to these, no distinction. That is my contention. In Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, there having been created a provincial franchise, and the names of those entitled to vote being placed on the provincial voters' list, these parties are, by that very act, entitled to vote for members of this House. But it happens that, in the cases of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Dominion Elections Act limits the right to vote to male persons.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I know, the view expressed by the hon. member is a novel one, and I desire to know whether I follow his argument correctly. As I understand it, the hon. gentleman is of opinion that in all the provinces of Canada women have the right to become candidates at elections for this House?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, on what does he base the distinction, which he evidently draws, between their right to become candidates at elections for this House, and their right to vote at an election for this House? He does not admit that they have the right to vote in every province. The distinction he makes must be based on a comparison of the legislation in one case and in the other.


William Pugsley: In the provinces until recently only the names of male persons could be placed upon the voters' lists. That was a limitation in the provincial law. Therefore, not being on the provincial lists, they could not vote for members of the House. But recently the legislatures of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have altered their laws and have struck out the word " male," so that a British subject, whether male or female, having the qualifications of residence and age, is entitled to vote for a member of the provincial House, and therefore is placed on the provincial list. Having got that far, we come to the Dominion Elections Act, which many years ago adopted the provincial lists as the lists upon which the election of members of this House shall be run. Now, my view-and I am absolutely

clear upon it-is that women in all these provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario, their names being upon the provincial voters' lists, are entitled to vote for members of this House unless there are some disqualifying words in the Dominion Elections Act. But there are these disqualifying words as to Saskatchewan and Alberta, though not as to any other province.
Let me ask the patience of hon. members while I call their attention to the provisions of the law affecting this matter. Some persons reading the Dominion Elections Act and seeing the masculine '* he" or "him" in many seetious, might assume that that fact alone would indicate that Parliament intended in all the provinces to limit the vote to male persons. But that does not follow, because of the Interpretation Act, which will be found in the Revised Statutes on page 8, section 31, paragraph (i) it is provided:
Words importing the masculine gender include females.
Therefore no inference is to be drawn from the masculine term. The word "he," if the context permits it, means also "she," and "him," would mean "her" just as much as if the feminine term had been used. Now, I call attention to the Dominion Elections Act, section 2-the interpretation section- paragraphs (d) and (e):
"Elector" or "voter" means any person entitled to vote at an election under the provisions of this Act.
(e) "Voters' list," or "list of voters," includes any official list of persons entitled to vote at an election, and, when provincial lists are referred to, includes any official list of persons entitled to vote at a provincial election.
Now, we come to Part I of the Dominion Elections Act. Section 5 sets forth the following limitation:
This part dos not apply to the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta or to the Yukon Territory.
And section 6 provides:
For the purposes of any Dominion election held within the limits of a province, the voters' lists shall, except as herein otherwise provided, be those prepared for the several polling- divisions established, and which on the sixtieth day next preceding the day fixed for the nomination of candidates for such Dominion election, were in force, or were last in force, under the laws of that province, for the purposes of provincial elections.
And section 12 is as follows:
Within ten days after the final revision of every list of voters for the purposes of provincial elections, and within ten days after

any change or alteration in or substitution tor any such list under the provincial law, it shall he the duty of the custodian thereof to transmit to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, by registered mail, a copy of such list or change of alteration therein, or substituted list, as the case may be, certified under the hand of such custodian, and having every alteration, addition, or erasure therein identified by his initials.
I think it is absolutely clear that it is the duty of the local official, within ten days after the final revision of the list of voters for the purpose of a provincial election, to transmit to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery simply the list of voters entitled to vote for members of the Provincial Legislature.
Under the provincial laws as they are today in those five provinces, those lists must include all the voters whether they are male or female. Every man and every woman entitled to vote for members of the provincial legislature must be on those provincial lists and those lists must be transmitted to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Section 14 says:
For the purposes of Dominion Elections, such certified copy shall be deemed to be the original and legal list of voters for the polling division for which the list of which it is a copy was prepared, so long as that list remains in force, subject, however, to such changes and additions as are, subsequent to revision, made in such list under the provisions of the provincial law.
Section 19 makes provision for any changes which have been made in the voters' lists since the final revision, being added to the original lists. Section 21 provides:
So long as and whenever, for any reason, a certified copy of any list of voters as finally revised has not been transmitted to or received by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, pursuant to the provisions of this Act, the original and legal list for Dominion elections shall be the same as that for provincial elections.
You see, Mr. Speaker, that in. the sections to which I have referred there is no limitation as to whether voters are male or female.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Would the hon.
gentleman state where he gets his legal sanction for a woman being a candidate?


William Pugsley: I gave that. Perhaps
my hon. friend was not in when I quoted from the Dominion Elections Act, section 69. I hope I will be pardoned, Mr. Speaker, for digressing a little from the consideration of the law relating to the voters' lists to answer my hon. friend. He will find that by section 69 it is provided:
Except as in this Act otherwise provided, any British subject may be a candidate in an election for a seat in the House of Commons.
No one will deny that a woman is a British subject or may be a British subject just as much as a man, or that if a woman is born within the British Empire, or becomes naturalized, she is a British subject just as much as a man.


William Findlay Maclean: The legal right is not based on the fact of being on the voters' list, then?


William Pugsley: Not at all. A person
may be a candidate although not on the voters' list. There used to be a property qualification for candidates for Parliament, but that has been done away with and a free choice is left to the electors to elect whomsoever they please in the House of Commons, irrespective of qualification. However, there are some disqualifications which will be found in section 70 but which I need not refer to because that section has no bearing on the question of the right of a woman to be a candidate for Parliament.
Now, I have shown to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no limitation whatever in Part I of the Dominion Elections Act, which applies generally throughout Canada, which would prevent women from having the right to vote provided they are on the provincial list. The sole condition, speaking in general terms, which the Dominion Parliament has imposed is that they shall be upon the provincial list. Then, to repeat my argument, it is that unless in the Dominion statute itself we find some disqualification, some limitation, of the right to vote for the House of Commons, every person., whether male or female, who ie on the provincial voters' list and is entitled to vote for a member of the provincial legislature in any of the provinces, may also vote for members of the House of Commons. If there were no limitations in the Dominion Elections Act in regard to two of the provinces of Canada, I would not have spoken to-day, I would not have presented my resolution, I would not have brought this matter before this House.
. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will call your attention to Part II of the Dominion Elections Act which deals especially with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory. The first section to which 1 shall refer is section 3, which provides that this part of the Act applies exclusively to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory. Then section 32 says:
In the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, except as in this Act otherwise provided, every male person shall be qualified to vote at the

election of a member under this Act, who, not being an Indian, is a British subject and of the full age of twenty-one years, and has resided in either of the said provinces for at least twelve months, and, in the electoral district where he seeks to vote, for at "least three months, immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election ; Provided that, except as hereinafter provided, an elector may only vote at the polling station of the polling division in which he is a resident at the time of voting.
There is the same provision with respect to the Yukon. Section 33 says:
In the Yukon Territory, save as in this Act otherwise provided, every male person shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act, who, not being an Indian, is a British subject and of the full age of twenty-one years-


William Findlay Maclean: Can my hon.
friend tell us why that limitation was put in the Act?


William Pugsley: No, I cannot. It would be very difficult to say with certainty what influenced Parliament at that time. It probably was that there were no provincial lists and Parliament was called up,on to create a franchise as to these provinces. In the judgment of Parliament at that time it was thought desirable to only give the vote to male persons. I presume that was the reason. No doubt, the different provinces entertained the same view with regard to their provincial lists and I think in all of them it will be found that until recently the word " male " was used instead of simply the word " person ", so that the right of the franchise was limited to males. I can think of no other reason than that which influenced Parliament. To make it absolutely clear that only males can vote in Saskatchewan and Alberta, I wpuld call attention to the form of instructions to voters which will be found on page 82:
Information for Electors.
The following is the qualification of electors as prescribed by the Parliament of Canada:-
Every male person shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member under this Act who, not being an Indian, is a British subject, and of the full age of twenty-one years, and who has resided in the [province of Saskatchewan or Alberta, or the Yukon Territory (or as the case may be,) for at least twelve months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election].
Then provision is made for the oath which the elector may be required to take in those provinces. It will be found at page 89. It is as follows:
You do swear that you are of the male sex and a British subject, that you are not an Indian, that you are of the full age of twenty-one years and that you have resided in the province of Saskatchewan or Alberta or the Yukon Territory (as the case may be) for at least 
twelve months, and (in case of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta) in this electoral district for at least three months, immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election, and that you are now resident in this polling division.
I can not think that there is any doubt about the right of women, if their names are on the provincial lists in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia, to vote for members of this House. Neither can I think there is any doubt that the disqualification contained in part two of the Dominion Elections Act as to Saskatchewan and Alberta will prevent the women of those two provinces from having the same right which the women of Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia will have. The question is, should that anomaly be done away with? In considering this question, it seems to me we have to bear in mind that a great many years ago, in 1898, the General Dominion Franchise Act was repealed and it was provided that the provincial lists should be the lists which would govern in elections for the Dominion House. Parliament then came to the conclusion that it would be desirable to entrust the preparation of the lists to the local authorities, and that the Dominion elections should be run upon provincial lists. That has continued to be the law from that time to the present. It has been thought that it was in the best interest of the country to have the elections run upon the provincial lists. If that is a correct view to take, and it seems to have been regarded as correct by both of the great political parties of this country for a period of nineteen years, then it seems to me that there should be uniformity. It would be a strange anomaly that, of the persons who are on the provincial lists and entitled to vote for members of a provincial House and who, except for an express disqualification contained in a Dominion statute, would all be equally entitled to vote for members of this House, the women of two provinces of this Dominion should be debarred by the law of this House from that right, while the women of three other provinces, being in the same identical position so far as the provincial lists are concerned, should have the right to vote for members of this Parliament. Let me repeat that, in respect to the provincial legislatures, the women of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia are in exactly the same position; they are entitled

to vote for the members of the provincial legislatures. They are entitled to be on the provincial lists. It is the duty of the local authorities to transmit their names as provincial voters to the Clerk of the Grown in Chancery, and, under tfhe law, it will be his duty, or if not his duty it will be the duty of the returning officer if the law is allowed to remain as it is, to strike the names of women voters off the provincial lists of the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and to leave them on the provincial lists for the three provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. It is that anomaly which I think ought to be removed. I think the conditions of the franchise may well be left, as they have been during the past nineteen years, to the provincial legislatures. The law has worked very satisfactorily, and I see no reason why there should be ia change.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Is the hon. member aware that under the Provincial Act in Ontario the lists are prepared only shortly before a general election in that province, and that, therefore, those lists could not be forwarded here, except in a year in which an election in that province bad occurred, and that we could not compel the provincial authorities to prepare a last when we were going to have a general election for this House?


William Pugsley: That would depend on
when there would be a general election.


William Sora Middlebro: The federal election
would have to come in the same year as the provincial election.


William Pugsley: It might be that this
year, if there was an election 'before the provincial lists could be forwarded here, the election might have to be run on the lists of last year. But after next year, when women will be on the provincial lists in Ontario, there will always be a provincial list with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery here containing the names of women, on which list a Dominion election would be held, and these women would be entitled to vote. Whether the names of all women would be properly on the list is another question; but in Ontario women would be entitled to vote just as men are entitled to vote.
In the motion which I have placed on the Order Paper, which is definite in its character, I would say, with the permission of the House, that I ask the House to declare specifically either that the disqualification contained in part two of the Dominion Elections Act as to the women of Saskatchewan and Alberta, should be done away with, or that they should all be put on the same footing, and that the women of other provinces whose names are on the provincial lists should be placed in exactly the same position. Or, if that should be deemed by the House not to be desirable, then that Parliament itself should grant the franchise to women, subject to such limitations as may be thought desirable. If my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland), upon consideration, would consent to incorporate the resolution which I have had the honour to submit to the House with his own, that, I think, would enable the members of this House to express their views, if it is their opinion that this absurd anomaly should be done away with. It would enable members generally who are in favour of granting to women the right of franchise, to say that it should be done in either one way or the other. I cannot help thinking that if the franchise were still left with the provincial legislatures it would be better. Neither can I help thinking that if, as the result of so leaving it to the provincial legislatures and doing away with this anomaly as it exists in Saskatchewan and Alberta, the franchise should be granted to the women of all five provinces, the legislatures of the four remaining provinces, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island-when they would see that the legislatures of the other five provinces had given women the right to vote for provincial legislatures, and thereby, ex necessitate, for members of the House of Commons, would not be long in following suit and extending to women in those four provinces the same right to vote for members of provincial legislatures, and, as a result, for members of this House. I would suggest to my hon. friend, if I may be permitted to do so without being out of order, that instead of pressing his resolution, which is a very admirable one except that it is too general in its terms and too indefinite, and that it does not commit the House, or, if it is passed, does not commit the Government to anything except that they should give the matter attention-I would suggest that he strike out of his resolution all the words after the word "that," and substitute my resolution as follows:
That, whereas, in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the provincial franchise has "been granted to women by legislative enactment, and in British Columbia the electors


Robert Laird Borden: I will do so later.


William Pugsley: Perhaps it might be also understood, as I do not wish to prolong my remarks, that if such an arrangement could not be agreed to, I might be permitted later to move an amendment, after having heard from my right hon. friend, without making any further remarks. To keep myself in order, I will move the following amendment, with the understanding that I shall withdraw it if my hon. friend who has moved the resolution will agree to incorporate in it the resolution which I have upon the Order Paper:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
The Dominion Elections Act should be so amended at the present session as to make uniform the right of women to vote for members of the House of Commons in those provinces which have granted to them the provincial franchise.
This amendment is along the lines that I have endeavoured to direct the attention of the House to as being the most desirable. I would prefer that we should agree upon a unanimous resolution in favour of extending to women the right, to which they are clearly entitled.
I was exceedingly pleased to hear the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution
[Mr. Pugsley.I
and my hon. friend who seconded it speak so strongly in favour of conferring the franchise upon women. The only respect in which I differ from them is in their argument that instead	of adhering
to the provincial franchise, this Parliament should adopt a general Franchise Act. This would mean dealing with the franchise generally, and not alone with the immediate subject which we aTe called upon to deal with. One hon. gentleman has said that a good many people in this country are opposed to extending the franchise to women. That assertion presents a very strong reason in favour of leaving the matter to the provincial legislatures. The extension of the franchise is a matter of education, and the safest way to deal with it is to leave it to the provincial legislatures, which are the best judges of the sentiments of the people in the particular provinces which they represent. I am sure that in the long run this method would result in greater satisfaction and better legislation.
I do not intend to argue at any length in favour of extending the franchise to women; I think that the time for argument has passed. The action of the most civilized countries in the world in granting this measure of justice to women ought to be convincing to this Parliament that it is the right thing to do. The fact that the great provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia have, either with perfect unanimity or by an almost unanimous vote, granted the franchise to women, ought to be a convincing argument to this Parliament that it is the right thing to do. The fact that in the United States 149 women belong to the Electoral College, that 7,000,090, in round numbers, is now the total of the women's vote, and that other strides have been made there in granting the suffrage to women, ought to be convincing proof that no evil has resulted from granting to women the franchise. The hon. gentlemen who have spoken in support of the resolution have pointed out ihat it would be impossible to overestimate the tremendous sacrifices which the women of Canada have made in the great struggle in which we are now engaged. Their sacrifices have been great, but, what is of equal importance, their work has been intelligent. They have combined skill and judgment with patriotic devotion to their country; they have given magnificent service, which has done a great deal to enable Canada to take the noble part which she is taking in this great war. Shall it be said that the women who have shown such in-

telligence, such good judgment, such energy, such devotion to their country, shall not be permitted to say how their country shall be governed; shall not he permitted to take any part in the direction of its affairs? As I have said, the time for argument has passed, and to-day the burden is upon those who hold that the franchise should not be granted to women. I do hope that this House will express the opinion that the Government should, at the present session, bring down a measure which will wipe out the disqualification of women so far as the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned, and will give to those women whose right to the franchise has been recognized by their legislatures the same right which their sisters in the other provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia have; that the women, in all the provinces upon whom the provincial franchise may be conferred shall, by virtue of that fact, their names being on the provincial voters' lists, have the right to vote for members of the Dominion Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: Is my hon.
friend in favour of extending the franchise to the women of all the provinces or only those in which the franchise has been extended to them by the provincial legislatures?


William Pugsley: I would leave the provincial franchise to govern just as now. I think it would be proper to do so. It may be said that this Parliament ought to throw around the extension of the franchise to women certain restrictions; that they ought to extend it to women who are unmarried and to women who have property. To that I say, No. If we are going to extend the franchise to women, we ought to do what the provincial legislatures have done, that is, place them on an equal footing with men. We ought to give to every woman, married or single, possessing the qualification of residence the same as is required in respect of men, the same right to vote as a man has. While the British people have moved along pretty rapidly in the direction of woman suffrage, after a very hard struggle they have fixed the age at thirty years.


Mr. NESBITT:: Twenty-five years.


William Pugsley: Thirty years, I think it is. That strikes me as absurd. Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, in receiving a delegation of women recently in England, stated that the extension of the franchise
had been a matter of compromise, and he also called attention to the absurdity of fixing the extreme age limit of thirty years instead of fixing the same age as for men, but he said that no doubt very soon the anomaly would be done away with.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do you think few women would vote if the age limit were thirty years?


Mr. BURNHAM:: Will the hon. member say why, having dilated upon the absolute right of women to vote, he proposes by his amendment to exclude women in certain provinces?


William Pugsley: The reason is very
simple; it is that Parliament has left to the provinces the right to say who shall exercise the franchise and who shall not.


John Hampden Burnham: Is that a justification?


William Pugsley: The provinces have the right to say that no man shall be allowed to vote unless he owns one thousand dollars of real or personal property or unless he has a certain income. The provinces are given by this Parliament the absolute right to fix the conditions of the franchise. The provinces have the right to extend the franchise to the Indians.


Robert Laird Borden: That is hardly the case. We have simply for the time being adopted the franchise conditions which the provinces have established. Nevertheless, this Parliament is and always has been invested with the fullest possible jurisdiction to determine who shall vote at elections of members of this House.


William Pugsley: I grant that; I grant
at once that Parliament in its wisdom has determined that, upon the whole, the best judges are the provincial legislatures and that it is better to leave the question of the right of the franchise to the pro-
5 p.m. vincial legislatures. Whether rightly or wrongly, that has been the view of Parliament for the past nineteen years, and as I have said, under this law, one province, if the legislature chose so to enact, might prescribe property qualifications which might be entirely different from the qualifications in another province; one province might prescribe a condition of residence which might be entirely different from what was prescribed by the legislature of another province; but all the same, only those to whom the province gave the right of voting for the election of members to the provincial House would be

entitled to have their names placed upon the lists which would qualify them to vote for members of the Dominion Parliament. It is upon that ground, as I have pointed out, that the present law has worked with great satisfaction during the past nineteen years, that I would still continue to leave to the provincial legislatures the question of whether women should be on the voters lists or not.


William Wright: Is it not a fact that a few years ago this Parliament expressed its dissatisfaction with the voters' lists provided by the provinces and exercised the right from that day to this of compiling the voters' lists over large parts of the province of Ontario, and I think, of some of the other provinces?


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is mistaken as to that. I do not think Parliament, during the past nineteen years, has ever declared itself against depending upon the provincial franchise and using the provincial voters' lists, and it has certainly never taken any steps which would show any disapproval of the present law.


William Wright: This Parliament did as
I have stated, and for years now, under the authority of this Parliament, the Dominion Government has been compiling the voters' lists in the northern parts of the province of Ontario.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is surely wrong in speaking in general terms. He is referring entirely to the unorganized districts of Ontario in regard to which it might be desirable to have special provisions. I shall not take up any further time, but shall conclude by moving the amendment which I have read, with the understanding, if my hon. friend prefers something different, I shall be glad to draw up another one along somewhat different lines.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Without giving a ruling on the amendment of the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Pugsley) at this stage, as it is entirely new to me, I feel it my duty to point out that the hon. member has upon the Order Paper a resolution, No. 6, following this, and it seems to me that that resolution, although it is not the same in terms, is substantially the same as that which he j*ow submits by way of amendment. Bourinot, at page 301, says:
Nor is it regular to move as an amendment to a question a motion of which notioe has been given and which appears in its place on the Notice Paper.

If the amendment submitted by the hon. member for St. John is substantially the same as his notice of motion-and I am inclined to think it is^-his amendment would not be in order, in that it is not competent for him to do by an indirect method that which he cannot do directly. I merely point out to the hon. member that I am inclined to the view that his amendment is out of order, but as the debate will probably proceed for a time, I shall be able to give a more definite ruling before it is concluded.


William Pugsley: I would like, Sir, if in
considering the question, you *would keep in mind the fact that the amendment simply expresses the one view without any reference to any proposed legislation of a wider scope.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It had not been my intention to take any part in the debate upon the motion moved by the hon. member for South Oxford, nor is it now my intention to deal with the merits of the question raised by that motion. I rise simply because the hon. member for St. John has expressed so insistent a desire for an expression of opinion upon my part upon the question of whether or not there exists that anomaly, to remedy which, I understand, is the purpose of the amendment which he has proposed. I might refer in the first place to his criticism of the answer which was given to the question put at the last session of the House as to what the opinion of the Minister of Justice was upon the question which arises upon his motion, namely, whether the fact that a certain province has conferred the electoral franchise on women, operated in view of the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, to give women the right to vote in elections for the Dominion Parliament.
The hon. gentleman found fault that in response to that question the answer was given that it was not the practice to answer questions of law. The hon. gentleman would not dispute, surely, that that was a question of law nor that my answer stated the universal practice. He went on to suggest that it was the duty of the Minister of Justice to advise the House on questions of law, and he asked who is it that the Minister of Justice is to advise if not the House of Commons? He suggested that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery must at the present time under the direction of the Minister of Justice be proceeding to strike names off the provincial lists. I

would like very respectfully to say that in all these suggestions the hon. member for St. John is labouring under an entire misapprehension. If the hon. gentleman will look at the statutes governing the function of the Minister of Justice he will see that the Minister of Justice is constituted-I do not pretend to give the exact words- the legal advisor of the Government, and of the different departments of the Government-not the legal -advisor of the House of Commons.


William Pugsley: Is not the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery an officer of one of the departments?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is an officer of the House of Commons, and I think it is a very serious question whether it would be a proper thing for him to take upon himself to act upon the advice of the Minister of Justice alone, and to proceed under his direction to strike names off the voters' lists without the intervention of anybody else, because after all the Minister of Justice might sometimes, though not always, be a political partisan.. So far as I know no such procedure ever takes place. I did not come prepared to speak on this subject to-day, and I have not specially looked at the provisions with regard to voters' lists, but I would be surprised to learn that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, under anybody's advice or direction, strides names off the voters' lists. I speak subject to possible correction, but I think there is really no room [DOT] for correction when I say that I do not think there is vested in the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery any discretion to strike names off voters' lists. In the voters' lists as they come to us from the provinces, quite irrespective of the question of woman's franchise, there may be, and sometimes there undoubtedly are, large numbers of names of persons who are not qualified to vote in a Dominion election, but I do not know of any authority under which the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery can strike those names off.
In giving the answer I did last year, the well-established practice was followed. In saying that as Minister of Justice I am not the advisor of the House of Commons, I only repeated what I have heard said many, many times by my predecessor in this office. I am not quite sure but that when I first took office I myself suggested just what the hon. member for St. John has suggested this afternoon. But whether it was I that put forward that proposition or
another, I have the clearest possible recollection of the very distinguished gentleman who was my predecessor in office taking distinctly the position that he had no function to act as advisor to the House of Commons. We are all here as members of the House of Commons, and the opinion of the gentleman who happens to be Minister of Justice is worth just what it may be worth as the opinion of one lawyer sitting in this House, and I have no doubt, in fact I would anticipate, that any person seeking light on the law would give at least equal respect and consideration to the opinion of other members of this House as they would to my opinion. If the Minister of Justice be the legal advisor of the House of Commons, it would seem to follow that the House of Commons ought to accept and act upon his advice, and it would be confiding to a member of the Government very large powers indeed, if his office gave him the right to speak authoritatively to this House as to what the law was, and this House was under any obligation to accept his view. I fancy the hon. gentleman himself would not be prepared in this particular case, or generally, to accept as conclusive whatever view I might express.
I am quite willing to express to the House my view upon the question of law that arises in the case, but as I did not come with the intention of discussing this question, and indeed it is one that apparently would not have presented itself upon the motion of the hon. member for South Oxford, my hon. friend and the House generally will perhaps pardon me if I am not as clear and concise as I might otherwise have been in the setting forth of this opinion.
The proposition of the hon. gentleman that an anomaly exists by reason of the fact that women in those of the older provinces where the legislature has conferred the franchise are now entitled to vote in Dominion elections, whereas in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan where the legislatures have also conferred the franchise on women they are not entitled to vote, is, I think, a mistaken one. He rests his proposition, if I followed his argument rightly, upon the terms under which the Dominion statute recognizes that the voting qualifications prescribed by the different legislatures shall be sufficient to confer the right to vote in a Dominion election, and upon the provisions which recognize that the voters' lists prepared by the provinces shall, subject to certain conditions which are not now material, be used

in Dominion Elections. I understand the hon. gentleman to base his contention on the fact that our statute, in describing tne qualifications of those entitled to vote, says that every person who is a British subject, and so forth, qualified to vote in provincial election, shall be qualified to vote in a Dominion election as well. His contention is that because the statute does not create a disability upon any particular class of person, that the words " every person " must be taken as including all persons of any kind or description, and I think he finds an added strength for that argument in the fact that in that portion of the Election Act which deals with the persons for which the Dominion itself provides the qualifications, the words used are, "every male person."
That part of the proposition of the hon. member with which I do not agree is this: he contends that because by the statute itself no distinction of persons is made, it follows that the word "person" is to be interpreted as including all kinds of persons, even those labouring under existing legal incapacity at the time of the passing of the statute. If I follow the hon. member, he contends that if that statute does not impose any disability, there is no need of that statute in any express way removing any previously existing disability. Now, previous to the enactment of the Dominion Elections Act, the Dominion determined its own franchise and made its own lists; and, for the purpose of determining what a "person " was with regard to that franchise and the making of the lists, we had a provision defining a " person " as being a male person. So that, under the provisions of an immediately pre-existing law dealing with the subject of the franchise, the law for which the present law was substituted, " person " for franchise purposes, was a male person and did npt include women. It- is not impossible that we may find there the explanation of the insertion of the words " male person " when this Parliament came to make an Act defining the franchise, which it does in that part that deals with the province of Saskatchewan and Alberta, where when dealing with the other provinces it was merely the provincial franchise as regards the question of qualification -and I insist a little upon that, because I think it is well to bear in mind that all that Parliament declared itself willing to accept from the province was that persons who had the qualifications which the
province described


William Manley German: Does the hon. minister
say that in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, as the Dominion law stands at present, a woman could vote in an election to this House by reason of the Franchise Act in either of those provinces?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, I thought I had
made it clear that my view was that they would not be entitled tp vote in a Dominion election. Consequently, I say there is no anomaly, that their position as regards voting in the Dominion elections is the same as the position of wpmen in the provinces where the province has not recognized the right of women to vote.
I lay stress on the fact that the matter with regard to which our law declares the readiness of Parliament to accept the decision of the provincial legislature is the matter of the qualification which will entitle a person to vote. But there is nothing in our statutes which hands over to the legislature of the province the power to determine who is and who is not, for the purposes of the franchise, a " person." Parliament, when it used the word, used it, no doubt, with a clear understanding of its meaning. I am not going to suggest that in the abstract a woman is not a person. I would not dare to say it even if I thought it, which, of course, I do not. But I submit that " person " in the Act of 1906 means to-day what it meant when the law was enacted, and that there is no power in the legislature of any province to make the word " person " in that Act mean something different from what it meant at the time it was enacted. And I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that there are words which, with regard to special enactment, as a matter of law, have a meaning sometimes broader and sometimes narrower than their meaning in ordinary parlance. My proposition is that in that statute of 1906, when the legislature said " every person " it meant every male person, and that because it was not creating any capacity to vote, but was dealing with a " person " from the point of view of voting, and did not confer a capacity upon people who, up to the time of that enactment, had not the capacity to vote, and that we are not justified, in the absence of clear provision by the legislator intimating his intention to create an entirely new class of persons with capacity to vote, in inferring that he meant to do that merely because he spoke of " every person." In other words, the legislator, when he was enacting how were to be determined the qualifications of persons entitled to vote, must have had in

contemplation those persons who at the time-and from all previous times-had been the only persons capable of voting at all.


William Pugsley: Assuming what the hon. minister says to be correct, can he suggest any reason why Parliament, in dealing with Saskatchewan and Alberta, where they have no provincial lists, should have used the words " male person " and in dealing with the provincial lists which are provided for in some provinces, said simply " person?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I can suggest an explanation of how that happened. But, even if I be not in a position to offer any explanation, I submit that, as a matter of law, if the word " person " standing by itself had at the time of that enactment a perfectly clear meaning excluding the idea of a female person, you could not, by mere inference from the fact that in this other portion of the Act the legislator used the words " male person," safely conclude that he meant to alter the meaning attached to the word " person " as it was well recognized to 'be at the time he used the word in connection with that particular subject matter.
In a moment I shall show to the hon. member an authority which I think he will recognize as a very respectable authority where precisely the same thing occurred and where, notwithstanding it having so occurred, it was held in England that the word "person," as applied to the Franchise Act, did not include a woman. We have to take it as the starting point that our Act limits itself to accepting the determination of the provinces as to qualifications. As far as these lists are concerned, it defines the lists but I do not think my hon. friend will find anything in that statute saying that the mere fact of a person being on the list makes of that person an elector. In fact, there are numerous persons on these lists who are not qualified to vote at our elections. The question, therefore, is not whether a woman is or is not an elector under the provincial statute. So far as qualifications are concerned, if the province changed the qualifications of a person, without this Parliament changing its law, such person would 'become qualified to vote at a Dominion election. But until this Parliament undertakes to say that some one who, for the purposes of the Act which it enacted, would not be a person within the meaning of the Act when it was enacted, has become a person and has become so entitled, the province cannot impose that person upon this Parliament as being recognized under the legislation of this Parliament as being a person capable of voting.


John Hampden Burnham: Would the Minister
of Justice say what right this Parliament has to define the status of the province in regard to that particular question? Has not this Parliament to take the definition as handed out by the province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Parliament is not under any obligation to take the enactment of the province in regard to the qualification of voters. This Parliament has absolute power to determine who shall vote in elections and if persons, who are upon the provincial lists and are recognized by the provincial authority, vote in a Dominion election, it is not because the province says so but it is because this Parliament has said: We will take over your list and make it ours. By simply being on the provincial list a man does not vote, properly speaking, because he is on that provincial list; he votes because this Parliament has taken that list over and made it the Dominion list. He votes because this Parliament has said that he may vote, and not because the legislature has said so. That is only one way that this Parliament takes, of exercising its absolute power to determine who shall vote in Dominion elections.


William Manley German: But if his name is on the list he can vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not necessarily.


William Manley German: If he is otherwise qualified under the Provincial Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are classes of disqualification in our own Act. For a number of years my own name stood upon the voters' list but I was disqualified from voting 'because I held an office that, under the Dominion Elections Act, disqualified me.


William Pugsley: Those are personal disqualifications.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes; so that the fact of your being on the list is not conclusive evidence that you are an elector.


William Manley German: If women are on the voters' list for Ontario, does the minister contend that these women cannot vote for Dominion elections?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is my view.


William Manley German: That they cannot vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That they cannot vote, that the mere fact of their being upon the list does not make them voters.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What is the difference between them and men?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because every "person," within the meaning of our statute, who has the qualifications prescribed may vote, but my proposition is that a woman, within the meaning of our statute is not included within the meaning of "person."


William Pugsley: What is a woman if she is not a person?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Within the meaning of the statute, I say. The hon. member can say hosts of funny, and amusing, things, if he wants to and he can suggest that I am saying that a woman is not a person, but what I am saying is that when the legislators said that every "person" might vote he did not say anything to the effect that a woman should vote. I will point out to my hon. friend an authority that I think he will not laugh at. He may say that I am wrong, he may feel justified in laughing at me, but when I show him this authority I do not think he will laugh at it.


William Pugsley: I was not laughing at my hon. friend but rather at the suggestion that a woman is really not a person.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
finds it necessary to say "really not a person," whereas the hon. gentleman would be more correct if he quoted me as saying that a woman was not included in the word "person" within the meaning of the statute. That is all I was saying. I think I am quite safe in taking it as the starting point that at common law, woman was incapacitated frpm voting. And I think I am just as safe in taking it that, at common law, -woman is equally incapacitated from being a member of Parliament.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I understand the minister to mean that the word " person " in our Act must be interpreted in vieiw of the conditions that existed at the time the legislation was passed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Precisely, and in view of what the law understood to be a person from the point of view of the capacity to vote and what therefore we must assume Parliament understood when it used the word. I think I am perfectly safe in saying that at common law a woman was not capable of being a voter for a member of

Parliament. At common law- and I think this answers the hon. gentleman's suggestion about a woman being a candidate for this House-a woman was not capable of being elected to Parliament. My proposition is this, that that incapacity will only disappear in face of legislation absolutely and clearly removing it and to say simply that every " person " shall be entitled to vote in face'of the fact that there existed a positive incapacity in a particular class of persons, or persons of a certain kind, does not justify the conclusion that Parliament meant to create a new class of capable people.


William Manley German: The Ontario statute says that every person shall be entitled to be on the voters' list. It does not say "male and female;" it says "every person." Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that it does not include women and that under the provincial Act as it stands now women cannot vote in Ontario at a provincial election?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not familiar with the provision but I understand that previously the statute said " every male person " and that now the legislator has come in and said: I do not want to say "male person" but to make it clear now that I mean every person, male and female, I am striking that out. What we have got by that is the perfectly clearly evidenced intention of the legislature to exclude the idea of a male person. My proposition goes no further than this: that, unless there be such clearly expressed intention, I do not think there is room for serious dispute.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have not the same distinction in our own statute in regard to Alberta and Saskatchewan?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At no time did we strike out the word "male" as used in any part of the statute. What happened in regard to our statute is that, with regard to the old provinces where Parliament was accepting the qualifications as prescribed by the provinces, it used the words "every person." In that portion of the Act where Parliament was enacting a Franchise Act of its own for Saskatchewan and Alberta, it used the words "every male person." And if I am not mistaken, that was subsequent legislation, not being enacted at the same time; it was not a matter of comparing the two sections one with the other and saying: Shall we use the word "person" here, and shall we use the words "male person" there? Because in one statute enacted subsequently to that portion of the law the words "male

person" are used, because Parliament sought to be even more clear and distinct, that does not modify the meaning of the word "person" used in previous legislation; whereas in the case of the provinces they are making subsequent legislation, and making a deliberate change, substituting one provision for another, and striking out the word "male," thus making the whole provision utterly nugatory, unless the change give capacity to women, as it could not mean anything else than that the legislature wanted to get rid of the limitation in regard to sex. But in our legislation there never was any getting rid of a limitation in the legislation that was being dealt with, which said "every person." When Parliament was making a Franchise Act, it made use of a defined' term, "male person," which was only following out and making perfectly clear the well accepted meaning of "person" up to that time.
I said that the question was not new, that I would be able to cite respectable authority, indeed I might say conclusive authority, in support of the propositions I have been setting forth. In England the question has arisen in two cases, the case of Chorlton against Lings, Law Reports, Common Pleas, page 374; and the case of Nairn against the University of St. Andrews, one of the Scotch universities, to be found in Appeal Oases 1909, page 147, House of Lords. The latter case is especially striking as dealing with a question as nearly as can be on all fours with the question we are considering here. In the case of Chorlton and Lings, what was held was that:
Women are not entitled to vote in the election of members of Parliament, because they are by reason of their sex subject to a "legal incapacity" within the meaning of the enfranchising clauses of the Representation of the People Act 1867. By section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1867 it is enacted that "every man'' having certain qualifications shall be entitled to vote; and by Lord Romil-ly's Act it is enacted that in all future Acts words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females, unless the contrary is expressly provided.
Held, that the words "every man/ in the Representation of the People Act, did not include females, because what is necessarily implied from the language of an Act is "expressly provided," and the Legislature, in the Representation of the People Act, were dealing not with the description of persons entitled to vote, but with their qualification, and therefore used the word "man" in the sense of "male persons."


William Pugsley: Hear, hear, that is not very much against our position.
95 i


Charles Joseph Doherty: When it used the word "man" it was not dealing with qualifications, but with the description of persons entitled to vote, dealing with descriptions, not with qualifications; and so it used the word "man," although there is an express Statute saying that "man" includes woman.


William Pugsley: No. Is not the language of the Interpretation Act: that the masculine shall include the feminine where the context requires it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not dealing with our Interpretation Act. Perhaps my hon. friend did not follow me when I read the provision.


William Pugsley: Would the minister
kindly repeat it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is enacted that in all future Acts words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females unless the contrary is expressly provided.
Not unless the context otherwise requires, but unless the contrary is expressly provided and in the face of that, with a statute that says that every man should have a right to vote and no express provision to the contrary, the court held that for the purpose of the franchise it did not include women. The word " man " is treated as being the equivalent of our word " person" for general purposes. But the reason why it does not include woman is that according to inveterate usage, woman was incapable of voting, and that you could not assume, that by the mere use of a generic word as "man," or "person," Parliament intended to remove that general incapacity.
The other case is perhaps more absolutely similar to this case. There we are dealing with the word "person." and likewise with the effect of a person being on the specific list which is defined as being the list of persons entitled to vote. Perhaps before we pass to the other case I might give a citation or two from the remarks of the judges in the case I have been speaking of. Two reasons were given why the word "man" in that case did not include woman: First the subject matter and general scope of the language of the Reform Act showed that the word man was not intended to include woman, and second because at common law women were under a legal disability and were incapable of voting, a condition which the statute had not relieved. Justice Byles said that it was impossible to suppose that Parliament when

dealing with qualification and *with, qualification only, intended by the variation of a phrase to admi\ to the poll the other half of the population. Chief Justice Bovill said [DOT]I do not collect from the language of this Act that there was any intention to alter the description of the persons who were to vote, hut rather conclude that the object was to deal with their qualifications; and if so important an alteration of the personal qualification was intended to be made as to extend the franchise to women, who did not then enjoy it, and were in fact excluded from it by the terms of the former Act, I can hardly suppose that the Legislature would have made it by using the word man.
The case of Naim vs. the University of St. Andrews bears, perhaps, more directly upon our present question, because the word in question is "person," and the question passed upon is the effect of enabling women to be included in the class of persons which, under the existing law, had been declared capable of voting. The question was that of the right to vote for a member to represent the University of St. Andrews. Without going into the exact words, the qualification to vote for a member to represent the University of St. Andrews was that of being a member of the council. At the time that was enacted, women were apparently not entitled to be members of the council, just as, at the time of our enactment, neither in the provinces nor anywhere else were women entitled to vote. Subsequently, under authority conferred upon them by statute, the authorities of the university recognized to women the right to become graduates and thereby to become members of the council of the university. Women, therefore, found themselves absolutely within the exact description of what was a lawful voter entitled to vote for the representation of the university in Parliament. Yet the court held that they were not entitled to vote.


William Pugsley: Would the minister give the citation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Law Reports, Appeal Cases 1909, page 147. Here is the description of what was a lawful voter:
''Every person whose name is for the time being on the register of the general council of such university, shall, if of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, be entitled to vote in the election of a member to serve in any future Parliament for such university in terms of this Act"; and by s. 28, sub-s. 2, the following persons shall be members of the general council of the respective universities: "All persons on whom the university to which such general council belongs has after

examination conferred" certain degrees, "or any other degree that may hereafter be instituted."
The report continues:
The appellants were five women graduates of the University of Edinburgh, and as such had their names enrolled on the general council of that university, and they claimed as graduates and members of the general council the right to vote at the election of a member of Parliament for the university.
Held (affirming the decision of the Extra Division of the Court of Session), that the appellants were not entitled to vote in the election of the parliamentary representative of the university.
There is no evidence of any ancient custom for women to vote in parliamentary elections.
Some of the things said by the judges in this case are startlingly applicable to the present question. Lord Loreburn says:
In regard to the alleged* right of voting the appellants assert that, if ancient records are explored, there is evidence of women having enjoyed this right, and no adequate ground for affirming a constitutional or common law disability on the score of sex; and, further, that the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, taken with the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, and the ordinances made under the last-mentioned Act, do upon their literal constitution confer upon women, if they comply with the requirements, a right to vote for university members.
Now, my Lords, it may be that in the vast mass of venerable documents buried in our public repositories, some of authority, others of none, there will be found traces of women having taken some part in parliamentary elections. No authentic and plain case of a woman giving a vote was brought before your Lordships. A few equivocal cases were referred to. I was surprised how few. And it is the same in regard to judicial precedents. Two passages may he found in which judges are reported as saying that women may vote at parliamentary elections. These are dicta delivered from an ancient manuscript of no weight. Old authorities are almost silent on the subject, except that Lord Coke at one place incidentally alludes to women as being under a disqualification, not dwelling upon it as upon a thing disputable, but alluding to it for purpose of illustration as a matter certain. This disability of women has been taken for granted.
It is incomprehensible to me that any one acquainted with our laws or the methods by which they are ascertained can think, if, indeed, any one does think, there is room for argument on such a point. It is notorious that this right of voting has, in fact, been confined to men. Not only has it been the constant tradition, alike of all the three kingdoms, but it has also been the constant practice, so far as we have knowledge of what has happened from the earliest times down to this day. Only the clearest proof that a different state of things prevailed in ancient times could be entertained by a court of law In probing the origin of so inveterate an usage. I need not remind your Lordships that numberless rights rest upon a similar basis. Indeed, the whole body of the common law has no other foundation.

I will not linger upon this subject. If this legal disability is to be removed, it must be done by Act of Parliament. Accordingly the appellants maintain that it has in fact been done by Act of Parliament. They say that the Act of 1868, while confining to men the franchise described in other sections, adopts different language in s. 27, using in that section the word "persons." I agree that the word "persons" would prima facie include women. But, in speaking of "persons,'' this same section limits them to those who are "not subject to any legal incapacity." I cannot doubt that by this limitation, if not otherwise, are excluded all such persons as may by law be disabled from voting. Peers are excluded, as are women. So, also, are others.
If the word "persons" in s. 27 of the Act of 1868 is wide enough to comprise women, then they are shut out by the exception of those subject to a legal incapacity. If the word "persons" is not wide enough to include women, then there is nothing in any Act of Parliament that gives the smallest foothold for the appellants' contention.
I do not want to take up the' time of the House by reading citations, but I wish to read from Lord Ashbourne's opinion. He speaks of what the Legislature had in contemplation when it used the word "persons."
Then he says:	^
In 1868 the legislature could only have had male persons in contemplation, as women could not then be graduates, and also because the Parliamentary franchise was by constitutional principle and practice confined to men.
Now when the legislature said that every person on the register of the university should be entitled to vote, there is what the court said that that meant eveTy male person, because at that time no female persons were entitled to vote anywhere nor could they be graduates. When our Parliament said that every person that has the qualifications provided by the legislatures shall be entitled to vote, it necessarily excluded women because at that time and for all time previously, nobody had had women as voters in contemplation at all and women could not be on a provincial list. Lord Ashbourne continues:
The Appellants strongly relied on the use of the word "man" in some earlier sections dealing with counties or boroughs.
There is just the suggestion made here with regard to the use of "person" in one place and "male" person in another. In this they use" person " in one place and " man " in another.
Mr. PU'GSLEY: Does not the hon. minister think that makes it stronger, "person" in one place, and "male" in another?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There may be a shade of difference, but the difference of effect in
both instances must rest upon the contention that the use of different words necessarily implies different meanings, and I think that it is a pretty light shade of difference. If it is an inevitable conclusion that because in one place I use the word " person " and in another " male person ", I mean different things in the two places, the distinction is very finely drawn if I can say: Well, I used " person " in one place and " man " in another, and I meant just the same.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I
should just like to add two further citations before leaving the case of Nairn and the University of St. Andrews, to which I was referring when the House rose at six o'clock. Lord Ashbourne, after saying what I read before the House rose at six o'clock, in which he made it quite clear that he excluded a woman in that particular case on the ground that she was not a person within the meaning of the statute, went on to say:
I can, then, entertain no doubt that, when examined, "person" means male person in the Act. The parliamentary franchise has always been confined to men. and the word "person" cannot by any reasonable construction be held to be prophetically used to support an argument founded on a Statute passed many years later.
I do not think any language could be more directly applicable to the present case. To hold that within the meaning of the statute of 1906 "person" included a woman, we must hold that it was prophetically used to support an argument founded on a statute passed twenty years later.
I should also like to cite a few words from page 161 where Lord Loreburn says:
It would require a convincing demonstration to satisfy me that Parliament intended to effect a constitutional change so momentous and far-reaching by so furtive a process. It is a dangerous assumption to suppose that the-Legislature foresees every possible result that may ensue from the unguarded use of a single word, or that the language used in statutes is so precisely accurate that you can pick out from various Acts this and that expression and, skillfully piecing them together, lay a safe foundation for some remote inference.
Before passing from the English cases I might mention the case of Bebb and the Law Society, where the question was whether a woman was eligible under the statute providing for the admission of "persons" as solicitors or attorneys. It was there held that:

Before the passing of the Solicitors' Act, 1843, women were by the common law of England under a general disability, by reason of their sex, to become attorneys or solicitors. That disability can be, and is, proved by inveterate usage. It could not be removed by a mere interpretation of the clause, such as the Solicitors' Act, 1843, s. 48, which provides that words importing the masculine gender shall extend to a female. There is nothing in the Solicitors' Act, 1843, or any amending statute which can be construed as giving women any new right to become solicitors. The disability therefore continues, and the Law Society cannot admit any woman to their preliminary examination- with a view to her becoming a solicitor.
I refer to this in connection with what was said about the provisions of our Interpretation Act, where the masculine is intended to include the feminine. The quotation I have just cited is directly applicable in that regard. No doubt that the provision of our Interpretation Act would render it impossible for us to draw any inference from the words "he or him or his" being used throughout the Election Act in reference to an elector or a voter, but it leaves untouched the question of the meaning of the word "person" and it may be well to mention in passing that while we have a. section in our Interpretation Act which is intended to clear up what is meant by "person" it does not refer at all to the question of sex. It includes within the definition of "person" corporate bodies and companies and so forth, but does not touch one way or the other the question of what may be meant as regards sex in any particular statute by the word "person." So we have no statutory disposition as to the proper interpretation in this regard to be given to the word "person." In this case of Bebb which I think bears directly on the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John, that because our statute says that any British subject of 21 years of age may be a candidate, and therefore a woman may be a candidate, Lord Robert Cecil in opening the case quotes from Maitland's History of English Law, (and it is referred to later on with approval by the judges) as follows:
As regards private rights women are on the same level as men, though postponed in the canons of inheritance; but public functions they have none. In the camp, at the council board there is no place for them.
The learned counsel declares that he accepts that statement, but arguing as he was that a woman might be a solicitor, he goes on to claim that the words "public function" must be defined narrowly. It goes without saying that to be a candidate
IMr. Doherty.]
or member of this House, or to vote is a public function. It is hardly necessary to cite anything in support of that proposition. In view of what is conceded all round in all the cases to which I have referred, a woman at common law was not capable of voting, and merely because the statute used the terms "every person" it appears clearly impossible to conclude,' in the absence of any such expressed intention by the legislature, that it intended to remove entirely that disability, or as one judge says, "to add to the voting body the other half of the population which never had voted before." On the strength of these authorities I think one can safely say that the mere use of the word "person" does not justify one in assuming that it was intended to effect this far-reaching revolution.
One of the cases I have cited is directly applicable to the present question. The meaning of the word " person " used under analogous circumstances is under consideration, and that word it }s declared cannot by any reasonable assumption be held to be prophetically used to support an argument founded on a statute passed many years later. So here, to sustain the argument of the hon. member, we must look upon the word used at a time when everybody knew that when speaking of persons in connection with voting no one thought of women, as used prophetically, and Parliament -as having in mind that possibly at some future time somebody would so alter the law that a woman would become a person capable of voting, and intended then that at any such time in the remote future, which might never come, women were to he included in the word " persons " and entitled to vote.
As regards the argument that my' hon. friend has sought to make based upon the lists, I do not see that it leads to the conclusion that the hon. member has come to. The sections dealing with the lists and with voting provide -that the provincial lists shall be used and these come from the provincial officers as being the lists of voters entitled to vote at the various polling divisions. As I understand the procedure- I do not like to be too positive about it- but I do not think it is open to much question, the clerk of the Crown in Chancery has not the power to sit down and cut this man and that man off the list. He simply takes the list and gets it printed and then that becomes the list. But that does' not mean that everybody on that list is entitled to vote in a Dominion election. Among the affidavits required to be taken and for

which forms are provided, you will find one for the case of a man on the provincial voters' list who is disqualified under the Dominion statute. Sections 67 and 69 give quite a list of people who are disqualified under the Dominion Act. The procedure that is adopted is this: When a man who is on the provincial list presents himself to vote at a Dominion election he may then he sworn as to whether or not he is disqualified under the Dominion net, which demonstrates that being on the list is not conclusive of the right to vote, and that merely having his name on the list would not entitle some one who did not come within the designation of "person" within the meaning of the statute, to vote.
In our country we have had this question of the meaning of the word "person" or other general words in statutes dealing with capacity for holding office or position -I do not know that we have had it in connection with voting. There has arisen quite recently in the province of Quebec the case of Langstaff vs. the Bar of the province. This court of first instance rejected the claim of the lady to be admitted to the Bar, and the Court of Appeals confirmed that judgment. I have before me only the report of the Superior Court, and it does not give the exact text. The reporter, when he comes to the place where the judge read a section of the Act, simply indicates the section read, and does not give the wording, and I have not the statute before me. I am not clear that the question is as to the word "person." But in effect the claim was that a candidate complying with certain things would be entitled to be admitted to the Bar, and, though the candidate was spoken of as "he," yet under the interpretation which they have there as we have it here, the masculine form of expression included the feminine, unless incompatible with the context, and that because no exception was made excluding women, a woman was entitled to become a member of the profession. The Court of Appeals held, in accordance with the principles which I have been trying to make clear, that women were not included and that a woman was not entitled to become a member of the profession. This is an addition to the English case which has- been cited. I am also aware of a case in the province of New Brunswick, in which as I recollect it an endeavour was made by a lady to compel the Bar of the province to admit her to the
profession, but her application met the same fate as that of her sister in Quebec.
I have not had the advantage of reading the case, but I am told that the question was dealt with very fully and in a very conclusive manner by Chief Justice Barker of that province.
So, I think one may safely say that, in the present condition of the law, women in all the provinces stand upon the same footing, and that women in none of the provinces are entitled to vote in a Dominion election. While I think one may safely say that, I do not wish to appear dogmatic or to suggest that what I have said is the last word on the subject and that the subject is not open to discussion. But I have been asked to give my opinion, and I am very happy to give it for what it is worth.
I have little doubt, if any, that what I have just said, namely, that women in all the provinces stand on the same footing, and that in none of the provinces are women entitled to vote in a Dominion election, is sound. At all events, this can be said with a very great degree of certainty, that woman's claim to the right to vote in Dominion elections, no matter in what province she may reside, is very far from being sure under the present state of the legislation. I should imagine that any one who desires that women should be given the right to vote would realize that the only way in which that can safely be brought about would be, not the way suggested by the hon. member, but by direct aotion of this Parliament.
As I said, I do not desire to intervene in the debate on the question whether or not the vote should be given to women. The question, to my mind, is so many-sided, and calls for the consideration of such numerous, varied and important matters, and it is one whose decision is fraught with such very grave consequences, that I certainly would not attempt to speak upon it without much more careful preparation than I have had in this case-for I had not contemplated taking part in this debate. On that question, then, I abstain from taking part in the discussion. I have given what I believe there is to be said in favour of my view on this other question, in the hope that, whether I am absolutely right or not, I may at all events have served the good purpose of giving to hon. members some useful information bearing on it.


Wilfrid Laurier: No one could find fault, I am sure, with the views expressed by the learned and hon. Minister

of Justice (Mr. Doherty). Whether we agree with his conclusions or whether we dissent, the argument he has presented is certainly one well worthy of consideration.
The motion of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has been supported, altogether on the statement and assumption that woman is the equal of man, and that she is entitled to all the rights and privileges given to man under our constitution. No one at this date will dispute such a statement; it is accepted everywhere, I believe, if not in all its consequences, at least in its principle, as beyond doubt or controversy. Everybody admits that woman is the equal in intelligence of man. Yet, my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) will admit that this is a proposition of very recent growth. The Minister of Justice has just presented to the House a very learned argument to show that at common law the position of woman was not the position of man, and she could not claim the privileges which have been, ever since the origin of the British Constitution, the privileges and the rights of the male sex. In fact, it is only within a very recent period, not anterior to the last days of the eighteenth century, that the declaration was heard in the civilized world that in no way was woman the inferior of man.
I think the man who, in the last century, brought the matter more forcibly to the attention of the civilized world than any person else was John Stuart Mill. Other writers before him had taken the same .position, but he it was who brought it to a climax by promoting a very active and very important agitation in Great Britain in favour of extending to women the same rights, particularly in -Tegard to voting, as were extended to men. The agitation has been of long duration; everybody knows that the idea has been of very slow growth and that in England it is only within the last year or so that the principle has been at last conceded that women ought to have the same privileges as men in regard to the franchise. As has been stated by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), the recognition of the fact that women should have the same rights as men was made subject in England to a qualification by which women are still placed in a position of inferiority in that a man can become a voter at twenty-one years of age, but a woman must reach the age of thirty years before she can exercise that right.

In the outlying parts of the British Empire the idea has made much more rapid advance; in fact, in Australia and in New Zealand for many years past women have exercised the right to vote and as far as my information goes the system has worked satisfactorily. In our own country the idea has also progressed, but it has progressed on geographical lines, so to speak. In the West the idea is universally accepted. In British Columbia, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, in Ontario, in all of these provinces, women are to-day granted the same privilege as the male sex with regard to voting. East of the province of Ontario the idea has made no progress whatever. In Quebec, while women have the right of voting in municipal deletions under certain.'conditions, in so Jar as provincial and Dominion elections are concerned, the idea has never been entertained or even agitated. The same condition, I think, prevails in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. In Nova Scotia, while the idea has been agitated, by a recent vote of the legislature, the privilege has been denied to women. It is only within the last six or seven weeks that a resolution was introduced into the legislature of Nova Scotia to give to women the same rights as men in political matters and the motion was voted down.
Now, the question arises, to which I shall come in a moment, whether or not the privilege having been given to women in five of the provinces of the Dominion, women have the right to take part in Dominion elections as well as they have to take part in provincial elections. But whilst I shall come in a moment to the argument which has been presented by my hon. friend. I would say that the debate is not confined to the proposition whether or not women in the provinces in which the franchise has been granted, that is to say British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, have a right to vote in Dominion elections, but the question goes much farther. The resolution is to the effect that the privilege of voting should be given to the women in every province of the Dominion. This is the resolution of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland):
That, in the opinion of this House, the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of the Government at the present Session.
I would observe immediately that whilst everybody, would agree that it would be

right, in view of the argument of my hon. friend from South Oxford, that women should be given the same privilege as men, they should not be given more privileges than men. The idea which would prevail if this resolution should pass would be that this Parliament would give to women the right to the franchise when Parliament has refused to give the same right to men because it has 'accepted the franchise in regard to men from the provinces.
This debate presents to our consideration the question as to the body which, under our constitution, should be given the privilege of regulating the franchise. Should it be the Dominion Parliament or the local legislature? It goes without saying that every legislative body should have the right to determine the franchise under which it is elected. Every legislature has that right, as an historic right, unless it is deprived of it by the letter of the constitution itself. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the United States Congress has no authority at all over its own franchise, and that it cannot legislate as to who shall be the electors to choose the members of Congress. That right is relegated to the state legislatures. Here is the American constitution:-
All legislative powers herein granted shall he vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.
I would like the House to remember that the great legislative body of the United States, one of the most powerful legislative bodies on the face of the earth, has no control whatever over its own electors and must take them as they are provided by every state. There may be a different franchise in each of the forty-five states of the Union. In some they have woman suffrage, in others they have not; in some they may have a wide franchise and in others a restricted franchise, but the fathers of the American Constitution were of the opinion that after all the body best suited to determine the qualification of voters was the local state legislature. Under our own Constitution it is very different. Our own Constitution gives us absolute power in this Parliament to determine what shall be the franchise under which the members of this House shall be elected. Section 41 of the British North America Aht says:-
Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all laws in force in the several provinces at the Union relative to the following Matters or any of them, namely:

the Qualifications and Disqualifications of Persons to be elected or to sit or vote as Members of the House of Assembly or Legislative Assembly in the several Provinces, the Voters at Elections of such Members, the Oaths to be taken by 'Voters, the Returning Officers, their Powers and Duties, the Proceedings at Elections, the Periods during which Elections may be continued, the Trial of Controverted Elections, and Proceedings incident thereto, the vacating of Seats of Members, and the Execution of new Writs in case of Seats vacated otherwise than by Dissolution,-shall respectively apply to Elections of Members, to serve in the House of Commons for the same several Provinces.
Nothing is clearer 'than that language. Until the Parliament otherwise provided, all the laws of the provinces with regard to franchise, not only those which existed at that time, in 1867, but those which might be enacted from time to time, we were to form the franchise which would apply in every province for the elections of members to this House. These laws were to constitute the provincial franchise, and were alsp to be the franchise on which, in any of these provinces members of this House were to be elected. This provision remained in force until 1885. The members of this House, from the 1st of July, 1867 until the session of 1885, were elected under the provincial franchise, such as it was in every province. In 1885 this Dominion Parliament passed a Dominion Franchise Act and constituted a franchise of its own for the election of members of this Hpuse. This law remained in force until 1898. In 1898 it was repealed. I may say-and I do not know whether or not this will meet with the approval of hon. members opposite, although I think they will agree-that to a large part of the population the Act of 1885 was not satisfactory. It was not found to work harmoniously. In 1898 it was repealed, and we returned to the provincial franchise, and I am not aware that there has been since then any objection to the franchise. From 1898 up to this date the franchise for the election of members of this House has been the franchise of each province, as it might be enacted from time to time. Everybody is aware that the local franchises were not like the laws of the Modes and Persians, they were frequently amended. Let me recall an amendment with which the members from the province of Ontario are very familiar. At one time, when we had the property qualification for voters, before we had, as we have now in almost all the provinces, universal manhood suffrage, an important amendment was passed in On-

tario to give the sons of farmers the right to vote. It so happened that, in many a household, the farmer had one or two sons, grown up men, working with him on his farm, who had not the franchise. The law very properly gave it to them, and they qualified on the real estate of their father.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). It was on a very broad scale and a very high plane, and I have no fault to find with the sentiments he uttered. But I would ask my hon. friend and every member of this House to agree with me that the place to regulate the franchise, bearing in mind the provision of the British North America Act that this Parliament can exercise powers for the peace, order and good government of this country, is not in this House but in the local legislature. The franchise is a right which can not be granted upon a universal scale. Our peace, order and good government depend largely upon the local conditions in each community. There are communities in which woman franchise can be exercised properly and others in which it could not. Let me take one or two cases. In France, for instance, where assuredly women have reached a very high mental level, just as high as in any other country, there has never been any demand from any body of men or any large body of women to have the franchise granted to women; while on the other side of the channel, in England, there has been an agitation which has lasted for years and which has sometimes taken a very acute form, sometimes has gone very far, to a dangerous extent even, to have women given the franchise. Why is that? It is a matter of education; and by education I do not mean simply the intellectual development of the mind, I mean social conditions, domestic conditions, and all those things which lead a class of the community in a certain direction. In England, where representative institutions have been in force for centuries, women to-day and for a long time past, at least since the middle of the last century, have taken a very active interest in political matters. In France women have not taken the same part, and so while you have on the two sides of the channel two of the most civilized nations of Europe, on one side there is the desire, which has taken a very acute form, to have the franchise given to women, and on the other side, in France, the ques-

tion has never become a matter of serious discussion, although some ladies have attempted to bring it up.
Another consideration which goes to show that the franchise is largely a matter of education is this.: I shall contrast what has taken place in Ontario not later than a few months ago, during the last session, when women were granted the franchise, and what has taken place in some states of the American Union. After all, we are very close to the United States. Their conditions are very much our own, their people are of the same birth and blood and of the same education as we are. In Ontario, where the franchise was granted to women a few months ago, only a few weeks ago a motion was made to make women eligible for membership in the legislature, and the very same legislators, the very same men who five minutes before had given the franchise to women, refused to make them eligible for membership. I do not say that was wrong, but it is the case. On the other hand, in the Congress of ithe United States there is a lady who is a member of Congress from the state of Montana. I believe that in several states of the Union women are eligible, as well as being electors. In Ontario they consented to make them electors, but would not make them eligible. What argument do I take from this? The argument I take from this is that the franchise and all the consequences of the franchise are largely matters of education, of local conditions, of local sentiment, and that it is therefore better to have these matters determined by the local legislatures than by this Dominion Parliament. May I give another example to which I alluded a moment ago? I referred to the province of Nova Scotia, as 'bright and intelligent a community as there is on this continent- everybody will agree in that. The province of Nova Scotia would not do what was done in the province of Ontario. Just about the time that the province of Ontario voted to give the franchise to women, the province of Nova Scotia voted not to give it. I would ask my hon. friend from South Oxford if under such circumstances, he would think it would be conducive to the peace, order and good government of this country that we should force on the province of Nova Scotia woman suffrage when that province has declined to grant it for local purposes?


Donald Sutherland: Did the legislature vote on that matter, or was it submitted to the people?


Wilfrid Laurier: It was the
legislature, I understand.


Donald Sutherland: The ladies themselves had no say in the matter?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, they did not have any spy 'in the matter, 'because the local legislature refused them the right. After all, these matters have to be decided by the legislature. While I admit the broad principle that the franchise is a provincial matter, I go further and say that in every province where the legislature has given to women the right to vote in provincial elections, they should be allowed to vote in Dominion elections also. The hon. Minister of Justice presented a very able argument to show that while in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia the women have the Tight to vote in provincial elections, they have not the right to vote in Dominion elections. As the hon. member for St. John city has stated, though the women in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have the right to vote in provincial elections, they have not .the right to vote in Dominion elections. With all respect to the Minister of Justice, may I present this view:	in my humble judgment the contention which he has made is too narrow and of too technical a construction. My hon. friend, basing his opinion upon very learned authorities, argues that at common law women had not the right of suffrage, and that when in 1898 we reverted to the franchise adopted by the respective provinces, we could not have contemplated that in the future women might have that franchise. The answer to that is to be found in two sections of the Act which are reproduced in chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes, and which define the qualifications of voters in Dominion elections. I quote section 10:
The qualifications necessary to entitle any person to vote at a Dominion election in any province shall, except as herein otherwise provided, be those established by the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election.
My hon. friend argues that at that time Parliament could not have contemplated the extension of the franchise to women. I say that Parliament did contemplate that, because in section 32 of the same Act these words appear:
In the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, except as in this Act otherwise provided, every male person shall he qualified to vote.	:	1
In the first section which I read, it is stated that every person, other than persons who are excepted, shall have the right to vote. If in any one province, only persons who are males have the Tight to vote for members of this Parliament I would say that in every other province, only persons who are males should have a like right. That would seem to me to be a reasonable conclusion, it makes our franchise to this Parliament uniform in that respect.
The Minister of Justice stated with much candor that he has not given to the matter all the thought which he would have given to it if he had expected to take part in this debate. There is another view, therefore, which I should like to present. In 1898, exercising our supreme and sovereign power to define the nature of the franchise to be exercised in Dominion elections, we determined to accept the provincial franchise. We decided that the franchise under which every member of the House of Commons should be elected should be the .franchise of the province from which he came. If he comes from the province of Ontario, the franchise shall be that of the province of Ontario; if from the province of Quebec, the franchise under which he is elected shall be the franchise of that province. I submit, not as a violent legal supposition, but as a matter of common sense, that, having chosen to accept the franchise created by the respective provinces, we decided to take the franchise not merely as it existed then, but as it might exist at any time in the future. If therefore the franchise of any province is different to-day from what it was in 1898, under the legislation then enacted, we take the franchise as it is to-day, and we have said that we shall accept it as it exists to-morrow, next year, or at any time. It seems to me that this is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. It may or may not he a legal interpretation. I was a lawyer in my day, and I know that it is rather presumptuous to interpret the law, because the law should be interpreted by the courts. But if my hon. friend has any doubt on this point, the peace, order and good government of Canada require that we should make it clear that in all the provinces which have given the franchise to women in respect of provincial elections, the franchise should be given to women for Dominion elections as well. I would not go beyond that. I do not care, for instance, to give the franchise to the women of my own province. I belong to a gallant race, which, I think, always takes a fair view in matters pertaining to the female

sex, but I do not w-ant to give the franchise to the women of my own province, because they do not seem to desire it. Bui in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, we should give the franchise to women in respect of elections to the House of Commons. As to Saskatchewan and Alberta, the franchise has been granted to women in respect of Dominion elections.
In this debate, and also on a previous occasion, when the matter was discussed, I heard the opinion expressed that we should have in Canada a double electorate, one for the Dominion House of Commons, which would decide national issues, so to speak, and ianother to dispose of local matters. In my estimation, nothing would be more detrimental to the unity of our country. We have already too many divisions, and it would be most inadvisable to create another. Moreover, the constitution does not contemplate anything of the kind. The constitution contemplates that there should be a Dominion Legislature, and provincial legislatures representing the same electoral body. In one legislature certain classes of questions are to be determined ; in the other domestic questions are to be determined; but it is not one electorate to deal with certain questions and another electorate to deal with other questions; it is the same electorate to dispose of the different classes of questions, one class being assigned to one legislature and the other being assigned to the other legislature, and it is in this view that I think we must persevere. Up to the present I believe nothing but the 'best effect can result from having the same electorate determine all questions, great or small, which come before it. I would for my part depreciate it extremely if we were to say to one class of the people of this country: You are good enough; we can make you British subjects, but we will not give you the privilege of British subjects. In my judgment nothing could be more detrimental to the future of Canada than that. I throw out this suggestion en passant. I hope the question will not come before the House; but on the present occasion, it is sufficient to suggest that if there be any doubt at all, the law should be, amended so as to put it beyond doubt that in all the provinces of the Dominion in which women have the franchise in provincial matters, they should have the right to exercise the franchise not only in provincial matters but in Dominion matters.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal for a few moments with some of the contentions which my right hon. friend has advanced, I will then proceed to the general question which was discussed at some length by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in his opening remarks, said that whether or not women should have the same right as men, they certainly should not have greater rights. I do not quite understand the significance of that remark, because if the franchise should be extended to women in all the provinces of Canada, they would not be exercising any greater rights than the men; they would be exercising precisely the same rights by having a voice in the selection of members of this House. My right hon. friend also alluded to the fact that the constitution of the United ' States is different from our own in this respect: that this Parliament has complete and absolute power in the determination of the electorate which shall select its members, whereas in the case of the United States Congress the electorate is determined by the law of each State. I do not know whether my Tight hon. friend intended to suggest by that that although our constitution gives to this Parliament greater powers in that respect than that enjoyed by Congress, we should nevertheless follow the principle embodied in the constitution of the United States rather than that embodied in our own constitution. If my right hon. friend intended to suggest that, I for one would not be inclined to agree with him. He also alluded to the fact that in the British North America Act there is to be found a provision which says that, until the Parliament of Canada otherwise legislates, the qualifications of electors shall be those which were in force in the several provinces at the time of Confederation as amended from time to time by the provincial legislatures. Provisions of a similar nature with regard to other subjects are to toe found in the British North America Act; provisions of a similar nature are to be found in the Constitutional Acts of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The purpose of those provisions is perfectly obvious; it was to prevent any hiatus during the period which must intervene before the newly-created legislature could exercise its functions. That and nothing more, so far as I understand, was the purpose of those provisions. .

In' answer to the Minister of Justice my right hon. friend took the ground that sections 10 and 32 of the Dominion Elections Act make it perfectly clear that the view put forward by my hon. friend 9 p.m. from St. John is the correct view and that the opinion given by the Minister of Justice is inaccurate for the reasons stated. My right hon. friend said somewhat definitely and distinctly that women were clearly in contemplation when the Dominion Elections Act was passed, and he cited those two sections which I will take the liberty of reading again. Section 10 says:
The qualifications necessary to entitle any person to vote at a Dominion election in any province shall, except as herein otherwise provided, be those established by the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election.
When my right hon. friend bases an argument upon that, he begs the question, because the question raised by the Minister of Justice was as to the meaning of the word "person." [DOT] If the argument of the Minister of Justice is correct in that respect, then the view put forward by my right hon. friend falls to the ground, because it comes back to the meaning of the word "person" as used in the Statute; and when he bases upon section 10 the view that qualifications are to he established by the province in respect of women as well as men and that the qualifications so established shall be binding upon this Parliament until it otherwise legislates, he leaves entirely out of view the fact that all that argument depends upon the meaning which you are to give to the word "person" as used in that section.
Then he alludes also to section 32, and he founds an argument upon the fact that in that section the expression "every male person" is used. It can hardly have, been within the contemplation of Parliament, when this legislation was passed, that women should be entitled to vote in one part of the country and should not be entitled to vote in another part. It seems to me that the argument which my right hon. friend conceives do be in his favour is entirely against him, because it is abundantly evident from this statute that no such distinction as that which my right hon. friend seeks to draw was ever intended. The use of the words "every male person" in section 32 strengthens rather than weakens the argument of the Minister of Justice with regard to the word "'person." It cannot have been in contemplation
by the Parliament of Canada in enacting this legislation that if provincial legislation in Ontario or British Columbia should grant the franchise to women, they should become entitled to vote at federal elections, whereas, if the provincial legislatures of Saskatchewan and A-lberta should do the same thing, the women there should not be entitled to the franchise, in both cases it being presumed that no further legislation had been enacted by this Parliament. I venture to think that the argument advanced by my right hon. friend in that regard is not an argument in his favour, but is an argument in favour of the view put forward by the Minister of Justice.
My right hon. friend seems to be under the impression, as the hon. member for St. John also seemed to be, that we have adopted absolutely the qualifications established in the several provinces of Canada. I would like to point out that we have done nothing of the kind. We have accepted their qualifications for the time being, and in accepting those qualifications, we have been acting under the provisions of the British North America Act. We have simply taken for the time being the qualifications established by the provincial legislatures, but we have not taken them in their entirety, because section 11 makes this provision:
No person possessed of the qualifications generally required by the provincial law to entitle him to vote at a provincial election shall be disqualified from voting at a Dominion election merely by reason of any provision of the provincial law disqualifying him from having his name on the list or from voting,-
(a)	the holder of any office; or,
(b)	any person employed in any capacity in the public service of Canada or of the province; or,
(c)	any person belonging to or engaged in any profession, calling, employment or occupation ; or,
(d)	any one belonging to any other class of persons who, although possessed of the qualification generally required by the provincial law, are, by such law, declared to be disqualified by reason of belonging to such class.
My right hon. friend says tbat this ought to be a matter for local consideration and determination in every instance. The legislation which he brought down in this Parliament and which was enacted lays down a different principle altogether. It declares that notwithstanding the determination of a provincial legislature, certain persons shall have the right to vote although the provincial legislature declares they shall not enjoy that right. This Parliament, in dealing with the question, looked at it from a broad federal standpoint, and not from a

provincial standpoint alone. It accepted the qualifications established by provincial legislatures with certain exceptions, which I have just read, and as to those exceptions it said that the will of this Parliament should prevail and not the will of the provincial legislature.
But I do not stop there. I have dealt with a portion of this enactment, which says that certain disqualifications which may from time to time be enacted by a provincial legislature shall not prevail so far as the right to vote for members of this House is concerned. I can turn to another section and show, as was pointed out this afternoon by the Minister of Justice, that certain persons whose names may appear on the provincial list shall nevertheless not be qualified to vote at elections of members of this House. I allude to Section 67, which declares :
67. The following persons shall be disqualified and incompetent to vote at any election:-
(a)	the judges of every court whose appointment rests with the Governor in Council;
(b)	Persons disfranchised for corrupt practices under this Act;
(c)	Persons disfranchised under the Disfranchising Act;
(d)	Any person who at the time of an election is a prisoner in a gaol or prison undergoing punishment for a criminal offence, or is a patient in a lunatic asylum, or Is maintained in whole or in part as an inmate receiving charitable support or care in a municipal poor house or house of industry, or is an inmate receiving charitable support in any institution receiving aid from the government of the province under any statute in that behalf.
Then follows a provision disqualifying any person who hires a horse, cab, or other conveyance to carry voters to the polls. So that even in the legislation alluded to the provincial enactments have not -been followed precisely. Certain exceptions have been 'made by which persons disqualified under provincial enactments are permitted to vote at elections of members of this House. There are also certain disqualifications which prevent persons whose names appear on provincial lists from voting at a Dominion election.
To come more particularly to the general question, my hon. friend the member for St. John has paid a very glowing tribute to the women of Canada for all that they have contributed to the national effort in this war, and I am sure that all of us will agree with the very eloquent expression of appreciation which fell from his lips. He followed that up by saying that this service to the state made it abundantly clear that the women of Canada were entitled to a voice in the government of the country. But after making those

eloquent references he followed with the somewhat lame and impotent conclusion that we should not give them the franchise for this Parliament unless their province had given them the franchise for provincial purposes. Now, if the principle which my hon. friend laid down is a good one, it seems to me that by no means does it lead to the conclusion at which he ultimately arrived, and I was very greatly surprised that a gentleman of his great legal acumen and thorjughly logical mind should have followed up such a premise with such a conclusion. So far as that is concerned, if the franchise should be granted to the women of Canada, I would not put forward the view that it is to be given to them as a reward for service. Their service has been given from the heart, from a sense of duty, from devotion to their country and to the cause which it represents. They gave that service with no idea of seeking any such reward as this, or any reward 'at all; they gave it from a ser se of duty. I would put forward their claim to a voice in the government of this country because in the great national emergency which confronts us at this time, and which involves not only the effort of the men fighting at the front, but the whole national effort of the country from men and women alike, they have showed themselves worthy to take a part in the government of this country, and they have thereby made abundantly clear what I believe was clear before, their right to a voice lin the government of the country in which they live.
My hon. friend from St. John has alluded to the experience of other countries. We have 'the experience of other countries, of Australia and New Zealand, for instance. The right hon. gentleman himself stated that the result of granting the franchise to the women of Australia and New Zealand had, as he believed, been satisfactory; I myself have never heard anything to the contrary. He took the point that this is more or less a matter of local concern, a matter on which public opinion is slowly being educated, and he seemed to apprehend grave consequences from the granting of the franchise to women in those portions of our country where the question of their right has not been greatly agitated. I do not appreciate the force of that view. My right hon. friend spoke of the peace, order and good government of Canada. What disorder, what injurious results are to be apprehended from giving to the women of Canada the right to exercise their franchise? It does not appear to me that there is any grave danger of public disorder if we should

give to the women of every province of Canada the right to vote in federal ejections. I know that a great many reasons, more than I would venture to recall to-night, have been put forward against any such proposal. The inability of women to bear arms in defence of their country, the supposed loosening of family ties, the view that it is the head of the family who should represent it, the danger of emotional legislation-all these and many other considerations have been put forward against the view that women should.be given the vote. But for my part, I do not think that any serious danger is to be appr ehended on any such score. If we should deny the right to vote to all those incapable of bearing arms in defence of the country, we should cut out a great many men, even men of military age. But no one would pretend for a moment that any snch principle as that should be followed. And so I think, with regard to all these considerations I have mentioned and which come to my attention at the moment, they might safely be disregarded. More than that, in the English-speaking countries and communities of this Empire, which enjoy democratic institutions, I believe there is an irresistible tendency to give to the womanhood of the Empire the Tight to have an adequate voice in government, and I believe that that tendency will act with increasing force until all the women of the Empire shall have the right to vote in the selection of those who are to represent them in the Parliaments of the nation and the Empire.
In this country we have a very peculiar position. The Parliament of Canada has seen fit, in the exercise of its complete and absolute power over this subject, to say that for the time being the qualifications which are established in the various provinces shall govern in Dominion elections. Five provinces of Canada have given the franchise to women in provincial elections. I shall not go further into the question as to whether women have the right for that reason to vote in Federal elections, because that has been dealt with by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doheity) whose view on that point must be accepted by the Government.
The question then comes before this Parliament as to what is to be the situation in the future. Are we, as suggested by hon. gentlemen on the other side, to make any necessary legislative provision that the women of those provinces, but not in any other province of Canada, shall be entitled to vote at Federal elections, or shall we
say that in dealing with questions of this character we ought to act upon some principle, land not commit ourselves blindly to follow what may be the popular opinion in any particular province at any particular time? I do not know how far my hon. friends opposite who have spoken would go in that direction. If Manitoba or British Columbia should repeal the enactment granting the franchise to women, should this Parliament immediately follow suit and deprive them of the right to vote in Federal elections?


William Pugsley: No danger of their ever going back.


Robert Laird Borden: Are we to surrender our conscience and our opinions entirely to the dictates of the provincial legislatures in this regard)? We have not done so in the enactment aheady quoted, because there is a distinct provision in one of the sections that no person shall be disqualified by:
-belonging to any class of persons who, although possessed of the qualifications generally required by the provincial law, are, by such laws, declared to be disqualified by reason of their belonging to that class.
I venture to say that this question is one that must be dealt with on the basis of principle, and not on the basis of surrendering our views absolutely to the dictates of any provincial legislature. It has been considered convenient, and it may be convenient so long as the qualifications established generally in the various provincial legislatures concur with the view entertained by this House, to leave these matters subject to our supervision from time to time, to be determined in that way. I do not say that this has always been the view of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) -for I remember very- well that in 1907 he brought in a Bill which made provision for disregarding the voters' lists in the province of Manitoba and the northern part of the province of Ontario. He proposed to depart from that local view which he now advocates so strongly, by providing that the lists prepared in Manitoba should not be taken into account in the Federal elections, but that absolutely new lists prepared by officers under his direo tion should be the lists in Manitoba for Federal elections. And so with regard to the unorganized districts in northern Ontario. He was not content to accept the local view at that time, but desired that the broad Federal view should be taken with regard to these districts. So I am not sure

that the local idea is as firmly embedded in the right hon. gentleman's mind as he thinks it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: The local idea then was in the mind of my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden). He may have changed since.


Robert Laird Borden: I took the ground very deliberately, and I repeat it now, that if the provincial lists were to be accepted in all other provinces of Canada there was no reason why they should be disregarded in Manitoba and the northern part of Ontario. I do not think any good reason was ever advanced by my right hon. friend for taking that course, and eventually, after a very protracted fight, he withdrew his proposal so far as Manitoba was concerned, and accepted certain modifications, so far as northern Ontario was concerned.
I entirely agree that this question of enfranchising women is one that ought to engage the serious attention of Parliament. I am not going to commit myself with regal'd to the necessity or desirability of a Dominion franchise. I hope no such act may be necessary. I do not say that it may not become necessary. I have not brought forward any measure since we have been in power, to interfere with the Act of 1908; we are content to leave matters as they are. But I do think that the question now under debate is a very important one, and. one that ought to engage the attention of Parliament before any appeal is made to the country. I entirely agree with that, but I am not quite satisfied with the terms of the resolution which my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has proposed. His resolution is in these words:
That, in the opinion of this House, the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of the Government at the present session.
All questions as to the electorate which shall elect the members of this House are peculiarly questions for Parliament itself. The legislation in such matters is generally, and naturally, introduced by the Government of the day but it is a question in which Parliament itself is primarily concerned. I would therefore suggest the following amendment which will be an amendment t-o the original motion, if the amending motion proposed by my hon. friend from St. John should be declared out of order, or, if it is declared to be in order, it will be an amendment to his amendment:

That all the words after the word "that" in the proposed motion he omitted to the end thereof and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this House the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of Parliament before an appeal to the people is made.
I do not think there can be any question as to the propriety of that resolution whether the view which has been put forward by my hon. friends on the other side of the House, or the view which has been put forward by this side of the House, should be accepted. In either case it is abundantly clear that the subject should engage the attention of Parliament and I think it should engage the attention of Parliament so that the legislation which Parliament in its wisdom may see fit to enact should go into force before any general election is held. J therefore leave the matter at that with this motion which I propose either in amendment to the original motion or in amendment to that proposed by my hon. friend from St. John depending upon the decision that you may give, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This amendment having been submitted by the right hon. the senior member for Halifax (Sir Robert Borden), it becomes necessary to give a decision upon the amendment submitted by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I indicated this afternoon that in my judgment, for reasons then given, the amendment of the hon. member was not in order, and having taken some time to reflect upon the matter, I see no reason to change my mind. Therefore, for the reasons indicated, in my opinion, the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) is not in order and the right hon. member (Sir Robert Borden) is in order in submitting this amendment to the House as an amendment to the original motion.


William Manley German: 

Ontario shall vote, not only in provincial elections, but also in Dominion elections and for Dominion candidates. If, under the law as it stands at present, those women will not be entitled to vote for Dominion candidates, then it is incumbent on this Government to make that absolutely clear during this session of Parliament, and not to wait for any other session of Parliament to discuss this question or the further question of whether we should have a Dominion Franchise Act, if it is the intention of the Government to introduce such as an Act at a later stage. That we can discuss later on. So far as the vote for women is concerned, every one admits that the intelligence of women is equal to that of men; that women have just as broad a grasp of the political situation and the business situation of the country as men have, and that, so far as intelligence goes; they are equally capable of exercising the franchise with men. The Legislature of the province of Ontario saw fit tto give these women the franchise, and if there is any doubt about it, as the Minister of Justice has expressed a doubt this afternoon, then it is incumbent on this Government to remove that doubt, and to remove it at once.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: It would be a catastrophe, to my mind, if a Dominion election should be held and in the province of Ontario a doubt should exist, as one will exist after t'he speech of the Minister of Justice. It did not exist 'before, because every one believed that women would have the right to vote. The Minister of Justice has thrown into the matter now that measure of doubt, and that measure of doubt must be removed, should be removed at any rate, and this Government should remove it. What would happen if a Dominion election was held and nothing further had been done, matters standing exactly as at present? The voters' list in the province of Ontario would be made up with the names of all the women of the province of Ontario over twenty-one years of age upon it. Those women would go to the polls and demand the right to vote; they would be told by the deputy returning officers at the different polling places:	You have no right to
vote, and you cannot vote because the Minister of Justice of the Dominion of Canada has announced from his place in the Parliament of Canada that it is contrary to law for you to vote. That would be a most absurd proposition. I have nothing further to say on the question than that, and it is,
I Mr. German.]
to my mind, sufficient to put the Government on inquiry. The women have the right to vote or they have not. It was the intention of the legislature of the province of Ontario to give them the right to vote. If, by reason of the interpretation of the law as expressed by the Minister of Justice, they have not the right to vote, then I call on the Government of the Dominion of Canada to rectify that and to give them the Tight to vote, and to. give it to them now.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT (Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, no question has more engaged the attention of Parliaments than that affecting the franchise. In England parliamentary history is filled with reminiscences, if I may use that word, of debates on the franchise in by-gone days. Whether it be the famous observation of "dishing the Whigs" by extending the franchise in one Reform Bill, or the declaration of Disraeli of that principle of household franchise which he thought would settle the whole matter, or the last Bill introduced toy Har-court for one man one vote, the franchise has always been a subject matter of much controversy and discussion. Nor has this country escaped that controversy and discussion. But it does seem to me that there are certain fundamental principles, notwithstanding what has been said here this evening, that well may guide us, that may well toe kept in sight in determining how we shall decide who are to have the right to vote on national questions, or for members who. shall sit in this House. There are certain fundamental matters, that have been, settled by statute history in this country. The first is that, when this Confederation came into existence, it was necessary to provide some franchise whereby members could be elected to this Parliament, and naturally, as in other matters, it was necessary to take the established franchise lists of the provinces that comprised Confederation. That was period number one. The second period in point of history was that period that commenced in 1885 and terminated in 1898, a period comprising some thirteen years. That was the time when we had in force a Dominion Franchise Act passed by this Parliament. During that time it was written upon the statute books that the Parliament of Canada would itself determine what should 'be the qualification of the electors who sent members to it. That was a Dominion franchise Act. That was an Act whereby, for national purposes, it was determined that certain men should have the qualification of electors for Parlia-

ment. The third period in our history commenced in 1898, and extends up to the present time. In that period the franchise of the provinces was adopted, but the provinces did not make the franchise whereby members were elected to this Parliament. This Parliament determined what the qualifications of an elector should be, but foT the purposes of determining those qualifications it was enacted that the various qualifications in force in the provinces should obtain with relation to the election of members to this Parliament. But, unfortunately, another period intervened between 1898 and 1917. That was the period during which hon. gentlemen opposite, for reasons that seemed good and sufficient to them, introduced, in 1907, and threw into this Parliament for discussion a Bill whereby it was declared that with respect to two portions of this Dominion the principle that they had laid down in 1898 should no longer obtain and that a new principle should be introduced and followed. That Bill did not pass; it was withdrawn, except with relation to the unorganized portions of Ontario. But it is valuable to look back upon that history of 1907, because it establishes a principle for which I contend, namely, the recognition on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite of the absolute right- not only the right, but the duty-of Parliament to determine the qualifications of electors who should send representatives to this Parliament. Therefore upon that point we -are on common ground. The Liberal party of 1907 enunciated a principle similar in terms to the principle enunciated by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1885, namely, that for the purposes of selecting members to represent them in the House of Commons the qualifications of electors should be determined in the Parliament in which they sat. That principle, therefore, seems to be comipon ground. Speaking for myself only, I desire to say that I have never for a single moment changed my view	since I	have been old
enough to think logically o-n the subject, and that view is that this Parliament should fix and determine the* qualifications of those who elect members to this body.
I said the other evening and I desire to repeat it, that it is -perfectly clear that for the purpose of selecting members to a municipal council or to a provincial legislature, it is competent for and the duty of the municipal council or the provincia1 legislature to fix the qualifications of its 964
electors. Under the British North America Act, section 92, defining the powers of the provinces, the provinces are charged with responsibility with respect to matters of local interest. It is no concern of the province to deal with those matters of national import upon which must always rest the destiny and future of this nation. But with respect to the federal powers, it is only necessary to -turn to section 91 of the British North America Act, where we find that this Parliament is charged with responsibility for the peace, order and good government of Canada, not in respect to one province or to another province, but in respect to all the provinces, whether it be British Columbia in the west or Nova Scotia -in the east. Its legislation should be of universal application and aimed at the supreme purpose of providing for the peace, order and good government of the commonwealth. That being so, it is necessary. that we should legislate for the defence of the realm, for the safety and liberty of our citizens, for the defence of their property and their rights. These are national matters, for the life of a citizen in British Colnmhia is just, as important as the life of a citizen in New Brunswick, and property, in the broad sense of that term as used in section 91 of the British North America Act, must be the subject matter of preservation by the state just as -much in the central prairie provinces as in the provinces by the sea. So that our duty is national; our obligations are Dominionwide. That being so, I submit, Mr. Speaker, as I did the other evening, that we should lay -down a principle and, in the words of Disraeli, let that principle work to the end, being confident that, having declared for	the principle,	in	its application it	will work no hardship to
individuals, however much it may effect this class or that. And in seeking for a principle upon which to determine national franchise-not a provincial or a local franchise; not a municipal franchise, but a national franchise-which will effect the well-being of the State as a whole and of its citizens as a whole, I ventured the other evening to lay down a principle, which, I submit, is founded upon the common history of mankind, running through the text-books and through all literature upon the subject since civilization began to emerge from barbarism, namely, that nationals should determine national issues; that nationals should determine national exist-

ence; that nationals should fix and determine national destiny. I will not to-night repeat the classes of men whom I believed were nationals: men who were British subjects, and naturalized citizens under certain limitations. Whatever may have been the view of individuals in this House before 1914, we at least now know, having regard to the history of the United States, to the history of some parts of our own country, and to the trend of events overseas and on this continent, that there are men who have taken the oath of allegiance either in the United States or to our own Sovereign, in whom the ties of blood and nationality are so strong that in the midst of a great conflict in which the existence of the fatherland whence they came may be at stake and who, for reasons that to them seem good, but to us seemed bad, show no sympathy for and give no support to our ambitions either as a State or in connection with the war that we are carrying on. They have seen fit to indicate, sometimes clandestinely and sometimes openly, a preference for the well-being of the land from whence they came rather than a desire to support by their conduct and their purse the campaign that is being carried on by the land of their adoption. No man who reads the history of the United States during the last three years or, for that matter, who will read with me the history of my own country as I have seen it during the last three years will, for a single moment, question the fact that naturalization alone is not sufficient to constitute a man a national in the sense in which that term is used.
I went further, because I pointed out-and now I have the opportunity to elaborate it-that when the Privy Council had to deal, in the Japanese case, with that point, they laid down this doctrine, that the exercise of the franchise is not a right, but a privilege conferred by the State that grants it, and far from being a right, it as a privilege of such importance that too great care cannot be exercised in its grant. Therefore, the legislation of the province of British Columbia that denied the right to the Japanese to be placed upon the register, notwithstanding the fact that he was a British subject, was upheld by the Privy Council, because, in the words of the court delivering judgment, it was felt that the legislature of the province of British Columbia must be at all times the best judge as to what would be for the interest of that province. In the same way this Parliament, speaking in the same terms for Can-

ada as a whole, must ever be the best judge as to what is for the benefit of Canada as a whole, and not for any portion of Canada that is now called a province.
If the principle, then, for which I contend-and I submit there is a principle-be declared, then it follows that no provincial legislature can declare that principle. That principle can be declared only by this sovereign Parliament, and as that is the case, and as it is essential that a principle should be of universal application, it follows that the mere adoption by this Parliament of the ever changing franchises, of nine provinces can never be regarded as an application of a principle that is sound from a national standpoint. My hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) the other evening spoke of manhood franchise, believing apparently that there was such a thing throughout Canada as a franchise law universal in its character. That is not the case; there are in Canada as many franchises for the election of members to this Parliament as there are provinces. That is unsound, because it represents no principle, and unless there be a principle of universal application there should be no law based upon it. Therefore, I say: Why should a gentleman representing a constituency in the province of British Columbia be sent here by an electorate differently composed from the electorate of a constituency in the province of Pirince Edward llsland which sends a representative here? That is the neat 'question. Should a gentleman who represents, in this Parliament, a. constituency in Ontario be chosen by an electorate registered upon a register upon different qualifications from those of an electorate in a constituency in Quebec which also has the right to chopse a representative? Should one who comes from the province of Alberta or Saskatchewan represent a body of electors chosen by qualifications for national purposes different from the qualifications of a body of electors in Nova .Scotia who also send representatives to Parliament? That is the neat problem. What makes for the peace, order and good government of Canada as a whole? It is the laying down of a principle of universal application with reference to the selection of members of Parliament. And I contend that a gentleman who represents in this Parliament iany federal constituency does not represent an inferior or a superior body of men merely because he happens to be chosen from a province where in the one case there is manhood franchise, and in the other, restricted franchise.

Wliat have we had in the province in which I have lived for many years? In the province of Alberta since 1905 and in the province of Saskatchewan since 1905 we have had a franchise made 'by whp-m? by the legislatures of Albeirtia and Saskatchewan? No, by this Parliament, and once the franchise is made by this Parliament, in fulfilment of its rights under its constitution to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada as a whole, I say:	Why should npt the principle that
governs with respect to Alberta and Saskatchewan, whereby in those provinces- this Parliament fixes the terms and
10 p.m. conditions under which a man shall exercise his franchise for federal purposes, he extended to every part of this Dominion? That is the principle for which I contend. It cannpt, I believe, be successfully contended for a single moment by any hon. member that a principle shall have application in Alberta and .Saskatchewan and at the same time find no operation in Manitoba or British 'Columbia. That, I submit, cannot 'be so, and if this Parliament was sound in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction in legislating as to who should vote for members to be elected in those two provinces, it is doubly true that at this moment when the great issues of life and death and the future existence of this country are at stake, it should legislate fully; it should legislate with a principle; it should legislate having regard to the conditions under which we live and in such a way as will ensure the continued existence in this Canada of ours of British institutions. That is the principle which I lay down and for which I contend. It is for that reason I submit, that this Parliament should deal with matters of federal franchise and not leave it in the way in which it is now.
We should look at this matter fairly in the light of history. There is no getting away from the history of the matter. Let us take the province of Nova Scotia. During the time that the ex-Minister of Finance was Prime Minister of Nova Scotia, he placed upon the statute books a measure whereby all Dominion civil servants could not vote.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend is absolutely wrong. That measure was on the statute books- of Nova Scotia since Confederation, long before Mr. Fielding was ever heard tell of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will accept my hon.
friend's statement as I am bound to do, but I desire to- say that he is in error.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: During the regime of the Conservatives in Nova Scotia that section to which my hon. friend refers was repealed, and it was re-enacted by Mr. Fielding when he became Prime Minister. Those are the facts.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, those are certainly not the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my learned -and horn ourable friend will nermit me to send for the books, I shall be able to sho-w him what the facts are.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall be very glad if my hon. friend will do so. He cannot get away from the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend's memory, -as he has just reminded me, extends back to pre-Confederation days. Mine does not, so I accept his statement as being more correct than mine, but I am giving the facts as I have read them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Prime Minister is quite familiar with Nova Scotia legislation and I will leave the matter to him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: _ I am quite content that it should Ibe left to him.


Robert Laird Borden: I will send for the book.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It matters not for my
purposes, but strengthens my argument to accept the statement of my hon, friend. He says that since Confederation there was in the province of Nova Scotia an Act whereby federal civil servants were not permitted to vote in provincial, elections.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certain ones-not all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. Certain ones were precluded from voting, but that section has -been repealed. It no- longer obtains in Nova Scotia.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As a member of that
legislature, I introduced the Act that repealed it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I was advised, and the reason my hon. friend introduced- that Bill repealing the section, was because a Liberal Government had come into power at Ottawa, and it was after that that he did it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Evil be to him who
evil -thinks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, I should think much evil should fall on the head of my hon. friend because he- evidently

thought evil of civil servants voting under a Conservative Government and thought well of them voting after his friends came into power in 1896. In any case the facts are that in Nova Scotia there was a statute that precluded civil servants of a certain class from voting in provincial elections, hut after the advent to poweT of the Liberal party in 1896, my learned and honourable friend introduced into the legislature a Bill whereby he repealed that section, there being a Liberal Government in power at Ottawa. Then what ha/ppened? In 1898 a Dominion Franchise Act was passed by this Parliament, and it specially provided that the men who could not vote in Nova Scotia because they were civil servants should be able to vote for Dominion purpo-ses.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	It was repealed long
before 1906.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I am not going to discuss this question from a legal or constitutional standpoint;
I am not a lawyer, or the son of a lawyer, or the brother of a lawyer. But I believe in giving votes to women. I believe that the women of Alberta should have a vote in provincial affairs, but I believe also that they and all other women throughout the Dominion should equally have the vote in both provincial and Dominion affairs. I think they have won the right to it since this war commenced at any rate-though I was a believer in and advocate of woman suffrage prior to the war. I entirely agree with the view expressed by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett). The sacrifices made by women throughout the length and breadth of this country since the war commenced have been rightly commented upon by the hon. member. The other day we were discussing a resolution declaring, that every one who has gone'to participate in this war as a soldier should be given the vote. I agree with that entirely, and I agree also that the women who have made such great sacrifices, who have given their sons and husbands to the country in this critical time, should have the right to participate in the solution of the problems which the country will face at the conclusion of the war. I say without hesitation that the women should be given the vote immediately. I am satisfied that in

my own province, as the result of the franchise being given to women, public life will be improved and elevated. This being true of the provinces, let us give the women the franchise in the Dominion elections, from British Columbia east to the Maritime Provinces. I have no constitutional reasons, no legal arguments to .offer. I am simply in favour of women suffrage throughout the Dominion because I believe that the women have earned the right to the franchise since the war commenced.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I had not intended to say anything upon this question, but having heard the learned and eloquent address of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) I think some explanation is called for from mysellf as to the way in which I understand some of the principles to which he has referred. I do not think he is going to carry out in practice the broad principles which he chooses to lay down to-night. He said early in his speech that every representative body should have the full say as to the qualifications of those who shall elect its members. On that principle every municipal council must have the right to create the franchise under which its members shall be voted for, and the same is true of every school board. I do not think the principle laid down by the hon. gentleman could be carried out successfully. I think the hon. gentleman forgets that the same voters are represented in the municipal council, the local legislature, and this Parliament. It is the same conscience, the same intellect, the same power in each case. That being so, why should not the man who is qualified to vote for members of the municipal council or for members of the legislature be qualified to vote for members of this House as well? Why should there be separate enactments in these cases? For the last twenty years the present Franchise Act has worked successfully from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and no one has any quarrel with it so far as I know. I would ask the hon. member for Calgary whom would he suggest as proper parties to be left off the list? Would he suggest the man who has no property of his own? Would he suggest the man who lives with his parents and who has no separate property upon which to qualify? Will anybody stand up in this House and say that there is any person left off the list by their province who should be .put on, or put on who should be left off?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, all those who own a dual allegiance .and are under mili-
^
tary obligations to an enemy state should be left off.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a state of things that is not known in this country, so far as I am aware.


William Pugsley: Are not .there aliens fighting for Canada in the trenches who owe a double allegiance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have lost that by reason of their fighting. That is the point I made the other evening.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: to take the place of the home. These are the only questions that appeal to me. As to what has been discussed by the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for St. John I do not wish to offer any opinion.


John Gillanders Turriff: Mr. Speaker, I shall only occupy a very few minutes of the time of the House. As to the legal arguments that we heard this afternoon from the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), if he had anything clear in his mind, or if he was able to make anything clear to the other legal lights in this House, he certainly was not able to make anything clear to the ordinary layman because when the hon. member was through it seemed to me that the matter was more muddled up than it was when he started. However, not being a member of the legal profession myself, I am probably not competent to pass judgment on a matter of that kind. The few remarks that I have to make will be altogether aside from the legal end of the argument. In the province from which I come women have been given the vote for the legislature. That was the first province in the Dominion to grant the right of voting to women. The women, and the men too, in Saskatchewan are very anxious that the women should be given a vote for members of the Dominion House. That can be accomplished, as I understand the matter, only by an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act that is in force so far as the elections in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are concerned. By a very sligh amendment, women can be given the vote in those provinces. But it does not seem to me that it is the intention of the Prime Minister to give women a vote at the present time. This is the resolution that we are discussing; proposed by Mr. Sutherland, the member for South Oxford.
That, in the opinion of this House, the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of the Government at the present session.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) moves an amendment t-o this motion exactly in the siame words until you come down to the words " the present session," and my right hon. friend then suggests that it should read " prior to an appeal to the country." Nobody in this House, or in this country, knows any better than my right hon. friend that the term of this Parliament ends on the 7th day of October next, within six months; so that if my right hon. friend wants or intends to give votes to the women, either of the prov-

inces that have given the local franchise to women or to the women of all Canada, he must take action -at this session; if he is going to accomplish anything action should be taken now. But my right hon. friend seems to be taking a very quiet, smooth way of doing the women of Canada out of a vote for the next Dominion election. That is how his attitude looks to me; I cannot take any other view of it. If that is not a correct view, perhaps my right hon. friend or somebody else on that side of the House will explain.
Just a word as to what the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) said about restricting the franchise. I should like to ask him what he would do in the case of an alien, a man from -an enemy country, Austria, Germany, or Turkey, who came to Canada years ago, settled here, became a British subject and brought out his young sons with him. These sons have since grown up and have, perhaps, gone to the front to defend Canada and now lie buried in France and Flanders. Is my hon. friend from Calgary going to take the franchise from that British subject, the father of those boys who have sacrificed their lives to maintain the British Empire and to maintain Canada? Why, the matter is too absurd to be considered. We have heard interminable talk about cultivating a strong national sentiment. Are you going to cultivate a strong national sentiment in Canada by disfranchising the fathers of men who have gone to the front to fight for you? Is that going to build up a British sentiment? To my mind it is absolutely absurd.
Then the 'hon. member for Calgary talks about an educational qualification. He should have consulted the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works had a hand in applying lan educational test in Manitoba when he was a minister in that province; but he repealed that legislation very shortly after he had put it into force. If my right hon. friend the Prime Minister should adopt the same course he would 'be compelled, if he should he in power to do - it, to repeal the legislation before it went very far. That is not the way to cultivate a good British sentiment, and no one knows it better than the Ministet of Public Works, because they had to repeal their Act in the province of Manitoba. It certainly looks to me, and I am sorry to have to say it, as if my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is taking a very smooth way of getting out of giving votes to the women.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall follow the example

of my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and not detain the House very long at this late period. I intervene, however, to say that this debate has been a genuine surprise to myself. I have been engaged' in some capacity or other in helping in' extensions of the franchise all my life; and I was engaged in that process of enfranchisement under the name of Liberal. So, you can understand my surprise when I find in a debate like this a party *which tis called ithe Conservative party standing for a general measure of enfranchisement all over the Dominion of Canada; and a party which is called Liberal, apparently rather anxious to restrict this extension of the franchise. It simply shows that it is possible foir men to betray the qualities with which the names of the parties to which they belong have usually been associated in history. Take my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) who has just spoken. I never heard a better old-fashioned Tory speech in my life than he has just given. Why, he isays, we have had this franchise for twenty years, how can you improve it? Well, that was just the kind of argument that was put up in Great Britain against every proposed extension of the franchise Itheire, the old fashioned Tories of Great Britain always said that-[DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must say that my hon. friend misunderstood me. I was referring to the method of preparing the lists, or getting the names on the lists, not to the question of who should go on the lists; and if my hon. friend understood me as saying that I did not wish to extend the franchise any further, I must say that he did not understand what I meant. I was referring to the machinery by which the lists were prepared.


Michael Clark: I must protest. I think I understood my hon. friend well enough. He may not like my description of him, but he said that something that was good for twenty years was good enough for now, and I challenge that statement- he does not deny that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He does deny it. He said the machinery for preparing the lists was good enough for twenty years, and if my hon. friend wishes to misunderstand that, he can do sto.


Michael Clark: My lun. friend gets up and repeats what I said, and says if I misunderstood wdiat he said I can do so. I leave it at that. I thought he was betraying a Conservative frame of mind, because almost in the next sentence he went on to jibe the Prime Minister because he did not hold the same view to-day as he held twenty years ago. That was another betrayal of a Conservative frame of mind. We have seen changes in the views of public men in England. Mr. Asquith was a determined opponent of woman suffrage until a few years ago. The stolid and strong Englishman that he is, he did not give way to intimidation and violence of the worst kind. But other things have arisen in the history of the world. This war has revealed a new side of the question to him, and he has changed his views. I do not know that I have any brief to defend the Prime Minister in this way, because there is no real inconsistency in arguing that so long as this is a provincial matter it should be done by the provinces. But when you are dealing wdth an anomaly created by an extension of the franchise in certain provinces which has not been made in others, you are brought up against the question of whether or not you will have a general franchise all over the Dominion. I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting views which I have enunciated previously in this House, which are in accordance with the views expressed toy the hon. member for Calgary and which are in accordance with the opinions of the vast majority of the people of Western Canada: that this is an anomaly which cannpt be allowed to continue ; that it should be put right, and that the only way of putting it right is by giving the franchise to women all over the Dominion. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton is a good-natured debater; he enlivens our proceedings with most interesting anecdotes from time to time, and I am sure that he will not mind my reviewing the remarks that he has made and arguing with him, if I may do so-for no Scotchman resents an argument, I am sure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It must be an argument, though.


Michael Clark: Well, I have met Scotchmen who thought that nobody could argue but themselves. That, of course, is a peculiarity of the race. In regard to the general subject, I have not the least hesitation in supporting the view that the franchise should be extended all over the Dominion. The hon. member fox North Cape Breton differed from the hon. member for Calgary as to the power of a legislative body to arrange the franchise under

which members should be elected to that body, I understood my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition to take exactly the same ground. I understood him to concede that in his opening remarks; I think that if Hansard is consulted it will be found that he took exactly the same position. But whether he did or not, I must say that I agree on the subject with the hon. member for Calgary, and not with my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) near me. I do not think that the argument with which the hon. member for North Cape Breton supported his view is a sound argument. He said that the law under which a municipality elects its members is not made by the municipality. But a municipality is not, properly speaking, a legislative body; it is largely an administrative body. I do not think, therefore, that it is on all-fours with a provincial legislature or with this Parliament. So that the position is unmistakably sound and unshake-able that a legislative body has the power to make the franchise under which its members are elected. It has been conceded -and I do not think that this view, which was stated in very clear and lucid terms by the member for Welland (Mr. German), has been differed from by anybody in the House-that women are the equals of men in intelligence and in every other quality by which we test the right of an individual to vote. If we take those two positions- that a legislative body is the proper body to constitute the franchise under which its memhers are elected, and that women are the equals of men in intelligence and in all other qualities which go to make a good citizen-then there remains no further argument on the subject. The franchise for the Dominion should be created by this legislature, and it can be very well extended to all human beings, irrespective of sex, who have arrived at that age at which they can exercise the franchise rationally and sensibly.
I listened to the speech of my right hon. leader without the slightest wish to differ from it, but it did not carry my mind in its logic. I could not follow the arguments; they were not convincing _},o me. He contended that it would be wrong-I think he almost went that far-that it would be unfair or improper to force a franchise upon the women of Nova Scotia which had been turned down by the legislature of that province. I do not think, Sir, that that is a sound argument. It is notorious that many men who have been given the fran-

chise under a general extension do not care to exercise that franchise. That is so notorious that a large section of the population of all countries in which these matters are dealt with are in favour of compulsory voting at elections. We have no sympathy with that view, but where would be the hardship of conferring upon the women of Nova Scotia the right to vote? They would be in exactly the same position as the men who have that right now, but who do not care to exercise it. I dp not see anything in that argument. The view is shared, as I understand, by the hon. member for North Cape Breton. They did not always in Nova Scotia-I have had my own 'troubles with them from time to time-my Liberal friends in Nova Scotia did not always grumble at things offered to them from other parts of the Dominion. I remember an occasion upon which they were provincial in another matter than that of the franchise-extremely provincial. And their Scotch characteristics came out especially on that occasion, because when it was a matter of steel bounties they were like Oliver Twist; they always took them and were always looking for more. Well, this Parliament, thinking that that was a very unjust method of dealing with the financial and fiscal affairs of the country, thought fit to stop that kind of gift. But the gift of another bounty in the shape of a vote for the women of the province should not, I think, be resented.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A Nova Scotia Finance Minister stopped the bounties.


Michael Clark: Some of my hon. friends are so provincial that they never get away from their own province; he was a Dominion Finance Minister who came from Nova Scotia. I am sure that a little more study of this question and a little broadening out of views in the matter will bring all Liberals, anyway, to support the views which have been so well expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister and by the member for Calgary. I said at the beginning that this debate had been a surprise to me. Perhaps the greatest surprise about it is not the one that I expressed to begin with, but the one that I have just given a hint of-that I am in absolute agreement with the speech of the member for Calgary. I should not, perhaps, put it so strongly. We have had many differences, but so far as the main portion of his speech, anyhow, was concerned-the votes for

women-I am in absolute agreement with him, and I think he made to this House an admirable argument on that question.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I wish
to address myself for a few moments to the amendment m.oved by the right hon. leader of the Government. I have been very much surprised at the amendment that he has moved. It is difficult to understand the reason which animated the Prime Minister in moving it. One is naturally led to *wonder what is behind the amendment, because ordinarily the Prime Minister would not move an amendment to a resolution presented by a supporter of the Government unless there was very good reason for doing so. The resolution says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of the Government at the present session.
My right hon. friend proposes to strike out the whole of my resolution and substitute for it the following:-
In the opinion of this House the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of Parliament before an appeal to the people is made.
Now, just what wias deep down in the mind of my right hon. friend when he moved , that amendment I am unable to understand. Does he mean that it is not the duty of the Gotermnent to deal with this question, but that it is the duty of some private member to deal with it? And is it the view of my right hon. friend that if some private member does not deal with it the responsibility is removed from the members of the Government and they \yill say: Oh, it was open to Parliament to deal with the subject; it was the duty of a private member to bring it up just as much as it was the duty of the Government, and no private member introduced a Bill. It seems to me it is the duty of the Government to deal with this very important question. The Dominion Elections Act is an Act over which the Government naturally has charge; it is an Act .which involves public expenditure. The Dominion elections necessarily involve a charge upon the public treasury, and, therefore the Dominion Elections Act is a statute with which the Government ought to deal and the making of amendments to that Act is peculiarly entrusted to the Government. Therefore, I apprehend that it is primarily the duty of the Government to take this matter into consideration and to . submit to Parliament a Bill providing for amendments.
For some reason or other, my right hon. friend, in his amendment, has said that the question of extending the franchise to women should engage the attention of Parliament-not at the present session, as has been proposed by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland)

but at some time before an appeal is made to the people. As one who wants to see the franchise extended, either to the women of those five provinces in which their names are placed upon the provincial lists, or to all the women of Canada, I am not prepared, as one member of this House, to allow the matter to be disposed of in this way.


Mr. MORPHY:: What difference can it make to the hon. gentleman if before an election the matter is submitted to Parliament; the franchise will be extended to women at the earliest possible moment.


William Pugsley: The difference is this, that, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) the life of Parliament will expire in October next. In the ordinary course of events, there can be no further session of Parliament after the present one, and therefore if we are in earnest in regard to the matter, we should say that this change should be made at the present session of Parliament. Who knows that there will be any other session? Who will suggest that there will be any other session?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. member assert that there will be no other -session?


William Pugsley: I can assert that this
Parliament has no power to hold another session after October of this year. I can assert that this Government has no power to call this Parliament together for another session. This Parliament absolutely will die by lapse of time in October next.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is my hon. friend speaking for his leader?


William Pugsley: I am speaking for myself and, as my hon. friend knows well what the law of Parliament is, no one knows better than does my hon. friend that the life of this Parliament will expire in October next and this Parliament has under the British North America Act no power to prolong its life. What may be done by another body, I do not know; but is the right of the women of this country to receive the franchise to depend upon whether or not another body may extend the life of this Parliament? Is the right of the women of this country

to have justice done to them to depend upon this question? If we are all in favour of extending the franchise to women-and we seem all to be, because there has been no expression of dissent from either side of the House-the only question is as to whether the extension should be to the women whose names are placed upon the provincial voters' lists, or whether there should be a broad Dominion measure extending the franchise to all women whether they have the right to vote for members of the provincial legislature or not. Why not let this House express the view-why should it not express the view that this measure should be brought down at the present session? It will not take long to prepare a Bill; it will not take long to put it
11 p.m. through. It apparently will not be controversial, if controversial at all in its character. Then why has the resolution been altered by the declaration that this change should be made, not during the present session of Parliament, but before an appeal to the people ' is made? I would almost think that my right hon. friend drew up that amendment through an oversight. In order, however, to put the matter beyond any doubt, I would move as an amendment to the amendment :
That there be added to the amendment the words "and it is therefore desirable that a measure having: this object in view should be submitted to Parliament by the Government during- the present session."


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. gentleman mean toy what he has said that this Parliament in this session has no power to extend the life of Parliament for another
year?


William Pugsley: I mean that this Parliament has no power to extend its life. That power does not rest with this Parliament nor with this Government.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The	hon. gentleman
would say that this Parliament had no right last year?


William Pugsley: It had no power last
year.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman
agreed to the extension last year.


William Pugsley: This Parliament was
extended last year by the Imperial Par-ia-ment.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Can not that be done
again this year by a similar process? Will the hon. gentleman give me an answer?
[Mr. Pugsley.j


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend desires an answer, I would say that the question ae to whether it can be properly done from time to time and under the circumstances which exist to-day, is one which requires most careful and earnest consideration.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the amendment to the amendment is in ordeT?


Sir HERBERT AMES:: I rise to a point of order, namely, that the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John differs in no way from the original motion and is consequently out of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I have just at this moment seen the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John, I do not think I should give an opinion offhand. There is nothing to prevent the hon. member for Vancouver proceeding with his Temarks, apd I will deal later with the point of order raised by the hon. -member for St. Antoine.


William Pugsley: 
Herbert Brown Ames: Mr. Speaker, my point of order was in effect that the subamendment was only another way of moving the previous question, as it would put us back where we were before.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is in error. I presume he has not read the resolution carefully. The resolution says that in the opinion of this House the question of extending .the franchise to women should engage the attention of the Government at the present session. The amendment proposes that the question of extending the franchise to women should be considered by Parliament,' as Parliament is the only body that can deal effectively with it. My amendment to the amendment is that legislation should be introduced to Parliament by the Government at the present session. Neither the amendment nor the sub-amendment are at all in effect like the original' resolution.


Mr. JAMES MORRIS (Chateauguay):: I feel I should be remiss in my duty as representing the constituency of Chateauguay if I did not give my views on this question, particularly as I have received several communications from women's organizations in my county with respect to the subject now under discussion. We have heard it said in 1a good many quarters that women do not desire the franchise. The hon. member for North Cape Breton intimated in his remarks that the women of his province did not desire it. Be that as it may, the women of the county of Chateauguay do desire the franchise, and as the representative of that constituency I feel that it is my duty to give expression to their views and also to my own. There are a great many women's organizations throughout this country, and perhaps the most prominent is the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which for the last 30 or 40 years has been quietly working for the advancement of humanity. Some of the communications to which I refer came direct to me from the officials of a branch of that organization. If there is any organization in Canada that should be recognized I think it is the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and if they desire the vote they should have it. There are other women's organizations in this country which are doing great work to-day, the Red Cross, for instance, which was fostered and has
been nurtured by women. I feel that the women of this country who are working for the advancement of the country should be recognized by this Parliament, and I trust that the resolution as amended will be passed and become law before this Government goes out of office.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Between the motion submitted by the hon. member for South Oxford, and the amendment submitted by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and the amendment to the amendment submitted by the hon. member for St. John, we seem to be moving in a circle. The question whether the amendment to the amendment is in order is rather a delicate one to determine on such short notice, and in deference to the hon. member for St. John, -and I think it is also due the House- if it should meet with the approval of hon. gentlemen I would suggest that the debate be adjourned so that I may have opportunity to look into the matter, before giving a decision.


William Pugsley: I have no objection to that, providing an opportunity will be given for resuming the debate.'


Robert Laird Borden: We will resume it at some other time.
On motion of Mr. Murphy the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Friday, May 18, 1917.