1917-08-20

PROPOSED INCREASES IN SALARIES TO PERMANENT MESSENGERS.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to present to the House my recommendation

and the report of the Clerk of the House in respect to the increases in salary to the permanent messengers of the House provided under the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1917.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Did Thomas Magladery, M.L.A., for Timis-kaming, enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces?
2.	If so, when, where, and by whom was he medically examined?
3.	Did such examination show him to be physically fit for service?
4.	What military rank did he hold when he enlisted, and what is his present rank?
5.	What length of time did Mr. Magladery serve in the trenches, and between what dates?
6.	At what rate per diem is he paid, and do any of his dependents draw separation allowance ?
7.	What amount has been paid to date on both accounts?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Was examined on August 29, 1914, at New Liskeard, Ont., by J. G. McKie, M.D.
3.	Yes.
4.	Lieutenant.
5.	He served in France with the 15th Battalion, O.E.F., from June 18, 1916, to November 5, 1916.
6.	$4.10 per diem pay and allowances. Separation allowance to wife, $40 per month.
7.	Pay and allowances, $2,829.95. Separation allowance, $960.


NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WAR.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Have any copies of a pamphlet entitled "National Organization for War" been printed at the public expense?
2.	If so, how many copies have been so printed, and how many distributed?
3.	What amount, if any, has been or will be paid to Mr. Leacock in connection with the pamphlet mentioned?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Yes. By order of the National Service Board.
2.	200,000 copies. All distributed.
3.	No payment.


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE-
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has any record been kept of the occupations of the men who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force?
2.	If so, how many farmers have enlisted?
3.	Of this number, how many came from the western provinces?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes, relating to men who have gone overseas.
2.	45,797, up to June 30, 1917.
3.	24,592.


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


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Six.
2.	Mr. Thomas Hilliard, $350 per month; Mr. W. S. Lecky, $275 per month; Mr. A. E. Howard, $250 per month; Mr. G. C. Gerow, $125 per month; Mr. G. Sims, $125 per month; Mr. F. E. Nodine, $110 per month.
3.	None have military badges.


NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Has Hon. Sir Thomas White been directly or indirectly owner of or interested in shares of the National Trust Company, Limited, since the 1st January, 1914?
2.	If so, until what date?
3.	Is he still owner or interested in said shares, and to what extent?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by reply to No. 1.
I may observe, in connection with this question, that the hon. gentleman seems to be inordinately curious as to my private affairs, but I have no objection to informing him that, when I was connected with the National Trust Company, my stock holding was ten shares, the amount necessary to qualify me as a director. My interest was not as a proprietor but as general manager.


DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANKS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What was the total amount on deposit in savings banks of all kinds in Canada on June 30 1917?
2.	How much was on deposit in Government savings banks at said date?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Approximately $998,856,922.61.
2.	Dominion Government savings banks, $13,167,436.64. Post office savings banks, $41,105,644.92.


CAPTAIN KENNETH C. MACPHERSON.
Mr. PROULX:: Referring further to the answers of the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence

as reported at page 4592 of unrevised "Hansard" of Monday, August 13, 1917, relative to Captain Kenneth C. Macpherson:
1.	How long was Captain Macpherson in England during his eleven months' absence overseas ?
2.	What portion of the said' eleven months did Captain Macpherson spend in France, and what portion in Flanders?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1. Five months and one week.
. 2. Five months in Flanders, balance of three weeks at sea, travelling from Canada to England and return.


WAR PROFITS TAX AND INCOME TAX-COST OF COLLECTION.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	What has been the yearly cost to the country of the collection of the war profits tax?
2.	What is the amount of the estimated yearly cost of the collection of the income tax?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	For the portion of fiscal year ended March 31, 1917, during which the Act was under administration, the cost was $58,174.81. Estimated annual cost, $150,000
2.	$600,000.


CANADIAN BANK OF COMMERCE,
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is Sir Joseph W. Flavelle, Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board, owner of shares in the Canadian Bank of Commerce?
2.	Is Sir A. E. Kemp, Minister of Militia in Canada, owner of shares in the Canadian Bank of Commerce?
3.	Is Sir William Mackenzie, President of the Canadian Northern Railway, and a director of the National Trust Company, a shareholder in the Canadian Bank of Commerce?
4.	Was the Canadian Bank of Commerce a subscriber to the bonds issued for $45,000,000 under the guarantee of the Canadian Government given in 1914, and to what extent?
5.	What was the premium or commission paid to said bank for negotiating or keeping said bonds, has the bank disposed of them all and what amount did the face value of said bonds represent?
6.	Is the Canadian Bank of Commerce one of the pledgees referred to by the Minister of Finance in connection with the common shares of the Canadian Northern not actually in possession of the Canadian Government?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 
QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. FORTIER:: 1. Was Colonel Rev. Dr. A. E. Burke a chaplain in the Canadian Expeditionary Force?

2.	If so, was he associated with one" Rev. Dr. Roche in the editorship of the Catholic Register at Toronto?
3.	Were reports made to the Government as to Rev. Dr. Roche's associations with Austrian enemies and with one Max Pam, of Chicago?
4.	If so, did the Government take any steps in the matter?
5.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the said Dr. Roche left Canada at the outbreak of the war?
6.	Since his appointment as chaplain in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, did the said Burke visit Chicago? If so, was his business there of an official character?
7.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not he met the said Roche at or near Chicago?
8.	Has the said Burke at any time since his appointment as chaplain been under surveillance by Dominion officials?
9.	If so, were reports made to the Government, and will these reports, if any, be laid on the Table of the House?
10.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the said Burke visited Canada about the end of 1916 and in conjunction with a representative of the British diplomatic or secret service, made certain representations to the Government?
11.	Is the said Burke now in Ottawa? If
so, is the Government aware as to what he is doing?


MR. THOMAS J. PARKES.
Edmond Proulx: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications passed between the Government or any member thereof or the employees and officials of the Department of Militia and Defence or any other department, and one Thos. J. Parkes, insurance agent, of the city of Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, concerning the release or promotion of his two sons now on active service with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: Would my hon. friend be good enough, before this motion passes, to supplement it with the Christian name of the person to whom he refers, the rank, the battalion number and the number of the soldier himself. It is almost impossible to find in the record the information asked for by my hon. friend unless he gives me the information for which I ask.
Motion stands.


WHEAT REGULATIONS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: On Saturday I asked a question in the House relating to the Department of Trade and Commerce, during the minister's absence. Perhaps he will be good enough to answer it to-day.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I can perhaps
best state the position by reading the orders that have been passed by the Board of
Grain Supervisors for Canada. The first is as follows:
It is hereby ordered by the Board of Grain Supervisors for Canada that until the 31st of August, 1917, inclusive, the price of wheat, basis No. 1 Northern in store at public terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, shall not exceed nor be less than two dollars and forty cents ($2.40) per bushel. This applies to all wheat, whether of the old or of the new crop, in store in public terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur up to and including August 31, 1917. Holders of warehouse receipts, which hold any date prior to and including August 31, 1917, will be entitled to the above basis price of $2.40 per bushel, No. 1 northern wheat, only on condition that they have sold the wheat at Fort William and Port Arthur and delivered the receipts therefor not later than noon of August 31, 1917.
Under .the other order, trading in wheat for future delivery will cease on all grain exchanges in Canada on August 31.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister be
good enough to1 state the reaeon for the order being made, and its expected probable effect?


George Green Foster: I would rather my hon. friend put that question to-morrow, as communications are now under way with respect to the details.


Frank Oliver: I also drew the minister's attention on Saturday to what appears to be an inaccuracy in a statement he had previously given to the House in regard to the price of grain at Minneapolis. I thought it only fair to give him an opportunity to correct or explain the inaccuracy.


George Green Foster: The figures I gave to the House were derived from actual transactions, and transactions in Canadian No. 1 Northern, so that eliminates all difficulties of comparison as to the difference in quality between Canadian No. 1 Northern and No. 1 Northern United States. On August 16, the following actual transaction took place: No. 1 Northern, to arrive in Minneapolis ten days thereafter-this sale was at $2 per bushel. On August 17, two other actual transactions took place as follows: No. 1 Northern, to arrive on the 25th of August, $2.20; loaded on cars in Canada $2.
I might also give Saturday's quotations at Winnipeg, Duluth and Minneapolis: No. 1 Northern cash wheat at Winnipeg, $2.40; at Minneapolis, cash wheat, $2.40 to $2.45. No. 2 Northern at Winnipeg, $2.40; at Minneapolis, $2.35 to $2.40. No. 3 Northern at Winnipeg' $2.40; at Minneapolis, $2.15 to $2.30. It will be noticed that on Saturday the three grades approximated in value

and reached the maximum price. In Duluth on the same day the price of No. 1 Northern was $2.40, and No. 2 Northern, $2.35. I could find no quotation for No. 3 Northern.


Frank Oliver: Might I point out that
*the quotations the minister has given for August 16 and 17, Minneapolis, are not quotations for cash wheat, but for future delivery.


George Green Foster: That is correct.


PENSIONS TO CANADIANS IN IMPERIAL FORCES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asked a question on Saturday as to the pensions of members of the Canadian forces who had been transferred to the Imperial forces, and vice versa. So long as a soldier, noncommissioned officer, or officer continues to be a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, he is pensioned at the Canadian Expeditionary Force rate, but if he if he is transferred to the Imperial forces he loses his status as a member of the Canadian forces, and is therefore non-pensionable at Canadian Expeditionary Force rates.
This Order in Council relating to this subject was passed on January 30, 1917:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 24th January, 1917, from the Minister of Militia and Defence, stating that the terms of a proposal made by the British Government regarding pensions of officers or their dependents are as follows:	.
In case of those who have been lent for service in the field, each government shall undertake full pension liability for its own officers: that is to say in respect to the service of Canadian officers loaned to the British forces or British officers loaned to the Canadian forces in the field such service shall be treated so far as pensions are concerned as if it had been with the officer's own home forces.
The Minister submits that such proposal has been referred to the Canadian Board of Pension Commissioners which is in favour of its adoption.
A similar proposal was made by the Commonwealth of Australia in respect of the exchange of officers between their forces and the Imperial forces and has been adopted by both governments.
The Minister, therefore, recommends that the Order in Council of 13th October, 1916, providing "that Canada should bear her proportionate share of the service pension or widows' pension at the ordinary rate and in addition the excess of war over peace charges" be cancelled and that the later proposal of the British Government that each government should pay pensions of its own officers, irrespective of their service with the other, be adopted instead.

The Committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.


EMPLOYMENT OF RETURNED SOLDIERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
*Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John City): Has the Minister of Militia received the resolution which I referred to some time ago which was passed by the Veterans' Association of St. John with regard to the employment of returned officers and soldiers to take the place of those now employed in a military capacity, but who have not been to the front? The minister stated at the time that he had not received the resolution, but that when it came to his hand, he would consider the matter and make an announcement later. I call his attention to the fact that there is quite a good ground for complaint, inasmuch as many positions are held by those who have not been to the front which might just as well be filled by returned soldiers.
Albert Edward Kemp: I cannot recall
at the moment whether the resolution has ever reached the department, but I shall look into the matter.


THE MILITARY VOTERS' ACT, 1917.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 127, The Military Voters' Act, 1917.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, on the introduction of this Bill I went into a somewhat full exposition of its provisions. That exposition was, perhaps, fuller than it would otherwise have been because of questions put by members of the House who, naturally, were interested in having information on the subject at as early a moment as possible. The principle of the Bill is that our soldiers should be afforded an opportunity to vote in the coming election; that adequate provision should be made to enable them to register their vote, precautions, however, being taken to ensure the regularity, fairness and genuineness of that vote. I think we can safely assume that the principle of the Bill is not in question. I apprehend that any further discussion of the matter, which would be as to the method rather than as to the principle could be more conveniently dealt with in committee. I do* not feel, therefore, that it is necessary for me at this stage to go over what I said on the introduction of the
[Stage Direction]
Bill, or to elaborate argument with regard to the principle of the measure.
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite sure that all the members of the House approve the desire of the minister to give to our soldiers an opportunity of casting their vote. While every reasonable opportunity for their doing so should be afforded, it is necessary to surround with every safeguard the casting of the vote and the return of the ballots to Canada in order to make sure that the ballots finally counted shall be the ballots which were cast by the electors. Certain provisions which might well be inserted are absent from the Bill; but, as my hon. friend says, that is a matter which can be considered in committee. I should like, however, to take this opportunity of asking the minister if we are to assume, from the fact that women engaged in the expeditionary forces are to be allowed to vote, that during the present session a Bill will be introduced giving the women of Canada generally the right to vote. It would be somewhat anomalous to give this right only to those who serve in the expeditionary force; there should be one law dealing with women generally throughout Canada. Those women who have remained at hoime and have performed duties in connection with Red Cross and patriotic work generally in such manner as to call forth the admiration of the world are just as much entitled to recognition as those who have gone to the front in the capacity of nurses.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I am not prepared at this moment to give a categorical answer to my hon. friend's question. In the preparation of this Bill we were looking at the whole subject with a view to seeing that the right to vote was conferred upon every person who had taken part in the active military service of the country. That being so, we did not, by reason of sex, exclude from the provisions of the Bill those women who were doing service with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces. My hon. friend speaks of that as being an anomalous condition. But if that is anomalous it would be equally anomalous to include expressly the Indian, who is excluded from the general voting because he is an Indian. Likewise, this measure makes no distinction of age; it does not require that the soldier who votes as a soldier should be of the full age. That, I suppose, might, according to my hon. friend, be subject to the same suggestion of being anomalous. The quality of having given active military service-service in any way connected with the military operations of this war-overrode other considerations. But that did not, we thought, imply that with regard to other persons those considerations should be overridden. We have been looking at the matter exclusively from 'the point of view of the military vote.


William Pugsley: I am sorry that my
hon. friend is not able to give an assurance that the inclusion of women in the provisions of this Bill is an indication that the Government intends to ask Parliament to extend the franchise to women generally.
I am' not prepared to say that I would favour the granting of the right of suffrage to women simply because they served with the Expeditionary Forces, unless that principle is to be applied also to a broader measure that would extend to all women of the country the right to vote.
It is provided by the Bill that any person, who has enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, whether a resident of Canada or not, shall be entitled to vote at the next general election. I think that is going entirely too far; the right should be limited to those who have been residents of Canada. For instance, a British subject who is a resident of the United States, and who, because of his desire to engage in the war in the interests of the Empire, enlists, for the sake of convenience, with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, would be entitled to vote as a Canadian elector. I do not see why that should be the case. I assume that such a man joins the Canadian Expeditionary Force because of a desire not to aid Canada but to aid the Empire. 1 am unable to understand why, simply because of that fact, he should be allowed to vote at a Canadian election. If he is a British subject resident in any other part of the Empire, he would have the right to vote in that portion of the Empire in which he is resident. The right to vote should be limited to those who have been residents of Canada. Section 3 of the Bill makes provision that if this class of voter is not able, by reason of nonresidence, to select any particular district in which he is entitled to vote, he is allowed to select any district he pleases. That strikes me as being very objectionable. A British subject resident in the United States, never having resided in Canada, may select any district that he pleases, in any portion of the Dominion, in which his vote shall be cast. To my mind, very great in-

convenience and injustice would result from such a provision. I trust that on reflection my hon. friend will agree that the right to vote should be limited to those who have, even for a short period, been resident in Canada.
I would suggest also that my hon. friend amend the Bill to make it absolutely clear that an elector may vote only for one who has been nominated as a candidate.
The form of the ballot is calculated to mislead because it provides that the voter, if he desires to vote for any particular person, may write his name on the blank space. I presume the Act means any particular person who has been nominated as a candidate. I think the ballot paper should declare that he may vote for any particular person or persons who are named as candidates. The plural should be there, because there are some constituencies in Canada wherein more than one candidate may be chosen. In the city and county of St. John two candidates may be elected, and the same applies to the county of Halifax. I think, therefore, the ballot should provide that the voter may vote for "any particular candidate or candidates" instead of "any particular person or persons." The elector, seeing the language on the ballot paper, may presume that he would have the right to select some person whom he might like to vote for but who had not been nominated as a candidate. I think it is desirable to make the provision so clear that no misunderstanding shall arise with respect to it.	[DOT]


Mr. KNOWLES:: I wish to ask the minister why it is not his intention to address the House explaining the principle of this Bill. We have our existing legislation, chapter 11 of the statutes of 1915, and the minister sees some points that he wants to improve upon, but instead of simply bringing down an amendment to the Act, he is bringing down a Bill dealing with the matter de novo and repealing the old Act. If the minister had proceeded by the other method, and bring down an amending Bill, he would have explained the principle of his amending Bill and pointed out the reason it was necessary to make these amendments before asking us to consent to the second reading. I submit that we should ask the minister to give us his reasons for this change, and that we should not merely regard it as sufficient for him to refer to the previous legislation. The new points should be dealt with.


Charles Joseph Doherty: On the introduction of the Bill, I went very fully into an explanation of the reasons which led us to believe that the provisions of the legislation of 1915, while they might have been adequate and practicable under the conditions that prevailed at that time, are hardly sufficient to meet the exigencies of the present day. There are two notable changes in the conditions, the first being the very much larger number of voters that have to be dealt with overseas than when the legislation of 1915 was passed. The other outstanding change of conditions results from the difficulty, and no doubt the danger, that surround the. transportation between this country and the overseas countries at the present time which did not exist, at all events, in such degree when we were dealing with the legislation of 1915. I do not think there is any substantial difference in principle between the legislation of 1915 and this legislation. There is this marked difference of conditions which in our judgment, at all events, and I submit in the judgment of the House, calls for providing a different procedure in the taking of the soldier's vote. We might have proceeded by calling this an amending Bill, and attaching every change to some particular section as an amendment to it, but that would have been a very inconvenient way of doing it. It is clearer and simpler to put before the House, in the shape of a measure complete in itself, both what is preserved of the old Act and what is new in the present Bill. Beyond the changes in the method of taking the vote, there are the changes in regard to the persons who are to be qualified to vote; that is to say: we have included women. We will make no distinction based upon sex. We have also included minors; we make no distinction based on minority and majority, and although for clearness, I believe in the old Act Indians were included, we have expressly mentioned Indians in order to do away with any doubt.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the minister not call it a new principle where he permits *a soldier to ear-mark his vote for any constituency under certain circumstances?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I respectfully submit that questions of this kind, although I would be very glad to answer them, are questions which would naturally come up in committee.


William Erskine Knowles: I think it is a principle.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not consider it a question of principle.


William Erskine Knowles: There is not much principle about it.


Frank Oliver: I did not have the good fortune to be present when the minister made his explanation of the principle of the Bill and of the differences between this Bill and the present Act. May I be permitted to say that I think the proper time for making such a full explanation as the House is entitled to under such circumstances is upon the second reading of the Bill. However, the minister has seen fit to take the other course. The suggestion of my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) was not an objection to the form in which the Bill has been introduced. I think he would agree, as I would, that it would be very much better to introduce the Bill in this form than in the form of an amendment. But his point was, if I caught it aright, that the minister, seeing fit to introduce the Bill in this form, should make to the House the same explanation as to the differences in principle as he would necessarily have made had he introduced a Bill in amendment to the present Act. This is a long Bill, it is intricate in many respects and members will have considerable difficulty in comparing its provisions with those of the previous measure. Therefore, the House is rightly entitled to consideration at the hands of the minister. While we can deal with certain of these matters of detail in committee of the whole, we make up our minds as to the merits of the measure on the principles laid down in the discussion on the second reading. Those of us who had not the privilege of hearing the minister on the introduction of the Bill are hardly in a position to deal with the subject to-day as it should be dealt with. It is all the more impressed on my mind from the fact that repeatedly from the other side of the House, from the lips of the Prime Minister as well as, I think, other members, it has been stated that it was a practical impossibility to take the soldier's vote overseas.
That being the case, ana a new measure being introduced, it is particularly in order that information should be given why if it was impossible to take the soldiers' vote under the existing measure, it will he possible to do so under the measure now introduced, This is a measure of very great and far-reaching importance. Everybody will agree that a citizen of Canada, entitled to vote in Canada, should be entitled to vote when he is serving Canada in a military capacity, although he may be outside its limits. So far as that principle is embodied
In the Bill, certainly it will have the support of myself and, I am sure, of every hon. member of this House.
But there are other principles involved in a franchise Act besides the principle of providing for the casting of the vote. There are principles connected with ensuring that the vote shall be counted as it has been cast. There is the principle of the right of the several parties who are concerned in the voting to be sure that, first, the vote is cast secretly; second, that it is cast without pressure of fear or favour; and, third, that, having been so cast, it shall be counted as it was cast. I am unable to say whether these principles are provided for in the Bill, and I would say to the minister that I do not consider them details at all; I consider each one an essential principle. If they are not provided for in the Bill, there is a possibility that, instead of the privilege of the franchise being exercised as a right and a duty, the intention of the voter may be diverted from its proper purpose, and, instead of being of assistance in expressing the mind of the people of Canada, it may be a means of misdirecting the minds of tne people. I can only hope that the minister, in the preparation of the Bill, has had these points in. mind. I am not able to say /whether they are properly safeguarded or not, as I have not had tne opportunity to discuss the Bill, and in any case would not be able to form an opinion on these points without having the minister's explanation.
There is, however, one feature that I find in section 3 in which, following the suggestion of the hon. member for .Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), I must say I cannot see an evidence of good faith on the part of the minister or the Government in the preparation of the Bill, and if this provision of which I speak is a fair sample of the Bill's provisions throughout, I would be compelled to take very strong exception to it and to say that it may have been that the fact that the Government did not have a majority in the Senate was a protection to the public interest in the passing of the other Bill; but 'that now that the Government has a majority in the Senate, it feels free to introduce such a measure as it pleases and as it thinks may best serve its purpose, whatever that purpose may be. The liberties and rights of the people of Canada are involved in this measure, and I can only take the provision of subsection 3 of section 3 as a deliberate and intentional and very serious and far-reaching attack upon the



rights and privileges of the. people of Canada in the expression of their vote. The provision of the section of which I speak is:
(1)	Every military elector shall be qualified and entitled to vote at a general election.
(2)	If he can state the electoral district
wherein he last continuously resided during at least	months of the year immediately preceding his appointment, enlistment, enrolment or calling out on active service, or so particularly specify a place or places within an electoral district whereat during such period of time he so resided that such electoral district can therefrom be ascertained, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or to be ascertained, and his vote shall be applied thereto.
(3)	If he cannot, because of non-residence or otherwise, so state or specify, he shall be deemed an elector of, and his vote shall be applied to, such electoral district as he may indicate.
I can only characterize such a provision as a deliberate outrage on the right of expression of opinion by the people of the country. It creates a possibility of the massing of an unknown or untold number of votes, strictly under law, in any constituency against any candidate. To place such a power in the hands of a government which has necessarily the whole direction and control of the operation of this measure is certainly an attack upon the rights of the people such as we have seldom seen, even at the hands of this Government.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: Mr. Speaker,
it will be recalled that the Prime Minister some months ago, shortly after the opening of the session, declared most emphatically that it was not possible for the votes of the soldiers who are in France to be taken in a general election, and this statement was made in such a definite and positive manner, without any reservation at all, that I think it is due to the House that, before this Bill passes the second reading, the Prime Minister should say to the House what change has occurred in the meantime which enables the votes to be taken when apparently it was not possible to take them before.
Then again I think it is in order that the minister should inform us what .understanding, if any, has been had with tlie British authorities in France as to the taking of the vote in the way proposed in the Bill. I assume that, in view of the fact that it has been clearly shown that the control and direction of overeseas forces while on the soil of Great Britain is vested in the Canadian military authorities as represented by the overseas Minister of Militia, there can be no

doubt about the capacity of having these votes recorded in Great Britain or in any other part of the world, within the Empire, where they may be. But as regards France, the statement of the Prime Minister was so definite and positive on the subject that I think some explanation is due to the House and the public as to what change has taken place in the meantime. I quite agree with the hon. member for St. John that, while the men who are overseas have a right to the franchise of this country and should be given an opportunity of exercising that franchise, and while we should all endeavour in this House to prepare and put through a reasonable Bill which would be absolutely fair to all parties, ensuring the honesty of the vote and the certainty of its proper recording, it is a novel principle to say that a person who was not a resident of Canada, who had no interest whatever in our internal affairs or conditions, and no knowledge in fact of what is best for Canada as a whole, or for airy part of it, merely because he had the franchise in some other part of the Empire, or in the United States, where, if he chose, he could exercise that franchise, should be entitled to vote as a Canadian soldier in a Canadian election. There are numerous cases of men who have never been in Canada, who have been transferred to Canadian forces. At one stage a large number of soldiers were transferred to the Canadian forces-men who had never been in Canada and who, I suppose, never expected to be here. The question as to whether or not such could exercise the franchise intelligently in regard to Canadian affairs is not arguable, leaving aside the question as to whether they could determine whether the individual candidate might or might not be a proper person to represent a constituency in Parliament. To say that a person who had never been in Canada should be permitted to determine as against the votes of the people of a certain locality, who live here, and whose interests are here, and who ought to be the persons to say who should represent them in Parliament, seems to me a very unreasonable proposition. There are other matters of detail in connection with the Bill, but, as the minister intimated that he would hear suggestions, I presume we might discuss very frankly in committee these points which are entirely apart from the principle that a soldier should have the right to exercise his franchise. I think we should hear from my hon. friend on that point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The minister has the right to reply now, and should he do so that will close the debate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to the statement by the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) in which he was pleased to refer to certain motives on the part of those who are promoting this Bill, I do not hesitate to say that the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken in his imputation. There is no desire to do anything, except, so far as may be found possible, to meet the very principles which he himself has laid down. If I did not think it necessary to elaborate those principles, it was because, upon the principles that ought to underlie this measure, there should be substantial agreement. On those principles I am not in disagreement with my hon. friend. The provisions meet whal! is required, viz.: that questions which arise are whether those the soldier,-I am speaking generally- should record his vote, and that proper safeguards should surround the taking of the vote. We are not blind to the fact that, even under this measure, it will 4 p.m. be exceedingly difficult to get a complete vote of the soldiers., but I do not think it is wise, simply because of the difficulty, that we should not make the best effort possible to achieve the end desired. As to the particular instance the hon. gentleman has mentioned: whether a soldier not a Canadian, who has been merely transferred to the Canadian Expeditionary Force, should have a vote as a Canadian soldier, I shall be open to consider suggestions in committee. We shall welcome suggestions towards making the law more workable in securing the soldiers' votes as fully as possible, and surrounding the voting with all the precautions that the conditions make possible.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: We fully recognize,
that, even after this measure is enacted, the taking of the soldiers' votes will be surrounded with very great difficulties. But by this measure we are endeavouring, so far as possible, to obviate these difficulties, which, without this legislation, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, might make the taking of the soldiers' votes impossible.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is there any provision
by which voters' lists will be provided, under this Bill, to the respective parties?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. We gave consideration to and tried to elaborate, a plan by 297i
which we could get a voters' list, but it proved in our judgment to be impracticable, and I may further say that a similar endeavour was made in Australia. We consulted with those who had the administration of the Australian Act, and they suggested to us that it was only an embarrassment, and in a general sort of way, they reported that rigidity in the provisions of the Act would tend to defeat its real purpose. There is no provision for a voters' list.


Charles Murphy: Could a copy of the
nominal roll be obtained?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps we could do
better with these questions in committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a question of
detail more properly dealt with in committee.
Motion agreed to; Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee on the Bill- Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On clause 1-application:


Charles Murphy: What is the practical
application of the words "but before complete demobilization"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the word "demobilization" has an accepted meaning, in military parlance, so long as soldiers are still on active service in connection with the war, and are held together as soldiers in consequence of their enrolment for this war, they are mobilized, but when they have been disbanded and allowed to return to their homes, they are demobilized. The committee, I think, will understand that there necessarily will be a period, after the war ends, when our soldiers will still bo in England, or France, or on their way home, or after they have reached here, before they will be demobilized. It will take some time before they can be all dealt with, according to their respective positions and discharged, and the regiments broken up.


Mr. BURNHAM:: We can all appreciate the efforts made by the gentlemen responsible for this Bill to provide ample means for the taking of the soldiers' votes.
But it seems to me, and I think it will seem to many other hon. members, that considerations arise in connection with it, such, for example, as have been outlined at a certain meeting held at Joliette as reported in the Gazette of Montreal, of Monday, August 20th, 1917. The report says that a meeting of the Liberal assembly at

Joliette yesterday was a great success. It also gives the remarks, direct as well ,as indirect, of two members of this House, and I would like to call the attention of the committee to some of those remarks, which will have a very serious effect upon the community at large. The article itself is under double headlines and is given great prominence. It says:
Particular stress was laid on the crisis which the province of Quebec is facing to-day by the Hon. Jacques Bureau, M.P. for Three Rivers.


Mr. GERMAN:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is quite out of order. He is not discussing anything relevant to the section under consideration.


The CHAIRMAN:: The point of order is well taken. The hon. member is out of order.


John Hampden Burnham: The article goes on to say-


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Order. That is not relevant to the section. The hon. member must confine himself to a discussion of the section under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-definitions:
Mr. SINCLAIR:: What is meant by the word '' receptacle "? Would that definition enable an officer to carry ballots around in his pockets without having a regular ballot-box in which they would be deposited? This is a great departure from the usual way of conducting ,an election, and I see no reason for such a general term as " or other receptacle " in the section. That opens the door to placing the ballots anywhere at all. Why is it necessary to have such general language as that in the section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this section is only to enable us to use the word "box" wherever, through the Act, we are dealing with receptacles, but there are, in this measure, other provisions providing for the way in which the ballot is to be placed in the receptacle and as to the sealing of the receptacle. This definition is only so that we shall not have each time to say box or bag or some other form of receptacle, but we have provisions further on that the receptacle shall be a suitable one and especially that it shall be suitably closed and sealed and so forth. The effect of this is only to tell us what "box" means when we use it in this Act.


John Howard Sinclair: Why do we depart from the old system of having a ballot-box?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The ballot-box as we have it in this country would not be a very convenient thing to carry around on the field in France or Flanders. The only object is to make the taking of this vote as convenient as it possibly may be made, because it must be recollected that every inconvenience that is put in the way of taking the vote is so much of a difficulty in the way of a .soldier registering his vote. When we come to deal with particular provisions, the hon. member will see that there are provisions for the holding of what are called polls, but there is also provision for affording opportunity to a soldier to register his vote, where that is possible, otherwise than at what might be called a poll, where the conditions are such that if he is not allowed to register his vote at the time and place at which he tenders it, he may be entirely deprived of the opportunity of registering his vote. I cannot conceive of anything that would be much more awkward for an officer taking votes under the conditions under which they are to be taken than the form of ballot-box as we have it in this country. It seems to me that, as long as we ensure that the ballot-box shall be in a proper receptacle, properly sealed and closed so as to be safe, we are doing all that is needed, and in departing from the absolute requirement of a tin ballot-box, we are certainly facilitating the taking of the soldiers' vote.


John Howard Sinclair: What section provides that the box, or bag, or whatever it is, will be locked or closed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 11 deals with that, and I think there are other provisions besides. Section 11 says:
The deputy presiding officer* may use the same ballot box, if It be sufficient, at all polls committed to him to be held, until it has become filled, and upon the conclusion of his last poll, or whenever he shall decide to discontinue the depositing of ballots in any box, he shall seal it in such manner as to make evident any tampering therewith, plainly mark it with the words "military votes" and send it by registered post or other safe and expeditious means, addressed, (a) if the votes therein have been polled within the United Kingdom, to the secretary of the High Commissioner of Canada, at London, England; (b) if they have been polled on the continent of Europe, to the Canadian Commissioner to France; and, (c) if they have been polled elsewhere, to the General Returning Officer at Ottawa.
Mr. PiUGSLEY: There ought to be some provision for a ballot box so that, when the

ballots are put in, they cannot be removed. This definition-
''Box" or ''ballot box" Includes bag or 'other receptacle for containing ballots.
-is so very loose in its character that a returning officer might very well use any open vessel, anything that might be the handiest, even his pocket, if necessary.


Charles Murphy: Or his hat.


William Pugsley: There should be some
provision, the same as we have in the Dominion Elections Act providing for an ordinary ballot box. I do not think there would be any inconvenience in supplying the proper officials with those boxes, and it would be a certain safeguard; whereas, if an officer feels that, under the law, he can carry the ballots about in any receptacle he pleases to use he might think that people could be trusted, and then vs hen he would come to seal up his ballots in some particular receptacle, he might find that he would have a good many ballots that were never cast by the electors at all. It is due to the soldiers that proper safeguards should be placed around the taking of the vote and the return of the ballot, so that the soldier, when he casts his ballot for a particular party or candidate, may have some reasonable assurance that that ballot will be sent back to Canada and counted at the proper time. The only reference to depositing ballots in the ballot box will be found in paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of section 9 which says:
.	.	. the deputy presiding officer, who shall
without unfolding it-
That is in the case of counterfoils.
-ascertain by examining his initials and the number of the counter-foil, that it is the same paper as that furnished by him to the voter, and shall then, in the presence of the voter, remove and destroy the counterfoil, place the ballot in the proper envelope and deposit in it the ballot box.
That should read " deposit it in the ballot box ". The words "in " and " it " have been, transposed. It is intended, of course, to put the envelop in the ballot box, but, as the clause reads, the ballot box is to be put in the envelope. Paragraph (e) of section 9 provides that the voter shall place the ballot in the ballot box, which might mean that it could be placed in a pail or a tin can or in an open bag. I think the minister will see that there should be a section providing that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall secure a sufficient number of suitable ballot boxes which could be kept under lock and
key, and sent forward to the different officials who are to take part in the taking of the vote. Here are some four hundred thousand voters whose ballots are to be ckst. Why, in the interests of the soldiers themselves, and in the interests of the Canadian people, should there not be the same reasonable safeguards surrounding the procuring of a proper ballot box, and the placing of the ballots in a secure ballot box, as'in the case of an ordinary election? In an ordinary municipal election all these safeguards are provided, but here, where we are providing for the taking of the votes of 400,000 soldiers, we are providing no safeguards whatever so far as the procuring of proper ballot boxes is concerned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It may be that there
should be more exact description of the nature of the receptacle; but, assuming that to be so, this is not exactly the section where that provision should be made.. This is only a definition of what " box " is understood to mean when it occurs in this Act. To avoid giving a description every time we want to mention the Teceptacle that is to hold the ballots, we say that the word " box " shall mean the receptacle that is to be used, whether it is a box or a bag. When we come to deal with the manner of taking the vote, I shall be pleased to consider whether it would not be desirable to insert, as far as that may be possible, a specific description of the receptacle. The operations on this side of the ocean will rest upon the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and on the other side of the ocean on the Acting or Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, who is to be appointed and who will perform on the other side of the ocean the functions of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
It is true that the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act may be more specific *13 to the kind of box, but if I am not mistaken, it is part of the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to provide the boxes that are required; and I would as6uine that it would be part of the duties of the Acting Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on the other side to provide the receptacles, whatever they may be, which are deemed best and most suitable. It did seem to us desirable that we should not prescribe absolutely that the receptacle must be a box in any particular form. Otherwise, we might create a condition where the soldier would be deprived of his vote just because the officer properly authorized did not have* a box of the particular shape.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Section 122 of the Dominion Elections Act prescribes the form of ballot-box thus:
The ballot boxes shall be made of some durable material, with one lock and key, and a slit or narrow opening in the top, and so constructed that the tFallot papers may be introduced therein, but cannot be withdrawn therefrom unless the box is unlocked.
I think it would be well to introduce that paragraph in Part IV of the Act. If that were done, I think it would fairly well meet the objection.


Charles Joseph Doherty: >We have a provision
here that Part IV is to be read in conjunction with the entire Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
that could be done, because section 119 of the Dominion Elections Act provides that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall provide the required number of ballot-boxes, which must be of a uniform size and shape, such instructions being first approved by the Governor in Council. The definition which we are discussing seeks to make the term more elastic, to meet the case where a '"box," within the Dominion Elections Act, was not obtainable.


Mr. NESBITT:: Why not say something like this, "which cannot be removed except by the person duly authorized"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It occurs to me that in this clause- is not a proper place to give any description of the ballot box. All we are doing here is compiling a dictionary so that we shall know what the words mean that are used in the Act. I quite agree that it may be necessary before we get through with this Bill to make some provision as to what is to be the form of the box.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why not say, "as hereinafter provided"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can see no objection to that.


William Manley German: Why not accept the definition in the Dominion Elections Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know whether I can get it home to the mind of the committee, but at present we are not defining at all. If some more precise description should be required, I would suggest that it be provided somewhere else in the Act. We are here simply saying that when in this Act we use the word box, we mean whatever may be the proper receptacle for receiving the ballots. We do not want to have it said that, because we use the word box in the different sections, the deputy returning

officer would not be entitled to put the ballots in a bag or some other receptacle. The only desirable thing about using the word box, even if it should be a bag, is that we are using the same word as is used in the Dominion Elections Act for the receptacle in which the ballots are put.
If the description in the Dominion Elections Act, read by the member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), be held not to apply to this Act, perhaps it would be well to set out, in that part of the Act where provision is made for the manner in which the vote shall be taken, some one form of receptacle.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why not let this clause stand until we decide what the specific kind of receptacle shall be?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The subsection was so worded simply to relieve the draftsman of the necessity of going into details every time he had to mention the receptacle. However, if it is thought that the description 30 employed is in any way objectionable or might be rendered objectionable by our subsequent description, I have no objection to letting the section stand.


William Pugsley: The Dominion Elections Act does not give a definition of ballot box, but it describes what the box shall be. If it is considered desirable under this legislation to have a sealed bag instead of a ballot box, that could be provided for. But it is undesirable to include "bag" in the definition of the receptacle for containing the ballots. That would convey to the person taking the votes that any loose receptacle that he might get hold of would do just as well as a ballot box; it would depend upon his own interpretation of what would be a reasonable safeguard. The statute ought to provide some receptacle that can be kept under lock and key and from which ballots cannot be removed except by the proper official. Those receptacles should be uniform so that when they are returned to the proper official he will know that those are the receptacles that went out from him and that others have not been substituted in their places. It came under my notice some years ago that in one case considerable delay was incurred in returning a ballot box. It was stated that when the box was received, the returning officer was able to say that it was not the identical box that he had sent out. The same safeguard should be thrown around the returning of the ballot boxes as is contained in the present Dominion law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I have said, this is not a description of the ballot box which

is to be used; the provision is so worded in order that it may not be necessary frequently to go into a detailed description of the receptacle. I understand-I shall look into that-that the general requirements read by the member for Halifax apply to this box; we are making no exception in regard to the provisions of the Dominion Act which in themselves do not call for a specific kind of tin box. But when we come to deal with the manner in which the presiding officer shall deal with the ballot; with the question of where he is to put it and how he is to secure the receptacle so that it may not be tampered with and so that it may be identified as being the receptacle that he sent out, I shall be glad to consider whether we ought to go into more absolute detail with regard to the form of the receptacle. For the present, perhaps the section had better stand; we shall clear this up accordingly as the committee may be satisfied with the present requirements or may think that they are susceptible of improvement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think that any particular provisions of the Dominion Elections Act must be specifically incorporated in this Act before they would apply. I make that suggestion so that the minister may have it in mind in connection with the definition of ballot box.


John Howard Sinclair: The present Dominion Elections Act consists of over 300 sections; it is divided into three parts. When this Act becomes law, how much of the Dominion Elections Act will apply to the taking of the soldiers' votes? For instance, in taking the ballots at election, agents representing the candidates interested are present in the polling booths. It is not regarded as legal or proper to take a vote unless representatives of each candidate are present. Under this legislation, will it be in order for an oflicer who has charge of the ballot box or bag to take a soldier's vote in the absence of the agent appointed to represent any particular candidate?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We would get on better if we dealt with the sections as they present themselves. It is in connection with the sections providing the method of representation of candidates or parties at the taking of the vote that this question wou i most naturally arise. However, the provisions made in this Act in that respect are substantially the same as those contained in the present Soldiers' Voting Act. If we are to enable the soldiers' votes to be taken in a practical way, it is not possible to make it imperative that no soldier shall vote unless a representative of each candidate, or a representative of each political party is present. But, just as the old Act did, this Act does provide for the appointment of persons who are designated as scrutineers. Six of these scrutineers are to be appointed by the Governor in Council-that is the provision of the existing law- three on the nomination of the leader of the Opposition and three on the nomination of the leader of the Government. These three scrutineers are to have the liberty of appointing as many deputy scrutiners as they think will be useful to them. Each deputy scrutineer will have all the powers of a scrutineer on this side of the Atlantic. It is made the duty of the officers taking the vote or holding the polls to give public notice, so far as possible, of the time and the place when they propose to hold the poll and to give special notice, so far as possible, to scrutineers of whose names they may have been notified-It is the duty of everybody in connection with the taking of this vote to do everything that conditions will make possible to afford opportunity of representation of the respective parties at the taking of vote.
I do not think that it is suggested as practicable that we should require the presence of a representative for each of the 468 candidates because, if we have contests in the 234 constituencies, that is what you would need to have. I do not think that is practicable. But we have preserved in this Act the provision contained in regard to scrutineers in the present law upon the subject. My impression is that this method came as a suggestion from some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House and that at the time, if my memory serves me, it was looked upon as being as complete a provision for the representation of the parties as we could make under the conditions. If it .can be improved upon, without preventing the soldier giving his vote, I shall certainly be happy to consider any suggestion that may be made.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That clause
stands?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The subclause stands.
Subclause allowed to stand.
On section 2-camp:
"Camp" means and includes base, barracks, rest station, ship, dockyard, hospital or other place whereat or whereon any military or naval unit or other body of military electors, as defined by this Part, is assembled under a

commanding officer for the performance of any military or naval duty, or for rest, cure, exercise, or training;


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the purpose of the words "under a commanding officer"? Might it not be possible that there might be a number of military electors assembled at any of the places specified in the subsection but they might not be under a commanding officer? Perhaps these words are rather restrictive in their effect.


Charles Joseph Doherty: On inquiry I was informed that at all of these places there would always be somebody found in command. If we struck that out you might have a group of soldiers gathered together in some place which would be very unsuitable to take a ballot. I am not suggesting any improper place in that regard but it was thought well, in so far as the holding of polls are concerned, that they should be held in every place where you could find any gathering of soldiers for any purpose whatsoever who were assembled under the direction of an officer. Furthermore, we make provision that a soldier who might not be able to reach a poll of that kind, and who is exposed to the loss of his vote, is allowed to tender it and have it taken at the place where he is and where, of course, there is present a presiding officer provided with the necessary equipment to take the vote. I was assured, as coming from the military authorities, that I would be running no risk of missing any place where soldiers are properly gathered together by leaving in this provision. On the other hand, I do not think it would be desirable that we should include in the definition such a place, for' instance, as a boarding house where half a dozen soldiers might be gathered together. If half a dozen soldiers are gathered together at any place for pleasure, say, it would hardly be a suitable place to hold a poll.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: A " commanding officer " would not mean an officer of any particular rank but whoever was in command at the place?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. For instance, at a hospital, I understand it is the medical officer who is in command.


William Erskine Knowles: If there were some wireless operators in the Cape Breton county, why would they be defined as military electors?


Charles Joseph Doherty: W,e have not made any special mention of wireless operators but any person who has been-
-appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out for active service as one of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, whether as officer, soldier, sailor, dentist, nurse, aviator, mechanician or otherwise, and who remains one of any such forces or services or l.as been honourably discharged therefrom.
is included as a voter. The words were intended to be large enough to cover everybody in whatever capacity he was acting who was enrolled, or enlisted, or appointed, to any service which makes him a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


William Erskine Knowles: The reason I asked that was that when you co-relate it with the expression " under a commanding officer " it may have a bearing on the case of a young man from my constituency. He had himself trained in wireless telegraphy, was taken on by Mr. Edwards, the naval man here, and for awhile was at sea. Only a few days ago I had a letter from him and he is at some lonely place in charge of a wireless station by the sea. As I understand it, although I speak subject to correction, he is there without any commanding officer over him, simply receiving and transmitting messages by the wireless system. He is not " assembled under a commanding officer."


Charles Joseph Doherty: The right to the franchise does not depend on being in the army. If he forme part of the Canadian Expeditionary Force then he is entitled to vote. The word " camp " is put there so that it might be used without regard to the particular situation of the places at which it is provided polls shall be held. I am assuming that this wireless telegrapher is a part of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces and therefore a military voter within the meaning of the Act.


William Erskine Knowles: He is in the Naval
Service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he is, then he is a voter.
ivir. a. K. MACLEAN:	I think these
operators are civilians.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that this class of persons is organized and recognized as part of the Canadian Expeditionary T orce. It will be noticed that we have specially mentioned mechanicians in our enumeration of the people who now form part of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.

Our next clause, which defines what is covered by the'term "military electors ", is:
"Military elector" means and includes every person, male or female, who, being a British subject,-whether or not ordinarily resident in Canada and whether or not a minor or an Indian, has been, while within or without Canada, appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out for active service as one of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Militia on active service, or the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve, or has been, while within Canada, appointed, enlisted or enrolled as one of the British Royal Flying Corps, Royal Naval Aviation Service, or Auxiliary Motor Boat Patrol Service, whether as officer, soldier, sailor, dentist, nurse, aviator, mechanician or otherwise, and who remains one of any such forces or services or has been honourably discharged therefrom.
I have been doing some thinking myself as to whether the terms of that clause are sufficiently wide to cover every class that ought to be covered, and I am making note of this suggestion with the view of making such amendments as may be necessary to make it quite sure that we are covering everybody. It was pointed out to me that it is desirable to include persons who are undoubtedly Canadians but who are on service in the Imperial military force, or possibly in the French military force, as being reservists. I said that we had considered that, that we thought it desirable that they should have votes and that the reason they did not figure in our present definition rested on the difficulty of providing machinery to give them votes. Since the matter was brought to my attention I have given it some further consideration and what occurs to me is that even if we cannot provide machinery to give votes to these men, it would be particularly desirable that we should include them in the category of people entitled to vote because many of these men find themselves in conditions where they will be able to reach our presiding officer who is taking the votes of the Canadian force and if we recognize their right to vote, then they would be enabled to vote by that circumstance. Perhaps it is not a satisfactory reason for not recognizing his right to vote that we cannot provide special machinery for him. In that connection, I intend asking and should be glad to have any observations by hon. gentlemen about this definition of military voter, because it is a very important provision of the Act. I had intended, after hearing the different suggestions that would be made, to ask that that clause should stand so that, before it is finally passed, we shall have made as sure as we can to have included in the words "military voter" every person who fairly
ought to be recognized as forming part of any force, whether actually combatants or members of a subsidiary force, telegraphers or others, actually taking part in the struggle in their respective capacities, and who have at least this much connection with Canada, that they either form part of a Canadian force and therefore, as soldiers, are Canadians, or, failing that, that they should have a connection with Canada which at the present moment it seems to me would have to consist of something in the nature of permanent residence in Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: We all agree with the
minister that it is of great importance that he should find language comprehensive enough to include every real military elector; but there is also the danger that we may make the language too broad and include people who are not intended to be classed as militaary electors. For example, I see in this definition that we have included "such persons as are appointed." That is a very comprehensive word, and it may include people who are not meant to be included. I am told that there are scores and hundreds of young men and women appointed by the patronage, committee of Ottawa who are serving in the Plaza building and many other places in this city, who are doing military work in the sense of clerical work. I am not sure that this language is not broad enough to include men and women of that class, and. I do not think it is the intention of the minister to allow every person who assists in any kind of work, like clerical work in Ottawa or Halifax, to vote under this Act. I should like the minister to look into that and see if my criticism is well taken.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It says "appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out for active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force." These young women employed in the buildings here have never been appointed as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the significance of the word "appointed"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A private enlists, but an officer is appointed.


William Pugsley: I mentioned, when the Speaker was in the Chair, on the second reading, an objection which I entertain very strongly to this clause. It defines "military elector" to mean and include "every person, male or female, who, being a British subject whether or not ordinarily

resident in Canada," and such person is to have the right to vote. Then, as a corollary or a consequence of that, sub-section 3 of section 3 has been drafted. This is a most extraordinary provision. It provides that such a person may select any electoral district which he pleases. The result of that would be that, if the ballots of these non-residents were judiciously distributed- and I know some gentlemen who could distribute them judiciously-they would control practically every electoral district in Canada, and could turn the vote for either one party or the other. I do not think that should be permitted, and I do seriously call the attention of the minister to that provision. I saw the other day that there were said to be some 5,000 British citizens living, in the United States who were desirous of serving the Empire, and it is very convenient for them to come to Canada and join the Canadian expeditionary force. These men, perhaps none of whom have ever lived in Canada, some of whom have not been in Canada since childhood, presumably engaged in various occupations in the United States, come to Canada and enlist. They go to the front and they are allowed to vote as Canadian electors. They have no place of residence in Canada and all they have to do is to say they have no place of residence and then their votes may be distributed throughout the various electoral districts of Canada. I ask if that is right. Why should the mere fact of non-residents engaging in the battles of the Empire as members of the Canadian force entitle them to be allowed to take part in an election which is to determine the government of Canada for the next few years?


Mr. HAZEN:: Should not the man who fights for the country have the right to vote?


William Pugsley: He is not fighting for Canada, but for the Empire, and because he is a British subject.


John Douglas Hazen: He is fighting for Canada too.


William Pugsley: No, he would be doing so just as much if he were to join the army -of the United States or the Imperial army. Why should you give a man who is, to all intents and purposes, an alien, so far as [DOT]Canada is concerned, the right to take part in the determination of the domestic affairs of, and the government of Canada in the future, simply because he finds it con-wenient to join the Canadian Expeditionary

Force in order to fight for the British Empire?
. Mr. HAZEN: He has to be a British subject.


William Pugsley: Yes, that is all.


John Douglas Hazen: But a British subject is not an alien.


William Pugsley: He is a foreigner.


John Douglas Hazen: A British subject is not a foreigner.


William Pugsley: He is a stranger to Canada, a non-resident of Canada. I would suggest to the minister that the words "whether or not " be struck out, so that the clause would read:
Who, being a British subject, ordinarily resident in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not fix the time?


William Pugsley: I do not see why the time should not be fixed. He should be a resident of Canada for three months, or perhaps six months, long enough, at any rate, to have an intelligent interest in Canadian affairs.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Act of 1915 provides for " thirty days in any district."


William Pugsley: But resident in Canada for six months.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: A resident for thirty days would define the place to which he belonged.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the hon. minister tell me what time he proposes filling in, in subsection 2 of section 3? There is a blank there.	'


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention was to fill it in by " a period of four months within the last year."


William Pugsley: I think the minister
should give a reason for this very great change he proposes making in the law. Section 1, of the Act of 1915 reads:
Every male British subject of 21 years of age or upwards serving in the military forces of Canada in the present war (hereinafter called "volunteer"), who, within six months immediately preceding the date when he was appointed to or enlisted in such forces, had been resident in any electoral district in Canada for a period of not less than thirty days, shall be entitled to vote In the electoral district in which he was last so resident, In the manner hereinafter set out, notwithstanding his absence from such electoral district or from Canada; provided that if any person was, at the time he was so appointed or enlisted, quali-

fied to vote in any other electoral district in Canada he shall vote in such other district only.
Any one can understand the reason for that provision. The idea which Parliament had in view then was that only those who had been residents of Canada should be allowed to vote. It was not thought desirable to require a long period of residence, but they must be residents of Canada. A most radical change is proposed by this Bill, and it is declared that these men shall have the right to vote, whether they have been residents of Canada or not. What knowledge would a man who has all his life been a resident of the United States have of the political parties or of the questions which engage the attention of the people of Canada, simply because, being a resident of the United States, he comes and enlists in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces and goes overseas. I can conceive of no reason why he should have a vote. It seems to me to be entirely objectionable. The minister should be able to present the reasons for this remarkable change, before asking the committee to adopt it. I do not believe he can suggest any good reason. Every argument is the other way. No person should be allowed to vote in the coming election, unless he has been, for some period at all events, either short or long, a resident of Canada.


Mr. MORPHY:: Replying to the remarks of the hon. gentleman from St. John, I cannot conceive it possible that he should take such ground. Here we see the patriotic spirit of Canadians, .living in the United States, whether they have lived there for one or two, or ten or twenty years-


William Pugsley: Not necessarily Canadians.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: -without having lost their citizenship of this country, and, rather than discourage them, I, as a Canadian, would give them' credit, in a measure, for holding their allegiance to Canada. We find these young men, free from conscription, loyally coming forward, from patriotic motives, to fight for the dominion of their birth-young men who would be entitled to pensions once they have enlisted, young men who take the risk of the horrors of war, and go to fight for the British Empire, including Canada; young men who have been paid Canadian money, who will receive treatment in Canadian hospitals at Canadian expense, whose dependents will receive every benefit this country may give,-and we cannot give
them anything too good. These young men have 'been away from this country for years, without forfeiting their allegiance, and without taking out papers of naturalization in a foreign country, they have kept in touch with the affairs in Canada, and, on the specious argument of the hon. gentleman from St. John, alleging ignorance, and alleging that these men do not understand political questions, we are asked to provide that they shall not be permitted to vote. To my mind the proposition is ridiculous.


William Pugsley: This section does not
limit it to the case of persons who have been born in Canada, but it is extended to every British subject. This person or his parents may never have spent a single day in Canada until the day he enlisted, and, indeed he may never have been in Canada, because he anight enlist abroad in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, and yet, under this Bill he is entitled to vote.	,


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That does not detract
one iota from my argument. If a British subject comes here and chooses to enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, he should be treated as a first-class Canadian. If a man who comes from theUnited States, or anywhere else, and enlists in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces is to get every benefit under the sun from the treasury of this country, it seems a monstrous thing that we should deprive him of his vote. I am astonished at this time to hear, on the floor of this House, an argument so specious and so much against the very first principles of patriotism as the argument advanced by the hon. member from St. John.


William Manley German: There is another phase
of this section that strikes me as rather peculiar. It allows minors to- vote. The clause Teads:
"Military elector" means and includes every person, male or female, who, being a British subject, whether or not ordinarily resident in Canada and whether or not a minor or an Indian, has heen, while within or without Canada, appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out for active service as one of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the Royal Canadian Navy.
Every one knows, that the men enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve are not really serving on active duty at the front.
So far as I know very few of 5 p.m. them are on active duty at all, but what would be the effect of this provision? The Government, if they saw fit, could appoint or enlist any number of young men who were minors, not entitled

to vote at all, for service in say, the Royal Canadian Navy, or the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve, who would never go on active service, who had no intention of going on active service, but who when they enlisted would be entitled to vote. Young men of such political calibre as suited the ideas of a certain party might be enlisted for the purpose of voting. There should be protection against that kind of thing, because enlistment in the Canadian Militia or active service is quite a different thing. I am quite willing to allow the minors who have been on active service to have a vote. But I am certainly not willing that minors who, just before an election, may be appointed to or enlist in a service which is not really an active service, should be given a vote as minors when they would otherwise not be entitled to vote. If that were done, voters' lists throughout the country could be padded to an unlimited extent with disastrous results to an opposition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The point made by the bon. member for Welland (Mr. German), is almost unanswerable. It should not be permissible, under this measure, for, say, twenty persons from Newfoundland to enlist for service upon one of the Canadian Naval Service boats of Nova Scotia two or three days before the date of polling and thus obtain the franchise. There is a great distinction between those serving in the Canadian Naval Service and those serving at the front. For instance, all the Fishery Protective Service boats are, I think, in the Canadian Naval Service at the present moment. I do not think we should go so far afield as to provide for the voting of persons so engaged.
I quite agree with what the hon. member for St. John says as to the granting of the franchise to those who are not ordinarily resident in Canada, and I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). I hardly think that the position taken by the hon. member for St. John is controvertible. It does not seem to me arguable that a man who has never resided in Canada should be given a vote under this measure. Such a question should not seriously engage our attention for a moment. We appreciate services rendered to the cause by all those who have enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force but let us be reasonable about it. Do not let sentiment carry us to a point which will make us all appear foolish and irrational.
In the Canadian forces you will find many 
men from the British West Indies, from Newfoundland, and from other parts of the British Dominions. Upon what basis of reasoning can you argue that they are entitled to a vote in a Canadian election? They do not ask for it; they could not intelligently exercise the franchise. I do not think they would thank the Canadian Parliament for giving them that privilege, and I can conceive of no reason why it should be given to them. This is a Canadian Parliament legislating for and in the interest of the citizens of this country, and, therefore, any legislation contemplated by this measure should be intended to cover Canadian citizens only. I agree, therefore, with the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. John that the military vote should be confined to those who have been Canadian citizens for at least a certain period of time. The limit should be four or six months, because you are giving a great privilege in granting the franchise to those who may have been citizens of this country for but a short time. The minister should give serious consideration to this part of the section. I do not think he can present reasons which will satisfy a reasonable man that this part of the section should remain.


Mr. CROTHERS:: My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has pointed out that there are some extraordinary provisions in this section, and my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) objects to one particular provision. I agree with my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) that the circumstances in which this Bill is brought before Parliament are extraordinary. The whole thing is founded upon extraordinary circumstances. Our idea is that the man who enlists, who risks his life to save this country and the liberties of this country, ought to have something to say as to the government of the country, especially during the time that a war is on. Under this measure we purpose giving the Indian a vote. Without it, he would not have a vote. Why are we giving a vote to the Indian? Because the Indian is showing more patriotism and courage than many others, and is risking his life for the salvation of his country.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Indian is a resident of Canada.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We are not giving him the franchise because he is a resident of Canada. If that were the only ground, we

would have given it to him years ago. We purpose, under this measure, giving the franchise to the female nurses who go to the front and take care of our wounded soldiers, not because they are 21 years of age, not because they are entitled to the franchise under any other statute in existence in Canada, but because they are risking their lives to assist our fighting men at the front. It is a recognition of their services that they should have something to say as to how this country shall he governed, especially during the balance of this war. We purpose under this measure giving the franchise to a young man who may be only eighteen years of age. Our general election law provides that a man must he 21 years of age before he is entitled to vote. We are giving this young man a vote because he has shown sufficient jJatrirt-ism and courage to go to the front and risk his life for his country.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No one is objecting to that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There are many extraordinary provisions in this measure because the whole thing is founded upon extraordinary circumstances. Even if a man has lived in the United States for years, whether he was born in Canada or not, if he feels sufficient interest to join the forces of Canada-and, to risk his life for Canada, he .should have something to say as to how this country shall be governed while this war is on.


Mr. COPP:: No one controverts the general argument made by the Minister of Labour in so far as giving a minor, even as young as eighteen years of age, the right to vote. They may be even younger than that, because there are young lads of sixteen in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and they will be included in this measure. I cannot, however, agree with the Minister of Labour or the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) as to giving the vote to a man who knows nothing about the Parliament of Canada.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He knows enough to
fight.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes. I agree that the franchise should be given to such as have an intelligent idea as to what the duty of a Canadian member of Parliament is, and what the Parliament of Canada is for, but if you grant the franchise to a British subject who happens to have been a resident of the United States, who may never have been a resident of Canada, who knows nothing about Canadian affairs-


John Hampden Burnham: Would the hon. gentleman object to bestowing the freedom of Canada upon men who are. fighting for this country, even although they were born and lived in foreign lands just as the freedom of a city is given to a distinguished foreigner? That gift carries with it the privilege of that city, just as the freedom of Canada would carry with it privileges for distinguished services.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would give every British subject the freedom that any citizen of this country is entitled to.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Except the right to vote.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend is wrong there. Take the case suggested by the hon. member for St. John, of a British subject who has enlisted in our forces after residing in the United States for a number of years. Now, although that man knows nothing about Canadian politics, he is to be given the right to vote. Then subsection 3 of section 3 says:
If he cannot, because of non-residence or otherwise, so state or specify, he shall be deemed an elector of, and has vote shall be applied to, such electoral district as he may indicate.
He may not know a single candidate or a single electoral district in. all Canada; so how can he intelligently indicate what district his vote shall be applied to?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It will be done for him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: By whom?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Don't ask me.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I repeat that it is absurd to expect a man'to vote intelligently who knows nothing about Canadian politics, and who knows nothing .about the candidates and the electoral districts.


Mr. TAYLOR:: There is a very simple answer to the argument of hon. gentlemen who would disfranchise a British subject simply because he had entered the military service of Canada. If any of these Britishers from abroad to whom reference has been made came to Canada for the purpose, let us say, of avoiding military service in the United States, and remained in this country a few months, they would be entitled to vote in Canada. Why then, should we, as advocated by the hon. member for St. John, the hon. member for Halifax, and the hon. member for Westmorland decline to. give the franchise to them because when they come to Canada they propose to do their duty and join our military forces and fight for us? If you exclude these

men from this Act, you are penalizing them for fighting for Canada, and making it plain to them that they were foolish to do this for so ungrateful a country, when, if they had stayed at home in Canada and declined to do their duty, they might have exercised the franchise and had a voice in determining whether other citizens of Canada should go to the front. It seems to me that we must of necessity give a vote to all British subjects who come to fight for us. I do not know what is the residence qualification in Ontario.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Three months.


William Pugsley: Twelve months.


George Taylor: I am informed by a resident of Ontario that the residence qualification is three months. In the province of British Columbia you can exercise the franchise if you have been six months a resident in the province and one month resident in the electoral district where you propose to vote. Now as the period of training for a member of the Canadian expeditionary force is seldom less than six months, it may be taken for granted that any man who is serving with our forces abroad has had at least six months training either in Canada or abroad, and surely, residence in a Canadian trench in France ought to be regarded as equal to residence in Canada, seeing that the very best of Canada's manhood is on service in those trenches. It seems to me a monstrous proposition to tell any man on service with the Canadian forces abroad, and who may have been two or three years in the trenches, that because he joined the Canadian forces on coming to Canada he cannot vote, whereas if he had remained idle in Canada, or had come here to avoid military service, he would have been able to vote.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. member misapprehends the attitude of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. We are simply saying there is no justification for going back on the well settled policy which we all agreed upon in 1915, that the men should be resident in Canada for a certain period before being allowed to vote. We are simply saying that in 1915, after very mature deliberation, Parliament agreed on certain restrictions as to residence, and we can see no reason for making a change now. This measure provides that a man, for instance, who has been transferred to the Canadian forces in England shall have the vote, although he may never have been in

Canada at all. Now that does not seem reasonable. Section 2 says:
"Military elector" means and includes every person .... whether or not a minor or an Indian, who has been, while within or without Canada, appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out for active service.
Some of the men in the Bermuda regiments, for instance, have probably never been in Canada, because most of those regiments have gone direct to England. We can easily see how little sense there would be in giving a vote to a West Indian who had never been in Canada, or to a Britisher who had been drafted into the Canadian forces in England, and knew nothing at all about Canada. We say that that is a reasonable proposition. After all, the test of a man's right to vote is the test of citizenship and residence; the two go hand in hand together. And why should we now depart from that policy? A Britisher who happens to have been temporarily assigned to the Canadian forces may have a vote in England, and could vote at a general election there without any difficulty, and similarly, a West Indian would be able to vote in a West Indian election. That is quite reasonable, and all that we on this side of the House are asking is that the well-settled policy regarding residence shall be observed. It will also be noticed that under the provisions of this Bill the Canadian who has enlisted in an Imperial regiment in England-and quite a number of them have-is not entitled to vote. The right is confined to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Militia on active service, the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve, the Flying Corps, and the Motor Boat Patrol. The Canadian who has enlisted in the British regiments on the other side is not given a vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have already said that we shall endeavour to meet that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are here dealing with the definition of "Military elector," and my hon. friend has not included in the definition a Canadian citizen who is attached to a British regiment in England or France. A great many of my constituents are serving with the British regiments, and will thus be debarred from voting unless the clause is amended. I do not think we should give the vote to a minor who volunteers or is conscripted-I do not care whichever happens-just before the election, because he has not been away from Canada and has not endured any great privations. The man who has gone across to the other

side, even if he he a minor, should have a vote. If my hon. friend," in common with every other hon. gentleman in the House, desires to recognize the rights of citizenship of a man who has given service, he should not open the door to possibilities of unfairness and of difficulties which, no matter what the result of the election contest might be, would leave a blot on the fair name of Canada. It is absurd that it should be possible, for instance, to hire ten men on one of our naval service boats- men whose only qualification to vote is that before election day they were placed on that boat. No one would seriously eulogize the services of such men, because they would be doing nothing worth talking about. I am sure that the hon. gentleman will approach the consideration of this measure from the desire that we all have on this side that the man who has made sacrifice and given service, provided he has had residence in this country, I care not how short, may know who to vote for; may know who the people of this country are and what they want.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Let us not illustrate our patriotism-.according to the Johnstonian definition of that word-by going too far in a case of this kind. I suppose we all like to be called patriots, some of us, apparently, more than others. Subsection 3 of section 3 is the ultimate result of the clause that we are now discussing. A person who might be a patriot but who might not be honest in elections, might gather up a great many votes, from fellows who did not care whom they voted for, and apply them all to one particular constituency. I am sure the Minister of Justice has nothing of that kind in his mind, because I do not think he is that kind of man; but it is wise to see that nothing like that shall be done. It is all right to talk about being loyal to the country; nevertheless, no matter what else we want, we are desirous that the country shall be honestly governed. We should not, under the head of patriotism, go into anything that is not honest. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has said that ordinarily the men are trained in 'Canada for a certain length of time and that they would, therefore, have certain residence in Canada. There is no reason why my hon. friend should not provide that there should be a certain residence in Canada. I am willing that every person who has enlisted or has gone to the front should have a vote, provided he is a British subject; but I am not
willing that corruption should follow our anxiety to give these men that privilege. The member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) pointed out that these men would get pension, separation allowance, etc. With that we all agree; it is their right, no matter where they come from, provided they enlisted with the Canadian forces. But let us not, I repeat, under the head of patriotism do anything that will react injuriously upon the fair conduct of the election. I am sure that we all desire that the election shall be conducted properly and honestly;
I can say that for the Minister of Justice, anyway-and certainly that is all I want.
I do think that subsection 3 is a very dangerous provision to insert in this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It does not .surprise me that at first glance this provision should look like an objectionable one. Some hon. gentlemen have said that no argument can be made in support of it, but I think that we have already had fairly strong and conclusive argument in support of it. But if hon. gentlemen had been called upon to think this out as it has been my duty to do, they would see that a good deal may be said in the wav of argument in favour of this proposal. I do not think it is an extraordinary thing to say that the man who fights for this country evinces interest in the country by doing eo. The member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) suggests that it is a mere matter of convenience that he comes, say, from the United States, and enlists here. There may be cases of that kind, but I know it to be a fact that, at least since the United States has taken part in the war, facilities have been afforded in that country for the enrolment in British forces of British subjects in the United States. If a man says: No, I want to be enrolled in the Canadian forces, he does so for some reason; he has a preference, perhaps, for this country. The member for New Westminster pointed out that if a man spent six months in this country in any other occupation and was settled down in that occupation when the making out of the lists was in hand, he would be entitled to vote, assuming he was a British subject. We say to that man: You spent your time making money in this country; you came here, perhaps, merely because there was an exceptional opportunity in connection with the war to work on munitions or something of that kind; we will give you a vote; we will not investigate what you know about the interests of this country; we will not investigate what your degree of intelligence is. But you, Mr. Soldier, you settle down in thi=

country with a view to going away to fight-foT Canada-and we doubt your intelligence; we do not think you have a comprehension of what the interests of this country are; we do not think you should 'be allowed to vote. When one reflects on that, one realizes that if we take that attitude we refuse to give to the man who came to join our forces something that we readily give to the man who came into the country to look after his own interests. After all, is it an exaggeration to say that the man who has resided for two years in Canada as a member of a Canadian regiment is as closely connected with Canada as the man who happened to p-ass a year or two here, devoting hie time to his own enjoyment, his own business or his own advancement. These men- are living among Canadians.
These men are fighting for Canada-you may make a distinction if you like between fighting for the Empire and fighting for Canada-but these men are fighting for Canada just as are their Canadian comrades who are standing beside them. These men are fighting for Canada, these men are living with Canadians, these men have by their own action made an election as soldiers to be Canadians and we are asked now to say to them: You shall not be Canadians.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAiN: Is it not possible that 100 or 200 citizens of Great Britain have enlisted in the Canadian force in Great Britain since leaving Canada, both officers and men, for the purpose of securing a higher rate of pay?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am prepared to concede that there may be exceptional cases of men coming into this force under conditions which would necessitate our making an exception to the general rule I was rather influenced by the idea of, say, a British officer in the United Kingdom transferred foT service to our force and who remains an elector in the United Kingdom. If we are going to meet that, which after all, must be a very exceptional case, we must do so by making provision for such an exception, and it would be proper to give it serious consideration. But there is present to my mind the general case and the general case is the case of the man who came to Canada to enlist. We will give a vote to the man who comes to Canada to make money but we will not give a vote to the man who comes to Canada to enlist and fight for us.


William Manley German: Why not assign his vote to the constituency where he enlisted?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We might do that. The first question is: Should he have a vote? and the second is: Where should he vote? The principal objection of the hon. member for North Oxford to giving him a vote entails the making of an amendment to subsection 3. But, there is another ground, speaking of this general plan, for giving him a vote. We have to look at what he is entitled to on Canada's part and I have given the reasons which, in my estimation, entitle him to the vote. But, I think we have to look at Canada's interest too. He is a pretty good kind of a man who came-to Canada to fight for Canada and I think we have a right-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is
giving the vote to a man who did not come to Canada.


William Pugsley: Who had never been
here in his life.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have tried to point out the distinction between what might be the exceptional case and what will be the general rule in regard to this class of men.
I have already intimated that I would be ready to consider the desirability of making an exception for such cases as the hon. member for Piotou suggested. But for a moment, may I be allowed to talk about the class of man coming under this section who will make the general rule, and that is the man who came to Canada to enlist and fight for Canada? We must not only consider what Canada ought to give him, but we must also give thought to what is Canada's interest in regard to him. Canada's every interest is to bind that man to herself if she can. Now, there is an opportunity. He has come here, he has joined her forces, he has fought her battles, he has risked his life for her defence. It is in vain to say that he has fought only for the Empire, because we take glory and credit for every achievement of our Canadian regiments.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is nobody objecting to the principle.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then, if nobody objects to the principle, it is of no use my discussing it. I was told that there was no argument that could be made in support of giving the vote to a man who did not belong to Canada.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend
argued about the man that came to Canada. When my hon. friend passed his legislation in 1915 he gave a vote to the man who came

to Canada to enlist provided he had been here a certain time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend wants to put a penalty on the man who enlisted too soon. He should have waited thirty days and then he would have got the vote.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman laboured in justification of that principle in putting through the law in 1915.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for Pictou talked about the Act we had passed by agreement, and now he has forgotten how he struggled and laboured to prevent that Act being passed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is sidestepping.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am afraid that if I am trying to do any sidestepping I am entering into a hopeless competition with the hon. member for Pictou. I think we had better get back to the question. I quite realize that we made this thirty-day provision, and I also realize that all the difference made was that we were refusing the vote to the man who had resided six months in Canada in training because this period of time was not immediately before he enrolled, and we were giving a premium to the man who had loafed around for thirty days before he had enlisted over the man who came in and took up his military work at once. I do not want to be understood as condemning that law. I am free to admit that at that time, as the question presented itself to my mind, we were making a good law, and I am not now saying that it was a bad one, but there is such a thing as a good law and a better one. I think we can reach a better one.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister see any difficulty in giving a vote to a man who was never in Canada, who does not know the name of a single county or electoral division, has no idea of our public affairs, and does not know one political party from another? There might be a man of that stamp who would be entitled to take part in our affairs. Has the minister considered that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There might be a man of that stamp among the people who have stayed at home and not gone to fight. There is quite a number of people in this 'Country who do not know very much about public questions and there are not a few people who require to be told the name of the electoral district in which they vote. We do not exclude them from the vote.


John Howard Sinclair: I want to know if it is the purpose of the minister to cover a case of that kind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not assume that a man who is going to enlist in the Canadian forces is below the average of intelligence.


John Howard Sinclair: Not at all, but he is a perfect stranger to the country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he is not below the average intelligence, and if he has lived, as he has, for a year or two in close daily contact with our Canadian soldiers, I do not think we should class him as not knowing anything about the questions which will come before the electors at the next election. Do hon. gentlemen think, for instance, that, through our forces on the other side, the knowledge is not general on one of the great questions that will have to be dealt with in this election and that is the question of the Military Service Act? I think there is a pretty general knowledge of that question. [DOT]


William Pugsley: There are many other questions besides that.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no need of the minister labouring the point. I want to know if he proposes to cover a case of that kind?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I give credit to the
British subject who has come to join our forces for being the possessor of as much intelligence as the average Canadian citizen. Giving him that credit, I have no doubt that a man living among our fellow Canadians for that period of time will gather knowledge especially in regard to questions that arise and conditions that exist here.
Many, I should say the great majority, of these people, it is fair to assume, are intelligent men, who will know something of our conditions and appreciate the questions at issue in the election. They have given the greatest possible service to Canada. Canada has every reason to induce them to remain Canadians when they have ceased being soldiers, and I think one way to do that is to open our arms to them and to take them in as Canadian citizens. I think we are running no risk by granting them votes. I do not think there is any greater risk involved in giving the vote to a British subject who has done that service than in giving it to a British subject who may come to Canada and live here for six months or a year. If we get down to arguments based on the suggestion that such a



man does not know anything about our problems or is not interested in them, we strike an argument that would apply to a good many of our citizens in Canada. I realize that we are taking an unsual step, but, after all, we are between giving to the British subject soldier who did not happen to reside in Canada that recognition which we think, as a general rule should be given to the man who fights for Canada, and not treating him on an equality with other Canadian soldiers. I do not think that Canada has any danger to apprehend from this vote.
As to the registering of the soldiers' votes and the possibility that the present provision^ might permit votes being crowded into a particular constituency that some one may be especially interested in carrying, it may be that there is a possibility for the exercise of influence of that kind, but I think there is equal possibility in one direction or the other. But may I point out the difficulty that we are face to face with when we concede that these men ought to have votes. It is suggested that we ought to give them votes at the places at which they enrolled. That suggestion was seriously considered, but we found that the practical result would be that, in certain constituencies where there was a large enlistment, you would take the control of the constituency from the ordinary elector of the constituency, absolutely.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not in the Bill, that surely was never seriously considered.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was suggested here a moment ago.


Charles Murphy: I think that was a limited class.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If you allowed all the men who had enlisted, say in the city of Toronto, to vote there, you would crowd out the electors of that particular constituency. And may I mention in passing that subsection 3 of section. 3 has application to a class other than this particular class, that is the class of man who is not in a position to define his constituency, although he may have resided in Canada. You do not want to refuse that man the vote and must make a provision by some method to determine where he shall vote. If you took the men who could not define their constituencies, and all the men who never resided in Canada, and crowded them all into the places in which they are enrolled, you would, in regard to many constituencies, take those constituencies bodily out of the hands of the people actually resident in them and

transfer the control of them to these men who gathered there accidentally, merely for the purpose of enrolment. Another serious objection is that, by that system, you would give no opportunity for the vote of those men of whom I am now speaking, who, although they did reside in Canada, were, interested in Canada and registered as from that part of Canada which they knew best and in which they were most interested. So that you cannot take subsection 3 and treat it as applicable only to men who had not resided in Canada.
May I point out that the number of votes that will be covered by this provision with regard to men who have not previously resided in Canada will not be very considerable?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that not a good reason why we should not break in upon a well-established and sound principle? If there were, say, some 50,000 or 100,000 British subjects who had enlisted in the Canadian army from some of the other Dominions of the Empire or from the Old Country, it might he worth while to meet their case; but where only a few hundred have done so, is it worth while departing from sound principles ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should think that if their numbers had been exceedingly large, it would have added to the force of the argument against their being allowed to vote. But if it were made to appear to me that we were going to give this very exceptional privilege to so large a number of people that we would transfer over the control of Canada to people who had never had resided in Canada, I would think the objection was much stronger than when we were face to face with the question of allowing, I should suppose, 5,000 or 10,000 voters at the outside. It is not going to make a material difference, the election is not going to depend on these men, and we are not involving Canada in any serious danger that the people of Canada, as such, will not control the outcome of the election by granting the right to vote to these men who, after all, deserve well of Canada, and whom Canada has an interest to encourage by every means to remain with her and to continue, after the war, to be her citizens, as she is, by this operation making them, so far as voting is concerned.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I refer to a question arising out of what was said by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) about the ignorance of Canadians who

might be living for some years, say in the United States? My view of that, from letters I have received from a few friends, is that these people have kept a very close touch on their home life through their home papers and the large daily papers.


William Pugsley: I rise to correct my hon. friend. The hon. member for Westmorland, like myself, was not dealing especially with Canadians. This Bill allows British subjects who have never been Canadians, whose fathers may not have been Canadians, men from Australia or other places, to vote. That class Of people would be just as numerous, perhaps even more so, than those who themselves, or whose parents, came from Canada. The hon. member for Westmorland said they would be ignorant of our affairs, and I say so too.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am particularly referring to Canadians who have never lost their nationality although living in the United States. I understand it is from that country that we get the largest number of outside enlistments. These men individually and in the aggregate, universally, especially men who did not forsake their allegiance, invariably kept in touch with their home towns, with the provincial life, and to say that they are ignorant, when they get their home papers and so on, is quite incorrect.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I was very much surprised at the attitude of the hon. gentleman from Pictou, in reference to this section. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), .and the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) argued that because these men had never been in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that they had fought in Canadian armies, they were not entitled to the franchise. Are these hon. gentlemen aware that, by the law of Nova Scotia, it is possible for a British subject in England, Australia, New Zealand, or any other part of the Empire, to have a vote in Nova Scotia, without ever having been a day in the Dominion of Canada, and without having resided a day in Nova Scotia?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman make his meaning a little clearer.


Avard Longley Davidson: Under the present law in Nova Scotia, residence is not a qualification for a voter. If a man is a British subject, and owns $150 worth of real estate in the province, he need never have spent one
day in Canada. These gentlemen are perfectly content to allow that condition of affairs to obtain, and that has been the law in Nova Scotia for a long time. If a man invests $150 in land in Nova Scotia, it is all right for him to have a vote, but if a man risks his life in the defence of the Dominion of Canada, he has no right to citizenship at all. It seems to me a very extraordinary doctrine, and I do not believe it will be accepted in the province from which I come.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there not a residence qualification?


Avard Longley Davidson: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a residence qualification for some class of voters. The hon. gentleman from Annapolis may be right in Tegard to citizens qualifying as landowners, but a residence is necessary for some class of voters.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am quite sure I am right, and my hon. friend from Halifax is right in saying that residence qualification is required by some other class of voters. A person voting on income requires a year's residence in the province, but the owner of land, irrespective of residence, has the right to vote. That was the law in Nova Scotia during the time my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) was Attorney General of the province.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the law of Nova
Scotia not provide that the voter must vote in the district where he resides?


Avard Longley Davidson: No, the law of Nova
Scotia provides that if a man resides in a certain district, and has a vote in that district, he must exercise the franchise there, but if he is a non-resident, and owns lands in various districts, he can elect in which of the districts he can vote. I believe the same is true in the province of Quebec. A man in Australia owning land in Quebec, even though he never saw the shores of Quebec, is entitled to vote in the province. After all, when a man is fighting and risking his life for his country and its institutions, has he not the right to have some voice in the administration of affairs of the country, and to exercise his franchise?


Mr. BURRELL:: This has been rather a controversial question, and I desire to ask my hon. friend a concrete question. Suppose a British subject in New York State never set foot in Nova Scotia, but bought property in that province, would he be

able to come in on election day, and cast
his vote?


Avard Longley Davidson: Yes.


Martin Burrell: If that is true, the whole argument on the other side falls to the ground.


Avard Longley Davidson: The only qualification
is that a man is a British subject, and owns land of a certain value.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.


William Pugsley: If the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) is not going to resume his remarks, I would say that, in my judgment, the Minister of Justice ought to withdraw this provision to which exception has been taken. My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) made the statement before recess that he would not suggest that the minister had any ulterior motives, but I am prepared to say that if the minister, after his attention has been called to the injustice which may be done by continuing this provision in the Bill, insists upon its being continued there, he must not object if we suspect him of having Ulterior motives and of having designed this Bill in order that unfair practice may be exercised and unfair advantage obtained in .an election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: What can be done under this provision? A Canadian soldier who has gone to the front is limited in his choice of a constituency to that particular constituency in which he has resided. He has one vote and one choice. The American soldier, the man who is not a resident of Canada, who may happen to be a British subject, no matter in what country he may have resided, who has joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force, not necessarily enlisting in Canada, possibly enlisting in the United States, or in England, possibly enlisting on this side, because, if he enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, his expenses across the ocean would be paid and he would receive a higher rate of pay than if he went to England and enlisted in the Imperial Forces, is to have the choice of 230 odd constituencies in Canada in the casting of his vote. That is grossly unfair. It gives opportunity for fraud of the worst kind. It gives opportunity for men who 
may not have been residents of Canada to join together, to make up their minds, perhaps under proper guidance, as to the constituencies in which their votes shall be cast, in which the contest will be close, in which the majority will be a narrow one, and thus, they may possibly control many constituencies in Canada in favour of the Government of the day. The Government, under this Bill, appoints its own presiding officers; with the choice of those presiding officers the leader of the Opposition has nothing to do. That, in my judgment, is wrong. It is contrary to fair and proper administration, and it would not be too much to say that, if the minister persists in continuing this provision in this measure, it is designedly intended to offer an opportunity to steal the election from the people of Canada.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I hope my hon. friend is not judging other people by himself.


William Pugsley: I am judging by what I see in black and white. In 1915, a Bill fair in its provisions was presented to the House, a Bill to which both sides of this House could give their assent. To-night we find that, absolutely without reason, contrary to proper principles, the Government has departed from what was agreed to in 1915 and is giving an opportunity to a thousand or so of American citizens-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: -not naturalized American citizens, but men who have had their residence in the United States, who may never have set foot upon the soil of Canada, to join together and distribute their votes judiciously amongst certain constituencies and thus carry the election against the voice of the people of Canada, that is, against the votes of those in civilian life resident in Canada and of our Canadian soldiers who have a real interest in the affairs of this country. That is absolutely wrong, and if the minister persists in continuing this provision and so departing from the principles of the legislation of 1915, he cannot find fault if hon. members on this side of the House draw the reasonable, and indeed, the necessary conclusion from what is printed in the Bill.
The Minister of Justice has said that we have suggested that those who have enlisted from the United States and from other countries are not intelligent. We have not suggested anything of the kind. We have said that the man who either has not lived in Canada at all, or has not for years been a resident of Canada, has not

that knowledge of the affairs of this country which would enable him intelligently to cast his vote either in favour of the Government or against the Government, or in favour of one candidate or another. Is not that reasonable? That is the view the minister very properly took in 1915 when he provided that there .should be, residence, but here we have a Bill which enables men who, to all intents and purposes, are foreigners, to cast their votes in England or in France in any one of the constituencies of this country and in respect to the election of a candidate in a constituency in which the parties are pretty nearly evenly divided.. They might thus have a controlling influence, and their votes might decide the election against the votes of those who have remained at home as well as of Canadian boys at the front. That is an injustice of the worst possible kind to the people of Canada and to the Canadian soldiers who have gone to the front.
This section is most objectionable in other respects. Men who have not gone to the front, men who may have enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy, minors, boys of fifteen, sixteen and so on up to twenty-one years of age who may have enlisted as midshipmen in the Royal Canadian Navy, will, under this section, belong to that class who will be entitled to vote. That is also unfair. This Bill gives opportunities for fraud, for enabling men to control elections who ought not to be permitted to control them as against the votes of the mass of the general public. Such a section ought not to be in a measure of this kind. The Minister of Justice may say: Men will not do anything of that kind; those who have charge of the elections will not do that. If he thinks that is the case, he is very innocent.
I am sorry to say that the ordinary political machine in this country-and I do not charge this entirely against the Conservative party-will leave no stone unturned to carry an election, and this Bill presents the greatest opportunity which any party machine could possibly desire. It gives to those in control of the machinery of government a most unfair advantage, and one which ought not to be given. My hon. friend has suggested that as those who come to this country and join the Canadian Expeditionary Force are prepared to fight for Canada, therefore, they should be given the opportunity of voting on the question, who shall carry on the government of this country? And my hon. friend said that one of the great questions with which they would be familiar was the question whether we should
have compulsory military service in this country or not. But does my hon, friend forget that there are many other questions upon which the election which is about to be held ought to turn? Does he forget that there are questions connected with the conduct of the war from its very beginning down to the present time which the electors ought to consider, and which ought to be a controlling factor in the issue? Does he forget that when our boys were sent to the front at the commencement of this war,
. they were sent without machine guns with which they could defend themselves, and that in the early battles thousands of our boys were shot down who might have been saved if they had been properly equipped with machine guns? Does he forget that our boys were sent to the front, equipped with a rifle which they found to be inefficient? Does he forget that the excuse which was made in this Parliament was that the failure of the rifles to work was due to the defective ammunition with which they were supplied? Does he forget that there are-other questions connected with the scandalous waste of public money in connection with the supplies which were purchased by this Government? Does he forget that all through this war from the beginning to the end everything has been carried on from a partisan standpoint- from the standpoint of how much patronage could be given to the Conservative party and to the Conservative machine . throughout this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Does he not think that these questions ought to be considered by the electorate of Canada? Does he suppose that these non-residents who have lived all their lives in the United States and other countries, even though they be British subjects, are familiar with all these questions to the extent that the Canadian boy at the front or the Canadian electorate at home is familiar with them? These men surely could not be expected to be familiar with all these questions. The sound principle is that which was adopted in the Act of 1915, to give the vote to those only who have been residents of Canada for a certain period, and who- can fairly be classed as Canadian citizens and interested in the proper government of the Canadian people.
I am sorry to have been obliged to make these remarks. I have great respect for my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. I thought that this Bill had not been drafted by him. I thought it had been prepared' for him by others connected with this Government, and that he had introduced it per-

haps without a thorough appreciation of the faults which it contained. But he suggested before recess that he approves of. *this Bill, approves of this extraordinary and iniquitous provision in it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: I do not hesitate to use the word iniquitous. When I find the minister approves of this iniquitous provision,
I find it difficult to acquit him of the intention of' deliberately introducing a Bill, the provisions of which can be utilized to over-rule the will of the Canadian boys at" the front, over-rule the will of the Canadian people, and enable those constituencies in this country where the vote may be deemed to be close to be stolen by means of the non-resident vote.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. member for St. John has said that he was very sorry to make the remarks he did.


William Pugsley: Very sorry to be obliged to make them.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think the obvious reply to that is the question, why, then, did he make the remarks? If they caused sorrow to him, I am quite sure they did not cause pleasure to .anybody else in this House, and as we all want to get along in this world with the least possible suffering, I think it would have been better for him not to eay those things which were likely to produce sorrow.


William Pugsley: When I am brought face to face with something of a horrible character I must speak out.


Avard Longley Davidson: Before six o'clock, I expressed my view as to the law in Nova Scotia relating to elections. I think my interpretation of those provisions wae inclined to be challenged by hon. gentlemen opposite, and for that reason I have fortified myself with the statutes. I would direct the attention of the committee to clause 6 of the Dominion Elections Act, which reads:
For the purposes of any Dominion election held within the limits of a province, the voters' lists shall, exoept as herein otherwise provided, be those prepared for the several polling divisions established, and which, on the sixtieth day next preceding tihe 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.
By the Dominion Elections Act, the lists in the province of Nova Scotia which were to be used were the lists of electors for the provincial elections of that province. To

find out what is the list used in the province of Nova Scotia for provincial purposes I would direct the committee to section 48, of chapter 5, of the Revised Statutes of *Nova Scotia, which reads:
Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, all male persons whose names are registered on the lists of voters for polling districts in any county, in force under the provisions of the "Nova Scotia Franchise Act," on the day of the polling at any election for any county, shall be entitled to vote at any such election for such county, and no other persons shall be entitled to vote thereat.
The Nova Scotia Elections Act says that the list to be used shall be the list prepared under the provisions of the Nova Scotia Franchise Act, and the Nova Scotia Franchise Act defines what persons shall be entitled to vote. Section 3, of chapter 4 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia reads as follows:	.
Every person shall be entitled to be registered in any year upon the last of voters for the proper polling district of any county, if such person-
(1)	Is of the full age of twenty-one years, and is not by this chapter or by any law of the province of Nova Scotia disqualified or prevented from voting; and has not since the last revision of the lists of voters received aid as a pauper under any law of the province of Nova Scotia, and
(2)	Is a male British subject by birth or naturalization, and
(3)	Either
(a)	Was, at the time of the last assessment, assessed in respect of real property to the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, or, in respect of personal property, or of personal and real property together, to the value of three hundred dollars, or
(b)	Was, at the time of the last assessment, in possession of real or personal, or of real and personal property together, of the respective values hereinbefore mentioned, but was by law exempt from taxation, or
(e) Was, at the time of the last assessment, the owner of real property of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, or of real and personal property together of the value of three hundred dollars, and his name was omitted from the assessors' return or appears therein with an assessment less in amount than the sum requisite for qualification.
By tihe provisions of the Nova Scotia Elections Act the list to be used for a provincial election shall be the list prepared under the provisions of the Nova Scotia Franchise Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the member for Annapolis was right in the contention that he made before six o'clock; that British citizenship plus real estate would entitle such a man to vote. But in the case of personal property and income qualification, residence in the province is necessary.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think my hon. friend is correct. Residence is required for an income voter, but not for a property voter. The member for St. John said that the ordinary Canadian soldier who was serving at the front had not the option of deciding where he should vote; that he must vote in the district from which he comes. That may be true while serving overseas. But if he came from Nova Scotia and was proceeding under the Election Act in that province, he could select the county in which his vote should be cast if he owned property in several different counties and was not residing in any county in which he was registered as a voter. I cannot understand why the hon. gentleman, who has such a vast knowledge of the law, should, in view of these facts, lay down the doctrine that it is a great wrong for a soldier, fighting in Canadian uniform in a Canadian regiment, for the Canadian nation, to be allowed to vote if he had not been a resident of the country prior to the time he joined the colours. Yet, in all the years during which my hon. friend was a minister of the Crown, he was a party to allowing British subjects who were not resident in the Dominion to vote in Nova Scotia in large numbers. Let me give my hon. friend an illustration. A wealthy broker in the city of Boston, a British subject, was the owner of a certain mortgage on land in Nova Scotia. He was obliged to foreclose that mortgage and his solicitor in Nova Scotia bought the mortgage under foreclosure sale. That capitalist of the city of Boston, who, I suppose, never set a foot in Canada, is entitled to vote in this country. Yet, there are no screams from hon. gentlemen opposite because of that; there are no assertions that that is unfair. I cannot understand why these hon. gentlemen should discriminate particularly against our soldiers. In order that a man may have a vote, he must possess certain qualifications. He should have an interest in the country; he should have an intelligent insight into the country's affairs, and he should belong to the country. These qualifications are not always possessed by a voter, but it strikes me that if a person possesses these qualifications, he has a perfect right to vote. These qualifications the soldier who has joined a Canadian regiment and is fighting for this country at the front, even though he never resided in Canada, possesses to an eminent degree.
Section 1 of the Bill provides that this Act shall apply only to a general election held during the present war, or after the
conclusion of peace, hut before demobilization. This is a war measure. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that a British subject who has joined a Canadian regiment but who has not previously been resident in this country has' no right to vote because he has not an intelligent interest in the country's affairs; he does not know the issues. This Bill applies only to one election: to the election which it has been found necessary to hold in Canada during a period of war. The main issue at this time is how this war shall be conducted. That is the most important question that confronts the country at present-indeed, it is the only question. The question is not whether the member for St. John shall return to that post which he filled with such conspicuous notoriety under the late Administration-Minister of Public .Works. The question is not which party shall be in power. The question is whether we shall have a country at all or not. We must decide whether we are going to have a country before we decide the lesser point as to who shall be the rulers of it. Who, then, are in a better position to judge of what is required in the conduct of this war than the men who are actually in the theatre of war? The hon. gentleman says that there are other questions besides conscription. He says that the question of equipment for the soldiers will have to be discussed; that the question of whether or not the Government did right in supplying the soldiers with the Ross rifle will have to be considered.
What better authority on that subject can you find than the soldier at the front? He knows what kind1 of boots were suplied to him. He knows whether the assertions made by hon. gentlemen opposite were true, or whether they were mere buncombe. He knows that the Ross rifle was put in his hands, but perhaps he does not know who is responsible for it. Possibly he is not well enough acquainted with history to know that it was the Liberal Government and the Liberal party that foisted the Ross rifle on the soldiers of this country, despite the fact that the British War Office, the highest authority on the subject, advised that Liberal Government that it was not well that Canada should have a separate rifle; that the type of rifle used in the British and Canadian forces should be uniform; that it was better for the Empire that Canada should adopt the Lee-Enfield. The soldier knows all about the boots; he knows whether or not there is partisanship in the giving of commissions in the army; he does not have to take the second-

hand statements of hon. gentlemen opposite on that subject.


William Pugsley: He knows about the horses, too.


Avard Longley Davidson: He knows all about the horses; he has seen them. He does not have to read the public accounts to find out the twisted stories of perjured witnesses; he gets the information first-hand. I can readily understand why my hon. friend is not content that a man like that should pronounce on the record of his party.
Hon. gentlemen opposite object to a Britisher who has joined a Canadian regiment voting because he is not acquainted with the history of Canada. He, perhaps, has never sat at the feet of the Gamaliel whom I see opposite. He, perhaps, has never read the speeches delivered in this Parliament. He, perhaps, has never attached himself in election time either- to the Grit or to the Tory camp. But I do not think that disqualifies him from voting; he has been taught in a better school. The men who have gone from the country that I have the honour to represent to join the Canadian army are the pick of the manhood; they are the men with the keenest sense of public duty. They are familiar with the affairs of this country; they know Canada's needs. These comrades in arms will constitute the school that will teach the British recruit Canadian history. It will not be upon the instruction of hon. gentlemen opposite that the British recruit in the Canadian regiment will form his views; it will be through association with the comrades who have been there and who have been true enough, loyal enough, and intelligent enough to see Canada's needs and to join the colours in order to defend the country they love.
When hon. gentlemen opposite say that a soldier of that kind is not sufficiently acquainted with the affairs of this country to vote intelligently, I wonder if they forget that there are a great many people in Canada who are not thoroughly posted in public affairs, but who nevertheless enjoy, without challenge, the right of the franchise.
Only last Saturday, if Mr. Chairman you will excuse a personal reference, I was in the province of Quebec and I happened to meet a citizen of that province. In the course of conversation, I asked him what he thought of the Military Service Bill, or of conscription. "Oh," he said, "it is a very bad measure. We were all Conservatives in this country a little while ago, but Borden has ruined this country and we

are all for Laurier now." I said: "Are you quite sure you are right"?


William Pugsley: Did he say that Borden had ruined this country?


Avard Longley Davidson: Ruined the party-that was the cry.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: Did he say that he was responsible for what would happen after the Bill had been signed?


Avard Longley Davidson: He did not say that
but I think he could have said that the -man who- was responsible for this troubled condition of affairs is the professional politican, the agitator, who makes firebrand speeches. But, to finish my narrative; I said: "Are you sure that you are quite right about this matter? I do not think it is going to be so serious as you think." He said: "It means taking us all away from our children and sending us into a strange land to be shot down." I told him that that was not the case, that probably not very many men would be required and that probably men who were farmers and the heads of families would not be called upon. But this is what especially impressed me. He said: "That is not the worst part' of it. If I have a pig that weighs 100 pounds it is all right, but if my pig weighs more than 100 pounds I have to send all that weighs more than 100 pounds over to feed the soldiers; if I keep twelve hens it is all right, but if I keep more than twelve I have to send all over twelve to the soldiers." That was a man living right near the capital and almost in the shadow of this building. My hon. friends opposite would give the vote gladly to men of that kind but they would deny the right to vote to a man who is fighting and dying for this country in the theatre of war? To me that seems absurd. Men over there who know all about the situation, who know all about our military needs who know why we fail and why we succeed, who go to sleep to the music of the artillery and are wakened by the crash of shells, these men who bivouac day after day with death, are to be told that they cannot be entrusted with the sacred task of deciding what the policy of this country should be. Some hon. gentlemen opposite contend that it is almost a crime to allow these men to vote.
One hon. gentleman this afternoon-I think the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt)-claimed that it was going to lead to a great deal of corruption which would mean a dishonest and corrupt elec-

tion. I am bound to say that I cannot accept that doctrine. I think it is possible * perhaps in this country to find men-and I hope they are few-who will accept bribes, men who will decide upon issues not because of their merits but because of personal, and perhaps party, considerations, but I believe that these men who are fighting for our country, who are living in constant fear of death, who are bivouacked with death itself, who realize the stupendous danger of the situation, will spurn any attempt to influence them to vote in any way which would not be in the interest of the country. These men, whether they have been previously resident or not, are our soldiers and, as long as they wear the Canadian uniform, as long as they are in the service of our country, are our citizens. If any one of these men should die it would be to this country that his dependents will look for support and that support will be gladly given. When news comes out reporting achievements of one of these men if they have brave achievements, there is no place in the world where these achievements will evoke so much pride as in Canada. That is the kind of man that this Bill proposes to give a vote to. While I am perfectly agreed that at this critical juncture in the affairs of this country the franchise should perhaps be restricted, we should hesitate long before we deny to the man who is fighting our battles the right to have a share in determining what the policy of this country shall be during this crucial war.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) stated that this Bill does not involve the question of what Government should be in control of public affairs; nor is it important to consider which party is in power in this country. In that statement I am sure we can all agree with him. For the life of me I cannot see how it is possible for the membership of the House of Commons to divide on party lines upon a question of this kind. I regretted hearing one or two hon. gentlemen opposite rather insinuating that, because one does not agree with the principle of this Bill, therefore, he is discriminating against the Canadian soldier. That is an unfair suggestion to make, and, as far as I am concerned, I resent it altogether. Personally, I would not care if every soldier enlisted in the Canadian force was given the vote. It would matter little to me personally; personally it would
matter little to any member of this House, but we are dealing with a piece of substantive legislation which has to do with the franchise. The franchise has always been in all countries a question of citizenship. We should settle this Bill upon some principle. There is no desire on the part of any hon. member on this side of the House to do am injustice to anybody who is fighting in the Canadian forces to-day. It is rather unpleasant to make any suggestion in the way of an amendment to the Bill which gives anybody an opportunity of making any insinuation. I do so simply because I believe the principle involved in the particular section which we are discussing is unsound. The member for Annapolis justifies his position by reference to the Franchise Act of Nova Scotia wherein it is provided that ownership of real estate carries the right to the franchise on the part of any British subject. That will only carry the hon. gentleman a certain distance because in most of the provinces of Canada residence in addition to ownership of real estate is necessary to qualification to vote. So, my hon. friend does not get very far with the argument because the majority of the provinces require residence as well as real estate property qualifications. I doubt very much if England would follow our example if they were enacting legislation of this character. Take the aviation service; I am told that in the Royal Naval Air Service sixty-five per cent of the men are Canadian born. It is quite proper that we should provide a method by which they could exercise the franchise at the first election but I doubt if the British Parliament would give them the franchise simply because they constitute a large portion of that force.
I think the suggestion in the Bill is fundamentally wrong, and it is for that reason that I oppose it. It is true, as the Minister of Justice says, that there are only a few men in the whole Canadian force who will be affected by the Bill, and by that reasoning possibly we might forego our objection, as little harm would come if they were allowed to vote. But there is a principle involved.


James Arthurs: Will the hon. gentleman explain the difference between a couple of hundred non-resident voters of British nationality voting in Nova Scotia and an equal number voting of those who were born outside of Canada and who join our forces, say in England? The number is very small in each case.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is quite
true. But I understood the minister to be impressed by the contention raised on this side of the House that a British subject (joining the Canadian forces in Great Britain might well be disqualified, and he promised further consideration. If it transpires eventually that the Minister of Justice will submit an amendment that British subjects, citizens o'f Great Britain, joining the Canadian forces in the United Kingdom, shall not exercise the franchise under this Bill, I should say that was quite a proper provision. But if he does that I think he is precluded from asking this House to accept the principle contained in this section. This section is,
1	think, out of harmony with the whole purport and spirit of the Bill. In order to make my point clear I must refer the comittee to section 3 . That clause is not before us, but really we should look at that in considering this clause. Subsection
2	of section 3 requires that a voter, on presenting himself, must state the electoral district wherein he last resided, during a restricted period at least. Then there is another provision to the effect that if he cannot state or specify a residence he shall be deemed an elector from such electoral district as he may indicate. Supposing	he	had	never been in Canada	prior	to	his	enlistment. Imagine	the[DOT]case	of	his	proceeding overseas	the[DOT]day	after	he	enlisted. Theoretically	at
least he would not know the name of a single electoral district in Canada. Take a case put to me after six o'clock this evening by a member of this House whose next opponent is an officer commanding a Canadian regiment in France. Say that, of 1,000 men, 999 came from the colony of Newfoundland and the British West Indies, and that they did not know any of the electoral districts of Canada; it would be quite evident that they could not state the electoral district in which they resided' continuously for a certain period in Canada, because they had never resided here. They could not indicate any electoral district to which they desired their vote allocated. What would be the consequence? They would be entirely under the domination of their commanding officer. I do not say that would happen, I have no fear whatever of any improper influence being exerted in the taking of these votes overseas. But I sub, mit that, when you point out the possibilities for the exercise of improper influences, you thereby point out fundamental weak-[Mr. Arthurs.!
nesses in the Bill, and we, as representatives of the people, seriously considering an important piece of legislation, are bound to take that into consideration.
I was rather impressed by the suggestion made by some hon. gentlemen opposite that the Canadian enlistments include a large number of Canadian born who, prior to the outbreak of the war, were residing in the United States. I think that case might be fairly mdt in some way or other. They were British subjects, they were Canadian citizens, and I think that it is quite a fair suggestion to make that, having returned to Canada, enlisting in the Canadian forces, that should be considered as tantamount to a return to Canada, and their training period should be considered as a period of residence to qualify them for registration under the Franchise Acts of the several provinces. That is a different proposition, however, from the case of men who never resided in Canada or whose parents never resided here. I suggest that an amendment should be prepared to meet a ease of that kind, and I should be very glad indeed to support it.


James Arthurs: I think this argument might be divided into two parts; first, the man who enlists from a foreign country, and second, the British citizen who has joined the Canadian forces at some point outside of Canada. I consider that if these men were numbered they would be found to be very few indeed, and I would suggest that they might easily offset those men who under like circumstances might vote, for instance, in Nova Scotia. But, leaving that to one side-because I believe that there is perhaps something in what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) says and the Minister of Justice said something about accepting an amendment along that line-the other arguments he has put up do not appear to bear any weight, for various reasons. It has been said, I think by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that these votes could be bunched in certain places, that these men could be forced to vote in certain named constituencies. I venture to say that there are thousands of men in any province in Canada today who cannot name the constituency in which they are living. This is equally true of the men overseas. There is a second suggestion. I know whereof I speak regarding Ontario, and I believe that it is true of many other provinces. We have part three of the voters' lists, or manhood suffrage registration. These men, workingmen in

various parts of the country, are registered immediately before an election. They may be in one constituency at one time and in another at another time, and if they were required to have fixed residence in a constituency for any certain length of time, other than a very short one, they would be unable to qualify under the Ontario Act. That is one reason why the Act of 1915 regarding the soldiers' vote was manifestly unfair, and it would have disfranchised thousands of men who went overseas at that time, men who perhaps were residing in the Northwest provinces, who came home a month or two before enlisting and who lost their residence in the West, and in any event might not have chosen to let their votes go if they had a choice, but would have preferred to vote in their home constituencies. These men would be disfranchised under the 1915 Act, and I think it legitimate that these men should, under the terms of this Act, be allowed to vote and have their vote counted in the constituency named by them. In 99 cases out of 100 they would be able to name the constituency they came from, the constituency in which they were trained, at least. Their residence there would have given them a very fair insight into local conditions in that constituency and of general conditions throughout Canada. These men, on the average, are trained in Canada from six months to nine months, and I think that should count as full residence, even to men from outside points who enlist in Canada. I know the ca'e of a couple of men originally from Guysbor-ough, and who came, one from the Fiji Islands and one from Australia. They were civil engineers who came to Canada with the intention of taking out commissions, but found that there were no vacancies and eventually enlisted in the battalion which I took overseas. These men will undoubtedly desire to have their votes recorded in Guyeborough if they are allowed to vote. I think they have a perfect right to vote, although not residents of Canada at the beginning of the war, and although they only came here for the express purpose of enlisting. I think this Act can be worked out easily and fairly, and I am satisfied that in working it out there will be none of this trickery we have found so many times in Canada. I am satisfied if a man is given a fair opportunity to record his vote over there, he will do it in all fairness, and nobody will suffer.


William Manley German: My hon. friend made
an exceedingly patriotic speech such as we
usually hear from Conservative politicians at election time, who shout for the old flag and an appropriation, and say that every one who opposes a suggestion made by them is unpatriotic. No one in this House will contend that men who are fighting the battles of Canada should not have votes. I, for one, most certainly would not. But that is not the object of this discussion. The object is to have the Bill framed in such a shape that when these men cast their votes, those votes will be recorded in proper places, and that the votes may not be colonized or hived in some localities, to suit the exigencies of the occasion, which could be done very easily under this Bill. Whether it would be done or not is another question. However, it is better to avoid temptation than to be led into it. The Minister of Justice is allowing himself to be led into temptation in this matter. The hon. minister says that every elector, having joined the Canadian forces, whether in Canada or outside of Canada, whether eveT having been in Canada or not, shall be entitled to vote. He may never have seen Canada, may know nothing about the country and may know nothing about the election or about constituencies. He is a British subject, having joined the Canadian forces, outside of Canada, and he casts his	vote.	How does he
know in which constituency his vote will be recorded? Who will record it? How easy it would be for any one-I do not [DOT] say this would be the case, but it might happen-by a little manipulation over there, to colonize a lot of those votes in some constituency where there is a close contest, and thereby change the result of the election by that very vote. Anybody who knows	anything about
elections knows that could be
9 p.m. easily done, and I submit that before the Bill is passed provision should be made to prevent the possibility of manipulation. We cannot afford to place on the statute book a law which will present such opportunities for fraud. I am not charging that >any one will be guilty of fraud, but it will leave the door open for such glaring fraud that it should not stand on the statute book of Canada.
Then, I ask who is a minor? Any one below 21 years of age is a minor, and a minor, either male or female, can be appointed, enrolled or enlisted in some force a few weeks prior to the election, and have the right to vote at the election. Hundreds of thousands of them could be appointed under this Bill. I ask the Minister of

Justice if that is proper legislation to be placed on the statute hook, permitting such latitude as that. No one can deny my statement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is the suggestion that because we provide that people who are enlisted in these different forces are to have votes, it means that we can make voters by enrolling people for the express purpose of voting?


William Manley German: That is absolutely the suggestion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I plead innocence to that charge. It never occurred to me that it would be suggested that the military authorities of this country were going to proceed to enroll people, merely for the purpose of allowing them to vote.


William Manley German: They may be innocent also. Let me call attention to another phase of the situation. The ordinary constituency, say in Ontario, will consist of about 60 polling subdivisions, on an average. You could take three young men under 21 years of age, under this Act, prior to the election, in each polling subdivision, without any fuss or feathers, without any knowledge, perhaps, on the part of the Minister of Militia, of there being any wrongdoing, and you could enroll or appoint them to the Royal Canadian Navy, or to the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve, they do not go overseas-


William Pugsley: Or the aviation service.


William Manley German: Yes, but particularly the Naval Service. They are not called out to fight. They could he enrolled, and no one would notice it, or think anything about it. If you appointed three in each subdivision, on the day of the election you would have 180 votes, which might easily turn the scale. All you have to do is to direct attention to this, and hon. members can see what might happen. I am not saying it will happen ; but I submit no law should be placed on the statute book which would permit a latitude of that kind, and I insist that it must be changed. I am not opposing the right of the soldier to vote. If a soldier enlists as a British subject, whether he comes from the United States of Hong Kong, he is a British subject, has joined the forces and gone to fight the battles of Canada, and I am prepared to give him the vote, but I say that his place of voting should be designated, and should not be fixed by some political manipulator.


Avard Longley Davidson: Where would the hon. gentleman suggest that a person who had never resided in Canada should poll his vote, if not where he wanted it polled?


William Manley German: I say it should be cast in the electoral constituency where the regiment to which he was attached was raised. If that provision were inserted, it would be known where all these votes would be counted, and a bunch of them could not be colonized in one particular place. The great danger is in a bunch of votes being cast in one constituency. A few votes of that kind might be recorded and counted promiscuously throughout the whole electoral district, and would not be of much consequence, but the colonization of them in some particular 'locality might have the effect of turning the scale. We should have some provision with reference to minors. A young man who enlists for overseas is supposed to be 18. Why go under that age? Some are under 18. Under this Bill, you may have a minor ten years old, or five years old or an infant in arms. Of course, they would not vote, but you are leaving the door open to an opportunity for wrong-doing, and that opportunity should not be given in a measure such as this providing for the peace, order and good government of Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman, at all events, in one respect, that is, that there are two distinct questions involved here: First, should we give the vote to the soldier who had not been a resident of Canada? Second, if we do give him a vote, then where are we going to allot his vote? The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) warned me as to what I would have to consent to being suspected of if I adhered to this proposal, and he expressed a great deal of scandalized horror that the proposal should have been made. As regards giving the vote to the soldier, even although he had not resided in Canada, I gave, before the committee rose at six o'clock, some reasons which, in my judgment, seemed to quite justify that action on our part. A great deal is made of this question of non-residence in Canada. My hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) has demonstrated that there are to-day in some parts of this country, and there certainly have been in the past-and not a very remote past-in other parts of this country, a perfect recognition of the right of the British subject, non-resident in Canada, when he has certain other qualifications, to vote. In Quebec, until 1912, when

we had the introduction of the "one man, one vote," and when in consequence there were certain modifications made, including,
I believe, the requirement of residence for the exercise of the franchise I am not saying that positively, because I have not had occasion to look very carefully into the statute-the British subject, who owned real property in that province, was an elector in that province and, being such, was an elector in this Dominion, Not only does that result from the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act from which the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) read, making the lists provided by the provinces valid lists, but we have a special section of the Dominion Elections Act still in force recognizing the right of non-residents to vote! and it is headed "Non-resident electors," and provides that:
The provisions of the law of the province as to the places where non-resident electors shall vote shall apply mutatis mutandis to any Dominion election, and the returning officer at such election shall have the powers and he charged with the duties of the sheriff or returning officer under such provisions; but nothing herein shall enable any person to vote by schedule or otherwise than by appearing personally.


William Manley German: Is that vote counted
except on a recount?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That vote is counted.
That man presents himself at the poll and registers his vote. What is guarded against is anybody voting otherwise than by presenting himself personally at the poll. But the fact that, as I understand it, still in Nova Scotia and certainly prior to the time to which I referred in Quebec, a person, being a British subject and a property holder in a constituency in one of those provinces, had never resided in the Dominion would not prevent him, if he came over and presented himself at the poll, 'from registering his vote. I mention this only to point out that this is not the astounding innovation that is suggested.


Mr. MARCILE:: It is a mistake to say
that a non-resident in Quebec who is a property holder has a right to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not stating that
that is so at the present time.


Joseph Edmond Marcile: He must be a resident.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman
will follow me-I have under my hand the Quebec statute of 1912 which modified the law in that regard, but the law, as it stood before 1912, not only recognized the possibility but expressly declared that people who
had not been resident for a year past in the province, with the exception of proprietors of real estate, should not be entitled to vote. The statute of 1912, by which the "one man, one vote" system was introduced, amended that law by striking out the exception, so that I am not contending that to-day it is so. I am pointing this out only to show that this is not the extraordinary innovation that is suggested. It follows that residence has not been a universal provision; at all events, it has not been looked upon in the past in this country and to a certain extent at present it is not looked upon in this country as an essential qualification for voting. There is room for difference of opinion, but I am not going to be led into discussions about motives. If it does anybody's heart good to suspect ,me of evil motives in this regard, then I hope his heart may rejoice to its full extent.


William Pugsley: We shall say that the
minister is absolutely innocent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I hope the hon. gentleman on the other side who smiles at that assurance will derive all imaginable happiness from the confidence and the conviction that my motives are of the very worst. That will not alter what is right or wrong about this question. The question as to giving the right to vote after all comes back to this: Does a man, by constituting himself a member of the Canadian Forces and risking his life for the defence of Canada, giving to Canada the credit and the glory of whatever he may achieve, link himself sufficiently with Canada to entitle him to be put upon a footing with any British subject who may steal into this country looking to make some money and settle down in some place for five or six months with a view to earning what he can earn there, and who may go away the next day. I am not saying that the argument is all on one side, but it seems to me that the soldier, under those circumstances, has as intimately connected himself with Canada and has, in addition, demonstrated that his desire is that the connection on his part should be one of service and of sacrifice as has the gentleman, who has come in here merely for his own pleasure or his own profit, and certainly demonstrated that his desire for connection with Canada has not as its basis any desire to be of service to Canada. That it is a proper thing to give the vote to the soldier-I still cannot get away from the conviction, even at the risk of having imputed to me the motives that are suggested, that it is the proper thing to give

him the vote, both because he deserves it and because it is good policy on Canada's part to try to bind to herself the manwhohas given such evidence of desiring to be a serving citizen of Canada-that is one question.
The other question is, if we are right in giving them the vote, how are we going to deal with the allocation of the votes? In giving the vote, I would point out that we are not in reality making a substantial departure from the provision of the Act as it stands, because, although that provision requires thirty days residence in Canada before enlistment, all the objections that are made to giving a vote to a man who never resided in Canada surely apply with equal force' to the man who has been but thirty days in Canada before enlisting. Is there any remarkable difference, as to then-knowledge of political questions and the candidates and the constituencies, between the man who came into Canada the day before he enlisted, and the man who came in thirty days before he enlisted? The provision of the present Act has been spoken of as being eminently fair, and was agreed to by this House when the Act Was passed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The man who had resided in Canada thirty days before enlisting would know w'hat section of the country he was in.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He might have that knowledge without having knowledge of the name of the constituency. But I understood the objection of my hon. friend .to rest mainly on the question of allowing him to select his own constituency. I understood that also to be the main objection of my hon. friend from Welland, and I was endeavouring to point out that these were two perfectly distinct questions. I am quite prepared to admit that there is possibility of abuse under the system that allows a man to indicate the place where he may vote, but there is possibility of abuse, I think, under any system which lye adopt with regard to that man; and if you adopt the system-and we 'have thought of many different systems-of saying that he shall vote in the constituency in which he enlisted, you have not only the possibility, but the certainty, of hiving, because it happens that in certain constituencies of this country there were very large enlistments of people who came from different places.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: Since the Soldiers' Voting Bill was passed we have had a Redistribution Bill, and a certain portion of [ Mr. Doherty. ]
the county of Laval has been divided into four pa,rts, one part forming the new division of St. Denis, and the other three parts being annexed respectively to Two Mountains, Jacques Cartier >and Maisonneuve. I feel satisfied that some of my constituents who are at the front would not know what constituency they were in. It seems to me that instead of the soldier being allowed to make his choice, his vote should be cast in the parish from which he enlisted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to dispose of one question at a time, I will conclude what I was endeavouring to say, and then be very glad to deal with his question. We did consider different systems, notwithstanding that we were intent, according to the hon. member for St. John, upon finding a method whereby fraud could be committed. We looked at the different systems with a view to finding a practical way out, and we have not closed any door yet. The hon. member for St. John may be as offensive as he knows how -and that is saying a good deal-but he will not succeed in inducing me to close a door to anything that will insure a fairer application of this law in my judgment than the present draft does. I give him carte blanche, let his language be as strong as he likes. I am here to get through the House a .measure which, as I lay it before hon. gentlemen, I do not believe to be perfect, but which was intended to produce the result I announced at the outset, of securing the vote for as many of our soldiers as possible, surrounding it with all possible safeguards, but not so as to make it practically impossible for anything like a full vote to be taken.
Let us suppose for ia moment that, with the exception of myself, everybody is trying to find a fair way of doing this thing. I am the man that was found out by the hon. member for St. John-


William Pugsley: The man whose Bill was found out.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let us put it that way; the hon. gentleman is beginning to moderate. What are you going to do with that eoldier vote? Are you going to hive all the votes in the places where the soldiers happen to have enlisted? Is that fair to the constituencies where the largest enrollment took place? Is it fair that because they attracted soldiers, and got a large number of enlistments, that all these men should be forcibly put upon them? I understand that many of these men would be in the

position pointed out toy the hon. member for Laval, and would have difficulty of their own knowledge in defining the limits of particular constituencies in Canada, but I hardly think that they would have passed the period of training, which in many cases extends over a period of six months, without finding out something, if not about the electoral divisions/, at least about the village or town or city in which they enlisted; and if they found that out, they would at least know something of that constituency. I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that they would hit upon the particular constituency in which they enlisted. But that is one thing, and it is another thing to impose them absolutely on that constituency.
One suggestion was, that we allocate the votes to the places where the soldiers enlisted. If we did that, we /should have an undue proportion of these men landed into constituencies which happened to be good enlisting centres. The suggestion was also made that these soldiers should be made to vote at the address that they gave in their attestation papers, and I may say that that was a method that suggested itself as having much to commend it, and I believe it was the method that was adopted in Australia, but we did not get very far with that before it was pointed out that with that too, you would get an undue proportion- a large number of drifting people, so to speak-who would give their address as being in the place where they attested.
For instance, with regard to the first contingent that system would probably have captured for somebody the county of Quebec, because in and around Valcartier there would have been a large number of people who never had any connection with that county at all, but who had named as their addresses certain places in that neighbourhood. So that there, instead of creating the possibility of hiving people, you were getting a certainty of hiving people. It is possible that some people may endeavour to use influence to induce these men who are given the opportunity of indicating their place of voting to vote in one place rather than in another. But before we get through with this Bill we will see that there is the same opportunity for exercising that influence on the part of one party as there is on the part of another. It is true that the presiding officers are, as in this country the returning officers are, to be named by the Government, and that the presiding officers are to name the deputy presiding officers, just as in this country the returning officer names the deputy
returning officer. But provisions are made to secure representation for the different parties interested. All these presiding and deputy presiding officers are to be taken in the military forces; all this is to be done within what might be called the military home. Why is it presumed that there will be greater power on the part of one party than on the part of another to indicate places which they would desire these men to select as their places of voting? The field is open, I have no doubt that there may be requests, solicitations or suggestions that the men vote in one place rather than in another. But why we should have reason to anticipate that, from one side more than from the other, there should be an endeavour to concentrate these people on any particular constituencies, I am quite at a loss to see. When we cannot find any method of defining where these people are voting, without actually by the law itself making them swamp some particular constituencies, why should we think that it would be a greater evil that that might possibly happen under this system than that it would certainly happen under the other? I do not want to close the door upon any suggestion that will meet the real difficulty that presents itself. For my part, I think that these men ought to be given the vote. As has been pointed out, this legislation is only for an election that may be held during the present war. We are not going to make these men voters forever; we are going to recognize them as voters so long as they are soldiers.
Mr. GERMAN; But their votes will have an'effect long after this war is finished.


Charles Avila Wilson: So long as there is a general election during the war, not a byelection?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not a by-election, no. But to answer the question of the member for Laval: I quite believe that a large number of soldiers who have actually been resident in Canada will not be able to give the name of their electoral division. I could pick out numbers of people in the city of Montreal who, I am quite satisfied, if somebody did not explain to them once in a while when an election is coming on where the boundary line runs between St. Anne and St. Antoine, would not be quite sure whether they were voters in the one district or in the other. And there will be soldiers on the other side who will not be able to give that information. But we have not left the matter in the position in which the hon. member for Laval supposes it to

be. Subsection 2 of section 3 reads as follows:
If he can state the electoral district wherein he last continuously resided during at least
	 months of the year immediately
preceding his appointment, enlistment, enrolment or calling out on active service, or so particularly specify a place or places within an electoral district whereat during such period of time he so resided that such electoral district can therefrom he ascertained, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or to be ascertained, and his vote shall be applied thereto.


Charles Avila Wilson: That is what I object to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman object that the man will not be able to indicate his electoral district?


Charles Avila Wilson: What I object to is that a man who was resident in the county of Laval as it stood before redistribution should choose as his place of voting any part of that county that now belongs to another constituency. I wish his name to remain on the lists of the electoral district in which he lived; then he will be bound to vote in that electoral district. I want him to have the privilege of voting, but under this measure the cavil or military authorities can say whiat part of the county that man comes from, and he will have to vote there, notwithstanding that it may now be in another electoral division.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Suppose a gentleman
resided in the village of Ste. Rose, which is in the county of Laval. There has been a redistribution. That gentleman now knows that he lived in the village of Ste. Rose, but he does not know in what electoral district that is. In that case, he will say: I resided in the village of Ste. Rose for such a period of time. From that statement that he resided in the village of Ste. Rose, the electoral county to which he belongs can be ascertained. The fact that he stated that he resided in the village of Ste. Rose will be on the back of the envelope in which his ballot is contained. The first operation of the returning officer to whom that-goes is to assort the ballots, and he will see on the back of that ballot that this man resided in the village of Ste. Rose. He will be provided by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery with the necessary charts and documents showing the limitations of the constituency. He will turn to those and see that the village of Ste. Rose is in the present constituency of-whatever it may be. That envelope, unopened, will be assorted with the votes for the county in which the village of Ste. Rose is situated and the

man's ballot will be counted in that very county in which he as a resident of Ste. Rose belongs. The only man who is to have a chance to indicate where he desires to vote is the man who neither knows the name of his electoral constituency or is in a position to name a place or places in which he resided or from the naming of which the constituency can be ascertained. In the case suggested the man was in a position to tell where he resided. He will be asked where he resided, not merely in what electoral district he resided.
If he says, "I resided in such a county," we know as far as he can tell us. If he says, "I cannot tell the county," he will be asked, "What place did you reside in?" In the instance mentioned, he will give Ste. Rose and Ste. Rose will give the constituency. You may have to get more particulars when you get into city constituencies, such as streets and numbers. From streets and numbers you will ascertain by reference to charts, which have been prepared showing the limits as fixed by the Redistribution Act, in what constituency the man is. There is no ground to apprehend difficulty in so far as regards a man who knows where he lives, whether he knows the name of the constituency or not; that man will vote in the constituency in which he lives.


William Pugsley: Except that he is required to select the district.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If my hon. friend expects to find in this section all the provisions of the law I am afraid he will not find them because this does not say so.


William Pugsley: If the minister will kindly look at form B, page 16, he will find the following:
6.	Specify the names of the place or places in Canada (giving streets and numbers when possible) whereat you last continuously resided during at least.... months of the year immediately preceding your appointment, enlistment, enrolment or calling out on active service.
7.	State if you can the electoral district wherein such place or places in which you so resided are situate.
Electoral district	
Province	
8.	If because of non-residence or otherwise you cannot specify or state as required by Questions No. 6 and No. 7, to what electoral district do you desire your vote to be applied?
Unless he can answer both 6 and 7 then he selects his own district.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he cannot answer 6 and 7 he shall elect; that is if he can answer neither one nor the other.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he can answer either one then he is not in a position where he cannot answer one or the other.


William Pugsley: Unless he answers both he selects his own district.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is brought to my attention in the middle of the discussion of another section. It is possible that the word "and" should be "or" and perhaps we will have to make it "or" when we get to it. But if we could keep to the section we are dealing with, possibly we could get at a practical result. I am anxious to receive criticisms and suggestions in a good spirit and try to meet them. I would remind hon. gentlemen that it is the section that makes the law, the form should comply with the section and if it does not, we will have to correct it.


Charles Avila Wilson: If the language of the law was as plain as tUe language of the minister, I would not complain. But what is reported in Hansard is not the law. What will be brought before the courts and before the electors will be this Bill after it is passed. I cannot read subsection 3 in any other way than as it is set down here.
If he cannot, because of non-residence or otherwise-
Or otherwise.
-so state or specify, he shall be deemed an ^lector of, and his vote shall be applied to, such electoral district as he may indicate.
Supposing he says "I am a resident of Ste. Rose; I do not know in what county it is now, and I do not care"-what county do you choose? If a man so state or specify his vote shall be applied by somebody, not himself, to such electoral district as he may indicate. ,


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman wall read what the voter has to state or specify, he will see that it is one or other of two things. In subsection 2 we have no trouble about our conjunction:
2. If he can state the electoral district wherein he last continuously resided during at least	months of the year immediately preceding his appointment, enlistment, enrolment or calling out on active service, or so particularly specify a place or places within an electoral district whereat during such period of time he so resided that such electoral district can therefrom be ascertained, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or to be ascertained, and his vote shall be applied thereto.
Subsection 3 is for the man who cannot state his electoral district and who cannot specify the name or place where he resided so that from the name or place it will be
possible for the electoral district :to be ascertained. If he can do either one or other of these two things the subsection does not apply to him. It iis only if he can do neither of these two things that subsection 3 applies.


William Pugsley: The minister ignores the form altogether.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The form is not in the present section and we are dealing with the section. If the form has not been printed to conform to the section, we will amend the form when we reach it.


Charles Avila Wilson: What would the minister suggest will be the procedure with regard to the man who says: "I am from the United States; I do not know anything about the electoral districts of Canada; I want to vote and I want to vote for the Government," let us say. "I do not care where I vote." How will you apply that vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he cannot give information under section 2 which will indicate where he would like to vote, I am afraid he will have to do without voting. This is a Bill to afford an opportunity of voting; but it is not a Bill to compel people to vote. We are providing not to take the horse to the water but to take the water to the horse, and when we have got it there we cannot make the horse drink. If a man will not indicate any constituency you cannot make him vote.


Charles Avila Wilson: He does not know any.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should think that a man who desired to vote and who had the right to select a constituency would ascertain from his comrades.
I should think that, if he cared to vote, he would ascertain the name of some constituency from the other soldiers or from the representatives of the two parties who would be present. His one desire would be to register a Canadian vote, and he would have no trouble in ascertaining the name of a constituency.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is the difficulty; he will have no trouble, but he will be influenced entirely by the officer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As things are in our elections at home people are apt to be influenced by men all around them. Is it a serious objection that a man should be asked to vote in a certain constituency? Perhaps I would say to him: I would be glad to have you vote in Ste. Anne, and



the hon. member for North Oxford might say that he would be glad to have him vote elsewhere.


William Pugsley: Or out in the Yukon; some place where there is a very narrow vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it is right to give him the privilege of voting, are we to refuse to him that right because he may be influenced in its exercise? At that rate we would have to refuse the ballot to every voter in this country.


William Pugsley: Supposing it was suggested that every Canadian soldier, although he has a residence in Canada, should be permitted to select his constituency anywhere in Canada. Why not give him the same privilege that you give to the American, the non-resident?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because it is possible to attach the man who has resided in Canada to a constituency.


William Pugsley: But why treat him worse than you treat the non-resident?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because if we could
pick out a constituency for the other voter we would do so.


William Pugsley: The minister must think it an evil to allow a man to pick out any one of the 230 constituencies in Canada and to allocate his vote to it, and yet he proposes to give to the non-resident that right, although he may have no interest in the future of Canada.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Does my hon. friend say that a man, even although not a native-born Canadian, who has'come to this country and enlisted and gone overseas, might have no interest in the future of Canada? That was the hon. gentleman's statement.


William Pugsley: I have not said that.
The Bill does not limit it to the case of a non-resident who has come to Canada to enlist, but extends the right to a man who may have enlisted in England. He may never have set foot in Canada. He may have enlisted in the Bermudas, and yet, because he attaches himself to the Canadian Expeditionary Force, he is permitted by this Bill to vote and to select his own constituency in any part of Canada.


William Cameron Edwards: Would my hon. friend not allow that man to vote?


William Pugsley: I am opposed to giving the vote to any man who has not been a resident of Canada. Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: I am veTy glad to have my hon. friend on record.


William Pugsley: I have been on record
all afternoon.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN. The Bill defines military voters to include all members of the military forces mentioned here, or anyone who has been honourably discharged therefrom. Some 65,900 men were discharged from the Canadian forces up to the 14th of June who never proceeded overseas. I assume that they have obtained discharges, although I am not sure. Under this section they would be military electors in this country. Supposing 20 peT cent of them were under age, that is under twenty-one . yeaTS of age, that would mean that 13.000 or 14,000 of these people in Canada would have votes.


William Cameron Edwards: As a matter of fact,
how many are there?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know,
but I assume 20 per cent. Many of these would be in the force from a few days to six months, and the -question arises in my mind whether it is necessary or proper that they should be made, by statute, military electors in Canada. Many of them never intended to proceed overseas. I think the provision should be modified in some way. Then there were discharged in England, up to June 30, some 4,380 men. I assume that these were British-born who 'enlisted in Canada and proceeded overseas with various regiments, men who were entitled to toe discharged in Canada but preferred taking their discharge in England 'because they intended again taking up residence there. It is worth the minister's while considering whether these should be qualified as electors in Canada under this section.


James Arthurs: A number of those men were probably discharged in England for the purpose of taking out commissions in either the Canadian or the Imperial army.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should like the minister to keep these two points in mind. I wish he would explain what is covered by the auxiliary motor boat patrol service. Is that service organized, and, if so, where does it exist? Is it to proceed overseas?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is overseas.


William Cameron Edwards: In what position is the Canadian soldier, having enlisted here, but having gone overseas and been transferred from the Canadian force to a branch of the Imperial Army?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the section in the Bill as introduced, the vote would not be extended to Canadians who form part of the Imperial Force. As, I explained when the Bill was introduced, the reason we had not included Canadians in the Imperial service was that we 'had not been able to devise means whereby we would be able to take their votes. A suggestion was made when I introduced the Bill which led to further consideration being given, and we have reached a conclusion to amend this definition, so as to include men of Canadian citizenship serving in Imperial forces. We might not be able to find the men, and the presiding officer might not be in a position to obtain their vote. We shall amend the section to. meet that case.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: The Bill says that every military elector shall be qualified and entitled to vote at a general election. That is quite clear, and then the Bill tells us what a military elector is. The section reads:	.
"Military elector" means and includes every person, male or female, who, being a British subject, whether or not ordinarily resident in ada., appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out dian, has been, while within or without Canada, appointed, enlisted, enrolled or caVed out for active service as one of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
My two points are on the words "minor" and on the words "called out". Under the ordinary law in our province an elector must be 21 years of age and a British subject
There are some other provisos.
10 p.m. but the age must be 21. I
desire to ask if this Bill is applicable to ithe conscription law, because, under section 2 of the Military Service Bill, the Government will take the right to call out classes of the ages 20 to 35. If the Government calls out classes 1 or 2, that will include everybody who will be conscripted, and it will also call out electors who would otherwise have been considered minors. Thousands of young men would be called out. I am not opposed to these young men having a vote, but it would make a big difference in the city of Montreal. It would be interesting to know that at any moment the Government could put in a constituency like mine thousands of ' young men, who, I thought would have no vote. I should like to know, if this measure is applicable to the conscription law, because I see in clause 2 of the Military Service Bill the words:
2. (1) Every male British subject who comes within one of the classes described in section three of this Act, shall be liable to be called out as hereinafter provided on active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the defence of Canada.
These are exactly the same words as in the Bill before us. If this Bill is passed, thousands and thousands of young men in my hon. friend's district in Montreal could be called out and given a vote. I should like to know if that is going to be done. I might go a little further than my hon. friend from Welland who. speaks of three votes in each of 60 different polling subdivisions, which give ia total of 180 votes. We might have a good many more votes in each division in Montreal than my hon. friend from Welland suggests.
I was going to raise the point suggested by my hon. friend from Halifax, in regard to the discharged soldiers who are not 21 years of age. They have enrolled from the age of 18 up, and the Government could put a lot of voters in the different divisions of Montreal and in other places, because, in my opinion, at any time the Governor in Council by proclamation could call out on active service, as aforesaid, for the defence of Canada-exactly the same words as in the other Bill -thousands of young men would have a vote, three weeks before polling day. I desire an explanation on that point, because I want to know where I stand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might first deal with the question asked by the hon. gentleman from Halifax. I understand his first question to be whether it was intended that the honourably discharged soldier should have the vote as a military voter. I may say that was the intention, and I think that is the effect of the section. The intention was that the military vote should belong, not only to the soldier actually in the performance of his duty, but to the man vho has been a soldier. The principle object in view was to assure the vote to the returned soldier, but it operates, and it was intended to operate, so that the vote could be secured to the honourably discharged soldier. It is quite true that the provision may operate to give a vote to a certain number of soldiers whose service was, perhaps, of not very great value, but it will only be such soldiers as gave the service that they were .able to give, and ceased to be soldiers simply because they were honourably discharged from service. It is true they have not done anything in the way of actual service to be compared

to the men who have actually carried the work through and been to the front, but on the other hand, is it an undue consideration to give to the man who was willing to be a soldier, who, so far as it depended upon himself, did everything within his power, and was, at all events, sufficiently qualified that he succeeded in passing the first examination at the time of enrolment or enlistment? It may be and, I dare say, it is quite true that amongst those young men could be found some who did themselves know of or who suspected their disqualification and who did not anticipate going overseas, but if that were done under conditions in which one could be quite satisfied that in the particular case the individual had been guilty of conduct such as that, I doubt if he would be honourably discharged.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not remove the qualification so far as such a man is concerned? This Bill is not intended to cover the case of such men. They are under no disability. It is true they joined the service, but they were struck off the ' strength later on and they never went overseas. Why include them within the scope of this Bill? I suppose most of the men struck off the strength and over 21 wdll have votes in any case. After being struck off the strength, they will return to their own homes, so that all who will have the vote will be minors. It is rather objectionable to have minors vote in some electoral districts of Canada when other minors are not permitted to vote. Amongst that list you might find a small number of women who enlisted for hospital service overseas, but who were unable to proceed overseas for one cause or another. I do not think it is advisable to have them enrolled as electors in the forthcoming Election.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a difficulty as to where such persons shall vote. I do not know whether the minister intends to reorganize the franchise of the country and make different Tules in different places, but I can see a difficulty about a young lad in the case referred to finding a place in which to vote under the regulations. He is not in the county in which he belongs, and I do not suppose the minister is going to provide a ballot box with an officer to take the votes of men of that character who happen to be in various places throughout Canada, so that I think there will be diffi-
]Mr. Doherty.]
culty in their exercising the franchise even if you give it to them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a provision
later on under which men in that position in Canada, honourably discharged soldiers, are declared to be entitled to vote in the constituency in which they reside. They are entitled to have their ballots taken upon their affidavit and upon production of the certificates of their enrolment and their honourable discharge, so that no confusion is caused. Such a man will not be on the list.


John Howard Sinclair: His name will not be on the list?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but under the
statute he will be entitled to vote upon presenting himself, upon producing the evidence of his discharge and making affidavit as to his identity with the person mentioned in the documents. It will be the case of a man voting who is not upon the list. I do not see that there is any great anomaly in allowing this young man who is a minor, even although he be in Canada, to vote, while other minors in Canada are not voting. There is this substantial difference between the minor we are dealing with and the other minors in the constituency, that this particular minor has, at all events so far as within him lay, been a Canadian soldier.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Other minors who are soldiers are overseas performing military service, and they have not an opportunity of voting in their own country. The particular case of minor we are dealing with never proceeded overseas. Surely that is a distinction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt that, if we could do more for the minor who has gone overseas and is performing a service, than we are doing, we would be glad to do it, and no doubt, if we were to weigh the real merits of each one, this minor is entitled to a great deal more gratitude than the boy who has not been called upon to serve, but we have to consider the case of the boy who volunteered his services and who, so far as depended upon himself, made himself a soldier.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Even in the case in which the parents were obliged to ask for his discharge because he was under eighteen? There are many such cases.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know to what extent that would occur. It is inevitable that, if we are to make a law of general

application, there will be some instances in which, perhaps, the're may be reasons why it is more difficult to justify the granting of a vote than is the case, speaking generally; but we have to make a rule that is going to be generally applicable, and 1 do not think we can go so far as to discriminate between individual soldiers. The only safe rule is this: A man-was a soldier or he was not a soldier; if he was a soldier, he ought to have the vote, and I do not think, speaking generally, he ought to be deprived of that vote because, although he had been a soldier, at some period before he was enabled to go overseas and become actively engaged, it was ascertained that he was not suitable for a soldier and he was discharged.


William Manley German: Surely the minister would not call a man a soldier who was never accepted as a soldier?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A man who was not accepted as a soldier never was a soldier and never was a discharged soldier, so that he would not come within the scope of this Bill. We are dealing with soldiers who. actually are soldiers and soldiers who were soldiers and were honourably discharged. A man who was stopped at the outset and was never taken on the strength was not a soldier at all and does not come under this Bill.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Will men of the ages of 20 in classes one and two, who are called out for active service under the Military Service Act, have the right to vote as soon as they are called out? Will a minor who is conscripted have the right to vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the best answer that I can give is to compare the two measures and see whether the hon. gentleman is right or not. In the drawing up of this Bill we were endeavouring to cover all the methods by which a man might have become a soldier, because we wanted to cover every soldier. We had not presented to our minds in any particular way the provisions of the Military Service Act, and if on comparing them the result would be produced that, by reason of the wording as it stands here, the conclusion would have to be reached that, when a whole class of men from 20 to 34 would be called out for active service, before any individual man came to participate in any way in military operations, this wording would give him a vote, that result was not intended to be produced, and if the combined wording of the two Acts would produce that
result, we should have to find a remedy for that condition of affairs.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the minister explain about the motor boat patrol service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the Motor Boat Patrol Service is an Imperial Service manned by Canadians, their principal work being to patrol the seas that are infested by submarines.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no such thing as a Canadian Motor Boat Patrol Service? I understand there are quite a number of men in Halifax at present who belong to this service. They have been there all winter, but as there are no boats for them, they have been doing nothing for some months. Do I understand these men are in the Imperial service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the Auxiliary Motor Boat Patrol is an Imperial service. If it were a Canadian service we would consider them to be included. I understand that our Canadian service includes the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Militia on active service, and the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve. The others are all Imperial services.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: I think that a great number of the men who went across for the Auxiliary Motor Boat Patrol joined the Imperial Navy, and I think they should be given the vote.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not objecting to their being given the vote.


Angus Alexander McLean: I think we should amend the clause by adding "The Royal Navy."


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the Imperial service, it is our intention to modify the section by making a provision giving Canadian citizens in the Imperial service, whether naval or military, the right to vote. There may'be difficulty in the way of exercising that right, but they will be given the right.


Mr. DESCARRIES:: Clause 3 says:
(1)	Every military elector shall be qualified and entitled to vote at a general election.
(2)	If he can state the electoral district wherein he last continuously resided during at
least	 months of the year immediately
preceding his appointment, enlistment, enrolment or calling out on active service, or so particularly specify a place or places within an electoral district whereat during such period of time he so resided that such electoral

district can therefrom be ascertained, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or to be ascertained.
Suppose that military elector, either in error, or deliberately for political purposes, declares that he had resided during those four months in my constituency, (when really he had resided in the constituency of my hon. friend. Suppose that fifty or a hundred electors make the same mistake, either intentionally or deliberately, could the election be contested on that ground?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We should have to rely on the strength of their affidavits, for the information on which they are entitled to vote. If I am not mistaken, that is the system in Alberta and Saskatchewan to-day.


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: Suppose he makes a false affidavit?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The ballot would have to be counted for the time being, just as in Canada, when a man makes a false oath, his ballot is deposited in the box, and not being susceptible of indentification, is no doubt .counted. I presume that upon a contestation of an election, if it could be Shown that a number of votes wrongfully designating an electoral constituency had been polled sufficient to effect the result in a particular constituency, that might be a proper ground for contestation. To-day, of course, a man who has no vote at all, if he commits perjury and swears to his aright to vote, will get a vote, and his ballot Twill be deposited in the box and counted. To find a practical remedy is pretty difficult. Similarly, if under this Act, a man swore that he resided in one place, when he resided in another, I do not think it would be possible to control that at the time of voting. In this election, just as in the elections in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, we shall have to rely for tliis information on the truthfulness of the soldier when put upon his oath.


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: Is there any provision in the law that would cover such a case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will look into it.


William Pugsley: I was going to move that this clause be amended by striking out the words "whether or not." If this amendment was agreed to the clause would read "military elector" means and includes every person male or female, who, being a British subject, ordinarily resident in Canada." I understand, however, that the minister is not quite sure whether my hon. friend

from St. James is correct in saying that the result of this section would be that the moment the proclamation issued under the Military Service Act every young man in Canada would ipso facto become a military elector, and be entitled to vote. I think a little reflection will convince the minister that my hon. friend is right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am inclined to think he is.


William Pugsley: Under the Military Service Act the Governor in Council issues a proclamation calling out-that is the word used-all the single men in Canada between certain ages. The effect of this clause would be to make every young man of twenty years of age a military elector, and give him the right to vote. As the minister is inclined to agree with that view, perhaps this clause might stand.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: One branch in which
some Canadians have enlisted is not included in the Bill, and that is the Royal Kite Balloon Branch. If you are going to include all branches of the service, you had better include that branch with the others.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should be sorry to omit any.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is a branch of the service which some Canadians joined when they went across the water.


James Arthurs: It is included in the Air Service.


John Howard Sinclair: *It has been suggested by some gentlemen during the course of the discussion that the Fisheries Protection Service is connected, departmentally speaking, with the Royal Canadian Navy. A large number of these boats are engaged, in that service, along the coast, quite a number of men being employed. A number of the men so employed are under the age of 21 years. I am not1 objecting to their votes being taken, if it is a proper thing to do. However, I should like to know from the minister if it is fns intention to give votes under this legislation to men who are not engaged actually in the war, but who are employed upon these fisheries protection boats along the coast?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think they
would come under any of these designations. There is the Fisheries Protection Service, and there is the Royal Canadian Navy, which, I understand, is a separate service. I understand, however, from the

Minister of Marine and Fisheries that a large number of boats that would in peace times be engaged in purely fisheries pro-tetction service have been engaged in doing work in the nature of naval service, patrolling the coast and doing trying work under difficult conditions-conditions in which the men in the boats are exposed to serious danger. The crews of such fisheries boats would, I understand, come under the designation herein provided.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Most of the dangerous work performed in connection with patrolling is done by the American boats. Everybody in the Maritime Provinces knows that the boats of the Royal Canadian Navy are doing inshore service. The member for Guysborough is quite right; the men employed in the fisheries boats under the Naval Department are not at all in any position of danger.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall get that cleared up. I do not want to cover anybody who is not really doing what may properly be described as naval serviice.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I understand that the minister is to pay some attention to the point raised by the member for St. James f Division (Mr. L. A. Lapointe) in' connection with this proposed legislation. Upon the proclamation in connection with the Conscription Bill being published, every man between the ages of 20 and 35, both inclusive, will become a soldier, and, under the Soldiers' Voting Act, will have the right to vote. But a great many of them could never pass the test which must be passed before they can become soldiers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall lay together the texts of the two Bills, and if what the member for St. James Division suggestion may be brought about, I shall take measures so to modify this legislation as to exclude the result that is apprehended.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the proclamation is issued before the election these men become military electors and poll their votes accordingly. But when they come to be examined, many of those who have polled their votes may be pronounced medically unfit, and can never be soldiers. Others may make application, under the law, for exemption. The men exempted have voted, being military voters within the meaning of the law, but they can never be soldiers. Such conditions will arise unless some steps are taken to prevent them. I listened very attentively to everything that was said tonight. As I listened to the various objections and to the answers given, I could not help thinking that the Prime Minister, if he were here, would feel more strongly confirmed than ever in what he said in this House on January 22 last as it appears on page 37 of the revised Hansard. If any hon. gentlemen on this side should say that to take this vote is a practical impossibility, he would find himself backed up by what the Prime Minister said on the occasion referred to. This is what the right hon. gentleman said:
I know something of the conditions at the front, and I venture to put this thought before the House and the country; the men at the front will be not only practically, but actually, disfranchised if an election does take place in this country while they are in the trenches. That is my conviction. I say they would be actually disfranchised because, although I render every tribute to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the committee which had in hand the preparation of the Soldiers' Voting Act of 1915, X am not disposed to think that the arrangements made in that Act or in any other Act that couldl be devised are such as to enable those men to vote, of at least any considerable number of them. You cannot predict what conditions may exist. Suppose an election came on in this country when the fiercest drive of the war was taking place. Do you imagine that the paymasters of those regiments and their commanding officers could busy themselves with handing out ballots to men whose souls were engrossed and whose lives w%re at stake in the enterprise in which they were engaged? There is something more than that. These men at the front have it not in their disposition ; they have it not in their heart or their soul to consider matters of party controversy under the conditions with which they are there confronted. I believe those men would want to put aside any one who came to talk to them about political issues or partisan controversy, under conditions of life or of death, of victory or of defeat such as confront them in the trenches or while making a drive to bring this war to an end. Further than that, there may be perhaps a hundred thousand men not in France. You might be able to have some of those men vote for Government or for Opposition, not for a candidate, as provided in the Act alluded to; but do you imagine that those men who are putting their lives to the supreme test in going overseas to fight for their country, will be greatly interested in political issues, or that they will desire to hear political speeches, or that they will welcome the distribution of partisan literature? I am not saying whether or not these considerations should determine the issue, but I do say that they are considerations that must be taken into account by every member of this Parliament when upon him the responsibility falls as to whether or not there shall be a general election during this war, and I leave it at that.
The Prime Minister argues that it would he impossible with any degree of practicability to take the vote of the soldiers. When the Act of 1915 was before the House

and before the committee I expressed that opinion, and I still hold the view that it would be absolutely impossible with any degree of fairness or justice to take the vote of the soldiers in the manner proposed.
Men have joined regiments and remained with them for a few days or a few months for the purpose of making up the number and starting the battalion. Though not physically fit these men have been allowed to join but they never intended to go overseas. Does the minister think that a man who was not physically fit but who was allowed to join to give the battalion a start should have a vote whereas a man of the same age, 20 years, who is working in a munitions factory, doing excellent work, or who is working in a coal mine, getting out the coal for the manufacture of steel, cannot vote because he is not of age? The man down in the coal mine is more deserving in my judgment than the man who may have been loitering around doing nothing for some weeks in connection with some regiment and who, because he has got the name of being a soldier, is to be entitled to vote. The points taken up by these hon. gentlemen are full of meat and call for the consideration of the minister. I make the broad statement, and I think it will be regarded as, a non-partisan and fair statement, that no man should vote in Canada unless his name is duly on a list somewhere in Canada where he had a right to get his name on the list. If a man who has a right to vote in British Columbia is in Halifax, let his vote be taken there by a proper officer and sent back to British Columbia. I would not take the responsibility of requiring him to go home and vote unless that were considered best although in many cases persons under these circumstances can go home to vote. But I do submit that no man or woman in Canada should be permitted to go to the poll and poll a vote unless the name of that person is properly found on some list. I have always had the notion that the theory of this legislation is that the war should not deprive anybody of a vote who could vote if there were no war. I would not like to see anybody deprived of the right to vote who could have voted if there had been no war, but I am not very much enamoured of the idea that the mere fact that there is a war should qualify people to vote who otherwise are not qualified. Any person who has not yet left Canada has not, in my judgment, qualified himself, to be an elector if he otherwise could not be. It is for that reason 1 say that no man 
should vote in Canada unless his name is properly entered on some list or unless he has a right to vote in some municipal polling division. If the minister will so provide I think he will go a long way toward getting confidence for his Act; that is that no person should vote in Canada unless his name is on some list. Let him make provision that every man who is entitled to vote shall vote and let him make it plain that there shall be no wholesale vote making amongst those who, if there were no war, could not have exercised the franchise. The test should be that no man should be deprived of the franchise who could have voted if there had not been any war. Otherwise, under this Act, you are going to open the door to a class of persons to exercise the franchise because of the war who may never have any interest in this country except that they happen to be in the ranks, many of them because it suits them better than anything else. When the Civil War was on in the United States hundreds of thousands of our young men went to the United States, enlisted and fought because they wanted to get the pa/ and not because we in Canada had any enthusiasm as between the North and South. There are millions of men in this world who are soldiers, that is their business; that is their training. They come to do soldiering for Canada because there is po soldiering going on in any other country that suits them as well, but that dqes not entitle them to claim the right to have a say as to what will happen in this country. The minister was mixing two principles this evening in connection with the franchise. He said that he does not know the difference between a man who is fighting and yet had no residence in Canada and the man who has property in Canada and is a non-resident. The minister knows well that British institutions and law always recognize the right of property, almost as great a right as any which a man can possess. Wherever a man has property he has the right to vote for the purpose of protecting that property. That is why, in the smaller municipal elections, a man owning property in a certain polling district has the right to go and vote and take part in the election of councillor for this district. He has the right to see the man elected who has to deal with his property. That is an underlying principle. The man who has property in the country, if he is a British subject, although residing outside, has the right to come in and vote and to say who shall make the laws govern-

ing that property. But that is entirely different from the man who has no stake in the country, who may come as a professional soldier while the war is on, and who, when the war is over, will leave and will never be seen 'again. I hope the minister will consider some of the points raised by the hon. members to whose remarks I have been addressing myself, and that he will give some attention to the suggestion that people residing in Canada should not be given the right to vote unless they are qualified in some district in which they have a right to be qualified.
Section 2 from line 20 to the end, and section 3, allowed to stand.
On section 4 (election officers, etc.), subsection 1, clause (b), general returning officer:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This reads that
the general returning officer "shall have and perform within the city of Ottawa" certain duties. Would it not be better to say within the Dominion of Canada as in the preceding clause providing for the appointment of the assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The duties of this officer are of a very limited character. He is to receive the returns from all Canada and the returne from overesas and to compile them so as to establish the result of the election in each particular constituency. The intention was that this should be done in Ottawa. He does none of the work that is done by a returning officer in connection with the holding of an election. Under this system no one will know the result in a particular constituency until he has added the results from the different places where the voting takes place, in the constituencies, in the military camps in Canada, and overseas, and has issued his statement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who looks after the polling of the votes at military camps in Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What are called presiding officers, who occupy the role of returning officers in eo far as the direction of the election itself is concerned.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Under the existing law
the ballots, after being marked, are to be returned to the different constituencies and there counted by the returning officer, at which time the candidates or their representatives would have the right to be present. There is no such provision in this Bill. That ie one reason why I object to subclauee 3.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We shall deal with that in due time, in connection with the method of counting under this Bill.


William Manley German: The returns will not
likely be received and made up by the general returning officer at Ottawa for some weeks after the general result of the election throughout Canada is known. There is to be no voting later than eight o'clock on the day of the voting in Canada, but the next morning, throughout Canada generally, the result of the election will be known as usual.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as the Canadian vote is concerned.


William Manley German: Then from all the camps and soldiers' polling places in Canada the returns are sent to Ottawa.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In Canada, yes.


William Manley German: To the returning officer, who retains them. Until he receives the returns from the overseas camps, he makes no calculations.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The returning officer counts them, but he does not do any additions. The counting is dealt with under the next section, the counting by the special returning officer.


William Manley German: But there is no publication by him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, not necessarily.


William Manley German: Can there be as to
what has taken place in Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The result within the constituency will necessarily be known because we have made no modifications of the present position under which, when the ballots are counted in each polling place, the representative of each candidate goes away with the statement of the result of the poll. We do not propose to interfere with that, so that the result, in so far as con'carns the polling which actually takes place in a constituency in Canada, will be known on the night of the election, as the final result in each constituency is presently known. But, of course, it will be impossible to declare anybody elected until you have taken the vote in a particular constituency, have gathered in and counted the votes that may be applicable to that constituency in the camps in Canada, and received the results of the votes taken overseas. All of these will come to this general returning officer. When he has them all he will add them together and announce the result. That is

his function. Th'e details of the counting are attended to by the officers who are to do the counting, but this is done by the general returning officer and that is practically Ms entire office. I do not think it will be possible to get a proper declaration of the result of an election conducted as this one will be in different parts of the world really, unless you have somebody at the head to whom all results are to come and who will announce the effect of the combination of those results. While his office is a very important one, he has a very simple duty to perform.


William Manley German: And in the meantime the results throughout the Dominion of Canada as to close elections in certain constituencies will be well known to the gentleman who has charge of the ballot papers that are being sent from England and France, which may be manipulated by them as they see fit, from the time they leave there until they reach here, and all manner of fraud may be perpetrated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All the ballots would
have to be so manipulated by one gentleman nominated by the leader of the Opposition, and one gentleman nominated by the leader of the Government. There will be no manipulation of the ballots, except by a combination of the representatives of both parties. If the hon. gentleman can suggest something that I can do to make the thing fairer than that, and to prevent manipulation, I shall certainly be very glad to consider it, but I thought I had reached the point where we might safely count that the matter would be dealt with fairly. I do not see what room there is for a general returning officer to do any manipulating. He only gets results from other people but no ballots. He gets reports of those results, which are checked before being sent to him, so far as the overseas vote is concerned, first by telegram and second by registered communication, which passes through the office of the Canadian Commissioner to France, and the secretary of the High Commissioner's Office in London. These reports are transmitted to them, to be transmitted over here, and any possible manipulation on the part of any of those gentlemen would be necessarily known to the special returning officer handing in those returns.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They check them first and then send them to the commissioner in England?


Charles Joseph Doherty: All they hand to him is the statement to be sent over here.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No doubt they keep tab on the statement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They have a record book from which the statement is taken. It is known to members of this House that the Canadian Commissioner in Paris was appointed by the late Government, and we have every confidence in him.
11 p.m. Nothing goes through his hands, or the hands of the secretary in London, except the statement made by the special returning officers who are to be appointed in the manner I indicated a few moments ago.


William Pugsley: I think the minister
will agree with me that this Bill should be framed so that it will be as free as possible from any opportunity for partisanship. There is a provision for certain officials being appointed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, and I think there are two quite important omissions in that regard. I refer to, subsection (c) of section 4-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have not
reached that section yet.
Mr. PiUGSLEY:	Well we are dealing
with the returning officer who is referred to in this subsection. I think the leaders of the two parties should have a voice in the appointment of all the officers who are to administer this Act. It is an Act of extraordinary character. Votes are to be taken under very exceptional circumstances, and I think there is just as much reason for having the Prime Minister and the leader o,f the Opposition agree as to the returning officer, or if by any possibility they could not agree he could be appointed by the Chief Jus.tiee of the Supreme Court of Canada, but I think it would be most unlikely that they could not agree. Then it is provided that the special returning officers shall be appointed, but their duties are confined entirely to the counting, reporting and return of votes. But the presiding officers, who are really to take the place of returning officers in the ordinary election under the Dominion Act, are partisan appointments.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just as all the appointments in Canada are partisan appointments.


William Pugsley: The minister is professing to give to this Bill and to its working out a non-partisan character, bnt in respect to two of the most important appointments he omits that principle entirely as to the

general returning officer and as to the presiding officers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In what respect does the hon. gentleman suggest that there is any danger from the general returning officer being appointed in the usual manner by the Government? We have departed from the general rule under which officials are appointed in a business of this kind because we have been anxious to ensure a perfectly fair contest, but the general returning officer has to perform his functions in Ottawa, and those functions are to consist in receiving returns that are going to be sent in from other people. Those other people are in a perfect position to check what he does. The one thing which it could be suggested that that man could do to affect the result of the election is to falsify the returns. In all frankness, is it fair to suggest that it is necessary, to protect tnis election, that we should, with regard to this officer, depart from the general rule under which officers are appointed by the Government of the day? We have departed from it where there was, as it seemed to us, a possibility of suggesting unfairness, but apparently that did not save us from the suggestion in regard to the appointment of an officer of this description.
I think there is no good reason why we should depart from the ordinary practice of the Government charged with the administration of the affairs of the country to appoint an officer to administer the measure.


William Pugsley: The only reason is the Government is professing to make this Bill non-partisan in its character.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does that mean that we must depart from the ordinary rule of appointment, even when adherence to it can produce no partisan effect? I do want to be fair in this matter, but I do not think I should be asked to do things, that would only on their face be just as the hon. gentleman expresses it, professing to be nonpartisan. To provide that the general returning officer should be appointed by the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Government would be a mere profession on its face. I do not see that I should depart from the general rule, simply to make a greater profession on my part of a desire to be non-partisan.
When it comes down to the real thing of the counting of the ballots, where I can realize the immense importance of securing proper representation, I think I would have been entitled to be considered to be
non-partisan if I had made provision to ensure representation of both parties at that counting. That is all that has been done from time immemorial with regard to counting ballots in this country, but I have gone further, and I have said that this counting shall be done by people nominated by both parties, putting both parties on a footing of perfect quality as regards this essential operation of the counting, which produces the statements which are handed to the General Returning Officer. The one thing the General Returning Officer could do would be to alter the statements, and if he did so, he would at once be confronted with the authors of them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why does the minister call the officers to be appointed under paragraph (c) of section 4, to be nominated jointly by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, special returning officers? That is rather a confusing term.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have had some difficulty in endeavouring to avoid confusion because, of course, we have to duplicate functions. There have to be people on this side who are doing the work of taking the votes, carrying on the election and counting the votes. That is done on this side by returning officers and deputy returning officers. The deputy returning officers do the counting on this side. On the other side, we have to provide some officer to do the counting of the ballots.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That special returning officer does not receive the ballots himself.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, he does not take the vote at all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He is not the presiding officer?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, his function is to count the votes after they come in.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He and his-clerk.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And his clerk has to be of the opposite party.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. We have to divide up the work of the returning officer to meet the conditions. We have an officer that is ca'led a presiding officer. He may be appointed a presiding officer for a camp, or possibly in England, for a section of the country in which there are different camps. He is in the position of a returning officer for a constituency. He will, of course, be

taking votes for numerous constituencies, but he is in the position of a returning officer in the sense that it is for him to set the machinery in motion and to'provide the deputies who are actually to hold the polk and take the votes. He conducts the business of a returning officer so far as providing for the holding of polls and the taking of ballots is concerned. Then he stops. The deputy presiding officers, who are doing the work of deputy returning officers in holding these overseas polls or military polls and who take the votes, make their returns not to each one of those presiding officers, but direct, if the vote is taken in France, to the office of the Canadian Commissioner to Franfce; if the vote is taken in England, to the secretary of the office of the High Commissioner at London. When those two officers have those boxes, they notify those special returning officers, that on a certain day at a certain hour they will hand over to them the boxes they have so received. They convene those special returning officers, and their clerks, and deliver over to them the sealed boxes just as they got- them. The special returning officers, having received those ballot boxes proceed to open them. As I say, eaich special returning officer has a clerk who is the representative of the party or appointed on the nomination of the party other than that which suggested or appointed the special returning officer. When we come to the details of the taking of the vote, we shall see that the ballot, when it is marked, is deposited in an envelope which is sealed. On the back of that envelope is the information that enables him to determine to what constituency it belongs. Those envelopes are sealed an '	'
into the ballot boxes. When those ballot boxes are handed over to the special returning officers by the Secretary of the High Commissioner or the Commissioner in France, they proceed to open the boxes, and their first operation is to assort the envelopes. They do not open the envelope. They do not know anything about the ballot that is in the envelope. They assort the envelopes, guiding themselves by the information that is on the back of the envelope. Having assorted them, they have the result that they have in separate boxes or receptacles of some kind in their possession, or in separate heaps, the envelopes containing 'ballots for each particular constituency. Having done that assorting operation, they proceed to do the counting operation or to do the operation perhaps

of opening the envelopes as a separate operation. It is prescribed that, when they come to open the envelope and take out the ballot, they shall lay that envelope down on the table with the back on which the information is on the table" so that they shall not be-able to connect the ballot with the information on the envelope. They shall open that envelope and drop the ballot just as it stands into the ballot box marked for that constituency. Having done that ooer-ation of opening the envelopes and dropping in all the ballots, they will then open that ballot box, having brought about a condition of affairs in which they will not be able to connect any particular ballot in any particular case with any particular envelope. They will then proceed to count the ballots.
Mr. PUGfSLEY: From my experience in carrying on elections, the most important position and the one in which it is very dangerous to have a partisan officer is that of the presiding officer. In ordinary elections he is called the returning office or the deputy returning officer. Here the name is changed. He is the presiding officer or the deputy presiding officer. The leader of the Opposition has the duty imposed upon him of choosing one-half of these special returning officers, and one-half of the scrutineers. It is now after eleven o'clock. Might I suggest that this section be -allowed to stand so that the leader of the Opposition might be here when it is considered?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Have we, in the ordinary elections, any officer who corresponds with this general returning officer mentioned in paragraph (b)? As I understand it, we have not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, we have not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery does everything except what is done by the ordinary presiding officer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not everything. We need this returning officer, because some one has to make a return saying who is elected. Tne Clerk of the Crown in Chancery does not make a return saying anybody is elected. The returning officer for each' constituency now returns a man as elected to represent that constituency. He cannot do that now, because he only has the votes taken in Canada. We have to gather together in somebody's hands all the votes that apply to a constituency, and have the combined results of these votes

declared by somebody, and that is what the general returning officer is going to do. Under the Act as it stood all ballots would have had to come j^ack from France, be sorted by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and sent by him to the returning officers in each constituency. However that might have worked out when you were dealing with 30,000 or 50,000 ballots, and under transportation conditions as they existed at that time, I think it is obvious that at the present moment to make the taking of 350,000 or 400,000 ballots dependent upon those ballots being safely transported across the seas to be sorted and counted here, would be a very unwise thing. It is to obviate the difficulties and the unsafety of that method that we are providing this machinery for counting the ballots overseas. Of course, the ballots will all be sent over here eventually, to be available in case of contestation. The reason why we have this general returning officer is that he may be a sort of clearing house. We aTe sending everything in to him, and he will be able to return that a particular man was elected for a particular constituency, because he has all the results from all the different sources.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would it not be
better for the local returning officers to make the returns? If you are going to have only one returning officer for the whole Dominion, you are going to have a lot of diflieulty. Why should not the man who will receive all the overseas votes communicate to the returning officer in my constituency, or in any other constituency, the total votes, and let the local officer make the return?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not see what advantage is to be gained by that additional operation. The returning officer in Canada is directing an election in a constituency in Canada only so far as the votes in Canada are concerned. Other men are directing it so far as the votes in France are concerned, other men are directing it so far as the votds in England are concerned, and other men are directing it so far as the votes in Bermuda are concerned. By this operation we gather together the results from all the different sources, and the man who has received them all proclaims the result. Personally, if anybody wants it, and can suggest what gain can possibly come from it, I have no objection to providing for this additional trouble, namely, that the man who has received all these results shall send them back to the men from whom part of these results came,
in order that they may make the proclamation.


William Manley German: Why not let the information be sent direct to the returning officer in each constituency?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It must be remembered that the results will not come in for more than a month after the returning officer in Canada has done everything that he is called upon to do. If any hon. gentleman can point out the advantage in making the man on the other side make 234 separate packages, and send them to 234 individual men over here, rather than have him send all the returns to one man, I shall be glad to consider the suggestion, but I must confess that my impression is at the moment that the suggestion is made only for the purpose of suggesting something different from what is in the Bill.


William Pugsley: Would the minister consider the question of allowing the leader of the Opposition to have a voice in the appointment of the presiding officers?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I made the suggestion on the first reading of the Bill that we should make better progress if it was referred to a special committee. It will take two weeks to get the Bill through the House in this way, and I think it would facilitate the passage of the Bill to have it referred to a special committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have given some
thought to that suggestion, and have consulted with the Prime Minister and my colleagues about it, and I think perhaps our little experience this afternoon goes to justify the plan we adopted. This Bill is one with regard to which it is to be expected that many hon. gentlemen will have suggestions to make, and it would not perhaps be quite fair to them, or in the interests of the improvement and perfection of the Bill, that they should not be afforded an opportunity of making those suggestions. In the first place, I think that is a sufficient reason why we should not withdraw the Bill from Committee of the Whole. In the second place, I think it would lead one to the conclusion that after a special committee had dealt with the Bill we should have to submit it to the House to give hon. gentlemen an opportunity of making their suggestions. Might I make this suggestion? If a few gentlemen from the other side of the House would be good enough to join with two or three that we might name on thi3 side, we might in a perfectly informal way carry on simultaneously

same little examination of the Bill and some little discussions that would not interfere with the progress of the Bill in the House, but might on the other hand expedite it.


William Pugsley: The leader of the Opposition will have to have an opportunity of thinking over this suggestion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that the General Returning Officer receives the results from overseas and also from the different constituencies in Canada. He is, in fact, the real returning officer. Does he also receive from the returning officers of the election held in Canada as well? Is he the real returning officer?


Charles Joseph Doherty: For the purpose of proclaiming who is elected, he is the real returning officer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill does not read that way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have not defined
his duties as yet/
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty for the adjournment of the House:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: May I ask the Minister of Justice, who is leading the House, if we are to have a general franchise Act this session? It is rumoured that there is to be such a Bill. If so, is it likely to be presented to the House shortly, and what is its nature?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to make an announcement on that subject this evening. I shall submit the hon. gentleman's question to the Prime Minister; perhaps we may hope for an answer to it to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11 30 p.m.
Tuesday, August 21, 1917.