1918-05-22

RETURN OF MEMBER FOR YUKON.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the elecJ tion and return of Alfred Thompson, Esq., for the electoral district of the Yukon.



COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE-SUPPLY OF LABOUR.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. C. Henders (Macdonald) presented the following report from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization:
Your Committee have had before them for further consideration the question of labour in connection with agriculture, and how it best can be applied until the end of the war. Sub-committees appointed to consider the matter have gone very carefully into it, as well as other matters of equal importance, and have made their several reports which your Committee adopted and agreed to report the same herewith for the information of the House.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved that the Orders in Council laid on, the table of the House on the 2nd April, 1918, be concurred in. He said: The Orders in Council which have been issued and laid, on the Table form a long list of two pages. They are formal to a certain extent, but the law requires that these Orders in Council when passed shall be laid on the table of the House within a certain time. I think they are not law until they are so laid on the Table of the House, and thereafter if approved by the House.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: These Orders in Council, as I understand the law, have

to fee submitted to the House and ratified by the House.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: So I would
suggevst that my hon. friend allow his motion to stand until to-morrow.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Stand.


OFFICIALS OF THE HOUSE.
George Green Foster: That the recommendation of his honour the Speaker, laid upon the Table of the House on the 21st instant, respecting the appointment of Mr. Marcel Gabard to the position of official reporter of the Debates of the House of Commons, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of Order in Council P.C. 1129 dated 11th May, 1918, Amendments of Defence of Canada, Order 1917, section 22A re Ships' Lights.-Hon. Mr. Ballantyne.
Copy of Order in Council P.C. 1102, dated 10th May, 1918, Amendments of Defence of Canada, 1917, section 23C, rc Fitting and Supplying Vessels registered in Canada with defensive armaments.- Hon. Mr. Ballantyne.
Annual Report of the Trade of Canada, 1917.-Sir George Foster.
Return of amounts paid the Toronto Globe and the Toronto 'Star respectively from January 1, 1917, and April 1, 1918, for all services between said dates.-Hon. Martin Burrell.
Return of quantity of bran, shorts or mill feed exported to the United States by and without license between August 1, 1917, and February 2, 1918; also the firms in Canada to which licenses have been granted and the quantity in each case.-Hon. Martin Burrell.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Bill No. 112, respecting the election held in the electoral district of Yukon, was introduced and read the first time.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall said Bill be read a second time-now?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Next sitting of the
House.


BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.
He said: This is a .very simple amendment, but it is considered of very great importance from the point of view of the banking business of the country. It is to amend the present provision to the effect that no protest of a bill of exchange can take place until three o'clock in the afternoon by substituting half-past two. It is represented by the bankers generally that as a result of the large number of their employees who have been called away for military service, it is very difficult for them indeed to have the necessary work after the closing hour of the bank done in the day by the employees who are with them, and that it would mitigate that inconvenience very greatly if it were possible for them to close hanking hours at half-past two instead of three o'clock. If the House would be disposed to give consent to the introduction of the Bill without notice- which, of course, would imply the waiving of the rules as to the different readings-
I would beg for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act. Of course, I understand that if it cannot be dealt with in that way, it cannot be dealt with at all.
Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that the Bill of which my hon. friend has given notice of his intention to introduce, is, as represented, a very important one. It has been represented to me also that the banking staffs have been so depleted by the necessities of the military service that it is impossible for them to do their work within the usual hours. Therefore the Bill becomes a public necessity. It can inconvenience nobody. It is simply to provide that bills of exchange may be protested at half-past-two instead of three o'clock.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Does it make halfpast two the closing hour of the banks?


Mr. DOHERTY:: That would be the practical effect.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT. EXTENSION OF LEAVE TO BANK CLERKS.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: I desire to ask the Government, in view of

the reply given the farmers regarding the exemption of their sons of ages twenty, twenty-one and twenty-two, if it is true that an arrangement has been made whereby bank clerks of these same ages, who *were to report for military service on June. 1, or July 1, have been granted exemption up to January 1, 1919, and if it be true that the reason for granting such exemption to these bank clerks is that these boys will be required to help in the next Victory Loan?


George Green Foster: The Minister of Militia is not at present in his seat. 1 will confer with him, and give my hon. friend the informatipn he asks for at the earliest possible moment.


Charles Murphy: Later in the day?


George Green Foster: Yes.


ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
Samuel Hughes: In The Ottawa Journal this morning I observe two articles, I do not propose to read them, pointing out a charge that in the Naval Service Department the Military Service Act has not been properly administered. I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the Government to this matter.


George Green Foster: In what respect?


Samuel Hughes: That officers are exempted who should go. The articles speak for themselves. I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the Government to this fact, that nothing will break up the Military Service Atet quicker than any attempt not to give even-handed justice all round.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard
to the same subject of the application of the Military Service Act, the Minister .of Militia some days ago informed the House that conscripts would be allowed leave of absence to complete seeding. I have to represent to the Government that at the present time in certain parts of the province of Quebec, and I presume also in the Maritime Provinces, seeding is now at its most active period. Men are bein" required to report at Ottawa, coming say from the county of Labelle, which compels these men to travel via Montreal necessitating four days to make the trip. This, of course, means that they lose very valuable time in the seeding season. I call the attention of my right hon. friend to the matter.


George Green Foster: I shall consult with the Minister of Militia with respect to this matter, which is one of detail, and information will be given later on in the day.


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Naval Service):: In answer to the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) in reference to the editorial that appeared in this morning's Journal, respecting a clerk in the Department of the Naval Service, I wish to say that I 'shall have the matter very carefully looked into, and I shall be glad to-morrow, or possibly this afternoon, to give the hon. member the information for which he asks.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle):: Is it the intention of the Government to have the only support of a widowed mother, and the only son of a family, exempted from military service? Is it also the intention of the Government to send new instructions to the registrars, especially to the registrar of Military District No. 3, where farmers and sons of farmers have been called up at the same time as men from the cities and towns? I am speaking particularly of the county of Labelle, where hundreds of farmers have been called up at the same time as men from the -cities and towns, and have been obliged to report, and have actually reported, to the great detriment of the farming interests of that county?


George Green Foster: I shall have to make to my hon. friend the same answer as I made in regard to the other two questions. When I have an opportunity to see the Minister of Militia, I shall draw his attention to the question, and the information will be given later on.


PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE- MEMBER TO VOTE WHEN IN CHAMBER.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, by your leave I want to call your attention to a point'of parliamentary procedure which was called to your attention yesterday, but on which you did not give any ruling. Your attention was called to the fact that the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) did not record his vote. The rule of the House is that, if the Speaker's attention is drawn to the fact that a member did not vote, the Speaker will call upon him to record his vote. I was quite familiar with the rule, but I did not have it under my hand, and it would' have taken some time to find it. As the House was rather im-

patient, I thought I would defer the matter until to-day. In Bourinot, fourth edition, at page 381, there is this statement:
If a member of the Commons who has heard the question put does not vote and the attention of the Speaker is directed to the fact, the latter will call upon him to declare on which side he votes; and his name will be recorded accordingly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question had not
previously arisen in my experience as a member of the House or as Speaker. I am inclined to the belief that the authority as cited ihy 'the right hon. member has reference to the practice in the British House of Commons. I am not at the moment in a position to give a positive, considered decision upon the point of order, but I shall take the earliest opportunity of consulting the authorities and of advising the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are not many such cases, 'but I recollect one case which the rule was applied. I do not know if. the Minister of Trade and Commerce recollects it. I cannot state the precise occasion, but the division was that rule applies in Canada as well as in Great Britain.


MARINE TRADES STRIKE IN MONTREAL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Wilfrid Laurier: Has the Minister of Labour any information to give to the House in regard to the strike in Montreal?


Hon. Mr. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: The leader of the Opposition yesterday asked me concerning a labour dispute in the firm of Fraser, Brace Company, Montreal. I was not at that time prepared to give him a detailed statement of the situation. I find that we were advised Monday evening of the strike, and we at once instructed cur fair-wage officer there to take the matter up. He had succeeded in setth'ng a similar dispute with the Canadian Vickers Company, and getting an agreement signed. We are now advised that the only point in dispute with the Fraser, Brace Company is that while they have agreed by word of mouth to adopt the substance of the agreement made with the Canadian Vickers Company, they have refused to sign an agreement to. that effect. That is the only matter that is left unsettled. Our man is doing the best he can to effect an agreement.


Wilfrid Laurier: Have the men yet resumed work?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think not.


THE WINNIPEG STRIKE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: As the newspapers announce that a member of the Government has gone to Winnipeg in connection with the strike there, I would like to ask if the Minister of Labour has any information to give to the House in regard to the matter.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have nothing from Winnipeg this morning except what appears in the public press. I have had for several days two influential labour leaders working in co-operation with the civic committee and the members of the city council, and I am in hopes that they will succeed in effecting an adjustment. The last advice I had from one of them was yesterday morning when he said that progress was slow, but that he had hopes they would succeed in reaching a satisfactory settlement.


Charles Murphy: Where is that co-operation in progress-here or in Winnipeg?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In Winnipeg.


RESOLUTION RE SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: I do not know whether I am in order or not, but there is on the Order Paper a resolution, No. 4, standing in my name. I do not expect that resolution will be reached during this session, and I wish to drop it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not competent for the hon. member to do so except on motion of the leader of the Government. It would be advisable for the hon. member to confer with him.


CIVIL PAY OF CIVIL SERVANTS ' OVERSEAS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Council):: The Prime Minister stated yesterday that an announcement would be made to-day with reference to the civil pay of civil servants serving overseas, and I now wish to read to the House the operative part of an Order in Council passed on the 21st of May dealing with this matter. The members of the House will recall that there are three classes into which the civil servants who are now serving with the military forces might be divided: Those who went overseas in the early part of the war received both their civil pay and their
2.386

military pay. At a later day an Order in Council was passed providing that those who enlisted after that date should receive whichever pay was the larger of the two, civil or military, and then, when the Military Service Act came into operation, an Order in Council was passed providing that civil servants enlisting after that date would receive their military pay only. By the Order in Council of the 5th of April, 1918, those Orders in Council were all modified so as to provide that, after the date fixed in that Order in Council, civil servants would receive only their military pay. The present Order in Council repeals the last Order in Council and substitutes the following provisions:
1.	The above mentioned Orders in Council- Those are, the first Order in Council which provided for both civil and military pay for those who enlisted in the earlier part of the war; the second Order in Council which provided for the larger pay of the two for those who enlisted subsequently, and the third Order in Council which provided simply for the military pay:
1.	The above-mentioned Orders in Council shall continue to apply in respect of any person in the civil employment of the Government absent upon service with the forces of His Majesty or of any of His Miajesty's Allies and who
(a)	is now serving in any theatre of actual war outside of the United Kingdom, so long as so serving, or
(b)	is now or who may be hereafter in the United Kingdom and who has served1 in such theatre of actual war outside thereof and is there detained by reason of wounds or disease received or contracted in such service, so long as so detained, or
(c)	is now or who may be hereafter in the United Kingdom and who has served in such theatre of actual war outside thereof and has suffered from wounds or disease received or contracted in such service and is undergoing preparation in a reserve battalion for return to said theatre of actual war, or
(d)	is now in the United Kingdom and who has served in such theatre of actual war outside thereof for at least one year and has been brought back to the United Kingdom for military duty and is still required for military duty there.
2.	A prisoner of war shall he deemed to be serving in a theatre of actual war outside of the United Kingdom and shall come within the provision of Clause (a) of section 1 of this Order.
3.	All other persons in the civil employment of the Government absent upon service with the forces of His Majesty shall from and after the 15th day of-July, 1918, receive only military pay, anything in the above recited Orders in Council to the contrary notwithstanding.
4.	Any person in the civil employment of the Government absent upon service with the forces of His Majesty, or any of His Majesty's Allies, shall be entitled upon the conclusion of the latter service, to be restored to his position

in the civil employment of the Government, if he remains qualified to discharge the duties appertaining to that position.
5.	The Order in Council of April 5th, 1918, (P. C. 811) is hereby revoked and cancelled.
The net result of this Order in 'Council is to continue the existing Orders in Council in force in respect of all civil servants now serving in the forces of His Majesty or His Majesty's Allies except those in Canada and those in the United Kingdom who have not seen real service at the front.


Wilfrid Laurier: Those who are at the front continue to receive their civil pay?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, and also those who have been wounded at the front and are in hospitals in Great Britain; those who have been wounded and have been discharged from hospital and are preparing to return to the front, and those who have served a year at the front and are now in the United Kingdom on military duty and are required to remain there.
. Sir SAM HUGHES: Is this a new Order in Council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, repealing the one passed on the 5th of April.


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest,
for various reasons, that the word " honourable " be placed before the word "wounds" in the Order in Council so that it will read " honourable wounds or disease."


Mr. BUREAU:: How many men who enlisted with the direct promise of the Government that they would receive both their civil and their military pay will be affected by this Order in Council? How many will he deprived of their civil pay and how many will continue to receive both civil and military pay as was' promised them by the Government when they enlisted?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think about 1,500 enlisted and came under the operation of the first Order in Council entitling them to receive both civil and military pay. I should think that the great majority of these will, under this Order in Council, continue to receive both civil and military pay. If they do not, it is because they are serving in Canada or Great Britain and have not served at the front for a definite period. The order clearly covers all who have rendered real service at the front.


Jacques Bureau: That is not an answer to my question. Knowing the great care with which everything is done by the President of the Council, I want, to know how many

men will be affected by this order? It is the number that I want to get at.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I remind the House
that we are on the Orders of the Day, I have allowed extreme latitude to hon. members in the putting of questions and even entering upon a discussion, owing to the fact that we are approaching the end of the session. But there is a limit to all things, and I ask hon. gentlemen not to widen the breach unduly.


Jacques Bureau: 1 did not intend to infringe on the rules. It is only the shiftiness of the President of the Council, who refuses to .answer, that causes the insistence.


THE ANTI-LOAFER LAW.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. R. Ma.VfiASTKR (Broime):	I desire to direct the attention of the Government to an abuse which is occurring in connection with one of the numerous Orders in Council-'that whereby the idle are to be impressed into work. It has come to my attention that in Montreal recently the police have been rounding up those idlers, and, among them, have taken in the net a number of returned soldiers who have only lately come back from the front. It would appear to be just that these men should not be regarded in that fashion; that if they have recently returned from the front they should be allowed to remain idle for a few weeks without subjecting themselves to the danger of being put in jail and herded with criminals and other undesirable idlers. Instructions might be given to those who are enforcing this Order in Council that soldiers recently returned from the front should be given a few weeks' grace, so to speak, in which to readjust themselves.
Charles Joseph Doherty: It is regrettable if mistakes are made by those charged with the enforcement of this law, as of all laws generally, and if innocent persons, such as returned soldiers, are arrested. I may point out, however, that the enforcement of this law, as of all laws of that nature rests in the hands of provincial, and, through their delegated powers, of municipal authorities. If the police of Montreal are exercising any undue zeal or making mistakes of that kind, it is a matter to which the attention of those in authority over them might very well be called. I shall make inquiry, however, whether there does exist on the part of these gentlemen any such undue zeal, or whether any action has been taken by them that it would be proper to draw to the attention of those in authority over them.


CANCELLATION OF SEPARATION ALLOWANCE AND ASSIGNED PAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth):: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Militia to a matter of public importance respecting the policy of his department. A soldier overseas, on the complaint of his wife, who lives in this country, was charged with bigamy and was sentenced 'by the overseas authorities to two years' imprisonment. I wish to read a letter which his wife received from General J. H. Langton. -I am purposely omitting the names, hut I want to read the letter so that the minister will havei-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If this is an individual case I would suggest that the hon. member send the letter to the Minister of Militia in the ordinary course and have the matter attended to in that way. No question of policy is involved?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: With all due deference, I submit that an important question of policy is involved. The Government have cancelled the separation allowance and assigned pay of this woman and her children because her husband happened to make a mistake. If that is not a matter of public importance I do not know what is. I should like the Minister of Militia and Defence to make a note of it and let the woman have her pay and allowance.


THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. R. DuTREMBLAY (Laurier-Outre-mont):	I would ask the Government
whether military police have been substituted for federal police in the rounding up of draftees in the district of Montreal. 1 have been informed that an Order in Council has been passed transferring this work from the Department of Justice to the Department of Militia and Defence.
Charles Joseph Doherty: There has been no such Order in Council as my hon. friend mentions.


PURCHASE OF FARM TRACTORS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Agriculture) :: A few days iago the leader of the Opposition inquired if there had been any report from the Hon. Mr. Dunning in respect to the purchase of farm tractors through the Canada Food Board. While no formal report has been made, Mr. Dunning has orally reported the results of this work The who'e one thousand tractors purchased have been sold, and a few additional ones have been secured to till orders that have come in over and above the one thousand. The reports we have received from the district where a good many of these tractors have been in operation are to the effect that they are proving satisfactory.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would suggest that it would be well for the House to have a full report as to the application of the money expended.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall be glad to have such a report prepared and submitted. The tractors have been mainly distributed' in Ontario and the three prairie provinces.


CIVIL PAY OF CIVIL SERVANTS OVERSEAS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Newton Wesley Rowell: In reply to the bon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau)
I have no further information beyond what I have given as to the number of men who would come under this Order in Council. The fullest possible information has been given my hon. friend, and may I thank him for the courteous and characteristic way in which he is in the habit of putting his questions?


Jacques Bureau: It is very easy for my hon. friend to say that he does not know the number, instead of telling the House how many men will come under the Order in Council. The hon. gentleman, by simply repeating what he has already said, implies that I did not understand him, which I did. I thank him for his reference to my courtesy, and will have the pleasure of calling again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT. REPRESENTATIONS PROM THE FARMERS. On the Orders of the Day:


John Allister Currie: In common, I suppose, with other hon. mem-
bers, I have received many telegrams from the farming community which would lead cne to suppose there is going to be some modification of the recent Order in Council drafting young men between the ages of twenty and twenty-two inclusive. These communications urge us to bring pressure to bear on the Government, the farmers apparently having the idea that there is to be some modification of the Order in Council. 1 would ask the leader of the Government if that is so or not, so that we can answer these communications intelligently.


George Green Foster: Just as soon as information on tne question preferred by my hon. friend can be given, it will be announced to the House. The matter is under the consideration of the Government.


VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND JOURNALS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Wilfrid Laurier: May I remind my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that yesterday he presented the report of the special committee appointed to consider and report upon the question of consolidating the Votes and Proceedings and the Journals of the House of Commons.
I would remind my hon. friend that if he does not make some motion with regard to it, the report will simply be pigeon-holed.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
/Bill No. 107, to incorporate the United Canadian Insurance Company-.Sir Herbert Ames-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-incorporation :
Jacques Bureau: May I ask the Chairman of the Banking and Commerce Committee, to which this Bill was referred, to give an explanation?


Sir HERBERT AMES:: By the unanimous consent of the House, in order to ensure the passing of this Bill, it has been placed on the Orders of to-day, It was passed by the Banking and Commerce Committee this morning, having been unduly delayed because of the necessity of changing the name of the company as it first appeared asking for incorporation, namely, the British Canadian Insurance Company, as that name had

already been, appropriated by a company authorized by the legislature of the province of Quebec. Hon. members who were in this House four or five years ago will remember that there was what might be called a model or standard Insurance Bill passed by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and afterwards ratified by this House, and since that time the condition has always been imposed upon any company desiring incorporation that their Act of Incorporation should conform with the model or standard Bill. The Bill before us does not deviate by a single word from the model Bills which we have passed through this House on many occasions during the last two or three years incorporating new insurance companies. The only thing that would strike any one is the fact that section 1 incorporates a firm of Ottawa lawyers as an insurance company.
Owing to the illness of one of the incorporators and the difficulty of getting the signatures, it was found impossible to get the signatures of the men who are really behind this Bill in time for it to pass this session. I am informed that the real promoters of the Bill are H. S. Durkee, P. F. Wright, J. Kendall, O. S. Wood, and A. G. Creelman, all well known citizens of Vancouver, whose signatures could not be obtained in time. Consequently, the formality has been adopted of putting the Bill through in the name of the firm in which Mr. W. L. Scott, K.C., is a chief member. That was the only point of criticism. The Banking and Commerce Committee and the department were satisfied on that point and the Bill was unanimously passed this morning without amendment.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that this incorporation is sought to replace another company and was there any objection to the name? Do I also understand that there was no objection before the Banking and Commerce Committee and that it went through unanimously?


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. member (Mr. Bureau) does not quite understand what happened. The Bill, as it was first passed in the Senate was to incorporate the British Canadian Insurance Company. Before the Senate it was pointed out that there was already a company under that name that had been incorporated by the Legislature of Quebec. Objection coming from that source, the original promoters of this Bill undertook to alter their name. That has caused the delay. This Bill would
have been through the House before this had it not been for that fact.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman (Sir Herbert Ames), who is the chairman of the committee, be good enough to give us any (reason why the House should take up this Bill without a copy of it in our hands or any other information?
I do not think this Bill should go on for a second.


Herbert Brown Ames: Copies of the Bill are procurable and may be distributed if desired.


Samuel Hughes: I think these gentlemen ought to know what the rules are with regard to signatures and, if they have not got them in, this House should not be asked to adopt the procedure that is proposed here.


Herbert Brown Ames: The main object of the Bill is to incorporate this company to enable it to do hail insurance before the present heavy crop in the western provinces is subject to danger of destruction by hail.


Samuel Hughes: I thought these gentlemen came from Vancouver?


Herbert Brown Ames: That is the excuse offered for asking that this company be immediately incorporated. I understand from the promoters that there is British capital ready to be placed behind the company to the necessary extent to enable them to do a bail insurance business.


Samuel Hughes: I thought this was a Vancouver company?


Herbert Brown Ames: It is.


Samuel Hughes: What has it to do with crops?


Herbert Brown Ames: There is no reason why any Vancouver, Toronto, or Halifax company should not be incorporated to do hail insurance or many other lines of insurance in the Dominion. The members of the committee understand that there is a great variety of insurance business, and that when a new insurance company is incorporated, it as compelled to indicate the order in which it shall do the different classes of insurance; for instance the first, the second, the third, the fourth and so on. It is compelled to have a certain amount of capital subscribed and a certain amount of capital paid up before it can undertake the first class of insurance business, a certain amount of capital paid up before it can undertake the second class of insurance,

and so on with regard to the third and the fourth classes of business. A company oftentimes does six or eight different kinds of business, and it increases the amount of subscribed capital and the amount paid up in proportion to the increase and extent of the business carried on. This company, at present, desires to engage in hail insurance. It will be extended, if it can secure the necessary capital, .to fire insurance, cyclone insurance, and other classes of insurance. The promoters are anxious to be incorporated early so that the company can take advantage of the very large crops which are expected in the West, to engage in hail insurance.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is this company now doing any other insurance than hail insurance?


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman will find that in clause 5 of the Bill.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have just got a copy of the Bill now.


Herbert Brown Ames: My hon. friend will find that it is incorporated to do ten classes of insurance, one after another as its capital and deposits increase.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether or not there are companies in the West doing what is known as an exclusive hail insurance business? If so, I would like to know whether he thinks it is fair to put in competition with them a company dealing in various classes of insurance. The reason I ask that question is that complaints have come from well known insurance companies that American insurance companies have come into this country and employed the profits they are making on ~ other branches of insurance to enable them to give lower rates than the Canadian insurance companies can give for hail or weather insurance. I just raise the point as to whether there would be anything unfair in that clause as affecting the rights of thoroughly weather and hail insurance companies operating in the west.


Herbert Brown Ames: I am informed by the promoters of the Bill that the first board of directors will all be Canadians and that the shareholders will be Canadians and persons residing in Great Britain, where they expect to secure a por-t;on of their capital. As to the other question of hail insurance, perhaps some of the ministers, from the West, probably the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar), or the hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton), or the hon. the Min-
ister of Immigration (Mr. Calder), could explain better than I about hail insurance in the West.


Samuel Hughes: Do I understand that this company is now in existence and has been carrying on business in any of these capacities?


Herbert Brown Ames: No.


Samuel Hughes: I think it is most extraordinary that a firm of lawyers in the city of Ottawa should get a charter like this. What is to prevent them from going out into the open market and selling or hawking about that charter? It is a very peculiar transaction and I do not think the House should agree to it.


Herbert Brown Ames: We were assured in the committee this morning by Mr. W. L. Scott, who is a well known and responsible lawyer of the city of Ottawa, that he had no direct interest in it further than a lawyer working for his clients, that he had no intention of selling the charter or doing anything of the kind, and that he was securing it for these gentlemen whom I have mentioned at their request. He put before the committee proof of the fact that he was acting merely for them in his capacity as a parliamentary agent.


Samuel Hughes: Did he show urgent need for this Bill?


Herbert Brown Ames: He convinced the committee to that effect.


Mr. FIELDING:: Do the rules of the House require the signatures of the applicants for a charter?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it not possible to get by telegraph the authority of these gentlemen to use their names?


Herbert Brown Ames: That authority was put before the committee this morning in the form of telegrams from Vancouver. The signatures of these five gentlemen whom I have mentioned wea-e all in the petition and everything is perfectly regular as fir as that is concerned. We were shown this morning telegrams from these five gentlemen that I spoke of, authoiizing the use of their names as directors and shareholders of the company.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Herbert Brown Ames: There would be no objection if the House deems it adv.sab'e to put in the names of the five Canadian gentlemen whose names I have given. That was discussed in the committee this morning, the only objection being that it would require the Bill to go back to the Senate, and it might possibly fall by the wav'side before prorogation. It would be quite in order for the House to insert the names of the five gentlemen, thus making ten altogether, of whom five, at least, are well known Canadian citizens.


William Stevens Fielding: It is the practice in the case of letters patent under the Joint Stock Companies' Act for solicitors to take out charters and only the names of the solicitors, their clerks and stenographers are used. But I think that in the case of a parliamentary application it has generally been considered advisable that the real promoters of the enterprise should have their names in the Bill. J have no doubt that the proceeding is all right, and I am quite sure that the name of Mr. Scott is a guarantee of good faith, but if the names of the real promoters were put in the Bill it would .be desirable. I do not say any more than that.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that
facts have been brought out this morning that were not disclosed before the Banking and Commerce Committee. The statement that the chairman has given about a change in the name of the company was never presented to the Banking and Commerce Committee.
Sir HERBERT AMiES:	Yes, it was.
Sir S.AIM HUGHES:	I am informed it
was not.


Herbert Brown Ames: Everything mentioned by me this morning was brought out before the Banking and Commerce Committee.


Mr. NESBIITT:: What is complained of may be irregular, but it is a very common practice in taking out letters patent and no harm has resulted from it, and no harm will result in any event. I did not raise any objection in the Banking and Commerce Committee and I do not propose to do so now. I do not see why the Bill should be delayed at all for the reasons assigned.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Samuel Hughes: No, lost.


Georges Henri Boivin: Carried.
On section 2-Provisional directors.


Samuel Hughes: Surely, Mr. Chairman, you are going to accept the proposition of the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) in regard to the substitution of these gentlemen's names. It is a very dangerous practice to insert the name of a firm of lawyers into a Bill in the manner proposed. This jobbing in parliamentary charters is an old practice round Ottawa, and I certainly think it should not be encouraged by this House in the closing hours of the session. The crop might be hailed out anyway before these gentlemen are ready to operate this year, and we may possibly save money by not passing this Bill. It strikes me, and has always done so, that proceedings such as this at the tail-end of the session are very peculiar- they resemble a deathbed repentance. I think this Bill should stand over until next session, and. in any event the names of the other gentlemen interested should be added. I would go further and say substitute their names for the names of the lawyers which appear in the Bill. The lawyers in question form a large firm and it takes a lot to keep them going.


Mr. CALDER:: I might say that, speaking for the province of Saskatchewan, in so far as hail insurance is concerned, it does not make any difference whether this Bill goes through or not. If the Bill passes, the provincial authorities will see to it that the company is properly organized, has the proper standing, and afford the necessary capital proper security before they will allow it to do business in that province.


Samuel Hughes: That is the rule of all the provinces.


James Alexander Calder: It is the rule in Saskatchewan, and I understand it is also the rule in the province of Alberta. In some of the western provinces they have had somewhat unfortunate experiences with regard to these hail insurance companies, as a result of which the law was put into such shape that no company can do business unless it has proper standing and provides the proper security.
On.section 6-increase of capital-


Samuel Hughes: Has the Minister of Immigration and Colonization read clause 6 of the Bill, and is he satisfied with it?


James Alexander Calder: I have not seen the Bill.


Samuel Hughes: It strikes me that the increase of capital provided for in that clause for each line of business is rather light.


Herbert Brown Ames: The increases are such as .appear in other Bills that have been adopted, with 'the single exception of burglary insurance, where the capital is made $20,000 instead of $10,000, since the liability is regarded as slightly greater than it would otherwise 'be. With that exception, the increases are the same as have been granted in the case of about a score of other Bills.


John Allister Currie: I agree with what has
been said 'by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, and I would like to say further that this Bill does not seem to have been distributed to all the members. I also wish to call the attention of the Clerk of the House to the fact that the Printing Bureau appears to have sent an insufficient number of Bills and papers to the House in certain .cases. For example, the other day when the Supplementary Estimates arrived there were not sufficient to place a copy of each in the box of each member, as custom and usage requires. In the present case there are apparently only a few copies of the Bill obtainable, and there has not been one placed on my file. If, as has been stated, this Bill was at first given a wrong, title, the proper procedure would have 'been to send the petition to the committee, where the change could have been made and the Rill would then go through in proper form. I have in mind the case of a number of gentlemen in British Columbia who got into trouble over an insurance Bill, in consequence of which the Bill in question was- thrown out by the committee. I would like to know whether those gentlemen are associated with this Bill, and if so, whether they are trying to get through an objectionable Bill in the dying hours of the session? If we are going to adhere to parliamentary procedure I think the objections raised to this Bill will be fatal to it. Had the proper procedure been adopted in respect to this Bill the names of the promoters would have remained on it. Instead of that the Bill was withdrawn for some reason, and a new measure introduced, which contains the names of certain lawyers. I hardly think that is fair to the House.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman is under a slight misapprehension in this matter. This Bill was considered by the Private Bills 'Committee and the Banking and Commerce Committee of the Senate when it was pointed out that the name of this company had been already used in another case. The Banking and Commerce Committee of 'the Senate thereupon arranged 
for a new title and reported to the Senate that it was advisable to have the existing name changed. That necessarily caused some delay in the Bill coming from the *Senate and accounts for it arriving here at a somewhat late period. When the Bill reached this House-its title was exactly as printed, " United Canadian Insurance Company " (E2). There has not been any change in a word or a syllable of the Bill since it first appeared in this House.
Mr. OURR'IE: What is the reason the names of the original promoters do not appear on the Bill?


Herbert Brown Ames: The names of the original promoters were not attached to the original petition, owing to the illness of the person to whom that petition was entrusted,
* when it was presented to the Senate in sufficient time to appear in the Bill. This is the explanation that is given to us. >
I may say that the Banking and Commerce Committee were unanimously satisfied of the bona fides of Mr. W. L. Scott and his associates and felt that there would be no danger in granting a Bill of this character. It was shown to us that there was very urgent need of additional hail insurance facilities in the western provinces this summer, where the crop is the largest and most valuable ever put in the ground; and that it would be advisable to permit another company to do business there this summer along these lines.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It strikes me that this very important Bill comes to us in a very hasty way, and at a time when we are not able to give very much consideration to it. It may have been very seriously considered in the Senate, and it may be all right. But the insurance business is a very important business, second to banking, I suppose, perhaps the most important business that any body of men are permitted to carry on in this country. When we are authorizing people to carry on insurance business in this country, we should know something about it. I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance in whose department these matters particularly lie, if he is satisfied that this concern is a strong, reliable set of men, and that if busineess is (put in their hands the interests of the country are safe? The hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization has suggested a point of law on whieh I am not at all satisfied. He says that there is a guarantee for the people of Alberta against the operations of such companies by reason of the protections that local laws give them.

As ^ lawyer, I am not satisfied that the local legislature could estop an insurance company chartered by this House from doing business in the province of Alberta. If there is/ a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to that effect I shall be very glad to hear it. But it strikes me that there is no jurisdiction in the local legislature to estop the operations of a corporation chartered to do business by this House all over the country. There may be, but I am not familiar with it. And if that is the only protection which the people of Alberta and the different provinces have, I am not satisfied. And I am not satisfied that sufficient time has been given to this Bill. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) that there is no such haste about it, and that this Bill could very well stand over.


Samuel Hughes: I do not want to hold up the Bill except on square lines. I call attention that it is not printed in French. And as an ardent lover of the French language, the House is entitled to have this Bill printed in French. Furthermore, I would ask the opinion of the Minister of Customs, who is reputed to be a shrewd lawyer, well up on matters affecting this class of insurance in the West, and upon the question of rates. I would like an opinion from him in that regard.


Mr. SIFTON:: The Minister of Justice
gives the legal advice for this Government, and I would not for a moment wish to infringe upon his prerogatives. I have no legal advice to give in regard to the constitutional privileges as they are affected by this particular Act. I do not think it will lower the rate of insurance any. I do not think it will make any difference so far as that is concerned. There are lots of hail insurance companies in the western provinces. However, I have no objection to any new company. I have never known any of these companies who are prepared to do business with farmers on any better terms than the others. They are all alike when it comes to doing business.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: In answer to the question put to me by the member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), I have given no personal attention to the Bill; but I am assured by the officers of the department that it is in no respect objectionable. The Bill in its terms follows the standard clauses usually inserted in Bills incorporating insurance companies. Some Bills have been introduced in the past in the very
same terms. I do not see any objection to this Bill.


Samuel Hughes: Is it a bona fide company, that is the point? Where is there any evidence that this is a bona fide company? A firm of lawyers may wish, inasmuch as the law business is not very brisk now-


Mr. McMASTER:: Louder.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad to see my legal friend pricking up.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like to hear
what the gallant member is saying about the profession.


Samuel Hughes: The point I want to make is this. I am only looking at one aspect of the case-we must look at it from every aspect. Business being a little dull in law offices possibly, a legal firm might take up the incorporation of such a company. They get up a charter of this kind. We have had instances in Canada where charters have been passed in this House and hawked around for sale. This Rill has all the earmarks of that sort of a charter. Surely if a number of gentlemen -I did not catch the names; they were muttered in an undertone,-from Vancouver are so solicitous in looking after the farmers of the Western prairies, why did they not get this Bill down in time? They have had all summer to look into this matter. They are coming down at the eleventh hour, without even the signatures of the parties, and the legal firm are getting them by telegraph. The thing looks fishy on the face of it. It can very well stand over for another session; there is no great rush. Furthermore, the number of functions inserted would require a considerable amount to be put up for going into classes of insurance other than hail insurance. These things, to my mind, are altogether insufficient.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was a member of the Banking Committee which sat on this matter this morning. I would tell this Committee that Mr. Scott, who is a lawyer of standing in Ottawa-


Samuel Hughes: Are not all lawyers lawyers of standing?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, they vary. There are, sad to say, lawyers who do not rise to the general high level maintained by the profession. I have heard of newspaper men of the same sort, and doctors of the same sort.


An hon. MEMBER:: And soldiers.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Oh, no. Soldiers are always noble and great, of the very highest calibre. I would like to say this: I do not see why we cannot pass this Bill. Mr. Scott assured us that it was a bona fide Bill, that his clients in Vancouver and Victoria were bona fide people of responsibility. He showed correspondence to that effect. Under these circumstances, I would ask'the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), with, that disregard of red tape which was a distinguishing characteristic of his in days gone by, not to insist on red tape now, but as we are all desirous of going on with more important business we might possibly be allowed to pass this Bill and get on to other matters. I speak with all of the deference and respect due from a young member of this House to an old member like my hon. friend.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would ask the hon. member in charge of the Bill if the preliminary proceedings, the notices in the Canada Gazette, were taken in the names of these men, or the names of the proposed bona fide promoters?


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand they were issued in the name of W. L. Scott and his associates.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is a rather suspicious circumstance to me.


John Allister Currie: I think the answer-
' Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If the original proceedings and notices were put through in the names of these incorporators, it does not look very feasible that men who really -were the bona fide incorporators at the inception of the movement would lend the scheme out to the use of other names. That is suspicious to my mind, and makes me wonder if somebody has been putting one over on the hon. member who is in charge of the Bill. I think Mr. Scott is a reputable gentleman, but it must be noticed that he is one of the promoters, and it sounds a little like a man praising himself in a measure, when all the information the Banking Committee receives has been received from one of the promoters himself. If the Bill from' its inception was put forward in the name of this firm of solicitors, it is a strange thing to me; it does not show good faith. The excuse is given that the actual signatories could not be obtained because the men in question are in Vancouver.
rMr. McMaster.!


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Signatories to what?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The petition. These pretended incorporators must have made up their minds weeks ago with regard to this matter. They must have entered into a memorandum of agreement to form the company; their names must be on all the preliminaries, Yet the names of Ottawa . lawyers are given here as the promoters of the company. It does not look like good faith; it looks like a policy of huckstering charters.
Mr. GURE-IE: 'If the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) had been in the House for several years he would have known that some trouble has been experienced with companies from Vancouver. Last session we had a very bad case. A charter wras obtained some years ago in this form and the parties who received it started out to get a large number of subscriptions. It was ascertained that a large amount that had been paid in as subscriptions had been taken by way of commissions. Nothing was left but a shell for the creditors of the company; and the company never went into operation. I do not object to charters being granted to promoters in Vancouver but we should look into the bona tides of these cases. The memler from the section of the country in which this company is to operate should be in his place to speak on behalf of these incorporators and to say that they are all right. If any member from Vancouver or British Columbia does that I will withdraw all objection.


Herbert Brown Ames: The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is really the promoter of the Bill; but he is not here to-day.


John Allister Currie: His name does not appear on the Bill.
Sir HERBERT AMiES: It is a matter of record that he is the promoter of the Bill in this House.
Mr. 'CURRIE: Somebody ought to be here to explain the matter, because the case of last year, to which I referred, was a flagrant one. There is also the principle of charter-mongering, to which I object. This is a very important insurance company; their powers are almost as wide as Lloyd's, and we should not be obliged to accept simply the ipse dixit of the Ottawa lawyers whose names have been given. If the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Burrell) will say that the Bill is all right, we will let it go at that


Mr. BURRELL:: Frankly, I know nothing whatever about the Bill. If, however, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) knows the promoters of the Bill, I should think that would be sufficient.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the public receive any greater protection by the fact that the member for Vancouver is the sponsor of the Bill? What difference does that make? The public must be protected by the insurance laws of the country and their proper administration by the Insurance Department,


Samuel Hughes: We have rules in
this House that we are asked to observe, and I always observe them to the utmost limit of the law, even when they are stretched beyond the point of endurance. This is one case in which the rules should be carefully observed. I know the business men of Vancouver pretty well and I should like to hear again the names of the promoters and to know what business they are engaged in. It looks fishy, toi use a not very decorous expression; it looks peculiar to see the names of the promoters of this Bill furnished from a law office in Ottawa. The names of the men from Vancouver are telegraphed, not sent by letter; the whole thing looks peculiar, to say the least.


Herbert Brown Ames: I shall be glad
to give the names again. H. S. Durlree, who, I understand is a railway man; P. F. Wright, grocer; J. Kendall, whose designation I cannot give; O. S. Wood, who, I think, is a lawyer, and A. G. Creelman, contractor. If t'he hon. member will refer to the Orders of the Day of May 20th he will find that Bill 107 (letter E of the Senate) an Act to incorporate the United Canadian Insurance Company was introduced that day by the member for Vancouver Centre (iM'r. Stevens). The Bill was unanimously passed this morning by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and I am in charge of it for the member for Vancouver Centre.


Samuel Hughes: Does the Secretary
of State know whether these gentlemen are in good standing in Vancouver?


Martin Burrell: I know Mr. Creelman; I do not know the other gentlemen, although I have heard their names occasionally. I knew Mr. Creelman as a contractor in the Kootenay railroad district; he is a man of some substance.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: I remember the Rill referred to by the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), which came before the committee last year. Some men from Vancouver-apparently in good standing, so far as the committee knew-had applied some years ago for a charter to- do an insurance-business. The charter was renewed once,, and they came back for another renewal last year. It was brought out at that time that the company had secured $70,000 or $72,000 in subscriptions and has squandered $63,000 or $64,000 of that in commissions. They were insisting on having the charter renewed in order that they could prosecute some of the stockholders for certain amounts which the company claimed were due them. That application was thrown out of committee. No evidence has been furnished this morning to satisfy this committee that the Bill now under consideration should be passed this year, in the dying days of the session. No- doubt it has been applied for in the ordinary way, but I do not see why the promoters could not have had their names in long before this. Now, in the dying days of the session, it is asked that this Bill be put through. I do not think we should stand for it; I think it should be laid over.


Samuel Hughes: I observe that an hon. gentleman from Vancouver (Mr. Crowe) has entered the chamber. Perhaps he can give us- some light on the status of these gentlemen. A Bill has been introduced in the dying days of the session; it is not yet even printed in French.
The promoters of this Bill are a firm of lawyers in Ottawa. At the last moment, we are. informed that a number of gentlemen in Vancouver, who had not time to send their names here by letter, telegraphed their names, being anxious that they should be put in as tlhe promoters of this Bill. The whole thing is irregular, and I am anxious to know the status of these gentlemen. Their names are: H. S. Durkee, P. F. Wright, J. Kendall, O. S. Wood and
A.	G. Creelman. Are these the men who are new supposed to be the promoters of the-Bill, but who had not time to mail their application t-o get it here so as to comply with the rules


Mr. CROWE:: I do not know anything about the Bill before the House, but I know several of these gentlemen, and I can vouch .for them. Mr. Creelman is a large contractor in Vancouver, a very wealthy man. Mr. Wood is a man of A1 standing. Mr. Durkee is in the jewellery business, but I do not know what standing he has. Mr. P. F. Wright is in the furniture business. I can vouch for three of these gentlemen;

the other two I cannot vouch for because I do not know them.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to, and Bill reported.
On motion of Sir Herbert Ames for the third reading of the Bill.
Samuel Hughes: Does not the rule of the House require that this Bill shall be printed in French?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That objection cannot be taken at this stage. It has to be taken at an earlier stage.


Samuel Hughes: I raised the objection at an earlier stage.


Herbert Brown Ames: At the opening to-day the House gave its unanimous consent that this Bill should be placed upon the Order Paper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, '.and Bill read the third time and passed.

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

*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Is Sir George Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Chairman of the War Trade Board?
2.	If so, did he select and appoint the members and the staff thereof?
3.	If not, by what other members of the Cabinet were these selections and appointments made?
4.	What are the names, salaries and ordinary places of residence of the members and staff of the War Trade Board?


George Green Foster: I.	Yes.
2 and 3. The members of the War Trade Board were selected and appointed by the Governor in Council, of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is one. The staff were selected 'by the (board, the certifications made by the Civil 'Service Commission and appointments made by Order in Council.
4. Board:	Sir George Foster, Chairman; F. P. Jones, Vice-Chairman, Montreal; J. W. McConnell, member, Montreal;
J.	H. Gundy, member, Toronto; C. B. Mc-Naught, member, Toronto; Jos. Gibbons, member, Toronto; G. A. Magrath, ex-officio member; H. Laporte, ex-officio member.
General: Wm. K. Trower, General Secretary, $500, Montreal; J. H. Wilkie, General Secretary, $250, Montreal; Mies G. Odium, Accountant, $100, Woodstock.
Filing:	W. P. Murphy, chief file clerk,
$125, Montreal; Mies R. McFadden, file clerk, $50, Carleton Place; Francis Hallinan, file

clerk, $70, Ottawa; J. H. Arbick, file clerk, $65, Ottawa.	*
United States Import License Department [DOT] John A. Clift, Chief Imports from United States, $200, Ottawa; Geo. H. Ince, Chief Imports from United States, $125, Ottawa; R. A. Pettigrew, Chief Imports from. United States, $100, Montreal; Paul Michaud, Chief Imports from United States, $100, St. Barthelemy; Miss F. Varcoe, stenographer, $60, Ottawa; 'Miss O. Goth, stenographer, $60, Carleton Place; Miss M. Vallillee, stenographer, $60, Ottawa; Miss A. Jones, stenographer, $60, Ottawa; Miss F. 'Casey, stenographer, $70, Ottawa; Miss 'G. Evans, stenographer, $60 Ottawa; Miss J. Dunbar, stenographer, $75, Toronto; Gerald Latreille, messenger, $30, Ottawa.
Canadian Export Department: W. P. McKay, chief, $200, Ottawa; F. D'Ornellis, assistant, paid by Customs, Ottawa; M. H. Ryan, assistant, $125, Renfrew; J. Byce, stenographer, $80, Ottawa; G. V. Jamieson, stenographer, $90, Ottawa; B. Roberts, stenographer, $75, Montreal; D. Casey, clerk, $70, Montreal.
Metals Department: H. D. Bayne, chief, paid by Customs, Toronto; E. M. Russell, assistant, $175, Montreal; T. O. Hosking, inspector, $150, Montreal; Wm. Gilchrist, inspector, paid by Customs; Henry B. Tim-leok, stenographer, paid by Customs, Brock-ville.
British Priority Department: A. E. D. Holden, (chief, $200, Montreal; Miss M. Morel, assistant, $60, Ottawa; Miss L. Owrid, stenographer, $70, Almonte; Miss M.
A.	Jones, stenographer, $65, Ottawa.
"Telegraph and Telephone Department: G. H. White, telegraph operator, $238.66, Montreal; I. Rusland, telephone operator, $55, Ottawa; Albert Guneau, messenger, $30, Ottawa.
Members-' stenographers: Miss E. Imerie, $80, Westmount; Miss W. P. Corner, $90, St. Lambert; Miss L. Mc/Murty, $80, Kin-burn; Miss C. T. Henderson, $80, Ottawa; Mrs. A. M. Keats, $80, Ottawa.
Messenger Department: Frank Randall, $40, Ottawa; Henry Albert, $30, Ottawa; Jos. De Granpre, $30, Ottawa.
War Economies: Lester M. Green, $300, Toronto.
Inspection Department: T. 'M. Forrest, $208.33, Montreal; C. L. Wise, $200, Toronto; Miss E. H. Tomkins, stenographer, $80, Ottawa.
The former residence of each official is mentioned. The present residence of each

official is shown, except Mr. Wise, who is in Toronto.
The members of the board a>re allowed travelling expenses, and in addition a living allowance at the rate of $10 a day for the days spent in Ottawa.


HALIFAX DISASTER CLAIMS.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to pay, in the near future, the workmen who have worked1 at Halifax, and for whom a statement of wages due has been lodged with the Department of Finance on the 2'6th of March last?
2.	If so, when will the Government pay said wages and thus relieve a situation that is causing great inconvenience to many of these workmen?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	The Department of Finance is not aware of any claim such as is mentioned in this question having been filed.
2.	The Government disclaim any liability as to the payment of wages in connection with the Halifax disaster, and accordingly they do not propose paying any such claims.


WELLAND CANAL PAYMASTER.
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Is it true that serious discrepancies were found in the accounts of the paymaster of the Welland Canal?
2.	If so, what was the amount of money involved?
3.	What reparation has been made, and by
what means?	t
*	4. How far back have the defalcations extended?
5.	By what means were the defalcations carried out?
6.	Were other persons involved with the paymaster? If so, who?
7.	Does the department intend to take action?


Wilfrid Laurier: This question has been standing for some time, and tomorrow is the last day when we shall have an opportunity of having questions answered.


Hon. J. D. REID:: I shall have the answer to-morrow.
Question stands.


QUEBEC MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Who secured the contract for carrying the mails from St. Odilon de Frampton to Mount Fir Grove, Robson and Poulin?
2.	When was the contract given, and how much is it for?
3.	Were there any tenders called?
4.	If so, what were they, and how much were
they for?	<	1 I * , .


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	In order to cover the post offices mentioned, it is necessary to give the particulars of two mail contracts, namely: Fir Grove and Frampton (via Mount Robson and Poulin), contractor, D. Lacasse; and Fir Grove and St. Odilon (via Cranbourne), contractor, A. Laflamme.
2,	3 and 4. Fir Grove and Frampton contract awarded after invitation of tenders to D. Lacasse in November, 1912, at the rate of $930 per annum. The tenders received were: Joseph Audet, Frampton, $935 per annum; Damase Lacasse, Frampton, $939 per annum; Desire Audet, Frampton, $940 per annum; Hector Lacasse, Frampton, $945 per annum. Damase Lacasse subsequently reduced his tender to $930 per annum. Fir Grove and St. Odilon contract was arranged in August, 1915, with A. Laflamme at the rate of $174 per annum without tenders being called for.


EXEMPTION TRIBUNALS.
Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	Have all the judges presiding at Exemption Tribunals in Chicoutimi and Lake St. John been paid?
2.	If not, who are those who have not been
paid?	.
3.	When will they be paid?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	All accounts received have been paid.
2.	Benjamin Boudreau, l'Anse St. Jean, and L. Bouchard, l'Anse St. Jean.
3.	Accounts when received will be promptly passed for payment.


ROSS RIFLE FACTORY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr, LAVIGUEUR:
1.	Has the Government expropriated the Ross Rifle Factory in Quebec?
2.	If so, at what cost was the expropriation?
3.	What was the object of the Government to expropriate the said Ross Rifle Factory?
4.	What does the Government intend to do with the said factory?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The cost has yet to be determined by the Exchequer Court of Canada.
3.	For reasons fully given by the Government to Parliament at the time, February 2, 1917, and contained in an Order in Council then presented.
4.	Under consideration.


SENATOR BRADBURY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D'ANJOU:
Referring to the answer given by Mr. McCurdy to a question reported on page 1169 of Unrevised Hansard for 1918 :-[DOT]
1.	In what rank did Lt.-Colonel G. H. Bradbury serve in France?
2.398
[Stage Direction]
2.	In what regiment did he serve in France?
3.	Under whose command did he go to France?
4.	Was he wounded? It so, what is the nature of his wounds?
Martin Burrell: Definite information is not available in Canada, but is being requested by letter from the Overseas Military Forces of Canada.
MILITARY SERVICE ACT-MR, ALLEYN TASOHiBREAU.
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1.	What salary or remuneration is Mr. Alleyn Tasehereau, Registrar for the application of the Military Service Act, entitled to for his services as Registrar?
2.	How much has the said Registrar received to date for such services?
3.	Is the said Registrar entitled to a fixed sum for travelling expenses? If so, how much?
4.	Is the said Registrar entitled to the use of an automobile at the expense of the country for the performance of his duties as Registrar?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 
OTTAWA NAVAL ENLISTMENTS.
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: How many have enlisted for service in the Navy, from the city of Ottawa, since April 1, 1918?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: 'Seven.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT-DENTISTS.
*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Is it a fact that appointments are being made to the Dental Corps of persons who are not graduate dentists and have had no experience in dentistry?
2.	Are such appointments made for the purpose of evading the military service regulations and to secure Safety First positions?
3.	Has the Minister of Militia received any complaints on this score? If so, were they from Ontario?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	All officers appointed as operators are graduate dentists. Quartermasters are not graduate dentists, but men who have had special training in supplies. Other than these, there are no officers in the Canadian Army Dental Corps. Non-commissioned officers and men are not graduate dentists.
2.	Non-commissioned officers and men are men who have special training, or else men not in the classification for overseas service.
3.	No.


VICTORY LOAN.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	In connection with the Victory Loan, was there any commission paid directly or indirectly to what was known as the "Special Names Committee"?
2.	If so, what amount was so paid, and to whom?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT-EXEMPTION OF FARMERS.
*Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	What interviews were had, or communications exchanged witji Mr. Justice Duff, prior of his judgment as Central Appeal Judge in the test case of the farmer applicant in December last immediately following the declaration by the Minister of Militia, that farmers would be exempted from military service?
2.	Will such correspondence be produced?
Hon.Mr. DOHERTY:
1.	The only interviews or communications exchanged with the Central Appeal Judge in relation to his decision in the Rowntree case, decided on December 6, 1917, were in the ordinary course of official business. No communication passed directly or indirectly between the Central Appeal Judge and the Minister of Militia or any other member of the Government on that subject; and if the Minister of Militia did make any declaration such as that described in the question, before the date of the decision, no such declaration and no declaration by any member of the Government entered into the considerations upon which the decision was based.
2.	Yes.
159th and 227th BATTALIONS.


Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	Have the 159th and the 22i7th Battalions been recruited in the Sudbury districts?
2.	Are the said battalions composed largely of French Canadians and Catholics?
3.	Of the 262 men of No. 3 (O.C.) Company of the 227th Battalion who left for Camp Borden were 212 enrolled as Catholics?
4.	In the two battalions mentioned how many command officers are Catholics?


Martin Burrell: ]. Headquarters of 159th and 227th Battalions were Haileybury and Hamilton, respectively. Enlistments from Sudbury districts were included in each.
2 and 3. Information as to denominations was not maintained by Battalion formation.
4.	Neither of the Commanding Officers of the Battalions mentioned above were Roman Catholics.


LIEUT.-COL. A. T. THOMPSON.
Mr. CAHILL:: 1.	Is Lieut.-Col. A. T. Thompson, enlisted with the 114th Battalion, as a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?
2.	If so, when did he join, and where has he since been located?
3.	Has he since his appointment in the Canadian Expeditionary Force been under pay to this date?
4.	If so, what amount of pay per day does he receive?
5.	Has he since the date he joined or was appointed to the Canadian Expeditionary Force been continuously under pay?
6.	What is the total amount of pay to date received by him, or still owing to him?
7.	Since he joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force, or was appointed thereto, has he been granted leave of absence without pay? If so, for what purpose, and between what dates?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Unless he has been struck off in England, and this department has not been notified, he is still a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
2.	29th February, 1916. Canada and Overseas.
3.	4, 5, and 6. This information is not available in Canada, but it is being requested, by letter, from the Overseas Military Forces of Canada.
7.	No record of his having been granted leave of absence without pay.


MAJOR EDMUND SWEET.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAHILL:
1.	Is Major Edmund Sweet, enlisted with the 215th Battalion, a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?
2.	If so, when did he join, and where has he since been located?
3.	Has he since hid appointment in the Canadian Expeditionary Force been under pay to this date?
4.	If so, what amount of pay per day does he receive?
5.	Has he since the date he joined or was appointed to the Canadian Expeditionary Force been continuously under pay?
6.	What is the total amount of pay to date received by him, or still owing to him?
7.	Since he joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force, or was appointed thereto, has he been granted leave of absence without pay? If so, for what purpose, and between what dates?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Unless he has been struck off in England. and this department has not teen notified, he is still a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
2.	Sixth of March, 1916. Canada and Overseas.
3.	4, 5 and 6. This information is not available in Canada, Ibut is being requested by letter from the Overseas Military Forces of Canada.
7. No record of his having been granted leave of absence without pay.


DR. BURCHARD'S REPORT.
Mr. J. F. REID:: 1.	Has the Board of Grain Commissioners forwarded to the Government any report from Dr. Burchard, Dominion Chemist, re investigation of milling values of grain, and other matters connected therewith?
2.	If so, when will report, he ready for distrl-bution to members of this House?


George Green Foster: The Board of Grain Commissioners have forwarded to the Government a report from Doctor Burchard, and it is being considered whether that report should be made public at the present time. Before it would be safe to give the conclusions to 'the public, investigations ex- j; tending over a large area and occupymg a (* considerable time would have to be made.


FORESTRY BATTALION OFFICERS.
Mr. FAFARD:: Is it the intention of the Minister of Militia and Defence to weed out the officers of the Forestry Battalions and to send them overseas for service in France?	.


Martin Burrell: There are no forestry units at present in Canada, the battalions having proceeded overseas, the depots having been demobilized, and the officers disposed of.


ALLEGED EVASIONS OF MILITARY SERVICE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LEDUC:
1.	Is the Minister of Militia and Defence aware that a number of people are trying to evade the Military Service Act by enlisting in the Overseas Training Corps of the University of Toronto, where they remain six, eight and even twelve months before being sent overseas?
2.	Is the minister aware that men have been at Burwash Hall Overseas Training Corps Barracks in Toronto since October last and are not yet ordered to leave for the front?
Martin Burrell: 1 and 2. No; will inquire.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Air. J. H. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many officers of the Permanent Corps, Canadian Militia, are employed in Militia District No. 11?
2.	How many of such officers have seen overseas service in the present war?
3.	What is the pay and allowance of these officers ?
4.	Has the officer in charge of the School of Instruction at Work Point seen overseas service in this war?
5.	Must officers returning from the front who have received their promotion in the field, take a course of instruction under the officer referred

to in Question 5, before their commission can be confirmed in the Canadian Militia?
6.	How many officers now on the Establishment of the 5th Regiment have seen overseas service in the present war?
7.	Is it the intention that such officers who have not seen overseas service shall be given an opportunity of seeing such service and that their places filled by returned officers?
8.	How many (a) Warrant Officers, (b) Noncommissioned Officers, (c) Privates, in the Permanent Corps of the Canadian Militia employed in Militia District li have not seen overseas service in the present war?
9.	Has the Assistant Judge Advocate General in Militia District 11 had any military experience?


Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	How many persons are employed in the office of the Registrar under the Military Service Act, in Quebec?
2.	What is the salary, and what are the duties of each member of the staff?
3.	To what town does each member of said staff belong?
4.	How many, if any, of these persons have commissions in the Militia, and how many have been at the front or have offered to go to the front, what is the name of each employee and the date of his appointment?
5.	Upon whose recommendation have the members of said staff been appointed?
* Mr. LElDUC:
1.	What positions or appointments have been given to Mr. F. H. Chrysler, K.C., of Ottawa, by the Union Government, and how much has been paid him to date?
2.	What position does Mr. Chrysler hold in connection with the Military Service Act? What is his salary?
3.	How much money was paid Mr. Chrysler by the Liberal Government from July, 1896, to October, 1911?



MR. WILLIAM K. TROWER,

Charles Murphy: The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in reply to the question by my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx), as to the names and salaries of the members and staff of the War Trade Board, to-day handed in a list in which the name of Mr. William K. Trower appears as general secretary of the board at a salary of $6,000 a year. May I inquire, who William K. Trower is?


George Green Foster: He is the secretary of the War Trade Board.


Charles Murphy: Who was he before his appointment?


George Green Foster: He was Mr. Trower.	*.


Charles Murphy: What occupation?


George Green Foster: He was a business man of good repute.


Charles Murphy: He must have been, to receive such a salary. Where was he in business?


George Green Foster: In Montreal.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster that the House go into Committee of Supply:
Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: The
question I propose to discuss has reference to the taking of the soldiers' votes during the last general election, iboth in Canada and overseas. Those of us who were in this House during the sessions of 1915 and 1917 will well remember the attention that was paid to the Act giving the soldiers in Canada and overseas the right to record their votes at any general election in the Dominion, whenever that might be held. In the year 1915 there was a strong probability that a general election might be brought on before another session, and the Act I have referred to was passed giving the soldiers the right and privilege of exercising the franchise. The election was not held that year, and in 1917 a new Act was passed, amending the Dominion Elections Act and giving the soldiers the right to vote for or against the Government and for or against different candidates. As I propose to refer to a number of instances bearing on the different sections of the Military Voters' Act of 1917,
I shall put a few sections of the Act on Hansard. Section 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 four months of the twelve months 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 therefore be ascertained, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or to be ascertained, and his vote shall be supplied thereto.
(3)	If he cannot state or so specify an electoral district or place wherein, he has so resided for the time and within the period mentioned in subsection two but can state an electoral district or so specify a place within Canada wherein he has at any other time resided, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or made ascertainable and his vote shall be applied thereto.
(4)	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.

(5)	No person shall be entitled, because of anything in this Part contained, to vote more than once at any election.
Section 5 says:
(1)	Whenever the Secretary of State of Canada shall so direct, a sufficient supply of ballot-papers in the form A of the Schedule, and of envelopes for holding the same, with certificates in the form iB of the Schedule printed thereon, and of all such forms and instructions as are ordinarily supplied to returning officers, modified to conform to the provisions of this Part, shall be delivered, (a) by the Clerk of the drown in Chancery to the officer in command of any Canadian forces in Bermuda, or in any other place without Canada but in North America, and to such Presiding Officers as shall have been appointed to arrange for the holding of polls in Canada; and, (b) by the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to such Presiding Officers as shall have been appointed' to arrange for the holding of polls in the United Kingdom or on the continent of Europe.
(2)	Such ballot-papers and envelopes shall be safely held by such officers in command, respectively, until receipt from the 'Clerk of the Crown in Chancery of notice of the appointment of Presiding Officers for the camps under such officers' command, whereupon they shall deliver such ballots and envelopes to such Presiding Officers in such quantities as may be necessary, and! return any surplus, with a statement in writing of the disposition of all thereof, showing names and quantities, to the General Returning Officer at Ottawa.
(3)	The printer shall, upon delivering the ballot papers to the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, file in his hands an affidavit setting forth the description of the ballots as printed by him, the number of ballots supplied by him, and the fact that no other ballot papers have been supplied by him to any one else.
Section 9, in part, reads as follows:
(1) The manner of voting without Canada under this Part shall be as follows:

(a)	Voting shall be by ballot;
(b)	The ballot-paper shall be in the formA in the Schedule;
(c)	The voter shall answer under oath, before the Deputy Presiding Officer, the questions set forth in the certificate which is form B in the Schedule. Such certificate shall be endorsed on the envelopes referred to in section five of this Part;
(e) The ballot-paper shall be marked in the presence of the Deputy .Presiding Officer and1 deputy scrutineers present, or military electors acting in their stead, but in such manner as not to disclose to them or to any other person any marking thereon. The voter shall fold the ballot, place it in the envelope, securely close the same and hand1 it to the Deputy Presiding Officer, who shall then and there, in the presence of the voter and deputy scrutineers present, or military electors acting in their stead, place it in the ballot-box;
Now, I want to refer to the form of oatli as contained in Form B and which is as follows:
Form B.
Certificate to be Endorsed on the Ballot-Envelopes.
1.	What is your name?	
2.	What is your rank?	What is your
number?	
3.	In what force or service are you?	
4.	Are you a British subject?	
Have you previously voted at this election?... .
5.	Were you in Canada when you were appointed, enlisted, enrolled or called out on active service?	:
6.	Specify the names of the place or places
in Canada (giving streets and numbers where possible) whereat you last continuously resided during at least four months of the twelve months 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 you cannot specify as required by question No. 6, or state as required by question No. 7, then state in what electoral district or place within Canada (giving street and number where possible) you have resided at any other time than is referred to in question No. 6	
9.	If none of your answers to questions Nos.
6.	7 and 8 specify or state as required thereby, to what electoral district do you desire your vote to be applied?	
Electoral district	
Province	
I certify that the above named military elector did this day make to me under oath the preceding set forth answers to the preceding set forth questions.
Dated this	day of	1917.
Deputy Presiding Officer.
Form A is the ballot;
1.	I vote for	
2.	I vote for the Government	
3.	I vote for the Opposition	
4.	I vote for the Independent Candidate....
5.	I vote for the Labour Candidate	
These are the sections of the Act and the forms to which I proposed to refer in my observations in regard to the taking of the soldiers' vote during the last election.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o.'clock.
Mr. A. B. OOPP (Westmorland) resuming; Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock I had just placed before hon. members of this Houee the sections of the Military Voters' Act to which I purpose to refer particularly during my argument. We all remember that at the time of the passing of that Act it was unanimously agreed by

all the hon. members of this House that every effort should be made to give to the soldiers who were fighting for our country the opportunity of voting in the election that was about to be held. We all remember also that during the discussion that took place in committee hon. gentlemen on both sides carefully considered each cfause of the Bill, and it was unanimously agreed that every safeguard that could be framed should be thrown around the measure to prevent the possibility of any fraud occurring in connection with the taking of the soldiers' vote. I well recall, Sir, the feelings that I entertained during that discussion, when certain of my hon. friends who are to-day on the other side- particularly my hon. friend from the: county of Carleto-n, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), now the Minister of Public Works in the present Government-took a very active part in that discussion. I am bound to admit that, while I had a very high regard for the acute and ingenious legal mind of my hon. friend (Mr. 'Carvell) I was somewhat convinced that he was over apprehensive as to the frauds that would be attempted in connection with the taking of that vote. But, Sir, now that I am in possession of the facte, 1 am satisfied that my hon. friend instead of being too careful and over apprehensive, did not foresee one-tenth part of the frauds that actually could be committed in connection with polling the soldiers' vote. I shall not occupy the time of the House by quoting, on the present occasion, the remarks of my hon. friend and of other hon. gentlemen on the occasion referred to.
I would suggest, however, to those who want to get the facts of the matter, and who now do me the honour of listening to my remarks, that if they will turn to the Revised Hansard of 1917, pages 4796 to 4870, they will learn what was in the minds of ho<n. gentlemen when the Military Voters' Act was being discussed in this House in Committee of the Whole.
After the Bill in question had been passed through committee and moulded into law the soldiers' vote was duly taken in this country, as well as overseas, and allocated, and, Sir, quite a large number of hon. members of the House now occupy their seats by virtue of the soldiers' votes cast on that occasion. For that reason it is only fair to ask the House to listen to some facts which I propose to lay before it as reasons why an inquiry should be instituted, and investigation made into the circumstances under which the soldiers' vote was taken, and that the results of that in-
[Mr. Copp.l
vestigation should be placed before the country. While the vote was being polled in Canada it came to my knowledge that irregularities were occurring. Shortly afterwards, and after the soldiers' vote had been taken overseas, I received numerous letters from soldiers who furnished me with information which convinced me that frauds, irregularities and election crimes had been committed. On the receipt of that information I deemed it to Ibe my duty to make further inquiries and endeavour to learn, as nearly as I could, the nature of those frauds. I started my inquiries and have received information, affidavits and statements, of the truth of which I have not the slightest doubt, and which convinces me that such irregularities were, practised in connection with the taking of the soldiers' vote in Canada and overseas. 1 therefore venture to- take up the time of the House this afternoon in order to place before Parliament and the people of the country the nature of those irregularities and frauds which, to my mind, prove beyond perad-venture that a conspiracy existed in connection with the allocation of those votes with the object of destroying the effect of the elections that were being held. Accordingly I have prepared some charges which I now propose to present to the House in proof of my contention that grievous irregularities and frauds were committed.
From information which I have received I have reason to believe, and do believe on my honour as a member of Parliament:
1.	That in the recent election a carefully organized conspiracy existed by which extensive frauds were perpetrated in connection with the soldiers' votes.
2.	That the aforesaid fraudulent conspiracy was particularly operative in the electoral districts of Kings and Queens, Prince Edward Island; Cape Breton North and Victoria, Richmond and Cape Breton South, Cumberland, Digby, Annapolis and Pdotou, Nova Scotia; Westmorland, Restigouche and Madawaska, Kent and Northumberland, New Brunswick; Brome, Sherbrooke, Chambiy-Vercheres, St. Ann's, Montreal, St. Antoine, St. Henri, St. Lawrence and St. George, Stanstead and Wright, Quebec; Algoma East, Bruce North and South, Essex North and South, Hamilton East and West, Huron South, Kent, Leeds and Brock-ville, Lennox and Addington, London, Middlesex West, Nipissing, Ontario South, Ottawa, Oxford South, Peel, Prince Edward, Russell, and Welland, Ontario ; Calgary, Edmonton, and the Yukon.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I did not hear the hon. gentleman mention his own county where he got a majority of the soldiers' votes. Does the hon. gentleman claim there was fraud committed in that case?

Mr: COPP: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I mentioned Westmorland, my own county.
Mr. MiORPHY: I did not bear the hon. gentleman read it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have that county on my list and I read it. (Continues reading.)
3.	These frauds were directed and practised by responsible officers of His Majesty's Canadian Forces, co-operating with Deputy Presiding Officers and poll clerks appointed under the authority of the Crown.
4.	That military electors were officially advised how to fill in Form B on the back of the envelopes containing their ballots in order to successfully and fraudulently place their votes in constituencies other than those in which they were legally entitled to vote.
5.	That evidence will be submitted by me to a Commission of Inquiry establishing the fact that there was an organization to transfer a large fraudulent vote 'to certain selected constituencies in order to overcome the legitimate vote of the said electoral districts.
6.	That in certain of the said constituencies a fraudulent soldiers' vote was polled largely in excess of the legitimate military franchise.
7.	That throughout camps in Great Britain the answers to questions in Form B on the back of the ballot envelopes were filled in by commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers outside the polling booths instead of being filled in by the military electors, or the presiding officers inside the polling booth, and the said envelopes were given to the officials recording the votes without the said questions being addressed to the said voters by the presiding officers.
8.	That Opposition scrutineers were prevented from attending certain polling booths while the military vote was being recorded.
9.	That the representative of the Opposition was forcibly removed from a polling booth and arrested and confined in a camp prison during the period when a large fraudulent vote was being recorded in the said polling booth.
10.	That ballot envelopes partially filled in, signed and sealed by the Deputy Presiding Officer, and each containing a ballot marked in favour of the Government, were in circulation with the blank space left open for the insertion of the name of a military voter, as a means of facilitating the perpetration of the frauds hereinbefore mentioned.
11 That military electors were canvassed by superior officers in direct contravention of the King's regulations and orders, and were directed how they should mark their ballots.
12.	That military electors in non-combatant regiments were threatened with transfer to fighting line regiments if they did not mark their ballots for the Government in the presence of and in the manner prescribed by the Deputy Presiding Officer.
13.	That military electors who at first refused to vote as they were directed, but afterwards did so under compulsion, were, nevertheless, removed to regiments proceeding to the fighting line.
14.	That military electors were not afforded facilities for the proper observance of the secrecy of the ballot as provided by Section 9, Subsection E, of the Military Voters Act.
15.	That scrutineers appointed on behalf of the Government were sworn in as scrutineers
for the Opposition by Deputy Presiding Officers in polling booths where extensive frauds were practised owing to the Opposition no't having bona fide representatives therein.
16.	That election campaign literature which was dishonest and untruthful was circulated among the military electors with the authority and by the direction of Lord Beaverbrook, and that the said Lord Beaverbrook was an active participant in the hereinbefore, mentioned fraudulent practices.
17.	That Lord Brooke formerly Commander of the Canadian Forces was also a participant in the said fraudulent practices.
18.	That letters mailed through the Canadian Army Branch of the British Post Office, addressed to military electors in which was enclosed campaign literature on behalf of the Opposition, were opened, and the said literature was removed therefrom before the said letters were delivered to the military electors, to whom they were addressed, and the delivery of the said letters were also systematically delayed by the said Post Office authorities.
19.	That ballot boxes and bags contained a number of ballot envelopes tightly folded together in parcels or wads too large to have been inserted in the said bags or boxes through the proper aperture, and, in addition, bearing dates showing that the votes had been polled not on the same day, but at intervals of time.
20.	That the contents of these ballot boxes or bags which thus appeared to have been fraudulently tampered with were, contrary to the provisions of the Election Act, allocated and counted in the United Kingdom to the number of 15,000 votes under instructions from the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
21 That several thousand ballot envelopes were fraudulently endorsed and the votes allocated to constituencies other than those in which the said military electors were entitled to vote.
22.	That military electors were systematically persuaded to give answer for endorsation on their ballot envelopes setting forth residence in constituencies in which they did not reside, and upon which declaration of domicile their qualification to vote was based.
23.	That fraudulent votes were recorded for the electoral district of Cumberland, N.S., by Captain H. M. Burke, Deputy Presiding Officer at Ashford, County of Kent, Eng., in which voters declared their residence to be Springhill, Tignish, Joggin Mines, Shulie and Nappan, Pugwash, Oxford and Amherst, whose domicile was, in fact, in some one of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.
24.	That similar conditions to those referred to in the preceding paragraph prevailed in the polling booth presided over by Lieut.-Col. C. M. R. Graham, of the 156th Battalion, Whitley, in which military electors whose domicile was in other parts of Ontario and Manitoba, together with a number of subjects of the United States were induced to falsely declare their residence to be in Brockville, in the electoral district of Leeds.
25.	That at the said polling booth in the presence of the said Lieut.-Col. C. M. R. Graham, Deputy Presiding Officer, it was arranged that the votes of the military electors whose surnames commenced with the letters ranging from A to H should be polled in the electoral district of Grenville, and the said votes were so polled after the said electors had been induced to falsely declare their domicile to be

in the town of Prescott, in the electoral district of Grenville.
26.	That a large number of citizens of the United States voted in the electoral districts of Peel, Digby and Annapolis, St. Annes, Que., Prince Edward County, Ont., North Essex, Bruce North, Edmonton, Cape Breton South, and Richmond, St. Lawrence and St. George, Ottawa, Brome, Renfrew, Laurier and Outre-mont, Wright, Cape Breton North and Victoria, Pictou, Westmorland, Cumberland, Leeds, Yarmouth, Hants, St. Antoine and Port Arthur and Kenora.
27.	That military electors voted twice in the same polling booth.
28.	That Deputy Presiding Officers gave military electors two ballots in direct violation of the Election Act.
29.	That military electors voted on behalf of and personated other military electors.
30.	That after military electors had voted ballot envelopes were fraudulently re-endorsed so that the votes of the said electors were transferred to electoral districts other than the constituencies indicated by the said electors in their reply to questions 6 and 7 in Form B.
31.	That persons were fraudulently allowed to vote by Deputy Presiding Officers with knowledge that such persons were not qualified under the Election Act.
32.	That a large number of Canadian officers fraudulently voted in electoral districts other than where they were entitled to vote.
These are the changes I make andi which I 'propose to discuss, and I shall give some facts and evidence to the House to prove the truth of them. The House will readily understand how meagre is the opportunity afforded to a member of the Opposition to gather up information. But I have made endeavour to get sufficient information to establish to this House a prima facie case of a conspiracy which I believe existed on the part of some person or persons to illegally and improperly elect members of the Unionist Government to Parliament in certain constituencies.
1 wish now to refer to' charge No. 3: that these frauds were directed and practised by responsible officers' of His Majesty's Canadian forces co-operating with Deputy Presiding Officers' and poll clerks appointed under the authority of the Grown.
I hold under my hand the nominal roll of voters at headquarters No. 51 district C.F.C., Inverness, England. The name of the deputy presiding officer is given as Lieutenant-Colonel J. iGlenn, address Indian Head, in the province of Saskatchewan, whose signature is attached to this list, certifying to the post office addresses given. Lieutenant-iCo-lonel Glenn himself voted in Prince Ediward county, Ontario, although his home address is given as I have stated.
I give a list of persons who voted in. Prince Edward County, Ontario, together with their home addresses, as endorsed by Colonel Glenn:	-

799446, Pte. R. Armstrong, Toronto, Ward 6, Toronto.
2297938, Pte. C. T. Barrett, Sydney, N.S., Cape Breton.
690345, Pte., J. H. Brain, Hamilton, East Hamilton.
81127, Pte., H. M. Butterworth, Indian Head, South Qu'Appelle.
434059, Pte., W. Dean, Calgary, Calgary.
447082 A/Cpl. E. T. Girling, Calgary. Calgary.
811518, A/Sgt. P. Greenwood, Ft. Sask., Sask.
1037305, Pte., R. Honeybone, Regina, Sask.
108308, A/cpl., A. R. D. Jarvis, Medicine Hat, Alta.
629384, Pte., C. Lewes, Vancouver, B.C.
802061, Pte., C. M. Lowe, Parkhill, Ont., W. Middlesex.
297486, Pte., W. W. Mercer, Edmonton, Ward 4 West.
2250686, Pte., D. Osborne, Windsor, Ont.
766905, Pte., H. Paley, 195 River St., Toronto, E. Toronto.
297103, A/Sgt., J. Todd, Westboro, Ont. Car-leton Co.
1013, Pte., G. Thomas, Winnipeg.
37279, Pte., H. C. Trotter, Peterborough, Ont. W. Peterborough, Ont.
441585, Pte., H. Wills, Star City, Sask., Humboldt Constituency.


John Allister Currie: Were these votes counted? What is the use of bringing in a complaint if they were not counted?


Charles Murphy: That is not the point. The fact that the fraud was prevented does not excuse those in the conspiracy who perpetrated it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not discussing that phase of the subject at this moment. I am giving to the House a list of the officials and persons, 'according to a signed statement whose home addresses were as I have read them, but who voted in Prince Edward constituency, Ontario.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is giving the House the impression that these men voted and that their votes were counted. Everybody knows that these votes were not counted. A man may give h;s.address as Ottawa, being the place where he enlisted, whereas his actual home may he in Prince Edward Island. That is no evidence that his vote was not correctly given.


Charles Murphy: Thirteen thousand of
them.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) wishes to put a question I shall answer it to the best of my ability. I am trying to give the facts to the House clearly and honestly, feeling that it is my duty to do so. I shall discuss later the aspect of the question referred to by my hon. friend. Lieutenant-Colonel. Glenn, the deputy presiding officer, had this signed list before him when the vote was taken and must have known that the votes of the persons

to whom I have referred were placed in -a constituency in which they had no right to be placed.
I want to show the extent to which deputy presiding officers in England ignored the Act and permitted envelopes containing soldiers' votes to be placed in the ballot boxes with several of the answers required by the law not given.
Lieutenant R. R. H. Beaton, deputy presiding officer, Sunningdale, Ontario, permitted 133 envelopes, with questions 6, 7 and 8 not answered-one envelope only gave an answer to question 6-to be alloted to Prince Edward county, Ontario.
Lieutenant-Colonel G. G. Corbett, deputy presiding officer, permitted 274 envelopes to be placed in his ballot box for various constituencies in Ontario., out of which 174 did not answer questions 6, 7 and 8.
Major Cecil M. Roberts, deputy presiding officer, Bramshott camp, England, voted 609 envelopes. With the exception of 36, the entire poll was marked "cannot state" in reply to question 6. These votes were allocated to the constituencies of Essex, Bruce, Middlesex and Nipissing.
Lieutenant J. T. Allen, deputy presiding officer, permitted 237 votes to be polled for Ontario, out of which approximately 160 did not reply to questions 6, 7 and 8.
Captain H. J. Dennis, deputy presiding officer, polled a total of 808 votes, out of which 513 did not reply to questions 6, 7 and 8.
Out of a total of 589 envelopes placed in the ballot box of Major A. P. Gillis, deputy presiding officer, in only 314 were answers given to questions 6, 7 and 8.
Lieutenant-Colonel Malone, deputy presiding officer, 208th Battalion, polled a total of 766 envelopes, out of which 541 did not have answers given to questions 6, 7 and 8.
Under the supervision of Lieutenant J. R. Hayden, deputy presiding officer, 1,240 envelopes were polled at the regimental depot, practically all of which represented English-speaking soldiers. Out of this number, 1,200 did not answer questions 6, 7 .and 8.	999 of these envelopes were
placed in Quebec constituencies.
The following are among the deputy presiding officers in whose polling subdivisions election frauds were conspicuously and systematically perpetrated, as is clearly established by documentary evidence now in my possession:
Major McGowan, Bramshott.
Captain C. E. Louth, Bramshott.
Captain W. B. Metcalfe, Bramshott.
Major C. M. Roberts, Bramshott.
Lieutenant C. S. Macpherson, Bramshott.
Lieutenant J. A. P. Hauden, Bramshott. Major S. G. Chown, Bramshott.
Captain H. J. Dennis, Bramshott.
Captain D. R. Taylor, Bramshott.
Lieutenant P. Redpath, Bramshott.
Captain G. P. Hudson, Bramshott.
Captain J. D. Black, Bramshott.
Major C. H. Mackenzie, London.
Captain W. W. Muir, London.
Major Rogers, Epsom.
Lieutenant G. E. Oxley, Forestry Corps. Major J. McCuaig, Forestry Corps.
Lieutenant Colglen, Forestry Corps.
Major C. Rosseau, Forestry Corps.
Major F. M. Walker, Forestry Corps. Lieutenant J. R. H. Beaton, Forestry Corps. Lieutenant H. Proctor, Forestry Corps. Lieutenant R. Brassay, Forestry Corps. Captain E. A. Mitchell, Forestry Corps. Captain J. D. Cameron, Forestry Corps. Captain H. J. Wilson, Forestry Corps. Captain D. J. Perry, Forestry Corps.
Captain G. A. McNaughton, Forestry Corps Major D. J. Perry, Forestry Corps.
Major Burnett, Buxton.
Major V. J. Hastings, London.
Lieut.-Colonel J. A. Shaw, Witley. Lieut.-Colonel W. Simpson, Witley. Lieut.-Colonel R. Mudie, Witley.
Major A. P. Gillies, Witley.
Lieut.-Colonel G. G. Corbett, Witley. Lieut.-Colonel J. A. Cooper, Witley. Lieut.-Colonel H. P. Malone, Wiley.
Captain S. P. South, Witley.
Major J. H. Brownlee, Witley.
Major L. T. Allan, Witley.
Lieutenant W. T. Foster, Witley. Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Graham, Witley. Lieut.-Colonel M. E. B. Cutcliffe, Witley. Lieut.-Colonel T. P. Rowlands, Witley.
Major C. S. Stafford, Witley.
Captain A. Fenton, Witley.
Major L. E. Harris, Witley.
Lieut.-Colonel B. M. Green, Witley.
Major F. E. Allen, Witley.
Lieutenant J. B. Maxted, London. Lieut.-Colonel W. F. Kemp, Seaford. Lieut.-Colonel R. E. Woodhouse, Woking. Captain White, Basingstoke.
Lieutenant A. Rowley, London.
Captain W. M. Burke, Ashdown.
Lieut.-Colonel Balfour, Seaford.
Major H. P. Gorst, 72nd Battalion.
Captain McLean, Buxton.
Lieutenant C. H. Field, Buxton.
Captain A. G. Gordon, Buxton.
Major S. M. Fisher, Orpington.
Lieut.-Colonel W. D. Macpherson, Orpington. Captain G. D. Blackadar, Knockando. Lieut.-Colonel R. L. Christie, Seaford. Lieut.-Colonel D. A. Clarke, Seaford. Lieut.-Colonel W. L. Watt, Taplow.
Major E. S. Rogers, Epsom.
Major Woolly-Dodd, Epsom.
Lieutenant H. A. Fraser, 160th Infantry. Major W. M. Hart, Lenham.
Major H. M. Cherry, London.
Major E. D. Hale, Shorncliffe.
Lieutenant J. G. Hayward, Shorncliffe.
Major J. M. McKinley, Shorncliffe. Lieut.-Colonel A. L. Young, Shorncliffe.
Major W. L. Hutton, Shorncliffe.
Major Stayner-Ellis, Buxton.
Captain C. A. McDiarmid, Hospital. Lieut.-Colonel W. T. McKinnon, Hospital. Lieut.-Colonel McQueen, Hospital.
I have placed these names on Hansard in order to show that it was not in an

individual or isolated case that those frauds were committed, but that they were committed in practically every camp in which [DOT]the votes of soldiers were taken. Deputy presiding officers, if my information is correct and I have no doubt of its correctness, -committed frauds and conspiracies simply to defeat the will of the people of the Dominion of Canada in the election held on the 17th of December, 1917.
I want to refer to the statement I made in regard to Charge No. 7. To prove that charge, I am going to read to the House some affidavits which I hold in my hand. The first is an affidavit made by Louis Edmund Guillet:
1,	Louis Edmund Guillet a captain in the 150th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the fifth division of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:-
1.	I was duly appointed in writing Deputy Scrutineer by William Thomas Rochester Preston under and for the purposes of the Military Voters' Act '1917.
2.	At or about 11.30 a.m. on Monday the 3rd day of December, 1917, I attended at the polling booth at Witley Camp at which polling booth the military electors comprised in the 125th Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the pending Canadian election. I attended in my capacity as deputy scrutineer and I duly presented to the deputy presiding officer the document appointing me deputy scrutineer.
3.	Prior to the military electors entering the said polling booth for the purpose of voting they had already received from some person in some place other than the polling booth the envelopes with the questions printed thereon known as form B of the Military Voters' Act, 1917, and in nearly every instance the answers to the said questions in the said envelopes- had been filled in when they entered the said polling booth to vote.
4.	The military electors handed the envelopes so filled up and signed, to the deputy presiding officer who administered the oath and took the vote. I called the attention of the deputy presiding officer to the fact of the envelopes being filled in before the voter entered the polling booth and I asked the deputy returning officer where the answers were being written out and signed and he replied "in the company's offices". He also stated to me that after reading over the Act he considered this way of proceeding to take the vote to be the correct one.
5.	On the same day, Monday the 3rd December, 1917, I attended at the polling booth at Witley Camp at which polling booth the military electors comprised in the 156th Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the same election. The same proceeding was being carried on at this polling booth namely, the military electors entered the said polling booth with envelopes already filled in outside the said polling booth, the oath was administered and the votes taken. I saw amongst others Lieut. Mason of the 156th Battalion attached to the 14th Canadian Infantry Brigade enter the polling booth with the answers to*the printed questions on his envelope already filled in outside the said polling booth.

6.	On the same day, 3rd December, 1917, I attended as deputy scrutineer at the polling booth at Witley Camp at which polling booth the military electors comprised in the 14th, 15th and 16th Canadian field ambulance sections were to register their votes for the said election, I saw several military electors enter the said polling booth with the answers to the questions on their envelopes already filled in and this had been done in another room and not in the said polling booth, I pointed out to the deputy presiding officer the voces were being taken not in compliance with the Act of Parliament and objected to his acting in this manner. The deputy presiding officer then called in two clerks who then proceeded to write out the answers of the military electors on their envelopes. The deputy presiding officer then asked the military electors the questions and read out the written answers himself.
7.	On the same day 3rd December, 1917, at about 3 p.m. I attended as deputy scrutineer at Witley Camp at which polling booth the military electors comprised the 208th .Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the said election. I remained until 3.30 p.m. when the polling booth was closed. During this period about twenty military electors recorded their votes, they all brought into the said polling booth their envelopes with the answers to the printed questions thereon filled in outside the said polling booth and the deputy presiding officer in each case administered the oath and recorded the votes.
8.	On the following day the 4th December, 1917, I again as deputy scrutineer attended the last-mentioned polling booth and the military electors were voting in the way described in the preceding paragraph hereof. I then asked the deputy presiding officer to put the following questions to each military elector, "Were you in Canada when you enlisted" and "How long have you lived there" but the deputy presiding officer refused to put the questions to the said military electors who afterwards came in to record their votes.
9.	On the morning of Monday, the 3rd December, 1917, I attended at the polling booth at Witley Camp at which polling booth the military electors comprised in the 160th Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the said election. I attended as deputy scrutineer and produced the document appointing me deputy scrutineer. No voting took place during the forenoon of that day. I attended at the same polling booth on the 4fh December, 1917, when voting was being carried on in the following manner. Each military elector was handed his envelope with the printed questions thereon which he took out of the said polling booth and filled in the answers in an adjoining room or office and he then returned to the said polling booth when the deputy presiding officer administered the oath and recorded his vote. Shortly before 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, the 4th of December, 1917, accompanied by the said William Thomas Rochester Preston, I again attended at the said polling booth. I identified the said William Thomas Rochester Preston to the said Lt.-Col. W. P. Malone as the person appointed as scrutineer by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Canadian Opposition but the said Lt.-Col. W. P. Malone denied the right of the said William Thomas Rochester Preston to remain in the said polling booth during the polling and ordered the said William Thomas Rochester Preston to leave the said polling booth which

the said William Thomas Rochester Preston refused to do and thereupon the said Lt.-Cof. W. P. Malone called into the said polling booth the sergeant of the special guard and ordered the sergeant to bring- in the guard and remove the said William Thomas Rochester Preston from the said polling booth and thereupon the said sergeant requested the said William Thomas Rochester Preston to leave the said polling booth which the said William Thomas Rochester Preston refused to do and thereupon the said Lt.-Col. W. P. Malone ordered the said sergeant to take the said William Thomas Rochester Preston to the guard house which he accordingly did assisted by the guard.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835.
(Sgd) Louis Edmund Guillet.
Declared at Witley Camp in the county of Surrey this 17th day of December, 1917, Before me,
Mr. Arthur Heywood,
A Commissioner for Oaths, etc., for use in Province of Ontario.
The next affidavit is as follows:
I,	the undersigned, No. 417601, Eugene B. Bastien, R.Q.M.S. in the 150th Battalion C.E.F., Witley, declare the following knowing that the said Declaration has the same effect as one taken under oath:
The third day of December of the year nineteen hundred and seventeen (3. 12. 1917) acting as electoral agent for the polls of the ' 5th Division, I visited the following polls: Batt's 156, 161, 198, 208, 185 and' A.S.C.
I first went to the 156th Battalion and notified the electors' agent, S.S.M. McKinnen, that the envelope containing the ballots were sealed in advance, before entering the poll, or at least filled in advance after the information I had. S.S.M. McKinnen told me that he knew about it and that an order had* just been given to correct that mode of proceeding.
In poll of the 198th Battalion I, myself, noticed a soldier handing to the O.C. an envelope sealed before entering said poll the O.C. taking and putting said envelope in the bag placed there to that effect.
In the polls of the 158th and 208 Battalions,
I could not get access to those polls and was told to get away.
DECLARED at Westminster in the County of Middlesex in the United1 Kingdom this nineteenth day of December, A.D., 1917.
Eugene B. Bastien.
Before me,
W. T. R. Preston,
A Commissioner for Oaths, etc., for use in the Courts of Ontario.


Mr. SHEARD:: Can the hon. gentleman tell me where the 150th Battalion came from and who its commanding officer was?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I cannot say, but I could get the information for my hon. friend. It was a Canadian regiment, at all events.


Charles Sheard: Is it not a fact that the 150th Battalion was from the province of Quebec and was commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Barre?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: That does not alter the case at all. We know what you have in your mind.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know where the battalion came from, and I do not care. I am simply giving the facts.


John Allister Currie: Before whom were these oaths taken?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Before Mr. N. Arthur Heywood.


John Allister Currie: These are not affidavits under the law.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will leave that legal point to my hon. friend.


John Allister Currie: I am lawyer enough to know that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The other affidavits are as follows:
In the matter of the Dominion Elections Act as amended and affected! by the War-time Elections Act, 1917, and the Military Voters' Act 1917.
And in the matter of the Election (1917) for the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada.
And in the matter of the Military Voters for the purpose of the above Election.
I,	William Brennan, a Corporal in the lS5th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:-
1.	I was duly appointed in writing Deputy Scrutineer by William Thomas Rochester Preston under and for the purposes of the Military Voters Act, 1917, to the 134th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
2.	On Monday, the 3rd December, 1917, I attended at the Polling Booth at Witley Camp at which polling booth the Military Electors comprised1 in the 134 th Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the pending Canadian election. I attended in my capacity as Deputy Scrutineer and I duly presented to the Deputy Presiding Officer the document appointing me Deputy Scrutineer.
3.	I attended at the same polling booth on the 4th, 5th and 6th days of December, 1917.
4.	Prior to the Military Electors entering the said polling booth for the purpose of voting they had already received1 from some person in some place other than the said polling booth the envelopes with the questions printed thereon known as Form B of the Military Voters Act, 1917, and in every instance on the said 3rd, 4th and 5th days of December, 1911, the answers to the said questions on the said envelopes had been1 Ailed in outside the said polling booth. On the said 6th day of December the answers had only been partially filled in when brought by the military electors into the said polling booth for the purpose of voting.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and

by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835.
DECLARED at Witley Camp, in the County of Surrey, this 17t'h day of December, 1917.
Wim. G. Brennan.
Before me,
N. Arthur Heywood,
A Commissioner for Oaths for use in the province of Ontario.
In the matter of the Dominion Election Act as amended and affected by the War-time Elections Act, 1917, and the [Military Voters' Act, 1917.
And in the matter of the Elections (1917) for the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada.
And in the matter of the Military Voters for the purposes of the above elections.
I,	William Brennan, a Corporal in the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Force do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows, being supplementary to my previous declaration made on the 17th day of December in this matter.
At the polling booth referred to in my aforesaid declaration on the first three days of the voting, December 3rd, 4th and 5th, the deputy presiding officer or his clerk asked no questions of the men as provided for in Form B ctf the said Military Electors Act but simply swore them and handed them their ballots, but after that date, December 6th, 7th and 8th, questions were asked by the deputy presiding officer of the voter, as to his name, regimental number and whether the voter was a British subject, but these questions had been previously filled in outside the polling booth.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act, A.D., 1835.
DECLARED at Westminster in the County of Middlesex this 8th day of March, 1918 .
9(0140,1, William G. Brennan.
Before me,
W. T. iR. Preston,
A Commissioner for Oaths for use in the Courts of the province of Ontario.
In the matter of the Dominion Elections Act as amended and affected by the War-time Elections Act, 1917, and the Military Voters' Act, 1917, and in the matter of the Elections (1917) for the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada and in the matter of the Military Voters (for the purposes of the above elections.
I, Wilfrid Docity Gaston Fatenaude, a Sergeant in the 150th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1.	I was duly appointed in writing a Deputy Scrutineer by William Thomas Rochester Preston under and for the purposes of the Military Voters' Act, 1917.
2.	On Monday the 3rd of December, 1917, I attended at the polling booth at Witley Camp at which polling booth the military electors comprised in the Mist Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the pending Canadian elections. I attended in my capacity of Deputy Scrutineer and I duly presented to the deputy presiding officer the document appointing me a Deputy Scrutineer.

3.	Prior to the military electors entering the
said polling booth for the purpose of voting they had already received1 from some person in a place other than the polling booth the envelope with the questions printed thereon known as Form B of the Military Voters' Act, 1917, and afterwards the envelopes were brought in by an orderly from some outside office* three at a time, all filled in and handed by the orderly to the deputy presiding officer, who then signed them before the military electors came into the polling booth The secretary who was sitting near the deputy presiding officer examined the envelopes and made some entries on a sheet of paper. The military electors were then called in by name and each asked to swear that the answers to the questions were true. During the time il was at the polling booth about 750 voters recorded their votes in this way, and out of that number only about six	looked at	their	answerswritten on the envelope before taking the oath. In	several	instances	the	militaryelector was	handed	his ballot	and	envelope
while he was being sworn and in these cases he had no time to read over his answers on the envelope before taking the oath.
4.	The deputy presiding officer in one case
only asked	any question of	the	military
elector, viz: that of Private R. P. Garvey, No. 844-495, who stated in answer to a question that he was an American citizen. I made an objection, and the deputy presiding officer then asked Private Garvey if he had enlisted in Canada, to which no reply was given, and the deputy presiding officer then turned to me and said, "Any one enlisted in the Canadian Army has a right to vote."
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations' Act, 183-5.
DECLARED at Witley Camp in the County of Surrey this 17th day of December, 1917.
W. D. Patenaude, Sgt.
Before me,
N. Arthur Heywood,
A Commissioner for Oaths for use in the province of Ontario.
In the matter of the Dominion Elections Act as amended and affected by the War-time Elections Act, 1917, and the Military Voters' Voters' Act, 191*7.
And in the matter of the Elections (1917) for the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada,
And in the matter of the Military Voters for the purposes of the above elections.
I, William McCoy, a Sergeant in the 150th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1.	I was duly appointed in writing a Deputy Scrutineer by William Thomas Rochester Preston under and for the purposes of the Military Voters' Act 1917.
2.	At 9.30 on Monday, the 3rd day of December, 1917, I attended at the polling booth at Witley Camp, at which polling booth the Military electors comprised in the li2'5th Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the pending Canadian election. I attended in my capacity of Deputy Scrutineer and I duly presented to the deputy presiding officer the document appointing me a Deputy Scrutineer.

3.	Prior to the (military electors entering the said booth for the purpose of voting they had already received from some person other than the polling booth the envelope with the questions printed thereon known as Form B of the Military Voters' Act 1917, and in nearly every instance the answers to the questions on the said envelopes had been filled in by the military electors when they then entered the said polling booth to vote.
4.	The envelopes were then handed by the said military electors to the deputy presiding officer, who thereupon administered the oath aa provided by the Acts, merely asking if the questions on the envelope were truly answered. The deputy presiding officer, after administering the oath, handed to each military elector his ballot paper. Bach military elector then marked his ballot paper on the top of a box which was placed on the opposite side of the desk at which the deputy presiding officer sat, and which box was the only accommodation provided for the purpose, resulting in the fact that the voting of the military electors was not secret but was visible to those present in the polling booth.
5.	About 11:30 a. m. on the said 3rd of December and whilst the said poll was proceeding in manner hereinbefore described, Captain Guillet, a deputy scrutineer, came to the said polling booth and in my presence pointed out to the said deputy presiding officer that the procedure hereinbefore recorded did not comply with the Act of Parliament, but notwithstanding the said objection the said deputy presiding officer continued to conduct the said polling in the manner hereinbefore recorded.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations' Act 1835.
DECLARED at Witley 'Camp, in the County of Surrey, this 17th day of December, 1917.
W. M. McCoy, Sgt.
Before me,
N. Arthur Heywood,
A Commissioner for Oaths for use in the province of Ontario.
In the matter of the Dominion Elections Act as amended and affected by the War Time Election Act 1917 ad the Military Voters Act 1917.
And in the matter of the Elections (1917) for the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada.
And in the matter of the Military Voters for the purposes of the above elections.
I, Murdoch Edward Faulkner a Quarter-Master-Sergeant in the 18'5th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1.	I was duly appointed in writing a Deputy Scrutineer to the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion by William Thomas Rochester Preston under and for the purposes of the Military Voters Act 1917.
2.	On Monday the 3rd December 1917 I attended at the Polling Booth at Witley Camp at which Polling Booth the Military Electors comprised in the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the pending Canadian Election. I attended In my capacity as Deputy Scrutineer.
3.	I attended at the same polling booth on the 4th and 5th days of December 1917.
4.	Prior to the Military Electors entering the said polling booth for the purposes of voting they had already received from some person in some place other than the said polling booth the envelopes with the questions printed thereon known as Form B of the Military Voters Act 1917 and in every instance on the above dates the Military Electors brought in their envelopes with the answers completely filled up and this had been done outside the said polling booth.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Statutory Declaration Act 1835.
Declared at Westminster in the County of Middlesex this 19th day of December 1917.
(iSgd) M. E. FAULKNER.
Before -me W. T. R. Preston, a Commissioner for Oaths etc. for use in the Courts of the Province of Ontario.
In the matter of the Dominion Election Act as amended and affected by the War Time Election Act 1917, and the Military Voters Act 1917.
And in the matter of the Election (1917) for the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada.
And in the matter of the Military Voters for the purposes of the above Election.
I, Thomas D. MaofaiHane of 17 Victoria Street, London, S.W. Manufacturers Agent do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follow:
I was duly appointed in writing Deputy Scrutineer by William Thomas Rochester Preston under and for the purposes of the Military Voters Act, 1917, to act for and on behalf of him in the Polling Sub-division throughout the United Kingdom.
On Monday the 3rd December, 1917, I attended at Polling Booths in Whitley Camp particularly at the polling booth wherein the 156th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Reserve were to register their votes for the pending Canadian election, and I attended in my capacity of Deputy Scrutineer at the said polling booth.
On my arrival at the outside of the polling booth I saw officers and non-commissioned officers canvassing the men who' were paraded in line waiting to vote and filling in the envelopes Form B for and on behalf of Military Electors and I found that a number of electors were entering this said 156th Battalion polling booth with the envelopes in their hands duly filled up. I accordingly entered the polling booth and announced to the Deputy Presiding Officer, Lieut.-Col. Graham, that I attended in my capacity as deputy scrutineer for the Opposition and I immediately directed his attention to the improper procedure then In vogue at that polling sub-division whereby the envelopes being part of the ballots were being improperly completed out of his possession and in the possession of persons outside the polling booth who were filling in the answers to the questions for Military electors who proposed voting thereon.
While I was present in the said polling booth one voter who had entered with his envelope duly filled up as hereinbefore stated was in the act of voting when I protested that the statements contained in the envelope must be filled in in the presence of the Presiding Officer and the scrutineer who was present for the purpose of learning and knowing what statements were being sworn to. The Presiding Officer informed me that this was unnecessary and voters were being sworn that the statements contained in the envelope were correct. I then requested



the scrutineers for the Opposition to make a note- of ail such votes recorded under these conditions and to enter a protest in each and every case, and demanded from the Presiding Officer that he note the protest of the official scrutineer for the Opposition.
I afterwards proceeded to the headquarters of the camp to interview the General Officer Commanding, Brigadier-General Hughes, who was not present. I therefore informed Colonel Parson who was acting on his behalf, and protested against this violation of the law which I had witnessed at said polling booth of the 156th Battalion. I also called upon the General Officer Commanding, General Meighan, of the Bramshott Camp, and informed him of what I had Witnessed at the Whitley Camp. He at once issued an order that no such procedure would be permitted within his district and each Deputy Returning Officer was notified accordingly. I immediately communicated with the said William Thomas Rochester Preston the facts concerned with this improper procedure at this polling sub-division as well as others within the Whitley Camp area.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be correct and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835.
Declared at Westminster in the County of Middlesex this 22nd day of December, 1917.
(Sgd) T. D. Maefarlane.
Before me
(Sgd) W. T. R. Preston,
A Commissioner for Oaths for use in the Courts of the Province of Ontario.


Charles Sheard: Is the W. T. R. Preston, who, I understand, appointed the gentleman who made that affidavit the same W. T. K. Preston before whom the affidavit was sworn to?


Arthur Bliss Copp: 
Charles Sheard: They swore to the affidavit before the same gentleman?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The same gentleman. (Continues reading):
In the matter of the Dominion Election Act as amended and affected by the War Times Election Act, 1917, and -the Military Voters Act, 1917.
And in the matter of the Elections (1917) for the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada.
And in the matter of the Military Voters for the purposes of the above elections.
I, Hugh Patrick McKinnon, a Quarter-Master-Sergeant in the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1. I was duly appointed in writing a Deputy Scrutineer to the 156th Canadian Infantry Bat-
IMr. Copp.]
talion by William Thomas Rochester Preston under and for the purposes of the Military Voters Act, 1917.
2.	On Monday the 3rd December, 1917, I attended the polling booth at Witley Camp at which polling booth the military electors comprised in the 156th Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the pending Canadian election. I attended in my capacity of deputy scrutineer and I duly presented to the Deputy Presiding Officer the document appointing me a Deputy Scrutineer.
3.	I attended at the same polling booth on
Tuesday and Wednesday the 4th and 5th December, 1917.	"
4.	On each day prior to the Military electors entering the said polling booth for the purposes of voting they had already received from some person in a place other than the said polling booth the envelopes with the questions printed thereon known as Form B of the Military Service Act, 1917, and in nearly every Instance the answers to the questions on the said envelopes had been filled In by the military electors or some one on their behalf when they entered the said polling booth to vote. After objection was raised by Mr. Maefarlane and myself on the 3rd December, the questions relating to residence were asked by the Deputy Presiding Officer but in a few instances the answers had been only partially filled in.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1836.
Declared at Westminster in the County of Middlesex this 19th day of December, 1917.
(Sgd) H. P. McKinnon.
Before me
(Sgd) W. T. R. Preston,
A Commissioner for Oaths, etc., for use in the Courts of the Province of Ontario.
In the matter of the Dominion Election Act as amended and affected by the War Time Election Act, 1917, and the Military Voters Act, 1917.
And in the matter of the Elections (1917) for the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada. ,
And in the matter of the Military Voters for the purposes of the above elections.
I, Duncan Syd Carmichael, a Lance-Corporal in the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1. I was duly appointed in writing a Deputy Scrutineer to the 104th Canadian Infantry Battalion by William Thomas Rochester Preston under and for the purposes of the Military Voters Act, 1917.
On Monday 3rd December, 1917, I attended at the polling booth at Witley Camp, at which polling booth the military electors comprised in the 104th Canadian Infantry Battalion were to register their votes for the pending Canadian election. I attended in my capacity of deputy scrutineer and I duly presented to the Lieutenant at the door of the polling booth the document appointing me a deputy scrutineer. He took this said document into the polling booth and he refused to allow me to enter the said polling booth and the voting continued without my being allowed to be present as a scrutineer on behalf of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Opposition. The reason given to me by the

said Lieutenant for refusing me admittance was that the Deputy Presiding Officer of the said polling booth had no official information of the appointment of the said William Thomas Rochester Preston as Scrutineer.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835.
Declared at Westminster in the County of Middlesex, this 19th day of December, 1917.
(Sgd) Duncan S. Carmichael.
Before me
(Sgd) W. T. R. Preston,
A commissioner for Oaths, etc., for use in the Province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I have placed these affidavits before the House for the purpose of showing that these cases were not a few individual and isolated ones, and to demonstrate the manner in which the taking of the soldiers' vote was conducted in the Mother Country-those soldiers whom we spent our time here pledging ourselves to protect, and that advantage was taken by officials appointed by somebody- whoever was responsible for that electionr- to commit these wrongdoings. I have brought this matter to the attention of the House for its consideration, and I feel that the time occupied in doing so is amply justified when I present such facts as these.
Now I wish to refer to clause 8 of the charges alleging
That Opposition scrutineers were prevented from attending certain polling booths while the military vote was being allocated.
That has 'been covered in part by the affidavit of Mr. Guillet which I have already read, and also in the last clauee of Mr. Carmichael's declaration which I have just finished reading:
I want tQ place before the House another affidavit dealing with the charge that the scrutineer of the Liberal party was forced out of a polling booth and the vote taken in said military polling booth without any representative of the Opposition being there, as provided by the Military Voters Act:
In the matter of the Dominion Election Act as amended and affected by the War Time Election Act, 1917, and the Military Voters Act, 1917.
And in the matter of the election (1917) for the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada.
And in the matter of the military voters for the purposes of the above election.
I, William Thomas Rochester Preston of "Kempshott", London Road, Norbury, in the county of Surrey, England, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows :-
1. Pursuant to the Military Voters Act 1917 I was appointed scrutineer for and on behalf of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Canadian Opposition in respect of the military voting to take place in the United Kingdom of Great Britain
152$
for the pending election of members to the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada, and I have duly complied with all the provisions of the said Act appertaining to a scrutineer.
2.	Notice of my said appointment was duly published in the General Military Orders issued by General Turner, commanding the Canadian Expeditionary Forces in London, and as scrutineer I have visited the polling booths at Witley Camp on several occasions with the approval of the commandant of the said Fifth Division, Brigadier General Hughes.
3.	Pursuant to the power vested in me under the said Military Voters Act, 19)17, I duly appointed (inter alia) the following persons as deputy scrutineers:
(a)	Sergeant Patenaude of the 150th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
(b)	Lance-Corporal D. S. Carmichael, of the 1'8'5th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
(c)	Q-Master H. L. McKinnon, of the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
(d)	Corporal M. D. Kennedy, of the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
(e)	Corporal W. C. Brennan, of the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
(f)	Q-Master M. E. Falkner, of the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
(g)	Captain L. E. Guillet, of the 150th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
(h)	Sergeant McCoy, of the 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion.
4.	From each of the said deputy scrutineers I received from time to time complaints of illegalities sanctioned and _ committed by the Deputy Presiding Officer at the polling booths at which they respectively attended in their capacity as scrutineers. At my request the said Deputy Scrutineers have made legal declarations of some of the said illegalities.
5.	In addition to the illegalities referred to in the preceding paragraph many more illegalities of a similar nature have occurred legal evidence as to which is now in process of being collected.
6.	As an illustration of the high handed illegal treatment to which I and some of the Deputy Scrutineers appointed by me have been subjected by certain of the Deputy Returning Officers, I desire to record the following facts:-
On Tuesday morning the 4th December 1917 I attended the said Polling Booth at Witley Camp wherein the Military Electors of the 208th Canadian Infantry Battalion were recording their votes. I had previously been informed that on Monday the 3rd December 1917 the day preceding my regularly appointed Scrutineer Captain Guillet in the said polling booth had been refused permission to remain during the voting. I produced letters from Lieutenant Colonel Purney the deputy of the clerk of the Crown in Chancery establishing my identity to the Deputy Presiding Officer Lieutenant Colonel W. P. Malone but he refused to acknowledge my right to be present and ordered me to withdraw from the said polling booth and on my refusing to comply with his directions he declared the poll to be closed.
7.	Having ascertained that the said poll was to be reopened in the said polling booth at the hour of 1.30 p.m. on the said 4th December 1917 I returned to the said polling booth accompanied by Captain Guillet of the 150th Canadian Infantry Battalion of the 5th Division of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces one of the Deputy Scrutineers appointed by me as aforesaid and he in my presence and in the

presence of the said Deputy Presiding Officer the said Lieutenant Colonel W. P. Malone identified me to the said Lieutenant Colonel W. P. Malone as Mr. W. T. R. Preston the Scrutineer appointed by the said Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Canadian Opposition under the said Military Voters Act 19T7. The said Captain Guillet had previously complained to me that he had been prevented from remaining at the said polling Booth by the said Deputy Presiding Officer Lieutenant Colonel W. P. Malone. Notwithstanding the production by me of the said letter from Lieutenant Colonel Purney and the identification of me by the said Captain Guillet the said Deputy Presiding Officer. Lieutenant Colonel W. P. Malone denied my right to remain in the said polling booth during the polling therein and ordered me to leave the said polling booth which X refused to do, and thereupon the said Deputy Presiding Officer the said Lieutenant Colonel W. P. Malone called in to the said polling booth a sergeant of the special guard which was in attendance and ordered the said sergeant to bring in the guard and remove me from the said polling booth. The said Sergeant then requested me to leave the said polling booth which I refused to do and thereupon the said Deputy Presiding Officer the said Lieutenant Colonel W. P. Malone addressing the said Sergeant said "Remove this man and take him to the Guard House". Accordingly the Sergeant seized me forcibly and removed me from the said polling booth and accompanied by the said Sergeant the said guard with fixed bayonets conducted me to the Guard House and placed me In an inner room used as a detention cell where there were incarcerated a number of soldiers, charged with military offences. I was detained in the said Guard House for a period of about two and a half hours when, escorted by a guard under command of an officer I was marched to General Headquarters a distance of about one mile where I was received in the first instance by Major Green and who was astonished to hear of the treatment to which I had been subjected. At my request in confirmation of the facts heretofore declared to by me as to my arrest I received through the said Major Green a memorandum in the following terms:
"To the 13th Canadian Inf. Batt.
4,	XII, 1917.
"Mr. W. T. R. Preston who has been officially appointed a Scrutineer in connection with the Dominion Elections (Vide D.O.C.R.O. 2842) has permission to enter polling booths within this Camp area.
(Signed) Major Green,
D. A. A. & Q.M.G.
5th Canadian Division.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations in this behalf.
(Signed) W. T. R. Preston.
Declared before me at Ottawa in the County of Carleton this 21st day of May, 1918.
(Signed) D. C. Ross,
A Commissioner for Oaths.
Mr. Speaker, that affidavit, together with that part of the affidavits of Mr. Guillet and Mr. Carmichael that deals with this
[Mr. Copp.j
particular matter, proves beyond question paragraph 8 as set forth in the charges.
The next charge, No. 10, refers to the questions on the envelopes toeing partially filled in and signed and sealed toy the deputy presiding officer, and each containing a ballot marked for the Government toeing in circulation for the perpetration of the charges hereinbefore mentioned. I hold in my hand an envelope, under Form B, signed toy Lieutenant W. G. Bryan, deputy presiding officer. This envelope is an exact copy of an envelope that was found during the counting and allocating of the soldiers' votes in 'England. The Iballot within was initialled and the envelope, with several of the questions answered, was signed by the deputy returning officer, tout the name of the soldier voter was left blank.
I now wish to read an affidavit made by W. D. Spence, in regard to this:
In the matter of the Elections for the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada holden in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, December lst-17,	1917, under the
provisions of the Military Voters Act, A.D. 1917.
I, William David Spence, of the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, Canada, accountant and Special Returning Officer in the matter herewith, make oath and say:
That in my capacity as Special Returning Officer I received from ballot box 152 an envelope sealed with the following endorsements thereon, the answers being to questions (2) "Pte.".... (3) "21st Alberta Reserve" (4) "Yes" and second part of question 4 "No". "Dated this 10th day of December 1917, (Sd.) W. C. Bryan, Lieut.-Deputy Presiding Officer."
Upon opening the envelope I found a ballot therein marked in compartment (2) "I vote for the Government" with a cross heavily marked in lead pencil.	,
I make this Affidavit on my soul conscien- , tiously believing the statements herein to be true by virtue and under the provisions of Act of Parliament passed for this purpose A.D. 1835.
W. D. Spence.
Sworn before me in the city of Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, England, this sixth day of March, A.D. 1918.
(Sd.) W. T. R. Preston, Commissioner for taking oaths,
&c., &c., &c.
That goes to prove, Mr. Speaker, that there was an effort made, and not only made, hut carried into effect, that envelopes were taken and filled in and signed by a returning officer with the name of the elector left blank and the ballot placed ins'de the envelope marked " for the Government " for the purpose of finding the name of some elector that could be written in at the last moment, and the envelope placed in the ballet box. This is another irregularity,

another fraud, in the conspiracy to defeat the will of the Canadian people in the elections.
Mr. Speaker, the next charge (No. 11) is:
That military electors were canvassed by superior officers in direct contravention of the King's regulations and orders, and were directed how they should mark their ballots.
I have here a statement-not' an affidavit or declaration-made by a gentleman who has already given an affidavit, Mr. T. D. Macfarlane, one of the scrutineers for the Opposition in that election. It reads-
As your representative in the United Kingdom as scrutineer, I beg to report conditions as I found them through the northern pa. t of England at hospitals where Canadian votes were taken, also at Canadian hospitals and other centres.
At the first southern General Hospital, Birmingham, in charge of Capt. J. M. Suttie, Deputy Presenting Officer for the Union Government, I found votes were taken in the various wards, envelopes filled and prepared for the voter in the presence of other voters and instructions given to the voter where to mark his cross, indicating the space opposite Union Government. This applies also to the 21st Southern General Hospital, the First Birmingham War Hospital and the 2nd Birmingham War Hospital under the direction of Lieut. C. E. Haywood, presiding officer.
I next visited the Canadian Discharge Depot, Buxton, presiding officers-Lieut-Colonel A. R. Hanson, Capt. A. Maclean, Lieut. F. W. Lock, Capt. A. D. Gordon, Lieut. C. E. Field.


Mr. BUTTS:: Perhaps my hon. friend would allow me to ask him a question.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Go ahead.


Robert Hamilton Butts: What percentage of the votes of the soldiers in the trenches did you get in Westmorland?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Speaker, I may say to my hon. friend1 that if he will consult the returning officer's return, which was brought down, and of which I think he has a copy, he will find exactly the number I received from the soldiers in France.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I have it here.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I interviewed a number of. the soldiers at the depot and from all I learned that a general canvass had been made with a view of arranging voting and the placing of districts in which votes would be applied; among the number canvassed was a young man of 19 who gave me his name as Malcolm, of Vancouver, who joined the Artillery at Victoria, B.C. He mistook me for a representative of the Union Government and gave me the following information :	That all of them were supporting the
Union Government, and that a large number of them had arranged that their votes would be applied in whatever constituency they were required at the last moment and said they were to be applied in Quebec, but the district would not be selected until they knew where these
votes were needed in order to defeat an Opposition candidate.
I also interviewed a soldier in the Canadian army who said that when in Canada he lived at Oxbow and Alameda, Saskatchewan, but left there in 1906 and lived in America until he joined the Army and that he was requested to name Wentworth as the district in which his vote would be recorded.
At the Crescent Hotel, Buxton, where I was stopping, the proprietor and a guest were discussing the Canadian Election Act. I was brought into the conversation by a reference from the guest who inquired of me if elections were conducted in Canada on the same lines as they were carried on here. These men stated that the arrangement enabled the soldier from any part of Canada to register his vote where desired by the Presiding Officer, when I replied that the voter was only entitled to a vote for the candidate in the district in which he had lived. In answer to this guest informed me that he had discussed the matter with officers in charge of the voting; this was verified by the proprietor of the hotel in which they said that officers of the Canadian army informed them that by this method they were going to defeat any candidate they chose, and the whole subject appeared to be a huge joke to the officers discussing it. It appeared to be common knowledge of residents who came in contact with officers or other members of the Canadian army.
I also visited the two Canadian hospitals at Buxton and in conversation with voters I learned that the general arrangements of conducting the vote for the Union Government were so pronounced that those desiring to vote otherwise could not do so fearing detection and disapproval of the Staff generally. At most of the Canadian hospitals and other places conducted by the Canadian officials there was an absence of the necessary list of candidates posted; but in nearly every case there was the usual literature for campaign purposes posted on the gates and on the building-one of these posters stating that ''Germany was praying for the defeat of the Union Government-Vote for the Union Government and furnish recruits to relieve our men at the front".
I visited two British hospitals in Manchester . where Canadian soldiers voted. A similar condition to the Birmingham hospital was carried on there.
I also visited a number of Canadian Lumber Camps in Inverness district, including 107, 110, and 121. The polling had taken place in a.11 these camps before I reached there, but in conversation with various soldiers a general impression in almost every case was the necessity of supporting the Government by which they were employed.
From the Canadian Camps I went to Aberdeen and there visited the Old Mill Hospital which only contained a very small number of Cana-, dians. One Canadian, by the name of Emery, stated that there was no choice of candidates as the Deputy Presiding Officer informed him in which space to make his cross

opposite the Union Government. I also visited the 1st Scottish General Hospital, Aberdeen, and found pretty much the same conditions.
I then visited the 1st Scottish General Hospital in Edinburg. Polling had been completed and the information regarding the conduct of the voting was on the same lines as the other hospitals. This also applies to the 3rd and 4th Scottish General Hospitals of Glasgow.

ing booths where the soldiers' votes were being taken.


Samuel Hughes: Did I catch the initials of Lieut.-Col. Thompson as "A.T."?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. member know who he is?


Mr COPP:: I do.


Samuel Hughes: Col. Andy Thompson?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I know him well.


Samuel Hughes: A member of this House for years; a gentleman of high standing.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not discussing the high standing of the gentleman. I am not here to discuss or tO' debate, or to say -an ill word of any individual; I am placing before the House the facts as I have them; and if Lieut.-Col. Thompson-I care not how high his record is, nor how long he sat in this House-took part in a conspiracy to defeat the will of the people of this country, he is not worthy of being sent to represent the Government in looking after the taking of the votes of the soldiers overseas. I have no doubt of the truth of the evidence which I have under my hand, and it is true, that Lieut.-Col. Thompson, under the Military Voters' Act, under which authority he was acting at that time, had no authority an-d no right to appoint scrutineers to represent the Liberal party, it was beneath the dignity of any honourable citizen, to thus appoint a representative to act on behalf of the Opposition party led by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), particularly when- Lieut.-Col. Thompson was overseas representing the Government party to which my right hon. friend was opposed.
The appointment of another deputy scrutineer reads:
By virtue of the powers vested in me by the Military Voters' Act, 1917, I hereby appoint Harry Stevens, corporal, as my deputy.
(sgd) A. T. Thompson, Lt.-Col. Scrutineer. Let me see what the oath says:
Oath to be taken by deputy scrutineer or military elector representing party.
I, the undersigned, Harry Stevens, Corpora], a deputy scrutineer or military elector (as the case may be) under the Military Voters' Act, 1917, representing the Opposition party, do swear that I will keep secret the votes cast by -any of the voters at the polling stations at which I acted as such representative.
Sworn before me at Buxton, Derbyshire, this 29th day of November, 1917.
('Sgd.) Philip Burnett,
Deputy Presiding Officer.
This is a soldier who was appointed by Lt.-Col. Thompson, who represented the Government . That was another case where Lt.-Col Thompson appointed -a scrutineer who was afterwards sworn in 'as scutineer for the Opposition. I am not here to eiay what was Lt.-Col. Thompson's intention when in these appointments he appoints two scrutineers, one sworn :n as representing the Opposition party and the other sworn in as representing the Government party. I am here to place that fact before the House, and I appeal to every hon. member here who wants to he straightforward and honest in winning an election: Would he feel'that he was doing the right thing if he went into hie opponent's constituency and appointed a scrutineer to act for his opponent and look after his interests during an election campaign or during the polling of the votes in that particular constituency on election day? That is not his prerogative; that is not his right, and I cannot come to any other conclusion than that any gentleman who takes such a course is abusing his right and privilege for the purpose of endeavouring to make it appear to the presiding officer that the Opposition party, as well as the Government party, was feeing represented when, as a matter of fact, only one party was being represented, and that was fey men who were appointed and sworn in by and at the instigation and request of Lt.-Col. A. T. Thompson, who was representing the Government and not the Opposition.
I come next to charge No. 16:
That election campaign literature which was dishonest and untruthful was circulated among the military electors with the authority and by the direction of Lord Beaverbrook, and that the said Lord Beaverbrook was an active participant in the hereinbefore mentioned fraudulent practices.
We have already heard in this House during this session a statement by the leader of the Opposition, speaking on the Address, when he referred to the taking of' the soldiers' votes and the literature connected therewith and exhibited to this House a photograph that had been taken of a polling booth on which were election posters directing the electors how they should cast their votes. As that phase of the case will be taken up by some other hon. members who will follow me, I shall not take up the time of the House in referring to it, as that would only mean repetition. I am not going to discuss that phase of the question any -more than to say tha't the information I have and the literature I have seen convince -me beyond a

doubt that that statement is Absolutely correct.
In reference to the next charge, No. 17:
That Lord Brooke, formerly Commander of the Canadian Forces, was also a participant in the said fraudulent practices.
I have not personal knowledge as to Lord Brooke's domicile before he went overseas during this war; I only have the information from friends. I understand that Lord Brooke was a resident of and domiciled in Calgary, Alberta; but I find from a record that Lord Brooke, a gentleman whom I do not know but who, from his name, I would judge is a man of some substance and *standing-he received his title anyway before this matter came up in discussion yesterday-did not vote in the constituency in which I am informed he lived, but he voted in Provencher, in the province of Manitoba, a constituency in which he had no legal qualification to vote. I only give the House the information I have. I do not personally know what his domicile was; but if he was domiciled in Calgary before he went overseas, he had no right under the Military Voters' Act to select a constituency in the province of Manitoba wherein to cast his vote, and if he did so, that must have been for one purpose, namely, because he thought his vote in that particular constituency in the province of Manitoba would be of more benefit to the Government party than his vote in the city of Calgary.


Samuel Hughes: What is the rank of Lord Brooke?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Brigadier - General Lord
Brooke.


Samuel Hughes: That is right. He never lived in Calgary.


John Allister Currie: Lord Brooke is domiciled in Great Britain and he enlisted there. He is the son of the Earl of Warwick, and he has a perfect right under the law to vote in any riding, wherever he designates. I do not think my hon. friend should drag that gentleman's name into the discussion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience, he will have all the opportunity possible of replying to me. I am trying to put this on Hansard as carefully as I can, but I shall be pleased to give all the information I can to any hon. member.


John Allister Currie: There is a rule of the House that no hon. gentleman can rise in his place and impugn the soldiers.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend has no right to interrupt me in my argument.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Westmorland has the floor and may not be interrupted to put a question to him, except with his permission. I do not know of any rule such as that to which the hon. member (Mr. Currie) has referred.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no desire to avoid answering any question, but I trust my hon. friend will not think me discourteous if I go on with my argument.


Samuel Hughes: On what authority does my hon. friend say that Lord Brooke was located at Calgary?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not say anything of the kind. I said I had been told by a number of persons that Lord Brooke's domicile was in the city of Calgary, and I therefore contend that he had no right under the Military Voters' Act to cast his vote in the constituency of Provencher, in the province of Manitoba.
The next charge is ae followc:
That letters mailed through the Canadian Army Branch of the British Post Office, addressed to military electors, in which was enclosed campaign literature on behalf of the Opposition, were opened, and the said literature was removed therefrom before the said letters were delivered to the military electors, to whom they were addressed, and the delivery of the said letters was also systematically delayed by the said post office authorities.
The evidence I have on that point is that envolopes containing letters and literature were mailed in the city of London to the soldiers who were in the different camps there and also in France. These letters were returned after the election, some of them marked "Unknown" and others marked in different ways. But strange to say, the envelopes had been opened and the literature extracted and then the envelope sealed up again. If the post office system in London is anything similar to the Canadian system, an odd letter might go astray, but surely it is not chance when such a large number of letters, all mailed to people of the same class, should be returned. But that is the information I have, and if it is true, it is but another link in the chain of conspiracy prevailing at the time the soldiers votes were being taken. I wrote a number of letters myself in the month of November last to military electors from my constituency, and while I did not get replies from all, I got replies from a large number of soldiers, and almost without exception they said that they had not received the letters until two or three, and in some cases ten, days after the election.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: What date in November were the letters sent?


Arthur Bliss Copp: On the 7th.


Avard Longley Davidson: I had a similar experience.	-


Arthur Bliss Copp: That does not in any way detract from the statement I have .made. As I have pointed out, these letters containing literature were returned, and not only that, but in every case the envelopes had been opened and the literature extracted, so I do not see how it could be all chance work. It seems as if there was some prearranged plot by which the literature was to be extracted, and if that is so, I say it is a shame and a disgrace that the post office, which is the channel through which the people of this country communicate with their relatives overseas, should be made a part of a conspiracy to defea; the will of the Canadian people in an election.
Now I want to refer to charge No . 19 :
velopes and ballots had not been legally Inserted In the said bag or box, and with the said P. J. Bernard signed a certificate in the following wordsn ' 'We, the undersigned, agree that the unused ballots in this bag appeared in such large rolls that in our opinion they could not have been inserted into the bag by the small aperture."
The term by "the small aperture" means the aperture provided in the top of the bag under the provisions of the Act of Parliament governing this matter.
I make this affidavit on my soul conscientiously believing the statements herein to be true by virtue and under the provisions of Act of Parliament passed for this purpose A.D. 1835 L. E. Prowse.
Sworn before me in the city of Westminster in the county of Middlesex, England this day of March A.D. 1918.


W.T.R.P.
[Stage Direction]
Commisioner for taking oath
for use in the province
of Ontario, Canada.
I
Another one, Mr. Speaker, is an affidavit made by William David Spence:
That ballot boxes and bags contained a number of ballot envelopes tightly folded together in parcels or wads too large to have been inserted in the said bags or boxes through the proper aperture, and, in addition bearing dates showing that the votes had been polled not on the same day, but at intervals of time.
We know that the ballot box or bag was described in the Act, and that in the top of the 'ballot box there was an aperture through which the votes, had to be placed. I have not had the privilege of seeing one of the bags that were used overseas., but I presume some similar aperture was provided, and I have affidavits here from a number of individuals which go to show that large numbers1 of envelopes containing ballots and when found in the bags were folded together, the parcel being of such size that it was impossible for them to have been placed, in the bag tnrough the aperture. Let me read the affidavit of Lemuel E. Prowse:
In the matter of the elections for the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada held in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, December 1st, 1917, under the Provisions of the Military Voters' Act, A.D. 1917.
I, Lemuel E. Prowse, of the city of Charlottetown, in the province of Prince Edward Island, in the Dominion of Canada, Merchant and special returning officer under appointment by the Governor General in Council, make oath and say:
1. That on the 26th day of January I assisted with my poll clerk, P. J. Bernard, in opening ballot bag No. 18'2 commonly termed a ballot box, for the purpose of counting the said ballots in connection with the said election and believed, from the appearance of the contents of the said bag or box, that the parcels of en-

I, William David Spence, of the city of Calgary, in the province of Alberta, Canada, accountant and special returning officer in the matter herewith, make oath and say:
That in the matter of a ballot box or bag No. B 174 of which polling subdivision Major W. Graham Cunningham, 1st Canadian Cavalry Depot, East .Sandling, and which said bag I assisted in opening on the 28th day of January, 1918, which had been formerly protested as having appeared to have been opened and *which was subsequently ordered to be opened and the contents allocated to the proper constituencies by Lieut.-Col. Purney, I found that the contents of the said bag contained parcels of tightly folded ballot envelopes which could not possibly go through the aperture in the top of the bag provided under the provisions of the Military Voters' Act. One of these said parcels taken from the bag and tightly folded together was as follows:
Reginald H. Dessey, 52447, dated December 6th, 1917; Chas. Croft, 71794, dated December 6th, 1917 ; Arthur G. Weeks, 186798, dated December 11th, 1917; Arthur Fenn, 1431, dated December 5th, 1917.
There were four ballot envelopes tightly folded together and impossible to he inserted in the hag through the aperture provided for that purpose. Two of them were dated December 6, one December 11, and another December 5, three different dates and these ballots were all folded together. What story does that tell to the members of this House, what story does it tell to the people of this country, what story must it tell to the soldiers overseas whom we did our best to protect and whose votes were simply taken and put into the hag or box illegally? Will the Canadian people believe that the soldiers' vote was taken in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Military Service Act?

Another parcel folded in like manner contained the following envelopes:
Herbert Hunt, 460750, dated December 7th, 1917 ; Archie M. Penny, 420772, dated December 7th, 1917 ; Fred F. Fletcher, 115062, dated December 6th, 1917; Fred Jones, 172022, dated December 7th, 1917.
Th'ere is another bundle bearing two different dates, one the 6th and the other the 7th December.
Another parcel tightly folded together contained the following ballot envelopes:
John V. Bateman, 1001054; Alex. S. Deacons, 871023 ; David Home, 1249 ; James Cox, [DOT] 875175 ; Wm. McMorran, 115480; Edward H. Birch, 210877 ; Jos. F. LeFontaine, 34360.
There were seven ballot envelopes tightly folded together in one parcel and impossible to be inserted in the bag in the proper and legal manner. Further:
That on the date aforesaid I further assisted in opening bag or box 51 of which Major Armand Smith, Witley Camp, was deputy presiding officer. That the said bag contained parcels of ballot envelopes folded together tightly and too large to be inserted in the aperture provided by law in the top of the said bag, that one of the said parcels contained the following ballot envelopes;
E. S. Clarke, 721721, dated December 14th; G. B. Cowper, 874413, dated December 7th; G. A. Nelson, 460585, dated December 12th; C. F. Thompson, 186257, dated December 12th; C. Moore, 71411, dated December 12th; G. T. Bell, 187753,'dated December 14th; T. C. Perry, 874602, dated December 8th.
There were seven different envelopes tightly folded together and containing votes recorded on four different dates. It is for this House to decide what that story tells. Further on:
.-and the said bag also contained the following tightly folded ballot envelopes:
G. N. Barnes, 871720, dated December 12th; G. T. Edgcumbe, 418279, dated December 8th; G. H. A. Lawford, 110307, dated December 12th; W. Daniels, 85161, dated December 12th; R. J. Welch, 748085, dated December 7th; D. Mort, 24866, dated December 12th; E. Beaulaen, 417231, dated December 12th; J. Durnais, 1021252, dated December 14th; P. T. T. Brant, 346801, dated December 14th.
Eight more envelopes tightly folded together bearing different dates and again too large to be inserted in the proper aperture according to the Military Voters' Act.
__and on the same date aforesaid I assisted in
opening ballot box or bag No. B 68 of which polling subdivision Major W. L. Hutton, 8 Ris-bon Barracks, Shorncliffe, was the deputy presiding officer, and this said bag also contained parcels or packages of ballot envelopes folded tightly together but too large to be inserted in the aperture provided by law, among the said packages were the following:
T. F. Moulton, 1258169, dated December 8th; J. W. Wright, 3151, dated December 2nd; G. Wheeler, 135895, dated December 2nd, and also the following folded in one parcel:
W. R. Harvey, 859344, dated December 1st; Capt. A. B. Roberts, dated December 1st; Capt.
E. Bartlett, dated December 1st; M. O. Lupsom, 1102429, dated December 2nd. and the said bag also contained the following ballot envelopes in one parcel tightly folded together:	_	,	„ .
C. Robertson, 526721, dated December 2nd;
G. A. Penton, 469325, dated December 2nd;
H W Whartman, 835(139, dated December 2nd;
A G Hoonan, 400128, dated December 2nd;
E R. Hicks, 528742, dated December 1st; and also the following in the same condition;
J R Jeffery, 439121, dated December 3rd;
J. E. Taylor, 521180, dated December 2nd; and that 1 was also present in the opening of ballot box or bag No. 182 of which polling subdivision Major S. M. Fisher, No. 16 Canadian General Hospital, Orpington, was deputy presiding officer, and that unused ballots were taken out of the said hag perfectly flat and also ballot envelope rolled together in such large parcels that they could not possibly have been inserted in the aperture provided by law. One of these said parcels consisted of the following: s R Cockerill, 316043, dated December 4th; William A Taylor, 760690, dated December 4th; Baretna Adorft, 766746, dated December 5th; Thomas F. Shea, 722026, dated December 6th; and the said bag also contained another parcel which I casually observed tightly folded containing the following ballot envelopes:
H L Boston, 791184, dated December 1st; Gaius W Horwood, 624881, dated December 1st; Walter White, 841957, dated December 4th; Sachimars Thoracka, 697031, dated December
4th.	,	. x .All the dates given in the above statements were written and taken down in the order in which they appeared when the parcels were opened.	.	,	_ _.	.
I make this affidavit conscientiously believing the statements herein to be true by virtue and under the provisions of Act of Parliament passed for this purpose A.D. 1835.
(Sgd.) W. D. SPENCE.
SWORN before me in the City of Westminster in the County of Middlesex, England, this 6th day of March A.D. 1918.
(Sgd.) W. T. R. PRESTON, Commissioner for taking oaths for use in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
Another one is an affidavit by Arthur Hersey of the city of Montreal. He says: I, ARTHUR H. HERSEY, of the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, in the Dominion of Canada, appointed by Governor General Order in Council, special returning officer in the matter herein, make oath and say: That in my capacity as special returning officer I assisted in opening ballot box or bag No. B 294, of which polling subdivision Captain G. A. McNaughton, 122nd Company, Canadian Forestry" Corps, was the deputy presiding officer. On the 29th day of January, 1918, when the said bag was opened I found that it contained parcels or packages of ballot envelopes folded tightly together but too large to have been inserted in the legal aperture in the top of the said bag, in one package tightly folded together were the following envelopes:
Charles Kersey, 2198414; Lucine Buschard, 1012696; Josiah Kenway, 2198420; Lieut. Charles F. Carnegie, John P. Fritz, 1013705 ; W C Paige, 2198432 ; Alfred Hardy, 297368 ; James Turley, 2198432; W. J. O'Connell, 2157373; Vincent J. Ramsay, 108145.
[Stage Direction]
'There were .ten ballot envelopes all folded together and too large to go into the aperture as provided by the Act.
I make this affidavit conscientiously believing the statements herein to be true by virtue and under the provisions of Act of Parliament passed for this purpose A.D. 1835.
(Sgd.) ARTHUR H. HBRSEY. SWORN before me in the City of Westminster, in the County of Middlesex, England, this 6th day of March, A.D. 1918.
(Sgd.) W. T. R. PRESTON. Commissioner for taking oaths for use in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
Avard Longley Davidson: Would the hon. gentleman give me the name of the official before whom this affidavit was made?
Mr. OOPtP:	W. T. E. Preston, commissioner for taking oaths for use ini the province of Ontario.


Avard Longley Davidson: Is the hon. gentleman aware that to take an affidavit such as he has read is a crime under a provision of the Criminal Code of Canada?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is a declaration; it
is not an affidavit.


Avard Longley Davidson: He referred to it as
an affidavit.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not here to answer
any cross-examination questions put by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davidson).


Charles Murphy: Grant an inquiry and
we will have Mr. Preston before it too.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am putting the facts concerning these charges before the House. If my hon. friend thinks it is a crime to do so, or if he thinks there is ground for bringing a criminal action against me, he is well at are of his rights in that regard.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman misunderstands me. I do not accuse him of any crime.' What I say is that he, as a lawyer, should know that any official that prepared and took affidavits such as he has read is committing a crime under the provisions of the Criminal Code.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If the hon. gentleman will
look through the Criminal Code he will find that no crime is committed in making a declaration.
Here is another affidavit by Mr. Guillet:
In the matter of the Elections for the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada holden in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, December lst-17, 1917, under the provisions of the Military Voters'. Act, A. IX, 1917.
I, Louis Eugene Guillet, Captain in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces and Deputy Returning Officer herein, make oath and say :

That on the 25th day of January, 1918, in my official capacity I assisted in the opening of bag or ballot box No. B. 300, in the presence of Major Sweet, an appointee as poll clerk of the Unionist Government, of which Poll Captain J. E. Cameron, 112th Co., Canadian Forestry Corps, was the Deputy Presiding Officer. Several packages of ballot envelopes folded tightly together were taken out when .the bag was opened, and I made efforts to insert some of the said packages or parcels of envelopes in the legal aperture for the insertion of the said ballot envelopes and it was impossible to insert them. It was agreed between Major Sweet and myself that the said parcels had not been inserted in the said bag through the before-mentioned aperture, and the bag was accordingly laid aside under the plea that it appeared to have been opened.
On the 26th of the said month of January I assisted in the examination of ballot box or bag No. 246, the neck of which was open sufficiently wide to allow Dr. Elliott, the Returning Officer for the Union Government, to put his arm in and extract the contents therefrom, and I accordingly agreed with the protest of the Opposition scrutineer that the bag in this respect gave evidence of having been opened, and Dr. Elliott also agreed on the facts as to the state of the bag, and it was accordingly reserved for future consideration.
I make this affidavit on my soul conscientiously believing the statements herein to be true by virtue and under the provisions of Act of Parliament passed for this purpose A D 1835.
Sworn before me in the city of Westmin.ster, in the County of Middlesex, England, this 6th day of March, A.D., 1918.
(Sgd.) L. E. Guillet.
(Sgd.) W. T. R. Preston. Commissioner for taking Oaths for use in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
That evidence goes to prove, Mr. Speaker, that the ballot bag was open to such an extent that Mr. Elliott, the Union Government representative, was able to put in his arm and extract ballots therefrom. If that is true, hon. gentlemen will see how easy it would be, .and it is,a natural conclusion to come to, that the bag was in such a condition that after it had been closed it was a comparatively easy matter for any one to fold up envelopes and insert them.
I now wish to read another affidavit going to prove these statements, and it is that of A. A. Dickson:
In the matter of the Elections for the House of Commons for the Dominion of Canada holden in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, December lst-17, 1917, under the provisions of the Military Voters' Act, A.D., 1917.
I, Archibald Anderson Dickson, of Harrow! m the County of Middlesex, Special Poll Clerk in this Matter, solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
That I was present at Westminster at the opening of bag or ballot box No. B. 99 on the 16th of January, A.D., 1918, of which Polling Subdivision Lt.-Col. M. E. B. Cutcliffe, 125th Canadian Infantry Battalion, Witley, was acting as deputy presiding officer. That package of ballot envelopes were taken from this bag

or box in too large numbers to be inserted through the aperture provided by law, and that one of these packages closely folded together contained the following ballot envelopes duly endorsed as hereunder:
P. Pesine, 7, voting East Toronto; C. J. Fur-ler, 197,569, voting Simcoe Centre; A. E. Allen 643266, voting North Essex; W. Wood, 7724811 voting Brantford; J. Spencer, 772666, voting Brantford; B. Scott, 237683, voting E. Toronto;
J. H. Walsworth, 270622, voting Brantford;
H. Donaldson, 772896, voting Brantford; E. H. Force, 772683, voting Brantford; J. Borthwick 770009. voting Brantfo.d.
Here is a list of ten voters, whose envelopes being together, it would have been impossible fo/r them to be legally inserted in the ballot bag, and several of those then were voting in the same constituency.
That I was present at the opening of ballot boxes in th;s matter on the 17tn of January AD ISIS, when ballot box 163 was opened of which Capt. H. J. Dennis. 25th Reserve Battalion Bramsnott, was deputy presiding Oiilcer, and parcels of ballot envelopes were taken from the s.i:d box or bag folded together in numbers winch could not be inserted through the aperture provided by law, and that one of these said parcels contaired ten ballot envelopes rolled together, the endorsation thereon being dated respectively December 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th,
! 1.17. and another parcel of ballot envelopes consisted as follows, eacn duly endorsed as herein stated.
Alfred C D. McGregor, 654304, dated December 7th; Martin B. Roy, 654209, dated December 4th; Samuel Mayourok, 417068, dated December 17th; Robert Smith, 177597, dated December 5th. And that all the dates given in the before-mentioned parcels of ballot envelopes are stated herein in the rotation in which they appeared in the said parcels.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act, A.D. 1835.
(Signed) A. A. Dickson,

Declared at Westminster in the County of Middlesex this 8th day of March, A.D., 1918, before me.
(Signed) W. T. R. Preston,
A Commissioner for Oaths for use in the Courts of the Province of Ontario.
That is the evidence, Mr. Speaker, that I have to give to the House in regard to that matter.
Now then, as to paragraph 20:
' That the contents of these ballot boxes and bags which thus appeared to have been fraudulently tampered with were, contrary to the provisions of the Election Act, counted and allocated in the United Kingdom to the number of 15,000 votes under instructions from the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
In support of, this charge I have a memorandum signed hy W. E. Elliott, deputy presiding officer, and W. B. Spence. Mr. Elliott, I understand, was the representative of the Union Government, while Mr. Spence represented the Opposition. This memorandum contains an agreement at which they arrived as to the condition of the bags and boxes, which was left to Lieutenant-Colonel Purney for his -decision That is to say both agreed as to certaiD . facts and the matter was referred to Lieu-tenanUColonel Purney for his decision as to what should be done.
Memorandum for Lieut.-Colonel Purney.
A difference of opinion exists between certain officials appointed to count the Military Vote, respecting certain bags of envelopes containing ballots.
The following facts are agreed upon, respecting bags:-
Bags No. 218,	417,	352,	106,	201,	420,
opened Wednesday, January 9th, or Thursday, the 10th. Rolls of ballots containing two s, three's, four's or more, were found closely rolled together, too large to have been inserted through the opening on the top of the bag.
These bags were locked before opened by the officers, but whether or not there was any space within the chained opening through which papers might have been inserted, we are not prepared to state. There was not anything in the external appearance of any of the bags to lead us to believe that they had been opened.
Bag No. 153 was opened on Friday, January 11th. Bag was locked before opened by the election officers. Rolls were taken from it which were too large to have gone through the aperture on the top. These rolls consisted of ballots closely rolled together, of different dates, one roll' of ballots was dated December 7th and 10th, and another roll of six ballots had at least four different dates. We are not positive as to how tightly the opening of the bag was secured by the lock and chain.
Bag No. 155 opened on Monday morning, January 14th. Dock and chain examined before opened and found not tightly closed, and opening could bo made size of two fingers. Rolls of ballots taken therefrom in three's, four's, and sixes. These rolls could not have been inserted through the aperture on the top of the bag.
Bag No. 102, opened Monday morning, January 14th, Colonel Purney being present. Dock and chain were examined carefully before opened and found tight and closely locked, and a few ballots were taken therefrom. Rolls were found closely folded together, three, four, and more together in rolls, which could not have gone through the aperture on the ,top of the bag.
It is contended on the one hand that the opening which might be made in the neck of the bags through the chain being loosely locked, would allow the folded envelopes to be placed within the bag through such an opening, and on this account the suggestion that the boxes have been opened for an improper purpose, is not justified.
On the other hand, it is contended that as the envelopes which were folded together could not he inserted in the bags through the small flap covered aperture, the conclusion is justified that the said boxes come under the clause of the Act which declares that the^ contents of certain boxes shall not be examined, and

that therefore the ballots therein shall not be counted.
Signed on behalf of. Special Returning Officers.
W. Elliott,


Mr. TWEEDIE:: Would the honourable
member mind handing me the names of the Calgary men?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I read them at random. I will give my hon. friend a number of them.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman
could not give them all; it would take too long. There are thirteen thousand of them.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The only ones from Calgary that I observe by glancing hurriedly over
the list are Edgar T. Girling and William Deane.


Avard Longley Davidson: Is the hon. member aware that on the civilian vote in Prince Edward County the Government candidate had a majority of over one thousand?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Whether I was aware of that or not, the presiding officer in England was not aware, when the vote was taken, what the majority would be. It was very nice to have all these votes on hand in order that they might be slipped in in case of emergency.
Take the county of North Huron. They gave this constituency eighteen votes. Among the places of residence of the soldiers voting there I find the following: Lamlbton East, Waterloo South, Sea-forth, Clinton, Wing,ham, United States, Port Elgin, Goderich, Trenton, Stellarton, Toronto. I may point out that I could give thousands of other cases of this kind; I have had opportunity of collecting information respecting only a few of these allocations.
Sixty-five of these votes were transferred to the constituency of South Huron. Some of the domiciles of the soldiers are given as follows: Nova Scotia, Moosejaw, Saskatoon, Battleford, Montreal, Goderich, North Huron, Auburn, Wingham, Trenton, Winnipeg, Vankleek Hill.
Ninety-six votes were transferred to the constituency of Kent, Ontario, and in not one case was- the residence given as in that constituency. The following are some of the soldiers' do-mici' :s given:	Toronto,
Northern Ontario, Toronto, Saskatchewan, actor between Vancouver and Halifax-I suppose this gentleman thought he had better vote in Kent, Ontario-Toronto, Sorel, Montreal, Edmonton, Regina, London, Norfolk, United States, Oxbow, Saskatchewan, Pt. Leir, Quebec, New York, Albert, Victoria County, East York, Brockville. All these voters were domiciled outside the county of Kent.


Avard Longley Davidson: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the Government endorsed no candidate in the county of Kent?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Prime Minister endorsed no candidate in Westmorland either, but similar attempts were made to have votes transferred into that county. The Prime Minister, either because he did not appreciate the qualities of the candidate chosen by the Conservative party in the county of Westmorland, or because of some other reason with which we are not acquainted, did not endorse the candidature of his friend in that county. In any case, the

presiding officer who directed the soldiers in this case to transfer their votes to the constituency of Westmorland, did not know that the Prime Minister had not endorsed a candidate in that electoral district.
I know of twenty-four votes that were transferred to Westmorland county. Evidently the powers that be were kind to me, although they might have put in five times twenty-four without materially affecting the result. And where did those twenty-four come from? The county of Westmorland is hardly known in many portions of the world; yet an American citizen voted there. I find on the list another American citizen, and still another. A gentleman from Prince Edward Island came over and voted in my constituency. Others were from the following places: Guysboro, Saskatchewan, Montreal, United States, Chatham, Australian citizen, and so on. Is it not peculiar that twenty-four gentlemen who probably never heard of the county of Westmorland., or of your humble servant, or of his opponent, whom the Prime Minister did not see fit to endorse, should record their votes in this constituency?
I suppose the county of Northumberland) is more famous than the county of Westmorland, because I know of sixty-three electors who [DOT] transferred their votes to Northumberland. The following are some of the domiciles: United States, Butte, Montana; South End, Ontario; 73 Annette street, Toronto; 1166 South street, Regina; 779 Dufferin Road, Toronto; Valcartier; Ville St. Pierre, Quebec; HamiRon; Brandon; Camp Hughes, Manitoba; Valcartier; Saskatoon; Estevan, Manitoba; Moosejaw, Belleville; Waterville, Quebec; Lloydmin-ster, .Saskatchewan; Amherstburg, Ontario; Russian, Sussex; Edmonton; Battle-ford; Magog, Quebec; Winnipeg; Broad avenue, Toronto; Saskatoon; Dauphin, Manitoba; North .Bay, Ontario; Calgary; Russian, Valcartier; Winnipeg; N.B.; Portage la Prairie; Qu'Appelle; Scotch Town; High Banks; Macleod, Alberta; Saskatoon; Yorktown, Saskatchewan. These gentlemen, realizing the ability of the candidate of the Government in that locality, I suppose, decided that they would like to record their vote in the county of Northumberland, N.B.
Now we come to the constituency of North Gape Breton and Victoria, represented by my friend in front of me (Mr. McKenzie). I know of seventy-one military electors who allotted their votes in that constituency, but not one of them stated that their domicile was in that part of the country. I quote a few

of the residences as given: Lake Loon, St. John, United States, Brampton, Ontario; United States; Halifax; Bridgetown; Locke-port; Saskatchewan; Saskatoon; London, Ontario; Vancouver; Moosejaw; Areola, Saskatchewan; Moosejaw; Wainwright; United States; Valcartier; Cornwall, Ontario; Glace Bay; Colchester county; Halifax; Dauphin, Manitoba; Pictou, N.S.; Halifax; Colchester; United States.


Avard Longley Davidson: Who gave my hon. friend this list?


Arthur Bliss Copp: If I had time I oould read hundreds of lists which I have under my hand. The names have been given by the electors over their own signatures giving details as to their residences, etc. I only refrain fjrom doing that, because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House; but if my hon. friend asks for the information, I can tell him that I have here information that would) keep me speaking until 12 o'clock to-night, and I can give the statements and affidavits to prove every statement I have made.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Will my hon. friend allow
me to ask a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let him ask it?


Robert Hamilton Butts: I wonder if my hon. friend knows how long he has been inflicting this punishment upon the House?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I can say to my hon. friend I do not know, and I do not care. I stand upon my rights in this House], and I purpose taking what time I deem necessary to put my case before this House. My hon. friends, 'by asking questions, .are only extending the time. I have the information here, and all I ask of the Government is to grant an inquiry, and I shall provide the evidence satisfactory to my hon. friend in regard to every easel and every statement I make.	.
We now come to the county of Leeds in the province of Ontario. Leeds is better known by the soldiers overseas than some of the other counties, because I have found 138 of the military electors overseas cast their votes in the constituency of Leeds. Not one of them gives his residence or his domicile as being in that county. The following are some of the] domiciles: Sydney Mines, N.S.; Guelph, Fergus, Ontario; Edmonton, Alberta; Victoria, B.C.; Valcartier, Toronto, Montreal, Sussex, N.B.; Vancouver, Kelowna, B.C.; Kamloops, B.C.; Mani-waki, Quebec; Bull River, B.C.; Prince Rupert, B.C.; Montreal, (a Russian); Halifax,

N.S.; St. John, N.B.; Glace Bay, N.S.; Sussex, N.B.; Winnipeg (a Russian); Moncton, N.B.; a stray one from my constituency, Edmonton, Alberta; Amherst, N.S.; Charlottetown, P.E.I. I am picking out only a few of the hundreds of names which I have here of men whose votes were transferred to constituencies in which they had no domicile, in which they never resided, but who selected those constituencies for only one purpose. One can come to only one conclusion, that that was for the purpose, as I have said several times already, to offset a possible adverse vote in those different constituencies to which those votes were transferred.
In South Bruce 48 voted on the same ground, without one giving his residence as in South Bruce. Some of their domi- * ciles are as follows:	Toronto, Montreal,
Tisdale, Manitoba; Toronto, Weston, and so on.
In North Bruce we find 46 votes transferred in the same manner. Some of the domiciles of the men voting in North Bruce are as follows: Battleford, Sask.; Vernon,
B.C.; Montreal, a United States citizen from Saskatoon, Wright, Quebec.


Martin Burrell: Is the hon. member reading a list of military voters who gave their place of residence, and in No. 9 indicated where they wanted to vote?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am reading from a list of the names of military voters whose residences I have obtained from the official nominal roll of the Militia Department. In this manner I found out where their proper residences were. I have the statement of where their votes were cast, and I am telling the 'House that if they voted in North Bruce, their proper residences and domiciles were in other 'constituencies altogether, and they should have voted in them.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Might I ask the hon. member another question?
Mr. 'COPP: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend, but I think he is only detaining me.


Robert Hamilton Butts: The only thing, Mr. Speaker, is-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. member (Mr. Butts) can ask a question only with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor. I understand the hon. member who has the floor has refused that permission.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Well, I would ask the hon. member if he would give me the permission.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Robert Hamilton Butts: He will not allow me to ask a question?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not like to have it put in that way, that I will not allow the hon. member to ask a question. I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. member, or to any other hon. member, but I do not think this will get us further along. My hon. friend can put his question after I have finished my argument. He simply wants to interrupt me, and that is all.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I am not seeking to interrupt; I am asking for information.
Mr. C'OPP: WTill my hon. friend kindly wait and ask me his question when I have finished my remarks?


Andrew Ross McMaster: He will have forgotten it Iby that time.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. This discussion between hon. members concerning their rights to ask a question of each other is absolutely out of order, and I would ask the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) to continue his speech.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I bow to your ruling.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Keep on bowing.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend (Mr. Butts) will keep his- question in cold storage for a while he will have an opportunity of asking it. I want to refer to one or two other matters. In regard to the votes transferred in East Edmonton, the number that I have been aible to look up is so small it is not worth while taking up the time of the House to go into that matter. There were 69 votes transferred to Cape Breton South, and some of the domiciles are as follows:	Medicine
Hat, Alberta; London, Ontario; Lethbridge, Alberta; Tignish, Cape Breton; Aldershott, N.S.; Vancouver, B.C.; Mawata, Sask.; Lethbridge, Alberta; Saskatoon; Winnipeg; Calgary; Vancouver; Toronto; Colchester; Ingersoll, Ontario, and so on.
In the &ame way I know of 129 votes transferred to the constituency of Ottawa in the province of Ontario. The voters came from all parts of the world, so far -as I can see. Some of their domiciles- aTe: Montreal; Toronto; Renfrew, with bin in Newfoundland; Victoria, B.C.; Valcartier; St. John, N.B.; Billings Bridge, Ontario; Calgary, Alberta; Montreal, Quebec; a United States citizen from Windsor; Vernon, B.C.; Calgary; Glace Bay, N.iS.; Annapolis, N.S.; Saskatoon; Halifax.



There were fifteen votes transferred to the constituency of South Renfrew in the province of Ontario. Some of the domiciles are:	Montreal; Valcartier; Smiths Falls;
Ottawa; Toronto; Renfrew, and so on.
I have found 32 votes transferred to the constituency of Digby and Annapolis in the province of Nova Scotia. Some of the domiciles are:	St. John, N.B.; a United
States citizen from St. John, N.B.; Kingston, N.B.; another United States citizen from St. John, N.B. Hence you find a Union candidate in one constituency taking a vote from another Union candidate in another constituency.
58 votes were transferred to the county of Wright in the province of Quebec. Some of the domiciles are: Toronto; Montreal; Winnipeg; Delson Junction, Quebec; Montreal; Little Current, Sas'k.; Prince Albert, Sask.; Montreal; Sussex, N.B,; Calgary, Alberta; Little Harbour; Shelburne county, N.S.; Valcartier; United States Navy, 'Cote St, Paul; Burlington, Kings county, N.S.; Yarmouth, N.S.; 603 Gerard street, East, Toronto; Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, Indian Head, Sask.


Avard Longley Davidson: Will the hon. gentleman give me the names of those who voted in Digby and Annapolis?


Arthur Bliss Copp: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I had just completed reading a list of military electors who had given their answers to the questions on the envelope, and had declared that they were United States citizens, but who nevertheless voted in a number of constituencies throughout the Dominion. That was to prove charge No. 26 that a large number of citizens of the United States had voted in the following Canadian constituencies: Peel, Ontario; Digby and Annapolis, N.S.; St. Ann's, Quebec; Prince Edward, Ontario; North Essex, and Bruce North, Ontario; Edmonton East, Alberta; Cape Breton South and Richmond, N.S.;

St. Lawrence and St. George, Montreal; Ottawa; Brome, Quebec; Renfrew, Ontario; Laurie,r and Outremont, and Wright, Quebec; Gape Breton North and Victoria, and Pictou, Nova Scotia; Westmorland, New Brunswick; Edmonton W., Alberta; Cumberland, and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; and Leeds, Ontario.
I want to read another list on the same matter of citizens of the United States, nonresident voters, who answered No. 5 on the ballot envelope in the negative. Therei were twenty on the list in question, all of whom voted in the Yukon electoral district. Their names are:


NON-RESIDENT VOTERS IN THE YUKON WHOSE VOTES WERE COUNTED.
[Stage Direction]
Name.	Number.	Where enlisted or answer to question 5.	D.R.O.Pte. Frederick B. Blooms	528407	No.	Thomas Grembell.Pte. Peter Gondie	
.. .. 	180846	No.	Geo. Fisher, Capt.Pte. Harry 1. Smith	528420	No.	Thomas Grembell.Pte. Donald Campbell	528342	No.	Thomas Grembell.Pte. William Joseph Moran	2498419	Chicago.	Geoge Barton.Pte. Joseph Dunall	2606858	No.	Thomas Grembell.Pte. Charles McKenzie	821113	Don't know.	A. E. Shaw, Capt.Pte. Albert I. Imlock	,	523317	No.	Thomas Grembell.Pte. W. Cambell 	9460	No.	R. Orme.Pte. Robert Grees	528195	No.	Thomas Grembell.Cpl. Albert Y. E. Osborne 	523344	No.	Thomas Grembell,Sgt. James Edward Mahar	487329	Cannot say	Geo. E. Shaw.Pte. James William Yill	540467	Not applicable	Geo. E. Shaw.Pte. W. McCrea	2499335	No.	R. H. Sloan.Pte. H. Mikison	514742-	No.	R. Orme.Pte. Sylvester Gullimore	F. & R. Con.	No.	H. H. Timmons.L/Cpl. J. Whitecross	2304495	No.	Robert Orme.Pte. William Bennet	827215	Cannot say	Geo. E. Shaw.Pte. Clement Merriman	3030531	Chicago	George Barton.Pte. Oscar Petterson	523435	No.	Thos. Grembell.
The above well illustrates the injustice done to the Yukon ; all the above voters were allowed their votes, though none of them answered either the 6th, 7th or 8th clause on the envelope. The answers in the 3rd column were made to question No. 5. The voter placed his vote under 9. This also is a good sample of all the constituencies where there were hard fights put up. Thousands of envelopes were marked this way, and I contended they should all be thrown out, but was ruled against.
(Sd.) W. R. Hearn,
Scrutineer for Canada.
These men all answered Question No. 9 and selected the constituency of the Yukon in which to cast their ballots.
Now, it seems to me that when such a number of non-residents answered Question 'No. 9 and selected the Yukon as the constituency in which their 'ballots should be counted, there is at least a very strong suspicion that some person in high authority influenced, advised and directed how those ballots should be cast.
The next paragraph in the charge No. 27, to which I refer is that military voters' had two ballots in the same envelope. That military electors were permitted to vote more than once is established by the following statement:
J. R. Cattanach, 928607, voted twice in Leeds. (Capt. H. J. Denis, Deputy Presiding Officer.)
J. J. Connolly, 249437, residence Dingwall Ave., Toronto, voted twice. (Lt.-Col. Malone, Deputy Returning Officer.)
Rees Jones, 501219, Halifax, voted twice. (Capt. J. H. Johnstone, Dep. Presiding Officer.)
Clarence A Coleman. 684026, 18th C. M. G. Co. voted twice. (Major Brownlee, Deputy Presiding Officer.)	*
J. Edwards, 2497986, voted in Arthabaska-ville, Dec. 5th and Dec. 10. (Capt. McLean, Deputy Presiding Officer.)
Wilfrid Boyle, 672606, voted December 2nd and December 4th. (Lt.-Col DeRosiere, Dep. Presiding Officer. 1
Lieut. P. S. Whitehead, R.F.A., voted twice on December 7th. (Major Shore, Deputy Presiding Officer.)
E.	Green, 469050 voted in Fernie, B.C., and in Cumberland, N.S.
M.	Bonlick, 716016, voted twice in Nova Scotia.
J. G. Fraser, 514325, voted twice in Nova Scotia.
C. J. Tracy, 90150, voted twice in Nova Scotia.
J. J. Wall, 534442, voted twice in Nova Scotia.
W. L. Doane, 50916, voted twice in Nova Scotia.
W. W. Bell, 2005073, voted twice in Nova Scotia.
E. C. Sandy, 2574317, voted twice in Ontario.
E. S. Barney, 66951, voted twice in Ontario.
R. W. Leach, 803022, voted twice in Ontario.
Daniel O'Leary, 10115603, voted twice in Yukon.
C. B. Conway, 2303915, voted twice in Yukon on December 12th, (Capt. J. H. Johnstone, Deputy Presiding Officer).
[Stage Direction]
Sergt. A. J. Horne, 1037702, 127th C.F.C. 14th Avenue, Vancouver, voted twice in British Columbia.
Mary Stewart "Walsh, Nursing Sister, voted twice December 3rd. (Major Chown, Deputy Presiding Officer).
Clarence L. Goodyear, 249765, U.S.A. citizen, voted in North-Vork, and this regimental number was voted in Bruce North in the name of
D.	R. W. Burrows.
Lt. Col. Claude Harding Hill, D.S.O., voted Halifax twice, December 10th. (Lt. E. Jones,
D.	P. O.).
Cadet Peter J. Macdonald, 52023, voted twice in Sydney, N.S., December 10th. (Lt. E. Jones D.P.O.).
Those are only a few of the( instances that T have been able to gather in my investigation of the facts in connection with the ballots cast by military voters at this election. While I am able, to submit only a few individual oases to the House, there can be, without doubt, abundant evidence accumulated to show that thousands of such cases occurred during the election.
In connection with charge No. 28, that the Deputy Presiding Officer gave military electors two ballot® in direct violation of the Elections Act, that is established by the following list of envelopes which contained double ballots:
Name.	Number.	Deputy Presiding	
			Officer.
Gusoon, G. S.,	Lieut.	Major	J. McCuaig. << <iLavialoire, A.,	2160916	"	Dube, L. J.,	1003143	"	<< *iRaby, R. S.,	Lieut.	Lieut.	J. Maxted.Gillie, G. D.,	Lieut.	Anderson, R. S.,	2nd Lt.	Devlin, J. R.,	Plight Lt.	"	Steers, W. B.,	Lieut.	"	Evans, T. C.,	Lt.-Col.	"	Lindsay, Mabel,	N. Sister	"	Hatley. E. N.,	2nd Lt.	"	<< «Outton, Dorothy,	N. Sister	Lewis, A. C. T.,	Lieut.	Ostes, H. S.,	Lt.-Col.	"	Cornish, J. H.,	Lieut.	"	" «O'Sullivan, J. J.,	Staff Capt.	Donaldson, W. D.	R.N.A.S.	Treadwell, E. H,,	Lieut.	Sutherland, J. A.,	R.A.N.S.	"	Parker, E. S.,	Capt.	"	<4 IIRoss, A. C.,	Capt.	II IIWood, F. C.,	Lieut.	"	Brown, E. G.,	C.A.S.C.	<*	II IIWatson, W. W.,	Lieut.	Capt. Alex Fenton.	McLeod, G. W.,	2157348	"	II IIAubrey, C. J.,	297276	"	II IIClarke, C. J..	145«30	"	Edwards, P. E.,	297001	"	II IICherry, H.,	1036133	"	II IIMe Andrew, J. J.,	1012567	Desjardins, S.,	1012441	II IICooper, P.,	1012481	"	[DOT] 1 IIAgar, W. L.,	2157402	"	II IIBrunskill, R.,	1048561	Burton, H.,	2157497	Bell, J.,	513272	Zupray, P.,	21i9>387	Gagnon, J. C.,	246142	"	II IIName.	Number.	Deputy Presiding Officer.Brown, A.,	1105021	Lt.-C. H. Desrosiers.Chenier, M.,	4-17008	" " "Lussier, L.,	660537	Mennier, L.,	6 7 2 3*8 7	Bouchard, A.,	847282	Paquette, A.,	513476	Cote, W.,	6-60806	n a aGodfrey, C.,	61098	a a aProtain, O.,	416113	a a aBoivin, V.,	448859	a a aLapersie, J. H.,	4170*58	a a nVilleneuve, D.,	14-416*5	Blondin, Rene,	1105023	Burns, E. A.,	1027210	Major J. McCuaig.Burke, P. H.,	1049048	a a iStewart, W. P.,	454-5*80	a n tiTaylor, W. A.,	1048430	a a «Loushaway, F.,	2160982	" " * 'Haydon, C.,	13510(9	Major G. D. Smith.Hopwood, F.,	2655*6	Major J. H. Brownlee.WaLter, Hurd,	Major	Lieut. J. Maxted.
Each of these envelopes containing votes cast by the names I have mentioned, contained two ballots. The Act distinctly says that only one ballot shall be given to a voter when he goes into the poll to cast his vote. While I have only one page containing some forty or fifty of these names, undoubtedly it will 'be found on investigation that there are a very large number of others who had two' ballots given to them' when they went to cast their votes in the election. It might very well be said: "Well, the extra ballot was not meant to be given." That may be very true. But we know there was a systematic effort made according to the list I have, because there are only three or four different presiding officers in the list I have given the House, and when eight or ten or twelve different voters were going into those polls and getting two ballots from' the same deputy returning officer and putting them into an envelope, it could not be considered to be a mistake that two ballots were put in instead of one. I can readily understand, in our own elections here, where you go behind a screen and get the ballot paper and put it in the envelope, how two ballots might be picked up off the shelf or table, being closely stuck together. But it is beyond me to understand why in that particular place, and at the taking of these votes in that polling booth, that large number of envelopes would have two ballots enclosed in them. And it could have been only for one purpose, that is with the expectation that it might be possible when these envelopes were opened that there might not be representatives present for both parties, and in that case the ballots might have been counted; and a

very criminal breach of the election law would have been committed.
The next charge is:
That military electors voted on behalf of and personated other military electors.
The next charge is No. 29:
Pte. Rickett voted in Leeds for E. T. Taylor, 170, Toronto.
Pte. Lake voted in Leeds for J. F. Christie, 943, Toronto.
Pte. Mejsken voted in Leeds for W. H. Easton, 639218, Merrickville.
Pte. Flynn voted in Leeds for J. Whitfield, 640222, Winnipeg.
N.	Robinson voted in Leeds for Mark Norman, 49475, Toronto.
J. Wyper voted in Leeds for Harry C. Bull, 84108. Galt, Ont..
J. Dawson voted in Leeds for Chas. G. Ashdown, 106063, Winnipeg.
G.	A. Rutherford voted in Leeds for Robt. C. Hughes, 410311, Ottawa.
D.	J. McLelland voted in Leeds for J. G. McKay, 4150079, Glace Bay, N.S.
G.	H. Hill voted in St. Anne's for Alex Mac-dougall, Winnipeg.
J. Parkin voted in St. Anne's for Harold Robinson, Toronto.
A. Lambert voted in Prince Edward for W. Campeau, 243238, Laprairie, Que.
L. Domoseai voted in Prince Edward for Percy Insley, 27624, Valcartier, Que.
T.	Bourbonier voted in N. Essex for S. D. Eatherstone, Mt. Tomie, B.C.
L. P. Cann voted in Edmonton E. for D. Kennedy, 13514, U.S. Citizen.
J. W. Scrinshaw voted in Edmonton E. for L. J. Baddoe, 1557, Toronto.
P. Rudd voted in St. Lawrence & St. Geo. for P. Dunn, 141901, Nigaara.
H.	Atkinson voted in St. Lawrence & St. Geo. for L. Morgan, 41724, Valcartier.
J. E. Jeary voted in Ottawa for Robt. Cleland, 487327, Killean.
E.	Morjney voted in Ottawa for F. Lalonde, 410524, Cornwall.
R. J. Huffman voted in Ottawa for Clarence Huffman, 644061, Orillia. '
A. King voted in Ottawa for L. S. Cormack, 86049, Winnipeg.
E.	G. Gilmour voted in Ottawa for Thos Boot-land. 41, Ottawa.	.
W. Mitchell voted in Westmount & St, Henri for A. Laliberte, 26220, Montreal, Que.
Anson McEwan voted in Queens, P.E.I., for Jas. S. McBeth, 712161, Charlottetown;
That list proves to me that there wafi personation in the conduct and carrying on of the election; and the military voters whose names I have given here voted on a number that did not belong to -them. For that reason, it was an illegal vote, because on the ballot envelopes the elector was asked: Your number; your rank; your name. A list was there before them; and though these voters that I have mentioned are few in number, to be sure, yet that only goes to show that an attempt was made, and effectively carried out, whereby military voters personated other voters, and thus an illegal vote was cast and recorded for the Government in these cases.
The next charge is No. 30:
That after military electors had voted ballot envelopes were fraudulently re-endorsed so that the votes of the said electors were transferred to electoral districts other than the constituencies indicated' by the said electors in their reply to questions 6 and 7 in Form B.
I have a list here showing the procedure by which votes- were switched to constituencies other than the ones indicated by -the military electors when taking the oath before deputy presiding officers. According to the Military iService Act, these iqiuestions were to be answered under oath. We find a large number of envelopes in certain constituencies with the -electoral constituency, in answer to question 9 filled in by the voter and said envelope -signed by the deputy presiding officer. Afterwards, the name of- the constituency selected by the elector, or in which he was qualified to vote in accordance with the- answers on the envelope, was erased and the name of another constituency entered thereon. After the soldier had selected his constituency, as is possible in question No. 9, if -questions 6, 7 and 8 are left unanswered, and the constituency was placed there apparently in good faith by the soldier, and after he had retired from the booth the name of the constituency was erased and another one written in its place. I canno.t conceive, Mr. Speaker, of any other reason why a number of envelopes should be found in that condition unless that was systematic fraud practised on that occasion. There was not even an initial to show that the cnange had been made in the presence of the soldier.
Here is a l-is-t of a few names-:
Milan Fanktovitch, 1-312807, enlisted at Montreal, voted at 5th General Hospital, Liverpool. Lieut.jCol. S. C. Hart, deputy presiding officer. Envelope was endorsed that voter resided in Montreal South. This endorsation was Struck out anid Cashiwell, Sherbrooke, Quebec, was inserted.
Howard S. Allen, Sergeant, 1030430, endorsed his envelope as residing at Fredericton, N.B., and the vote was transferred to Cumberland, N.S.
Horace McNutt, 71&004, gave his residence as Cape Breton North and Victoria, which was struck out and Cumberland, N.S., inserted.
Louis Klitzner, Duluth avenue, Montreal, marked' to Quebec South.
W. T. Brennan, 2<8l3488, Shelburne, Queens,
N.!S., endorsation changed' to Halifax.
Alex. MoDougall, 93142,7, Tremont Hotel, Nelson, B.C., changed to Antigonish, N.S.
J. W. Herron 875458, Bowsman Biver, Manitoba, struck out and Ottawa inserted.
*Captain H. S. Th-ain, Sundown, Alaska, struck out and Lamb ton West inserted.
W. P. Draffen, 628130, Vernon, B.C., struck out and Lambton West inserted.
[Stage Direction]
Major James K. Lawson, Spadina avenue, Toronto, struck out and Lambton West inserted.
Fred W. A. Fordham, Hamilton, changed to Lambton West.
George Riordan, 4'3 7331, 9 Doris street, Toronto, changed to Calgary.
J. J. Lyons, 1045701, Windsor, Ontario, changed to Cape Breton North and Victoria, N.'S.
W. J. Richardson, 410'387, Cornwall, Ontario, Changed to Cape Breton North and Victoria, N.S.
H: C. Lockwood, 7 3 3i3'6, residence given as Port William, Kings County, N.S., changed to Hants, N.S.
A. Walcott, 3i340'2i9, residence LaSalette, changed to London.
P. F. Gray, 799'6'79, Herman street, Montreal, changed to Toronto, W.
W. Polak, 2949'6'2i, Halifax, changed to N. Wellington. s
F.	Benck, 294945, Winnipeg, changed to N. Wellington.
R. R. Emden, 2'20l3,69'6, Vancouver, changed to Prince Edward County.
G.	C. Kelly, 8'80'59'0, Frankford, Ont., changed to Chatham, Ont.
Ray Strand, 28885l6, residence Winnipeg, changed to N. Bruce.
iC. J. Burns, 20807, residence Vancouver, changed to Toronto, W.	.
Anson McEwan, 7'll2'lJ6ll, endorsed his envelope as residing in Queens, P.E.I., and vote was Changed to Kent, N.{B.
Elmer McKay, 712172', Queens, P.E.I., changed to Kent N.B.
Alfred G. Daniel's, 712I0'6'1, Queens, P.E.I., changed to Kent, N.IB.
Cecil M. Thomas, 713174, Queens, P.E.I., changed to Kent, N.B.
Captain G. ' W. Stornaway, Queens, P.E.I., changed to Winnipeg, Man.
Captain W. F. Kennedy, endorsed ballot envelope giving residence at Springfield, N.S., changed to Halifax, N.S.
Fred L. Evans, 718i0,63', residential endorsa-tion Gravel View, Manitoba, changed to Mount Forest, Ontario.
Ambrose Ambeau, 7578 08, Hamilton, residence struck out and South Bruce inserted.
N. Povogozruk, 1087277, Montreal, residence struck out and Prince Edward County inserted.
Charles Peter, 1045616, Windsor, residence struck opt and N. Renfrew inserted.
Adam Leeman, 7120*2i5, endorsed his ballot as residing Saskatchewan, and voted in Kent, N.B. (Major Cecil Roberts, deputy presiding officer).
In these cases the constituency named on the ballot envelope, which the soldier had given as his domicile and in which his vote should have been counted, was struck out and another constituency inserted, as I have read. I can come to only one con-" elusion, that that was done after the soldier had answered the questions, and that it was done without the soldier's knowledge or consent.
With reference to statement No. 31: that persons were fraudulently allowed to vote by deputy presiding officers with knowledge that such persons were not qualified under the Election Act, the following ballot en-

velopes were marked as entitled to vote in Ottawa by Lieutenant F. W. Lock, Casualty Depot, Buxton, deputy presiding officer, although the residence of the voters was endorsed on the envelopes by the electors as appears in the following list:
G.	Jones, No. 23153, actual residence, Nash-waak, N.B.
L. Summer, 457575, 302 Burgess St., Montreal. J. A. Cooper, 195630, Warsaw, Ontario.
J. H. Goodridge, Alberta.
J. Mowat, 874718, Manitoba.
T. S. Short, 109600, Toronto, Ontario.
H.	Hamlett, 1078269, Montreal, Quebec.
J. Hall, 163015, Toronto, Ontario.
A. Lafranee 417308, Montreal.
C. Vezina, 919432, Verdun street, Montreal.
F.	D. Ullman, 455017, Prescott, Ontario.
W. Cooping, 657098, Toronto, Ontario.
F.	C. Wareham, 408548, Thornton, Ontario.
A. Smith, Saskatchewan.
H.	F. Speakman, 211210, Manitoba.
H. W. Jollimore, 283518, Liverpoll, N.S.
H. Smith, 252792, Saskatchewan.
A. L. Gray, 148589, Manitoba.
S. R. Wood, 809039, Alberta.
This is a short list, but I think it is sufficient to show the House that very grave irregularities and frauds were practised in this respect.
The following is a list of military electors who gave their residence as Fort Albany, James Bay, Ontario, but whose envelopes were endorsed as voting in Ottawa:
Robert Linkletter, Patrick Katabrawbit, George Kiaki, Joseph Okeman, James Knach, George Farries, John Keeach, Jacob Swanson, D. Okitego, Thomas Sutherland, James Farris, Albert Metch, John Jakagon, W. Katakawbit, Peter Swanson, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Noah, Joel Wesley, Charles Tomacartick, N. Chakasum, Isaac Goodwin, Joseph Poney, Peter J. George, Peter Jackagon, S. Sutherland, James Katakawbit, John Iserkoff, David Iserkoff.
Following this point further, I have already referred to Lord Brooke, whose residence was Calgary, hut whose vote was transferred to Provencher, Manitoba. Lord Beaverbrook, formerly Sir Max Aitkin, M.P. in the British House of Commons, who was nominally in charge of the Canadian War Record publication in London, voted in Northumberland county, New Brunswick. Other illegal votes accepted by deputy presiding officers were as follows:
Amy G. Cass.els, civilian, C.A.M.C., Montreal (Lieutenant-Colonel W. L. Watt, deputy presiding officer).
Mary Stewart, civilian, C.A.M.C., Brantford, Ontario; (Colonel MaCpherson, deputy presiding officer).
Caroline Larose, Brome, Quebec; (Lieutenant J. M. Douglass, deputy presiding officer).
.Ethel Mould, wife of Mould, 20550, voted in Leeds, Ontario, whereas her husband's residence was given by himself on his own envelope as Lindsay Block, Winnipeg (Lieut. J. M. Douglass, Deputy presiding offiver). It "was contended that his wife had no vote.

Gwendolyn Read, wife of Captain G. R. Read, voted in Nanaimo, B. C. (Lt. J. M. Douglass, deputy presiding officer).
Mrs. Scatterwood, married woman, not in Canada for several years, was allowed to vote.
Frances G. Renwick, Women's Army Auxiliary Corps-not Canadian-voted (Captain Gimblett, Deputy Presiding Officer.)
Marjorie Mallam, resident of Acton, N.W. London, visiting King George's Hospital, Waterloo, when the poll was opened, was persuaded by a chaplain to vote because she " was kind to Canadian soldiers," and did vote.
Miss E. G. Ferris, an attendant at the Navy and Army Canteen, voted (Major Shore, Deputy Presiding Officer.-
Nora Lucas, wife of Lt. G. P. Lucas, South Wales Borderers, voted in West Toronto (Lt. J. M. Douglass, Deputy Presiding Officer.-
Dorothy O. McLaren, attendant, Canadian Red Cross offices, voted in Ottawa (Lt. J. Oxhed, Deputy Presiding Officer. -
Ethel L. Robertson, attendant, Canadian Red Cross offices, voted in Ottawa (Lt. Maxted Deputy Presiding Officer.)
Catherine McGrath, Dorothy Outerbridge, Mrs. Walter Barwick and Clare Georgina McKendrick voted in Ottawa in the same way.
Laura C. McKendrick, British Red Cross; Mrs. W. S. H. Simard, Military'Massage Corps;
Catherine Taylor, civilian, born at Clinton, Ontario, voted in King's county, N.S.
Lenora Draper (nfie Paterson), British VAD, certificate A149566; Mrs. Vera McNally, wife of Major McNally, Deputy Presiding Officer, British V.A.D., 148th Detachment, voted in Prince Edward, Ontario.
Jean M. Boney, British Red Cross, voted in Richmond and Wolfe, Que.
Jean Isobel Coloquon, British Red Cross, voted in Richmond and Wolfe, Que.
Martha Vadenias, United States subject, voted in Laurier and Outremont, Que.
Marguerette Allen, Montreal, voted.
Mrs. Mary Theodora Kayle, wife of Lt. H. O. Kayle, voted.
Gwenneth Gertrude Mason, British Women's Army Auxiliary Company, voted.
R. Martin, 213728, admitted United States citizen, allowed to vote by Lt. A. Provost, Oxford.
I have a few other names here, hut I shall not take up any more time in reading them.
I now will read a statement of Canadian officers who voted in constituencies other than those in which they were entitled to vote:
Name.
Lt. H. D. Anderson	
Capt. W. B. Allen	
Capt. J. H. Atkiknson	
Capt. J. P. Brennan	
Lt. C. H. Booth	
Capt. L. P. Burwash	
Hon. Capt. (Rev.) Buck.. ..
Capt. F. H. Burr	
Lt. W. W. Copeland	
Lt. H. F. Clarke	
Capt. H. T. Cook	
Lt. & Adjt. Coolin	
Lt. F. Dickson	
Lt. D. Q. Ellis	
Major J. L. Evans	
Lt. L. H. Earle	
Lt. M. McQ. Foster	
Capt. Logie Foster	
Lt. G. A. Hubbard	
Lt. W. H. Harton. .	....	. .
Lt. A. A. Horton	
Lt. W. Hampton	
Lt. Heaton	
Capt. A. J. A. Illingworth.. ..
Lt. E. R. Johnstone	
Capt. W. F. Kennedy
envelope endorsed	
Lt. J. S. Lamrock	
Lt. Col. F. W. Miller	
Brig. Gen. Macdougall	
Lt. J. R. Morris	
Lt. W. McIntyre	
Capt. H. A. McLeod	
Lt. C. McLeod	
Lt. F. C. Newman	
Lt. G. R. Newton	
Lt. H. R. Poussette	
*Hon. Capt. H. A. Pain.. .
Lt. Walter Reid	
Lt. E. A. Robinson	
Major C. M. Roberts	
Lt. C. E. L. Skedden	
Residence.
Vancouver	
London, Ont...		
Kingston, Ont	
Montreal	
Ottawa	[DOT] [DOT]	[DOT] [DOT]
Toronto	
Alberta	
Winnipeg	
Toronto	
Durham county	
Halifax	
Halifax	
Brantford, Ont	
York county	
Brandon	
Vancouver	
Winnipeg	
Fort Frances	
St. John, N.B	
Richmond, Que	
St. Thomas, Ont	
Toronto	
Montreal	
Saskatchewan	
Saskatchewan	
Springfield, N.S., changed to
Hamilton	
14th Hussars, Halifax	
former residence Ottawa..	. .
Lanark	*	
Kingston	
Pictou, N. S	
Halifax	
Norfolk co	
York co	
Toronto	
Port Arthur	
Coaticooke. Que		. .
Vancouver	
Hamilton	
Voted in
Yukon.
Russell.
Ottawa.
Westmorland.
Kent, Ont.
Prince Edward county.
Yukon.
Northumberland. N.B.
North Simcce, Ont.
West Lambton.
Westmoreland, N.B.
North Bruce.
Northumberland, N.B.
West Lambton.
Peel.
Ottawa.	_
Lambton West.
South Bruce.
Northumberland, N.B. Northumberland, N.B.
South Essex.
South Essex.
Pictou, N.S.
Ottawa.
Ottawa.
Halifax, N.S.
S.	Essex.
East Hamilton.
Prince Edward county.
Ottawa.
Russell.
Westmorland, N.B.
Pictou, N.S.
Prince Edward co.
Lambton West.
Lambton West.
Ottawa.
West Middlesex.
Cape Breton N. and Victoria. Yukon.
West Lambton.

[Stage Direction]
Name.
Residence.
Voted in
Lt. W. P. Scott	
Major W. H. Scarth. .	. .
Major W. P. Seaton.. ..
Lt. W. P. Smith	
Capt. A. N. Sanderson.. .
Lt. J. P. Smith	
Lt. H. B. Smith	
Capt. W. H. Tayor	
Lt. J. R. Taylor	
Hon. Capt. M. P. Titus..
Lt. A. B. Todd	
Lt. J. J. Thompson	
Lt. J. E. Webber	
Lt. H. Westmorland. .	..
Capt. O. E. Wallace	
Huron county..
Winnipeg"	
Alberta	
Lunenburg, N.S..
Toronto	
London	
York co. Ont...
Calgary	
Sherbrooke. .	. .
King's co., N.B. Windsor, N.S... Vancouver.. .. Haldimand co.. .
Ottawa	
Alberta	
East Toronto.
Yukon.
Northumberland. Westmorland, N. B. Westmorland, N. B. Westmorland.
King5s co., N.B. Ottawa.
Lambton West.
Yukon.
Northumberland, N.B. Westmorland, N.B. Kent, Ont.
Kent, N.B.
Prince Edward county.
* T*1's 'Is*- does not give Capt. Pain's residence. He may have been entitled to vote in [DOT]Ottawa.
There is not one officer on this list whose vote has been cast in the constituency in which he resided before going overseas, they voted in other constituencies, without qualification and absolutely against the letter and spirit of the Military Voters' Act.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have placed before the House and the country the facts which I desired it my duty to make known. I can assure you, that I do not bring this matter before the House for any personal feeling I have in the matter, or any personal feeling I have against any hon. member in this House, nor do I so because the -overseas vote or the soldiers' vote in Canada made any difference in my election [DOT]or anything of that kind. This information, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, came to me from soldiers themselves in answer to letters that I had sent to them .-and that were not delivered until after the votes had been cast. They stated to me that the letters were not delivered until after the vote was taken. They gave me ,a number of illustrations of irregularities *and frauds that had been committed in the polling booths where the military electors went to cast their ballots under the Military "Voters' Act that was passed at the last .session of Parliament. Being prompted by those letters, I commenced to make some inquiries. I made those inquiries in the best possible way I could. I made investigations; I compared, where that was possible, the nominal Tolls of the *officers and men. I satisfied myself that gross irregularities took place in the taking of the soldiers' votes, and frauds and election crimes were committed in regard -io the taking of that vote. The opportunity afforded me of investigating matters was indeed meagre and, in a great measure, [Mr. Copp.j
I had to secure a good deal of information from hostile witnesses, but nevertheless I secured that information and I believe it to be true. When I pieced together the different portions of evidence that I had gathered, I was satisfied that gross irregularities and frauds toad been perpetrated in the taking of the soldiers' votes. I said at the outset that, when the Military Voters' Act was going through this House, it was stated that just such frauds and irregularities as these would be the result Those apprehensions were well grounded, and I think I have given absolutely convincing evidence that the irregularities that were feared have taken place. I have taken up a great deal of the time of the House in presenting this argument.
Some hon. MEMBER'S: Hear, hear.
Arthur Bliss Copp: I realized that this task
would be unpopular with hon. gentlemen opposite, but when one has a matter of this kind to bring before Parliament and the country one must make an argument such as he would make before a court of law, and it should be in sequence as far as possible. I have endeavoured to do that. I did not undertake this duty to gain the plaudits of hon. gentlemen around me, nor did I shirk it because it would be unpopular amongst hon. gentlemen opposite. I knew that the duty devolved upon me or some other member on this side of the House to bring the facte before the public.
I have undertaken that responsibility, and I leave it to the country to judge whether or not I have done my duty. Before taking my seat J beg to move:
That an investigation be held conducted by a judge of a court of superior jurisdiction, assisted by two counsel, one to be selected by the Brime Minister and the other by the leader of the Opposition, to examine into the taking

and counting of the military votes cast in the last general election, with power to order the production of all cables, telegrams, correspondence, toll books, nominal rolls of regiments and papers and documents of all kinds, and with power also to summon and examine witnesses, except soldiers whose attendance at the inquiry would interfere, in the opinion of the judge, with their military duties.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The amendment is not in proper form. I presume the hon. member intends to move in amendment to the motion for iCommitee of iSupply "that the Speaker do not now leave the Chair."


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Martin Burrell: Mr. Speaker, it would have been a pity if the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) who states he has not shirked his duty-and I am quite sure this House will be confirmed in that view, if he conceived it to be his duty to make a speech of this kind, seeing that he has taken four hours to deliver it-it would have been a pity indeed if he had forgotten, the principal part of his speech, in which he desired to move for a committee of inquiry on a matter in respect of which, I submit, he has given no reason at all why a committee of inquiry should be appointed. However,
I do not want to dwell on that.
In the first place I would ask my hon. friend, who has brought this matter up at such great length, what on earth was the good of bringing it up, and stating what he has stated at this particular time? He has talked a great deal about fraud and crime. I am not sure that it is not a crime perpetrated against this House on the night before prorogation to take up four hours of the time of this House in trying to prove a case which he has not begun to prove. If there had been a situation where the mandate of the people, coupled with the mandate of those who are Canadian citizens across the seas, had been of so undecided a character that there was doubt in the minds of this nation whether or not this Government should be supported in its policies, I could quite understand that with the feeling of soreness, perhaps, that all people and all parties have wh'en they are defeated in an election they might bestir themselves and say, "Well, this is a very narrow margin; possibly something has been going on against the law; let us pursue the matter and see if we cannot turn the scales." But that was not the case here. The case here is that without a single soldier vote overseas or in Canada, this Union Government and its policies has been so absolutely and so substantially
endorsed that there has been no question as to a mandate from the people of Canada, and it is rather amusing to hear my hon. friend express his horror at the desperate things that have been going on, and the pain it has given him. Personally I did not see any great evidence of pain when the hon. member was bringing up this matter in the way he has. Throughout all his speech there is not only an admission that he attacks the political side of this thing-political in the sense that all politicians understand, namely, the methods and practices of those not holding office, but who are desirous, nevertheless, of returning their party to power-but there is also an implication or plain charge that the administration of this Election Act by the officials appointed for that purpose has been of a deplorable character. Before saying another word, I resent in the strongest possible way the imputations that have been cast by the hon. member on the character of the officers who have carried forward this election in Canada, in England, and in France, and I think the best answer I can give my hon. friend aEter his four hours' speech would be this: that he has not said, practically, a single word or made a single charge in regard to the administration of the Act and the running of the election in France or in Canada, but has confined practically all of his criticisms and charges to the conduct of the election in England. I would point out to this House what many members know, that there have been the same administration, the same rulings and decisions, and practically the very same methods, in France, in England, and in Canada. In France we have had no complaints; in Ca*nada we have had virtually no complaints. Indeed, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself commended the way in which the general returning officer, Mr. O'Connor, had conducted election affairs in Canada. Mr. Langlois, the gentleman appointed by the right hon. leader of the Opposition to take chief charge in France, commended Colonel Purney, the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery overseas, for the way he had conducted affairs so far as France was concerned. My hon. friend attempts to show that things were conducted in a different way in England from that in which they were conducted in Canada or France. That charge is absolutely without foundation. Mr. O'Connor had charge of the administration of the Act and the conduct of the elections in Canada, and waa constantly in touch, every day, by cable


Charles Murphy: By whom was the ruling given to which my hon. friend has referred?


Martin Burrell: That ruling was 'given by the general returning officer and by Colonel Purney, and was followed out.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend is mistaken.


Martin Burrell: No, I am absolutely right.


Charles Murphy: The general returning officer had nothing to do with giving the ruling. The Order in Council passed by my hon. friend and his colleagues calls upon the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to give the ruling, not the general returning officer.


Martin Burrell: A decision was given by the proper authority, and the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery overseas gave that ruling.


Charles Murphy: The general returning
officer had nothing to do with it. The clerk of the Crown in Chancery here gave the ruling and the assistant clerk of the Crown in Chancery overseas followed it.


Martin Burrell: The ruling was given and absolutely followed, that is what 1 am contending for.


Charles Murphy: All right.


Martin Burrell: Therefore, the argument of my hon. friend, who seems to contend that all these votes where questions 6, 7 and 8 were not answered should not have been given, is absolutely beside the mark, because none of those ballots were ailo-cated at all. In fact, in England, out of
104,000	votes Which were cast, 17,000 ballots were rejected, and rejected largely because of that very reason. Indeed, I think there were a great many men who, perhaps, suffered an injustice by being done out of their votes. Furthermore, the candidates concerned, who did not receive the votes of those men, who honestly believed they were entitled to vote, were adversely affected. At all events, rightly or wrongly, that rigid interpretation of the law to which I have just referred was given, so that the number of men I -have mentioned were not permitted to vote, and in France there was about the same proportion. In Canada alone no less than 19,000 votes were rejected, and very largely for the reason I have indicated.
I would also like to point out another fallacy indulged in by my hon. friend and to indicate to him that the fulminations and the heat which he displayed, and the fiery indignation into which he worked himself on this point, were entirely wasted energy. He argued-and if he is sincere I can only say it shows great ignorance on his part of the actual facts of the case- that it was the deputy presiding officers who allocated all these votes in, as he says, this improper way. That is what I understand the hon. gentleman to argue-that the deputy presiding officer allocated these
TMr Burrell.]
votes although he should not have alio-cated them-thus implying grossly improper proceedings on the part of election officials in this matter. Now, as every member of the House knows-or many members do- the deputy presiding officers had absolutely nothing whatever to do with allocating the votes; they were simply there for the purpose of receiving the votes; and: the allocation was done by the Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in England; by Mr. O'Connor in Canada, and by the gentleman [DOT] appointed for the purpose in France. The allocation was carried out according to the merits and facts of the ease, and according to the law, and in the presence of two men, one of whom was appointed by the Union Government and the other by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. I cannot see where all the indignation manifested by my hon. friend enters at all on this subject; I think his whole ease falls to the ground.
Now let me deal with another charge that the hon. gentleman made. He spoke several times about improprieties in connection with the ballot envelopes. He argued that there were improper things going on because of military voters in England filling out their envelopes before they came to the polling places to vote, and that the whole thing was extremely irregular. He alleged that a lot of this occurred at Witley in particular, and also in connection with the 156th Battalion under Lieutenant Cblonel Grant. Well, that is true enough. It is not true that the ballots were filled out before the electors came to the polling place, but it is true that some were filled out before the men actually came into the polling room. As a matter of convenience some of them were filled out at Witley in an adjoining room, but, let me observe, undier the Presiding Officer and sworn to and attested by him. After all, I do not know that there is anything illegal about that. It is true,, it may not have been a literal or full compliance with the Act, and that it was afterwards discouraged 'by Colonel Purney, who stopped it; but after all, what does it amount to? The Act requires that the voters shall come to the Deputy Presiding Officer and answer certain questions that appears on the envelope as to whether they were resident in Canada, and so on. The voter was supposed to swear to those answers, and then the certificate was attested by the Presiding Officer. I would ask, however, what is the difference between a Deputy Presiding Officer giving

the voter an envelope and getting him to fill it in himself and then returning and handing it in and the Presiding Officer himself seeing that the envelope is filled out. What is the difference between putting the oath to the voter as to whether his answers are correct or not, and putting the oath to him before he filled out the envelope. The man gave his oath that those were his true answers, and I cannot see anything in that contention hut. a matter of hair-splitting. Although, it is true, it was not a strict compliance with the law it was only done for a short time, and done under proper supervision. Surely my hon. friend would not argue in any conceivable way that that was improper, or in any real sense an illegal proceeding? To say that that constituted evidence of a dark, dangerous, sinister conspiracy on the part of people unknown, I think would be a very far-fetched idea.
While on the envelope question my hon. friend waxed eloquent because envelopes bad been put in which had not been properly filled out, or filled out before the voter went to the poll. I think that is what my hon. friend argued, although I do not want to do him an injustice. He held up a white envelope at that time.


Mr.   OOBP@: No, I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Martin Burrell: Very good. If my hon. friend held up an official envelope I have nothing to say. If he had held up a white envelope it would be perfectly natural because a large number of white envelopes were used by 'both parties for instructional purposes, many of which, through ignor-[DOT] ance or dishonesty, were put into the various polling bags, but were rejected and destroyed at the final count. I certainly thought that was one of these enveloDes.


Charles Murphy: Will my hon. friend say where these envelopes were used for instructional purposes?


Martin Burrell: I think they were used in England and 'Canada and by both sides I am informed. My hon. friend in the course of his remarks animadverted on the case of United States citizens voting. Here he again seems to scent some evidence of a dark and deep-laid conspiracy to get them to do improper things. In the first place, no United States citizens, as he knows, can vote under the law, although here again it was industriously spread throughout my province that this Act was so intricate that it allowed United States citizens to vote in an election. I am sure everybody who
knows anything about it should know that no United States citizen could vote. It is true that if he filled'out in the answer to No. 5-(first of all he has to 6ay whether he is a British subject, and if he said he was, and answered No. 5:	"Were you in
Canada when you enlisted?" in the negative, then I maintain he was within the law in answering No. 9. I am not pronouncing on the question as to what would be done if a United States-citizen deliberately perjured himself by saying " yes " in answer to question No. 4, " Are you a British subject?" That is a different point altogether. The onus of that must rest on the individual. But as far as the election officers go, and as far as the administration of this Act goes, there is absolutely not a shadow of impropriety in regard to such a charge about United States citizens voting.
Now, I wish to come to another criticism which my hon. friend made, and that was in relation to Colonel A. T. Thompson, who is very well known and very much liked by a great many men on both sides of the House, and who formerly sat as a member of this1 House, and was a very strong and pronounced supported of my right hon friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) for years. 1 might say in this connection that the gentlemen who were appointed as chief scrutineers by my right hon. friend and by the Prime Minister, and who -are by implication aesailed through the speech of my hon. friend, were these:
In France, Major Gibson, representing the Government as chief scrutineer in the whole of the United Kingdom, Colonel A. T. Thompson; in Canada, Mr. John F. Orde, K.-C., rwho is well known here. The leader of the Opposition appointed in France Mr. God-froi Langlois, who is well known; in England, Mr. W. T. R. Preston, who is also well known; and in Canada, Mr. W. R. Hearn. I do not think that any man in this House would care to say what my hon. friend in his speech this afternoon said, that however high a standing Colonel Thompson may have had, he allowed this most deplorable conduct in the -selection, for that is the effect of his charges. He said that Colonel Thompson appointed two scrutineers, one for the Opposition and one for the Government, and thereby misled everybody, and worked in a Government man masquerading as an Opposition man and did a great injury -to- the party o? my hon. friends opposite. My hon. friend surely knows that Colonel Thompson, as chief scrutineer, does not appoint an Opposition scrutineer and assign him to a particular place, because the whole inference of my

hon. friend's remarks was that at a certain polling place Colonel Thompson had put in two men, one a Government man and one an Opposition man to work in a particular poll.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If I may be permitted: I said that Colonel Thompson appointed two scrutineers, and that the presiding officer swore one in as a scrutineer for the Opposition and the other as a scrutineer for the Government.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend cannot get away from the fact that he impugned Colonel Thompson in that respect. Because, when he was interrupted by the hon. mernbeT for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) he got rather heated about it, and certainly left the impression in my mind, and in the minds of hon. gentlemen on this side, that Colonel Thompson had done something very dark. Colonel Thompson was the chief scrutineer for the whole of the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, and, as anybody who has anything to do with elections knows, he had tb issue hundreds of certificates for the appointment of scrutineers, and he would issue them by the hundred. He would not always know where these certificates went. He might issue them with a name, and again it might possibly be left in blank. He does not appoint these scrutineers to go to a particular place. Here is an Opposition and a Government man. That man goes himself andi takes his oath before another officer as to whether he is an Opposition scrutineer or whether he is a Government scrutineer. And upon that man and upon that officer who takes that oath is the onus of saying whether that man is an Opposition or a Government man. It is quite conceivable, to one whose mind is not so full of dark suspicions as my hon. friend's, that in the issuance of hundreds of certificates to scrutineers, mistakes should occur. If I wanted to get highly suspicious, I might as well argue that one of these certificates was filled in by my hon. friends opposite for the purpose of saying that this was a cooked-up case. I do not want to assume such things. It is very much beside the mark that my hon. friend should draw the deduction from such a slender hypothesis as this that Colonel Thompson, as a Government officer, has been behaving in a highly improper way.
My hon. friend followed that by the remark that Mr. Preston, the chief scrutineer appointed by my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition, had been maltreated in England, bad not been dealt with

properly, and that he had even been arrested at one time. Well, I am afraid that Mr. Preston was arrested; I cannot deny that. As a matter of fact, what happened was this: Mr. Preston was the only civilian who was operating as an election officer of any kind practically, in Great Britain. They were all military men, and every one of them in uniform. And Mr. Preston appears at some military camp and states that he is Mr. Preston and is a scrutineer, and does not produce anything to show that he is. As I understand it, he had the papers on him, but would not produce them. And the military authorities, in times like these, when civilian gentlemen, whom nobody knows, assume that they are something, and take no steps to show that they- are, the military also, like my hon. friend, entertain suspicions, and perhaps even better founded than his. Apparently they entertained sorfie suspicions of Mr. Preston and put him in jail, and I understand he was in jail for five or six hours. Nothing very serious happened, except, I have been informed, that Mr. Preston was a little disturbed in his mind. I understand one of his fellow-prisoners was a jolly little Irishman, and, during the course of that brief incarceration, there were steps heard outside, and Mr. Preston asked in some apprehension what this thing was, and was told: " Don't worry yourself, it will soon be over; it is the firing squad."
My hon. friend next brought up a lot of charges which I must confess I had very great difficulty in following. His voice, while it rose at times to great passion and fervor, sometimes sank so low when he was reading that bewildering list of names, that I could scarcely hear him. As nearly as I could follow him, he was charging that there were a lot of votes transferred to different places such as Prince Edward county or elsewhere where they did not belong, and to Northumberland, and he read out, in fact, several pages of these things. He seemed to think that something terrible had been done; that this was further conclusive evidence of the deep-laid conspiracy which he was so fond of rolling under his tongue. But let me point out that in each case the vote was allocated to the place indicated on the ehvelope as the residence, not to the place where the man might want to vote or was trying to vote and should not. A widespread impression prevailed among the soldiers that they could elect what constituency they should vote in. Take the case of Prince Edward County, for instance. It is conceivable that a great .many men in the battalion of their

officer, Major Hepburn, who was a candidate for Prince Edward County, even if they did not belong to that county would have the impression that they could vote in the county of Prince Edward and would do all they could to persuade all the other fellows to vote there too if they could. But that does not imply that they did so.


Charles Murphy: Yes, they did.


Martin Burrell: Their votes were not
allocated there if they gave their residence as somewhere else.


Charles Murphy: They voted there.


Martin Burrell: Was the vote allocated to that constituency if the residence was given as somewhere else? Not at all, it was rejected.


Charles Murphy: Not all. Practically the whole battalion voted there.


Martin Burrell: 

" historical notes." Well, to quote the . words used by the member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Butts) last night, " A rose by any other naim-e would smell as sweet." . I wish to touch upon another matter on which my hon. friend/ laid a good deal of stress and on which his friends and the chief scrutineer in- England, Mr. Preston, also laid stress-the alleged irregularities in connection with the ballot hags. He asserted that all kinds of ballots had been folded together and put in the ballot hags; that they had been put in one time, not in a proper way, and that they were of different dates. As this matter has been the subject of some discussion, I wish to deal with it somewhat fully. Charges also were made in respect of the envelopes from different camps. It was intimated that the officers at these camps, as well as the higher election officials, must have been cognizant of this. As evidence of the spirit in which Colonel Pnrney, Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery overseas, conducted his operations, I wish to read a letter which he sent to the special officers Whom he was to assist by instruction and advice concerning the election laws, and so on, in the various polling places. It is as follows:
Dear Sir,-
If it were possible I would visit all points where voting at the ensuing Dominion election will be carried on. My chief objects in making such visits would be to satisfy myself without actually interfering with the work of the officials at the polls, that they have:
1. A thorough knowledge of the Military , Voters' Act and of the work they are carrying on.
,	2. That every effort is being made by them
to give every military elector in their district a chance to vote.
3. That" the instructions which have been sent out by me have been absolutely followed.
As it is physically impossible for me to make this visit personally I have asked for the services of officers to assist me in this work. You have been detailed to me as one of them and I would like you to understand that in carrying out your work you must be strictly non-partisan, not doing anything that could possibly be construed as being campaign work. The least departure from this necessary provision would mean your instant return to duty.
I would also like you to make it known throughout your district that you will be available to all officials, conducting the election within your area, for advice and instruction.
It is my desire that the full vote he polled and if there is any carelessness or a disposition on the -part of any official not to do this, you must report it immediately to this office.
I do not wish you to take from these 'blunt instructions, which I must necessarily give you, any inference that I have anything but the fullest confidence in your ability to do the work which I have appointed you to do. That is farthest from my mind. If I had not the
fMr. Burrell.]
utmost confidence in your willingness and ability to assist me in the heavy work which is imposed upon me, I would not have called upon you. It is, however, incumbent upon me, situated as I am, to lay down hard and fast instructions, such as I myself have to follow in the prosecution of my work, for those who are sharing my responsibilities.
I hope to make a hurried trip to the various districts where the votes are being polled.
That, I think, will commend, itself to the House as a proper spirit in which the chief and responsible officer should address all the men who are carrying on those elections.
Irregularities were charged in reference to the ballot -bags and envelopes, and the charges were especially directed/ to certain matters that went on at Witley Camp. The officer in charge at Witley Camp is Major-General Hughes, who is- known to many members in this House, and when the matter was called to his attention, he wrote this letter:
With reference to your letter of December 6th, 1917, enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to you from Mr. W. T. R. Preston.
The 15Sth Canadian Infantry Battalion which he refers to is not in this area and there is evidently a mistake either in the designation of the battalion, or in considering that it is in this area.
I have, however, referred Mr. Preston's letter to the Deputy Presiding Officers of the 125th Canadian Infantry Battalion and the 208th Canadian Infantry Battalion, and have received from them in both cases, definite assurances that there was absolutely no irregularity in the polling of the votes taken by them.
Colonel Malone of the 208th Canadian Infantry Battalion mentions the fact which he has already reported to me in my military capacity that a civilian, who claimed to be the Mr. Preston in question, interfered with the taking of the vote at his polling booth, and that he is now of the opinion that the letter addressed to you resulted from his action at that time.
Colonel Malone further states that he is prepared to state and prove that the polling in his Battalion was conducted in accordance with the Military Voters Act, that he took no part in any manipulating of votes, and that no such thing existed in the Battalion to his knowledge.
Colonel Cutcliffe states that he knows of and took no -part in any conduct to manipulate votes in this area. He states that the poll in his Battalion was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act and makes a categorical denial of the suggestion that there was any violation of the Election Law in his poll.
Might I say ;in regard to all those officers and in regard to the matter as to- opening of the bags, that every officer was indignant, and had a right to be indignant, at the broad insinuation, unbacked by -any substantial proof, that he had been conniving at improper work and- conduct in taking the soldiers' vote at the front. Many affidavits

have been taken. I shall not read as many as my hon. friend (Mr. Copp). I shall read this one in connection with the ballot bags:
I, Henry Percy Gorst, Deputy Presiding Officer for the 3rd C.C.D., Seaford, Sussex, having a personal knowledge of all matters hereinafter referred to, make oath and say as follows :
(1)	-I did not possess, the key of hag No.
B 218-	,
This is one of the bags which was thrust on one side becauee, it wae stated, it had been manipulated.
-and it was not opened at any time during the time it was in my custody as Deputy Presiding Officer. When the poll was closed, said bag was under lock and key, or under charge of the quarter guard.
(2)	All the ballots which were inserted in said bag were inserted by me through the slit made for that purpose.
(3)	I am of opinion that envelopes rolled for the purpose of being placed in the ballot bag, would become unrolled and would be. flattened out by the weight of other ballots.
(4)	As far as my poll is concerned, everything was strictly carried out in accordance
. with the Military Voters Act, and in accordance with instructions issued by the Overseas Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada.
Sworn to at London in the County of London, this 10th day of January, 1918, before me.
Walter Jarvis,	H. P. Goret,
A Commissioner for Oaths.	Major.
That is a sample of many others, and I should like to say that, from my examination of the documents in question and from listening to my hon. friend's remarks, 1 have absolutely failed to see that there was any sufficient evidence in connection with this matter to impugn the honour and good faith of a large number of His Majesty's officers in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces who were trying to do their duty.
I shall, however, speak a little more about this matter of the bags because a good deal of stress has been laid upon it by my hon. friend. There were cases submitted. There was nothing to indicate in many cases that the bags had been, opened. It was urged that the best proof that they had been tampered with or opened was the fact that a number of those envelopes that were put in had become unrolled, flattened out and folded together, and looked, therefore, as though they had been put in at one time and subsequently to the proper day of voting. It is quite obvious that, as soon as envelopes containing ballots were dropped into a bag, _ they would become unrolled, and that many would gradually fit O'- fold together, as bags were hung up and, after the voting, put aside for weeks probably with other hags of considerable weight on the top of them. Naturally in such a case a number of the envelopes would become
1541 '	R-4
pressed or folded together. In any case if a deputy presiding officer had allowed a few envelopes to collect, folded them together and inserted them in the bag at the same time, and even did so (not through the very small aperture provided for that purpose, but pushed them through the chained and locked mouth of the bag, which might not have been perfectly tight), there would have 'been nothing decidedly illegal ^bout that, as all such instructions in the Act as to how the envelope should be inserted, etc., were directory only. It would have been permissible to pqt the envelope in an open bag, or through the opening if a chained and locked bag. The instructions were not comprtlsory. But, however, there is no reason for believing that every envelope was not inserted through the aperture made for that purpose. - I want to put this on record. When a few bags had been laid aside on the grounds above stated, Colonel Purney caused the deputy presiding officers affected to be brought to London in order that the facts might be ascertained.	.
But this became a habit, and in England Mr. Preston, or other gentlemen .acting under him, began to urge that every bag looked as if it had been tampered with, and 'they not only objected to those bags being counted, but went the length of insisting that eVery bag should have the reason for its having been thrust aside marked on it; further that the. bag should be opened and that there should be marked on every envelope the reason for that bag having been set aside as being no good and even that the envelopes should be opened Aid the ballots so marked. If that practice had been pursued there would have been no such thing as an election and Parliament would not have sat here until the summer. The thing was so absurd and obviously for the purpose of delay that I do not wonder at the Overseas Clerk of the Crown in. Chancery in London becoming Impatient. He took advice on this matter, because he could see where it was leading to, and he sent this telegram dated January 22, to Mr. O'Connor, General Returning Officer, in this country:


PRIORITY.
[Stage Direction]
W. F. O'Connor, c/o Secretary of State, Ottawa-
Special Returning Officers and Clerks in London disagreed as to the allocating of several bags. Reasons given under section 12 sub-section 8 because after said bags had been opened and examined rolls of ballots were found therein in three's, four's and sixes' which apparently had not been inserted through slits provided in section 2 (A). The exterior appearance of said bags was not questioned. The matter was submitted to me in accordance with your Order in
[Stage Direction]
Council and I decided tha4 the contents of bags should be allocated. Preston and the Opposition Special Returning Officers and Clerks questioned the validity of ray decision and of said Order in Council. They however, have reluctantly agreed to accept it but purpose endorsing the bags and every envelope contained therein with their objections and reasons, etc. They also intend to put the same endorsement on ballots to identify them. This will prolong the allocating indefinitely. I have endeavoured to handle" the situation diplomatically and have succeeded in many points but the same vital disagreement between the parties still exists and unless something drastic is done immediately there. will be a deadlock which will seriously handicap the expedition of the work in hand and prolong it indefinitely. Preston and several of the Opposition Special Returning Officers are doing everything they can to delay proceedings. Others are trying to hold on to a good job as' long as possible and are raising every imaginable technically' many of which are frivolous. Could not an Order in Council be passed more fully explaining section 12 subsection 8 and the Order in Council to the effect that the clause "appears to have 'bees opened" refers to some illegal opening which is apparent on the face of the bag and not because of any condition of contents, and that where a decision is made by me in regard to a bag the endorsement of disapproval of such decision by any Special Returning Officer or Clerk must be made on the bag alone, and the only endorsement of disapproval which can be made on an envelope is where a decision has been given with regard to the endorsement, illegal opening of envelope, or the certificate, etc., on same and on the ballot where a decision has been given re the marking, defacing, rejecting, etq., of said ballot. In your cable of 31st ultimo you S mentioned a plan which you had in mind regarding the limiting of proceedings. Do you think such a scheme quite legal and "if so will you more fully outline it.-Purney.
To that the general returning officer in Canada replied by cable on January 24th, as follows:
Colonel Purney,
47 Victoria Street,
London.
Clerk Crown Chancery, Deputy Minister Justice and self all concur that provision re polling in locked bags merely directory. Your ^ruling correct. Further, several envelopes may be inserted in bag at one time. Also quite easy for several envelopes to interlock after depositing in bag. Neither Act nor Order in Council require supplementing to authorize you to forbid course proposed by Opposition counting officers. Bag being opened, contents must he counted if envelopes do not appear to have been opened and if certificate in order. Endorsement of objections must be of objections particularly referable to bag or envelope or ballot for reason based on some term of Act which explicitly deals with bag, envelope or ballot as case may be, and you must not permit such frivolous endorsements as threatened. Provisions as to apparent openings clearly refer only to opening in perpetration of fraud. Inform all concerned that business must be expeditiously wound up and cable me names of all who continue obstructive tactics, whereupon I will advise immediate removal and repeal under the War Measures Act of present provisions and 	1	.	|
substitution o'f sufficient number of persons recommended by you to finish operation. Having no trouble whatever here and not necessary to put up with any nonsense ^overseas. Name for me date .when you consider reasonable men of sufficient number can finish operation. Cannot continue to pay officers indefinitely who will not reasonably perform their duties, as every officer here is doing. Are you successfully locating voters' proper ridings, and if not can I further help? Pay of counting officers overseas when appointed should start from time reporting uh-less special circumstances justify payment from time of setting out to perform duties. All new counting officers recommended your cables appointed. Leader Opposition nominated N. G. Charlton, vice Powell, so if position still vacant swear Charlton in.
O'Connor.
That telegram sets forth the facts very well. I would point out to my hon. friend and the House that the policy which was adopted by the chief scrutineer and many of his subordinate officers was to insist on very slight evidence that bags had been tampered with and envelopes inserted in an improper manner, and yet precisely the same operation which took place in England took place here and took place also in France, and we never had a word of complaint, practically speaking, in France or Canada. The same objections, it is true, were raised in Canada, but after examination and after consultation bags were set aside, though not to anything like the same number, and afterwards a general agreement was come to and the votes were counted. _ It is perfectly plain that the wffiole object over 'there was to set aside an indefinite number of bags, and an effort was made to delay in a most extraordinary and unjustifiable way the progresg of the whole election. My hon. friend adduced as a reason that there was a conspiracy the fact that three or four envelopes of different dates were rolled together, and he argued that that was proof they had been put in improperly. I would say it proyed just the contrary, because it would have been stupid for a man who wanted to do such a thing as that to put together envelopes of different dates. Such a man would have been clever enough to make them all of the same date, so as to avoid being detected.
I do npt think I need delay the House any longer on that point.
My hon. friend has said that a great number of the soldiers voted twice. It is quite possible that some of the soldiers voted twice. - I think it has been quite possible in any election for a number of men to vote twice; you cannot always stop these things. But in regard to the military voters, if any of them did vote twice, wherever that was detected both votes were

rejected, and I think my hon. friend ought to know that. In regard to personating, I am not here to argue whether there was personating or not. I think it would he very difficult to trace out innumerable points of alleged irregularities ini an election of such extraordinary difficulties as the one held last December. I am hot saying whether personating was or was not done, but I am here to say that there was no double voting or personating to the extent that would justify my hon. friend in assuming that there was a dark and deep-laid conspiracy on the part of somebody unknown to do all these things.
I would point out, in closing, that the one obvious thing that sticks out in this whole matter is, that all these objections, all these charges and all these insinuations of deep and dark conspiracies, come from one place, from England. They do not come from France, and they have not been alleged in regard to Canada; and yet, I repeat, the administration by the election officials was carried on in precisely the same way, under precisely the same rulings and decisions In all three places, England, Canada and France. I would also like to emphasize again this fact in regard to the futility, to my mind, of wasting the time of the House on a subject of this kind in the manner my hon. friend has wasted it; the soldiers were so overwhelmingly in favour of conscription that the matters my hon. friend refers to are a mere bagatelle, an infinitesimal grain of sand, so far as they affect the general results of the mandate of the people as expressed in the last election.
'My hon. friend knows that from 90 to 85 per cent of the votes of soldiers that were counted, to say nothing of those that were rejected, were in favour of this Union Government and of conscription. As to what the feeling of the soldiers was, I particularly remember that during my election I went down to a certain station in British Columbia to meet 330 soldiers who had just come back from France. We were in the middle of the election and we were naturally anxious to know what the real feelings of the soldiers was in this grave national crisis. One man who got off the train was a stalwart Highlander of about 45 years of age, who had been at the front since 1914. I asked him if he knew what the general views were of the Union Government and of conscription. "Well," he said, " I do not know anything about Union Government, but as regard the other -matter, while I am not able to speak with regard to the feeling in England, I can say
that every man who has been in France is in favour of conscription and against prohibition." I have nothing to say about his views with respect to prohibition, but I got from him an impression of the strength of feeling that existed. What is it after all that has inspired the general attitude- what is it that has inspired my hon. friend in regard to England? It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that it is the personality of the chief election agent of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Preston. He raised, all through the conduct of affairs the most strenuous objection to the administration of the Act, to the officials and to everybody engaged in carrying out the Act, and he has hinted at and charged irregularities all along the line. He has made allegations of wholesale fraud which have not been substantiated, and he has made very strong charges about the unjustifiable partisanship that existed. I do not know that the gentleman in question is a very bad judge of partisanship. I do not think that anybody who knows the history of that gentleman will deny that he is a fairly strong partisan. It is no wonder that this type of man should be looking around all over England for some mysterious machine for running the election because he no doubt believes that is the way elections are run. He probably knows something about it, and he has a good deal of suspicion of other people with regard to election frauds.
I have alluded to one or two things that the hon. gentleman said in connection with that matter, but I would like to point out that Mr. Preston does show suspicion and my hon. friend does show suspicion of the work that was d-one in England by those who were responsible for the administration of this Act. My -hon- friend while reading innumerable affidavits read one of a gentleman named Mr. D'Arcy. It appears that Mr... D'Arcy was told that he would be sent right off to the front if he did not vote for Union Government, but he said he was going to vote for Laurier, that his father and his grandfather and his whole family had voted for my right hon. friend and that nothing could swerve him from his determination to vote for Laurier. He would' vote for Laurier and was against conscription. In the face of that statement and having in mind the source from which it emanated I desire to tell the House that I hold in my hand a newspaper bearing date December 11, 19K7. It is a newspaper called the Penrith Observer, a well known Welsh newspaper, and in a corner of that paper there appears, in large type, an ad-
[Stage Direction]
vertisement addressed, " To the 'Canadian Overseas Forces ". This is signed by " W. T. R. Preston, on behalf of the Liberal candidates." How does the House think this advertisement is worded, and what is the heading? In big black letters, " Vote for Sir 'Wilfrid and Conscription and a Leader You can Trust."
See his statement at Ottawa, (London Press, Nov. 29th) in which he declares he will not ask Parliament to repeal the Compulsory Service Act. Training will therefore go on which will furnish a full quota of reinforcements.
Here is a man who is supplying my hon. friend with his ammunition, most of it based on the flimsiest evidence and talking about partisanship and everything of that kind, publishing over his own signature in a British paper an appeal to the soldiers to " vote for Lauriex and conscription " under the theory and belief that he will delude the soldiers into believing that if they supported my right hon. friend they would he voting in favour of conscription. This advertisement was published in face of the fact that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition told the people of the West that he was not in favour of conscription. Lots of my right hon. friend's friends in the West had a very.loyal and affectionate regard for him and they gave him, as we Unionists gave him, a real welcome on account of his personality when he came to the West. There was no lack of courtesy there. There were a great many men who had suspended judgment upon my right hon. friend and who, although they approved of conscription, and rather approved of Unoin Government, hesitated to withhold their.votes from my right hon. friend because they - believed that he had been maligned in the party press', and that he had not said what he was reported to have said in regard to conscription. My right hon. friend came there and.told them where he stood. They went away with bowed heads and said.: " There is nothing for us to do but to leave him and to vote for Union-. Government, because he has put his position plainly before us." What was it that he put before us? He said' that he against conscription. It is true he said *{that he would not repeal the Act, but he *would suspend the operation of the Act, ireturn to the voluntary system, take a [DOT]referendum of the people and go out to the people himself and appeal against the whole theory of conscription. In the face of that here is this man putting an advertisement in a British paper and asking the soldiers fMr. Burrell.]
who are fighting our .battle in. Europe, who believe that conscription was the only way to get the necessary reinforcements to oppose the Hun, to " vote for Laurier and conscription." If that isi the authority to which my hon. friend appeals, I must say that he is discredited by that authority's own announcements.
I have to apologize to the House for speaking s.o long, but I want to close with this testimony. I think my hon. friend was rather unfortunate in his somewhat vague denunciation of everybody connected with the administration of the Act, and in suggesting that the officials were more or less cognizant of those things which he charged, that they tolerated and connived at them. It may be .a surprise to the House to know that the gentleman who advertised this appeal in that way is the person who supplied my hon. friend with his ammunition and supplied him, I presume, with those lengthy lists of names, which really need not have been put on Hansard, because they did not substantiate anything in connection with this matter. This same gentleman wrote a letter and I am going to read it. This is a letter to Colonel Purney in reply to the suggestion, and it is dated November 23, 1917:
National Liberal Club,
Victoria 'Street,
London, S.W.I.
November 23rd, 1917. My dear Colonel Purney,-
In reply to the suggestion that the advertisement in to-day's issue of Canada might possibly be interpreted .or taken as a reflection upon your position as assistant cleric of the Crown in Chancery, and your staff, permit me to say that the reference to officers is entirely in regard to those who had received instructions from the Government at Ottawa to canvass and organize the overseas forces on -behalf of the Government, and to do their utmost to secure the election of the Government candidates in certain constituencies, a, list of which instructions had been given should be placed in their hands.
Speaking on behalf of the Liberal candidates I desire to say that instead of there being a suspicion that you would not act impartially, there is, without exception, a unanimous opinion that your integrity is unimpeachable, and that you will discharge your duties with the most strict impartiality, and that no partiality on the part of any of your appointees will be tolerated by you.
With much respect, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) W. T. R. PRESTON.
That is Mr. Preston's opinion of Lieut.-Colonel Purney. I would like also to read a letter from General Currie addressed to Lieut.-Colonel Purney, as follows:

Canadian Corps Headquarters,
.	22nd January, 1918.
Dear Colonel:
1 acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, and beg to thank you for what you have said with reference to the manner in which the polling of the vote of the Canadian soldiers was carried on in the Corps. It was a matter of great pleasure to me that Major Gibson, your representative here, had such a thorough grasp of the situation, and that he was most heartily in sympathy with my desire to have every soldier given an opportunity to vote, to have the Act fairly explained to that soldier, and to have the election clean. These things we were able to accomplish, and when those votes are counted I know our pleasure will be greater still.
^	Ever yours faithfully,
(Sgd. A. W. CURRIE,
Lt. General Commanding Canadian Corps.
Now I desire to read a letter from General Turner to Lieut.-Colonel Purney:
Canadian Headquarters, London, 7th January, 1918. Dear Colonel Purney,
[Stage Direction]
It has been a great pleasure working with you during the trying period of the election.
You have been considerate, and asked for only what was necessary to carry out efficiently your important duties for Canada.
I will have conyeyed to the officers concerned your appreciation of their assistance.
Trusting the count will be taken without undue worry,
Believe me,	.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd.) R. E. W. TURNER. I
I have only to say in closing, that to those who are chiefly concerned in this matter, any difficulties, any irregularities, or any breach of the technicalities of the law, which have occurred,-and which must necessarily occur to some extent in any election, and which it would be impossible to avoid in an election so extraordinary as that which has just taken place,-have not been sufficient to justify the general and broad charge of conspiracy that my hon. friend has made, and on the whole I think this House will agree with me, that as far as the administration of 'the Act goes, and as far as regards the fulfilment of the purpose which the Government and this House had in mind,-namely, to give the military electors of Canada, and all those who are fighting our battles, a fair right to express their opinion in regard to the destinies of this country,-I think that purpose was fulfilled with few blemishes and with an honest and sincere desire on "the part of the officials to carry out their duties, and I think with a reasonable and fair measure of success.
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I was not at all surprised to-night when I saw the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) rise, to answer in the name of the Government the charges made by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) on the military vote. No one else in the Cabinet could have replied, as the hon. minister is probably the only Simon-pure on this 'subject, and probably the only member of the Government who did not commit himself last year when the Military Voters Bill was discussed in the House. Looking through Hansard,
I find that the Secretary of State did not speak on this question on that occasion. The other members of the Government, if I am right, did commit themselves, but, Sir, how differently. Some of those hon. gentlemen, like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) indignantly repudiated' the idea that frauds could be committed in relation to the Act, or that it could be used in the interest of the Union Government. But others, like the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) and the present Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Maclean) _ denounced the Act in question most vigor ously. I have not time to read the whole of their utterances, but it may be of some interest to the House to quote just one extract from the speech of the Acting Minister of Finance, which I find at page 4716 of the Revised Hansard of last year:
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 case of his proceeding overseas the 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 oame 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 submit that, when you point out the possibilities for the exercise of improper in-

fluences, you thereby point out fundamental weaknesses 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 do not believe, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to reply to the speech of my hon. friend the Secretary of State, because at the beginning of his remarks he stated that even if all the charges- made by the hon. member- for Westmorland were true, it did not matter, because the Union Government was elected without the military vote. To such a conception of political morality, Mr. Speaker, it is useless to answer. I 'may say, though, that my hon. friend was right when he stated candidly that in his opinion there was a universal impression that the military voter could apply his vote in any constituency he desired. It is an admission, indeed, that when the Government secured the passage of this Act last year, and when the present Minister of Public Works and the Acting Minister of Finance denounced it, expressing their fear that the Government could use that vote for improper purposes, my hon. friends who are now on the treasury benches, but who were then on this side of the House, were right iu the fear to which they gave expression.
The Secretary of State has seen fit to make a charge against a son-in-law of Mr. Preston. I am not aware of the facts which he has related, but it seems to me that, the making of such an accusation is a pretty good reason why we should have an inquiry. The Secretary of State will then have ample opportunity to .air his charges properly and legally, and we, on this side, will not prevent him from punishing the guilty whether the man is a Liberal or a Unionist. My hon. friend also said that there were no accusations from Canada or France, but only from England. Let me tell him that it is not my intention-


Ernest Lapointe: The Secretary of State has left the chamber.


Mr. ARC HAM BA  U LT@: His. friends will tell him what I s-ay. Let me state that it is not my intention to review the votes cast generally by the soldiers overseas or in North America, because I have not made a study of that vote. But the present discus-s-ion gives me the opportunity of bringing before the House a special case of conspiracy carried out, not overseas, not in France, or in England, but in the military barracks at St. Johns, Quebec) during the last general election, which only emphasizes the necessity of having an [Mr. Arcbambaultl
inquiry in relation to the whole military vote. I have tried, Mr. Speaker, unsuccessfully since the beginning o-f the session, to bring this matter up, and in this connection let me assure the Secretary of State that my ammunition does not come from the source which he dislikes so much. On the 16th of last month I placed on the Order Paper a motion calling for:
A copy of envelopes Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 2.2, 3'9, 53, 56, 59 and 99, polling booth No. 9, Barracks of St. Johns, Quebec, used in the Federal Election of 17th December last and placed in Military bag No. 446 of the North American Continent Military Votes. Also, a copy of the envelopes Numbers 05 and 70, polling booth No. 4, Barracks of St. Johns, Quebec, used in the Federal Election of 17th December last, and placed in Military bag Number 451 of the North American Continent Military Votes.
To this, motion, when I proposed to move it, the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) said, " Stand." On the 22nd- of April my motion was still on the Order Paper, and when I -was about to proceed with it the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) expressed some doubt as to the possibility of producing the documents asked for, and begged to be allowed to examine more closely into the effect of the motion before it was passed-. On 1st May the motion was called again and the Minister of Justice stated that the reasons he had given on April 22nd appeared sufficient to refuse the production o:f such papers. However, the motion was again allowed to stand. My next move was to drop the motion, believing that, perhaps, the phraseology was not regular. I had asked for the production of documents-, which had been placed in ballot bags. I was informed- later on that the documents had been taken from those ballot bags and placed in ballo-t boxes. Therefore, I put in another motion asking for the same envelopes, papers and documents that had been originally put into ballot bags, but later on had been transferred to ballo-t boxes. To the latter motion the Prime Minister again said " Stand." Finding that the Government was unwilling to grant my request, I said: Since the Government does not seem disposed to grant this motion, as I believe they should, I shall withdraw' it, hut I give notice that I will bring the matter before the House at the first opportunity. This is the subject which I wish to bring up to-night. It is with a great deal of reluctance, Mr. Speaker, that I br-ng it forward, and I must say that before taking this step I gave the question very careful consideration. My election not having been

This paper, therefore, was published purposely for the elections, the first issue appearing five or six weeks before December 17th. After the extra edition published on December 17th, the paper appeared no more in St. Johns.


Charles Murphy: The war was won.


Joseph Archambault: I repeat that this paper was published and distributed throughout the barracks against the King's regulations and orders, which provide that no political meeting shall be held or political publication distributed in barracks where soldiers are quartered. This issue of December 15th, page 12, has also the following:
One vital issue; For the first time in the history of Canada public opinion is sharply divided on a single, vital issue. Shall we or shall we not send reinforcements to those heroic Canadians, who, during the past three long years, have played such a gallant part in making it possible for you and for me to live in safety and in comfort?
On the one hand are those indomitable Canadian battalions which, at Ypres and St. Julian, at Messines, Vimy and on numberless bloody fields have brought immortal fame to the name of Canada.
On The Left Hand-
And on the other side what do we find? Cowardly mobs who, at Sherbrooke, at Montreal, at Quebec and at a score of other places, have attempted and still attempt to impose German brutality and mob violence on the people of Canada; Germans and avowedly pro-Germans who at Kitchener and elsewhere, have attempted to disgrace the name of Canada in the eyes of the world; slackers who would stand idly by and see their women folk suffer the unspeakable fate of the women of France and Belgium rather than play a man's part beside the heroes who are to-day fighting their battles.
_ In the past, in civil life, you have been accustomed to choose your friends and associates; your selection has reflected your true character. Now you are confronted by a choice of supremest importance.
And what will be your choice?
Will you by your vote identify yourself with pro-Germans, Germans and slackers, or will you honour yourself by taking a man's place behind the heroes in the trenches?
It must be one thing or the other. THEBE IS NO MIDDLE COURSE.
I may add that on page 16 there appears a picture of Sir Robert Borden. I quote from page 1 of the extra edition published on December 17, the day of the election:
A weekly newspaper sanctioned by the Officer Commanding and published by and for the men of the E.T.D., St. Johns, Quebec, Volume* I., No. 7. Extra.
On the first page appears a picture representing a Canadian soldier casting his vote. There is one ballot box called "Union" where soldiers are lined up, and there is another ballot box called " Opposition,"

where there is a soldier maiming women and children. Is it not a disgrace that such publications should be distributed, especially in barracks where soldiers are training for overseas service? From the second page of this issue, referring to the soldier, this article saye:
Does he realize that in voting for the Opposition he is voting for a "party" which has nothing but rash promises to offer?
Does he realize that in voting for the Opposition he is voting for procrastination, while our Canadian boys at the front are in need of reinforcements ?
Does he realize in voting for the Opposition he is protecting the sleek slacker, the miserable "skunk" who will shelter behind all manner of excuses rather than go out and do a man's work?
Does he realize that he is offering sanctuary to this class of individual who, if Canada was immediately threatened, would no doubt act in the same manner?
That is their cry: "Canada is not in need of defence"-"Canada is not threatened by the Hun."
You poor shortsighted, misguided fools-small wonder you cry in that manner. Your scope of vision is so narrow that it is piteous to believe man could be so puny. Remember Edith Cavell, the Lusitania, the Belgian massacres. Remember Louvain and a thousand more acts of frightfulness. You, as a soldier, as a part of this great Empire, can only have one right point of view. Sink your petty grievance, take a broader look at the situation, use your vote as a bullet against the Hun and your duty will have been well done at the poll.
Mark these words :
If you vote for the Opposition, you are not fit to wear the uniform; you are not fit to live with your comrades; you are. a traitor.
Another page is adorned with the picture of the ex-Deputy Speaker of this House. I do not know if the ex-Deputy Speaker has a press representative with as much literary experience as the private secretary of the President of the Privy Council. I do not know if there was a man by the name of Donald Hunt who was writing those articles, but they are just as laudatory as the articles we have read in the Toronto Globe. On this page I read the following and every one can, see the photograph:
Here is a Good Man to Vote for Monday.
J. H. Rainville, Esq., LL.B., iM.P., is an attorney of some distinction. He is at present Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, and is slated as a Cabinet member in the prospective "Union" Government.
My hon. friends who sit on the treasury benches must be glad that I defeated J. H. Rainville:
Here is one of three French Canadian public men who have had the courage of their better opinions in refusing to associate with the proGerman element.

Blondin, Sevigny and Rainville are names that will go down with fame and honour in the annals of Canada, when those who are to-day flocking to the Opposition banner, to protect the slacker and help the German, will not be able to lift their heads in decent society.
Might I digress a moment in reminding you, Sir, that three days after the election the Toronto Saturday Night, speaking of Mr. Blondin and Mr. Sevigny, said that now that the Union Government Was safe, they were glad that Blondin and Sevigny were not returned1, because the furniture would be safer in Ottawa. The article continues:
These men are for a real Canada-a Canada for all; and, what is more to the point just now, they stand for Union against pro-German; for Union against slackers; for Union and the soldiers' weal, at this critical stage of Canada's history. J. H. Rainville was born in Ste. Angele, Quebec, March 8, 1875 educated at the Seminary St. Marie de Monnoir, taking his degree of B.A. He contested the Vercheres seat in 1908 and was defeated, but was elected for Oharmbly-Vercheres in 1911.
I wish ton. members to note the following sentence:
He is a lieutenant in the 85th Regiment, which appointment he has held for ten years.
I wonder where is the slacker. I wonder how this appeal could be made to soldiers, telling them that Rainville would go against the slackers when he was an officer for ten years and yet saw fit to stay at home instead of going overseas.
Your vote can put this excellent French Canadian in. The Union Government will be strengthened by the addition of this candidate. Do not make any mistake.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: That is in the extra.


Joseph Archambault: Yes, that is in the extra. These is more of this:
Now is your opportunity to avenge Kitchener and Sherbrooke. In voting for the Union Government at this election you will not only be providing for the soldier, but you will register your disapproval of the mob methods practised by the German and proOerman in Kitchener, and the slacker and pro-German at Sherbrooke. Such mob methods are a disgrace to a country boasting of its democracy and which also allows the privilege of free speech. Imagine, if you can, a country governed by such as these. With the reins of power in their hands we would be ruled by laws of brutality; we would have " Kultur " and mob violence, instead of sane, progressive government. Remember this when casting your vote. Remember your comrade when casting your vote-and remember that over eighty per cent of your comrades in France and Flanders have voted solid for Union Government. Go to the polls and register for Union Government.
Section 430 of the King's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Militia, 1917, reads:
An officer or soldier is forbidden to institute or take part in, any meetings, demonstrations
or processions for party or political purposes in barracks, quarters or camps.
It is useless for me to add anything to convince you, Sir, of the flagrant breach of discipline on the part of the officers and men of the E. T. D. of which I have spoken. But you. 'will certainly be astounded when I tell you, Sir, that not one of the 1,200 men stationed .in the St. Johns barracks had ever resided in the electoral district of Chambly-Vercheres; that all the officers and nine-tenths of the men had resided in Canada before enlistment, and that quite a number of the men were not even British subjects. Indeed, the first question that will come to your mind will be: What was the purpose of all this work, this undue influence, these banquets, these speeches, this expense, if those men could not, under the Military Voters' Act, cast their votes in the electoral district of Chambly-Vercheres? Surely a candidate is not foolish or stupid enough to conduct such propaganda amongst voters who will not be able to cast their votes for him. That ,is what struck me when, a month before the election, I heard of the banquet, the placards, the speeches and the accompanying paraphernalia that was going on at St. Johns, Que. I beg to direct your attention to the Military Voters' Act, 1917. Section 3 reads:
(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 four months of the twelve months immediately preceding his appointment, enlistment, 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 state or so specify an electoral district or place wherein he has so resided for the time and within the period mentioned in subsection two but can state an electoral district or so specify a place within Canada wherein he has at any other time resided, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or made ascertainable and his vote shall he applied thereto.
(4)	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.
Paragraph (c) of section 9 says:
The voter shall answer under oath, before the Deputy Presiding Officer, the questions set forth in the certificate which is form B in the Schedule. Such certificate shall be endorsed on the envelopes referred to in section five of this Part.
Form B of the schedule has already been read. I wrote to tihe general returning officer explaining the facts. Mr. W. F-

O'Connor in reply to my letter said there was no 'possibility of a soldier non-resident in my constituency but who had resided in Canada previous to his enlistment applying his vote in Chambly and Vercheres. But the rumour gained ground that 1,200 soldiers at the St. Johns barracks would apply their votes in Chambly and Vercheres. I took no chances. I had nine scrutineers appointed, one for each poll in the barracks, and instructions1 were given to the effect that soldiers should be properly sworn, according to law, as to residence. Then not a vote in the barracks could be applied to the electoral district of Chambly and Vercheres and the scheme would fall through. But you will be amazed, Mr. Speaker, to hear as I did on the 18th of December that seventeen officers and about seven hundred men, as shown in my scrutineers' books, applied their votes in Chambly and Vercheres, voting at St. Johns barracks. How could they do it? The law was plain that not one of these soldiers who had not resided in my constituency could cast their vote in Chambly and Vercheres. The only way in which they could apply their votes to that constituency was by not only violating the King's regulations, but by trampling on sections 170 and 172 and 175 of the Criminal Code of -Canada dealing with perjury, and I quote these sections not for the lawyers of the House, but for the benefit of the laymen. Section 170 says:
Perjury is an assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence, upon oath or affirmation, whether such evidence is given in open court, or by affidavit or otherwise, and whether such evidence is material or not, such assertion being known to such witness to be false, and being intended by him to mislead the court, jury or person holding the proceeding.
Subornation of perjury is counselling or procuring a person to commit any perjury which is actually committed.
'Section 172 says:
Every one is guilty of perjury who,____
(a) having taken or made any oath, affirmation, solemn declaration or affidavit whereby any Act, or law in force in Canada, or in any province of Canada, it is required or permitted that facts, matters or things be verified, or otherwise assured or ascertained by or upon the oath, affirmation, declaration or affidavit of any person, wilfully and corruptly, upon such oath, affirmation, declaration or affidavit, deposes, swears to or makes any false statement as to any such fact, matter or thing.
Section 175 says:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven years' imprisonment who, being required or authorized by law to make 
any statement on oath, .affirmation or solemn declaration, thereupon makes ' a statement which would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.
I have read a few paragraphs from the paper published in the barracks of St. Johns. Now, to prove that the military regulations were transgressed, I shall make a few quotations which are nothing less than -subornation of perjury, and -let me remind the House that this paper is published under the authority of the commanding officer. My hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) complained that there was no proof or evidence of a commanding officer inducing his men to vote a certain way, but I believe, after reading this article, he will change his mind. It says:


THE ELECTION.
[Stage Direction]
We go to print on the eve of the election with out watchword-

[Stage Direction]
In another column you will find instructions as to voting.
Every soldier of the C.E.F. has a vote in this election, and that vote is a powerful instrument which, used in a -proper manner, can be made to operate effectually. You can size up the situation for yourself.
Ask yourself these questions:-Will your vote be needed in the constituency from which you come? Will your vote, marked for the Government, be the means of putting in a candidate in a constituency where your vote is needed?
Weigh these questions in your mind I
DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE!
Have your mind made up before you enter the Polling booth. Don't hesitate to place your vote for the Government, in a constituency where it will count.
Charles Murphy: Where is the Secretary of State now?


Joseph Archambault: In the next column isi: "A specimen ballot showing the only mark you need to make to convert it into a Win-the-War ballot."
I vote for
I vote for the Government.. X I vote for the Opposition..
I vote for the independent Candidate..
I vote for the Labour Candidate..
Following -is- this:
Specimen envelope showing how questions may be answered
1.	What is your name.... Thomas Atkins.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that printed?


Joseph Archambault: 
Joseph Archambault: They swore
falsely.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Order.


Joseph Archambault: The hon. member for Cape Breton South, and Bichmond (Mr. Butts) always butts in. I have here the names of the men, the numbers of their regiments,' the numbers of the ballots, the name of the returning officer, and the name of the scrutineer. I am not going to give the names of the privates. If an inquiry is granted I will name them, but otherwise I shall not do so, because 1 believe they have been misled, and although they committed a very reprehensible act, I have some doubt as to their full responsibility. But, Mr. Speaker, the officers who have led them into such actions do not deserve my mercy, nor the mercy of their fellow-citizens, and I shall name them so that the Government will be in a position-


Rodolphe Lemieux: To promote them.


Joseph Archambault: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: He will be made a baron.


Joseph Archambault: These are the
questions- and answers:
What is your name?-Col. Melville.
What is your rank?-Colonel.
In what force or service are you?-E.T.D.
Are you .a British subject?-Yes.
Were you in Canada when you were appointed, enlisted, enrolled, or called but on active- service?-Yes.
Specify the name of the place or .places in Canada (giving streets and numbers where possible) Whereat you last continuously resided during at least four months of the twelve months immediately preceding your appointment, enlistment, enrollment or calling out on active service? -Can't say.
State if you can the. electoral district wherein such place or places in which you so resided are situate?-Can't say.
If you cannot specify as required by question No. 6, or state as required by question No. 7, then state in what electoral district or place within Canada (giving street and number where possible) you have resided at any other time than is referred to in question No. 6?-Can't say.
If none of your answers to questions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 specify or 'state as required thereby, to what electoral district do you desire your vote to be applied?-Chambly-Vercheres.


Charles Murphy: Nothing wrong in
Canada!


Joseph Archambault: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that Colonel Melville is well known in the province of New Brunswick. I understand that he was the organizerof the Conservative party in the last provincial election, and some of my hon. friends on the other side of the House can probably give us some light on Colonel Melville.


Ernest Lapointe: I should say-so.


Joseph Archambault: Now I will not take the time of the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Charles Murphy: Don't omit a thing.


Joseph Archambault: The second name on the list is Major T. C. Keefer. To question No. 3, which I put on the Order Paper: Where did this officer enlist? the answer is Ottawa. 4. Where did this officer reside before enlistment?-Ottawa. And Major T.
C.	Keefer voted No. 19, in'Jo 11 No. 9, bag 446. And he answered, "I cannot say" to questions Nos. 6, 7 and 8, and applied his vote to Chambly-Verchferes. .

Captain R. W. Powell: The answer to the third question: Where did he enlist? is " Ottawa, Ont." Where did this officer re-[DOT] side before enlistmfent? " Ottawa, Ont." And he voted No. 20, in poll No. 9, bag 446. And he answered to' questions 6, 7 and 8, " I cannot say," and he applied his vote to Chambly-Vercheres.
Captain J. P. Campbell, of Kingston, in answer to the third question: Where did he enlist? is " Kingston." Where did he reside before enlistment? " Napanee, Ont.", He voted No. 56, poll 9, bag 446; and he answered the same way, perjured himself the same way, and applied his vote to Chambly-Vereheres, to " win the war."
Captain A. C. Wright: to the third question: Where did he enlist? the answer is " Ottawa, Ont." Where did he reside before enlistment? " Ottawa, Ont." He voted No. 80, poll No. 2, bag 453, and *he voted the same way as his friends, perjured himself, answered " I cannot say," to questions 6, 7 and 8, and " Chambly-Vercheres" to question 9.
Captain L. Pettigrew: He enlisted at Lindsay, Ont., and before his enlistment resided in Toronto. He voted No. 53, poll 9, bag 446, and with his other-friends he committed perjury, and applied his vote in Chambly-Vercheres.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And he i3 from Toronto?


Joseph Archambault: That is a shame. Lieut R. R. Knight, enlisted at St. Johns, Que.; before his enlistment he resided at Fort William, Ont. He voted No. 65, poll 4, bag 451; and he did the same as the others.
Lieut. D. B. Armstrong. enlisted in Ottawa. To my sorrow he resided in Montreal before his enlistment, but bad companionship probably made him perjure himself; and he voted No. 22, poll 9, bag No. 446.


Avard Longley Davidson: Are any of those votes counted?


Joseph Archambault: I do not know. It makes no difference from the standpoint of morality on this side of the House. It may be that our mentality is not the same on this side of the House as that of my hon. friend.
Lieut. A. T. Adney enlisted at St. Johns,. P.Q. He resided before he enlisted at Woodstock, N.B. He voted No. 17, poll 9, bag 446. He swore he had never resided in 'Canada before he enlisted, and he applied his vote to Chambly-Vercheres. The same gentleman is the officer who was demonstrating the other day in the hall of the

House of Commons a very well made model of trenches., much according to nature. And after an inquiry from, me, he told me that he had never been over at the front.
Lieut. R. M. Trow, of Toronto, enlisted in 'St. Johns, P.Q.; he had resided in Toronto before his enlistment, and he voted No. 12, poll 9, bag No. 446. He answered,
" I cannot say " to questions Nos. 6, 7 and
8,	and " Chambly-Vercheres " to question,
9,	like all- his friends.
Lieut. H. G. Young has resided before his enlistment at Farran's Point, Ont., voted No. 59 in poll 9, bag 446, .and be did like the others, perjured himself and applied his vote to try to help the ex-deputy Speaker of this House-


Ernest Lapointe: Real Union.


Joseph Archambault: -the future minister. Lieut. H. S. Phillips enlisted in St. Johns, P.Q.; he had resided if! Toronto before his enlistment, he voted No. 99, poll 9, bag 446, and he did the same as the others.
' Lieut. J. V. 'Culbert, of Timmins, Ont., voted the same way, and he voted No. 39, poll 9, bag 446.


Charles Murphy: How did he swear?


Joseph Archambault: He swore he had never resided in Canada before his enlistment, and that he wanted badly to put in his vote for Chambly-Vercheres, and he did it.
Lieut. H. Blaokadder, North Vancouver, B.C. We have some from every province, no province will be jealous. Lieut. Black-adder voted No. 13, poll 9, bag 446.
Lieut. T. Bourget, of Ottawa, Ont., voted No. 10, poll 9, bag 446, and he answered the same way and applied his vote the game way.
Lieut. J. C. Armer, of Toronto, Ont., siwore that he had never lived in Canada before enlistment, but he had resided in Toronto, as this paper shows. He voted No. 11, poll 9, bag 446.
Lieut. H. P. Duthie, of Toronto, voted No. 15, poll 9, bag 446, and he had resided in Toronto before his enlistment, and he swore that he had never resided in Canada, and applied his vote in Chambly and Vercheres.
Captain H. H. Pinch, of Ottawa, voted No. 21, in poll 9, hag 446; he had resided in Ottawa before his enlistment according to this official document, and at the' same time he swore that he had never resided in Canada, and that he wanted to apply his vote to Cliamlbly and Verchferea.
These officers, Mr. iSpeaker, were not satisfied with the preparatory work they had done. They did not think it was sufficient to publish a paper and. put up placards and posters in the barracks. But some of them, especially Lieut.-Colonel Melville and the returning officers on the day of the election, saw fit to supervise the voting, and saw that the work was done according to their views and the views of their masters, my opponent, and the Union organization. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read just three affidavits. I could produce a large number of affidavits, but I have been speaking for quite a long time, and I will read but three.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Joseph Archambault: I will read first the affidavit of Mr. Stanislas Poulin:
I, the undersigned, Stanislas Poulin, advocate and King's Counsel, of the city of St. Johns, in the district of Iberville, in the province of Quebec, do solemnly declare:.
1.	That on the 1'7'tb. day of December, 1917, this being the date set for polling at the federal election, 1 was duly authorized to act and did act as deputy scrutineer in accordance with the Military Voters' Act, at poll No. 8, in S't. Johns' Barracks, this being one of the places sat to receive the votes of the military voters in Barrack at St. Johns, and especially those belonging to the Engineers Corps.
2.	The deputy returning officer at the said poll was Lieutenant H. G. Young.
8. Among 97 military voters who polled their votes at said poll, 63 declared that said vote should apply to the county of Chambly-Ver-ch&res. *
4 When questions 6, 7 and 8 of Form B of the said Military Voters' Act were put to those 63 military voters their answer was: "I cannot say."
5.	Nevertheless most of those 63 voters declared having lived in Canada previous to their enlistment but it was impossible to get the deputy returning officer to enter their full declaration and he satisfied himself with setting down: "Cannot say."
6.	The watchword had been generally given
to all military voters to give the above answer to the said questions 6,7 and 8, and to mention the county of Chambly-Vercheres in answer to question No. 9. The officer commanding the Engineers Depot visited the polls frequently himself and inquired if many of the voters did specify the county of Chambly-Vercheres. After his first visit, at about 10 o'clock in the forenoon, when he found out that, in the poll where I was stationed, only a small proportion of the votes had been cast for the county of Chambly-Vercheres he said to the deputy returning officer in my presence: "this should work better" (II faut que ea aille mieux). I immediately discovered and found out during the rest of the day a considerable increase in the number of votes applying to the county of Chamhly-VerchSres.	.
7 I saw myself at various places m the barracks posters showing the military voters how to vote and stating the answer "I cannot say" to questions Nos. 6, 7 and 8; and the

county of C'hambly-VerdhSres a3 being the one to which the votes should apply.
8.	Among the voters who have thus cast their ballot for Chambly-Vercheres and answered to the said questions there are a few who had previously given me their addresses as having always lived in Canada.
9.	I begged the deputy returning officer several times to put the questions 6 and 8 in such a way as to be understood so as to get the voters to indicate the place of their previous residence, but to no avail.
10.	Several times I also insisted and told the deputy returning officer and the officer commanding the Engineers that I considered that a large number of the said military voters did not seem to understand that their answers constituted a falsehood declared under oath and that it would seem better to advise them as to the importance of such a declaration. That, in my opinion such a declaration constituted a serious offence; that it seemed the duty of the officer commanding to prevent its repetition and the only answer I qould obtain to these remarks was the following: "We are in elections."
And I make this declaration solemnly believing it to be true in my soul and conscience and knowing it has . the same force and effect as if it were made under oath and under the Evidence Act of Canada (1908). And I have signed
Stanislas Poulin.
Declared before me at St. Johns, this 1st day of April, 1918.
N. Lord,
Justice of the Peace.
I have also the affidavit of 'Charles Romeau, which is as follows:
I, the undersigned, Charles Romeau, accountant, residing on Longeuil street, No. 37, in the city of St. Johns, in the province of Quebec do solemnly declare:
1. That I have acted as the Liberal agent for Poll No. 2, bag 453, at the St. Johns, Quebec, Barracks, on December 17th, 1917 that is to say when the last Federal Elections took place, and I have no hesitation to say that the military vote was there influenced by improper motives;
2,. That my above assertion is based on the fact that out of 83 militaries who have presented themselves to vote, 50 have answered to the 6th, 7th and 8th question "Can't say" and have had their vote applied to Chambly-Ver-cligres ;
3. That several events have occurred during the polling to confirm and strengthen to a very large extent the above assertion, and I mention the following ones:
(a)	A certain Harris Geo. Henry (No. 5005880), when came the time to say where he intended to have his vote applied to, did not remember the place he was to give it, and Captain Wright suggested at once Chambly-VerdhSres and the said Harris Geo. Henry answered "Yes" ;
(b)	When A. H. Chapman (No. 527117) came to vote he also did not remember who he was to vote for, and Colonel Melville, who had replaced Captain Wright, forwarded this leading question: "Well, vote for the Government,
I suppose?"
(c)	Captain Wright also voted for Chambly-Vercheres after having said to myself, shortly before, that he was from Ottawa and that his family was living there yet;

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath, and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
And I have signed
,,	Chs. Romeau.
Declared before me at St. Johns this 1st day of April, 1918.
N. Lord J.P.
I ask the indulgence of the House while I read another affidavit as follows: CANADA.
Province of Quebec,
District of Iberville.
I, Charles B&anger, residing and domiciled at No. 23, St. Charles Street, in the city of St. Johns, In the District of Iberville, Province of Quebec, advocate, do solemnly declare:
1.	That, on the last Federal election day, being the 17th of December, 1917, I did act as Deputy Scrutineer representing the Opposition party at Poll No. 7, bag No. 448, located at the Barracks, in St. Johns City aforesaid, Lieutenant H. R. McBeath, acting as Presiding Officer;
2.	That out of 77 votes given at this poll,
. 57 soldiers answered' questions numbered 6,
7, and 8 on the voting envelopes by the words "cannot say," and the 9th question by the words "Chambly-Vench6res" according to instructions given to them by an "extra" of the newspaper called' "Knots and Lashings," published at the barracks under the control of the proper authority;
3.	That this "extra" was not for sale to the public as the ordinary numbers of the saidi newspaper "Knots and1 Lashings"; but on our journey to the barracks that same morning, my colleague, Mr. Stanislas Poulin, advocate, C.R., of the said City of St. Johns, found a copy of it, showed it to me, land this gentleman must be still in possession of this "extra" ;
I may say that I obtained this copy of the extra from Mr. Poulin (reading):
^ 4. That I kept track of how questions No. 6,
7, 8 and 9 were answered, as it appears by my notebook marked "A" and signed by me.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as ifl made under oath, and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me at St. Johns, aforesaid, this twenty-seventh day of April, A.D. 1918.
OSgd.) Charles Belanger.
(Sgd.) Armand Br-osseau, N.P.
I am also in a position to prove, if an inquiry or an investigation is granted, that the vote was open in nearly all the cases. That does not surprise me now, because those hon. gentlemen who were present at the moving picture shown at the Imperial Theatre in this city on Monday last saw plainly on the screen the representation of a soldier voting at the front. The vote was absolutely open. The soldier was handed his ballot and voted openly in front of the returning officer. It is no wonder that the military vote overseas was so largely in favour of the Government.

Other interesting incidents took place in the barracks at St. Johns. Permit me to cite one which is very piquant. In poll No. 9, Private J. Patton, No. 506605, voted No. 100. When he was asked to reply to question No. 6, whether( he had resided in Canada four months previous to his enlistment, he hesitated, saying, "Well

."
"Answer, please," said the returning officer. "I cannot say," replied the soldier. When question No. 7 was put to him, he hesitated again, and finally said, "I cannot say." In answer to question No. 8 the poor fellow wanted to say where he had resided, but was prevented from doing so by the returning officer, who simply put down for him, "Cannot say." When he was asked question No. 9, as to where he wanted to apply the vote, being an English-speaking gentleman, he found it exceedingly hard to pronounce accurately the French words "Chambly" and "Vercheres." Finally, in reply to this question, he said, "Charily." The returning officer said, "There is no such constituency." Then the poor fellow said "Ver-chley." The returning officer said, "There is no such place. Why do you not answer? Yrou have to name a constituency." Finally, the soldier said: "May I go to the door and ask the man?" The returning officer answered, "Certainly." The soldier went out the door, and evidently got his information. But as he appeared not to have a very good memory, and thought that he might forget the name in making the little trip from the door to the polling booth, instead of walking right in and answering at the polling booth, he opened the door and said, from where he was, "Chamble-Verch."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MtJRPHY: An honest election.


Ernest Lapointe: The fairest election ever held.


Joseph Archambault: I assure hon.
gentlemen that if an inquiry is granted I shall be able to relate many incidents that will probably bring the same laughter, but which, indeed, in a case of this kind I corn sider very tragic.
L stated that this conspiracy not only was carried on between my adversary and the officers in question, but was participated in also by the Unionist organization. The reason for my assertion is very simple. The same answer-evasive, snake-like; as we say in French, ni chair ni poisson- was found probably on 10,000 envelopes in all parts of Canada, France, England, Asia, United States. As the member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) has shown, 200 electors in Quebec voted the same way, applied their vote in Chambly and Vercheres. And they gave a scare to the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). The member for Quebec South met a couple of Quebec officers stationed at Quebec. Of course, he knew that they were voting, and he asked them how they were voting over there. One of the officers said: " Never mind, Chubby, we will not vote against you. We are plumping our votes against the Liberal candidate in Ohambly and Vercheres." Surely all the telepathy in the world could not account for such a coincidence. This answer was well prepared, well devised and studied, and is the morbid result of the unscrupulous, but clever, mind which directed the vote of the Unionist campaign in the last election.
My first intention when I had in my hands the evidence of what took place at St. Johns was to institute criminal proceedings against Col. W. W. Melville and his assistants.


Charles Murphy: Do it yet.


Joseph Archambault: I am not making a threat, but I must say it will be my only alternative; that I will lay a complaint if nothing is done by the Government in that regard.
But I wish to point out that I believe it is the duty of the Government to have a thorough inquiry into this matter, not only into what happened in my constitusncy, but into the whole military vote, and I gladly second the motion made by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp). The Government should be just as anxious


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: More so.


Joseph Archambault: -as I am, for the honour and good name of our army, to make a full search into all these facts and to get rid of officers who, instead of giving to their subordinates an example of righteousness, honour and God's fear, fell so low as to perjure * themselves1, and what is worse, used their influence to induce their men to do so. Sir, officers with that standard of morality are liable to betray their country before the enemy if they ever go to the front, and they should be cashiered at once. Crime is the antithesi? of patriotism.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The answer of the Government.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Ten ,minutes, I think, will do me to answer all that has been said here to-night. I started in to do a little figuring while the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. iOopp) was speaking, and I think I have now got my figures right. I figured that the speech of the hon. member for Westmorland had cost the country, as closely as I could get to the correct amount, valuing the time of hon. members at one dollar an hour and the time of the spectators in the gallery at fifty cents an hour, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2,350.35. I do not think I would be striking my hon. friend too hard if I said that this House could go up to Sparks street and go tnto the Woolworth building and get for fifteen cents more knowledge than it has received from my hon. friend from Westmorland. The hon. member for Chamibly and Verchere-s (Mr. .Archambault) gave us quite a little entertainment. He exhibited considerable eloquence, but I think at the same time I would be very slow to tell such a tale about my constituency as he has told' about his. He says that in one day there were 700 perjurers in his constituency.


Joseph Archambault: Not in my constituency.


Robert Hamilton Butts: The hon. member said St. Johns, Quebec; Chambly and Vercheres is what he told us about.


Joseph Archambault: My constituency is Chambly and Vercheres, but St. Johns is outside of that constituency. The barracks are situated at St. Johns, Quebec, in the county of St. Johns and Iberville, and not one of the soldiers came from Quebec.


Robert Hamilton Butts: 
Joseph Archambault: None of them
-were from my province.
'Mr. BUTTS:	If he did- not bring his
criminals to justice, why did he not appeal to his Attorney General to see that the fair name of his province was not blackened in such a manner, instead of coming here and telling as to-night about the perjuries and the crimes that seem rampant in his constituency?
In that four - hours - and-five-minutes s-peec'h that cost this country, apart from the expenses of Hansard and printing, something over $2,300, the hon. m-ember for Westmorland sipoke of votes from Sydney Alines and Glace Bay being counted in constituencies in Quebec, and perhaps in Ontario. I d-o not think that any of my hon. friends have very much right or reason in their cause when they began to co-mplain about the election. They got 62 out of 65 seats -in Quebec. How much more do they want? Do they want the world with a fen-ce around it? My h-on. friend spoke of Sydney Mines and Glace Bay, and those are two towns above all in Canada that I can speak of with some knowledge.
A short time ago I resigned my position of town solicitor and stipendary magistrate of the town of Sydney Mines, a position I

had held for nineteen years. In that town ' of nearly ten thousand people I have three brothers who have been elected as town councillors, -and whenever they have run they have never been beaten. There is hardly a man in the whole town that I cannot shake hands with and call by name. My hon. friend has spoken of men from Sydney Mines polling their votes in counties in the province of Quebec. Now, I do not wish to violate the Criminal Code, I do not want to get into trouble for gambling, but if my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) will hand me a list of these men from Sydney Mines I will put a -five dollar bill over every name, if he will put another one, and every time ;I win I take the ten dollars and he can have the ten dollars every other time. I do not think my hon. friend is game enough to take that up. He has either to put up or shut up.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am afraid the language of the hon. member is hardly in conformity with the custom of Parliament.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, hut it did work me up a little bit when my hon. friend spoke of these voters from two towns in my own county. I know there cannot possibly be any justification for it, because I know that eveTy one of those men in Sydney Mines whom he alleges to have voted in the province of Quebec would have been only too glad to use their votes against my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) and every man in -Glace Bay would have been only too glad to vote for myself or my colleague, Mr. John Douglas.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The motion which the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. iCopp) has made, he puts before this House under the guise simply of a motion- asking for -an inquiry into certain, matters which he laid before this House at very considerable length this afternoon. He does that, however, by means of a motion in amendment to the motion to go' into Supply, which in practical effect means that upon charges, none of them directed against this Government and by none of which he makes any imputation upon any member of this Government or upon any action of this Government, he asks this House to vote want, of confidence in this Government. There was open to the hon. gentleman, and it has been open to him throughout this entire session, a perfectly direct method of bringing the charges he has seen proper to bring and asking for the investigation that he desires. He did not choose
to avail himself of that method, but at this last moment of the session he makes this motion in the form of a motion of want of confidence, and asks this House in effect to vote want of confidence in the present Government. He interposes 'between the making and the granting of his request for an investigation the necessity of adopting that vote of want of confidence in the Government. It is needless to say that in adoptihg that course the conclusion is inevitable that the hon. gentleman could not have expected the acceptance of this motion on the part of this Government, and therefore he could not have hoped by means of this particular motion to arrive at the investigation for which he has asked.
The subject matter in itself is undoubtedly one of great gravity. It is a subject of all subjects, I think, that must be approached, eliminating from its consideration party interest or party advantage, and above all not involving in its decision the fate of a Government which I have no hesitation in saying enjoys^ the confidence, it is perfectly manifest, of a great majority of the members of this House, and certainly anything that was said this afternoon, whatever may be the truth or the falsehood of the accusations brought against any particular individuals, was not of a nature to shake that confidence. I know of no motion that could be more aptly described as a non sequitur than this particular motion, but, as I have said, the subject matter of this motion is certainly of great gravity. The hon. member who made this motion took up a long period of the time of this House-in what? In bringing most grave and serious charges against men who are our fellow-citizens, men who to-day are not here in this country to make any answer on their behalf to his charges because they are engaged in the great and paramount, work of the defence of this country. Now I think that when, as he said-and I assume he was speaking sincerely when he said it-in the performance of what he conceived to be his duty he thought it proper to lay these charges, it was at least incumbent upon him to do it in such a manner as would assure the attainment of the purpose which he states he has in view, and without involving the result which this motion must first attain in order to arrive at the object of an inquiry where these men would be afforded opportunity of reply. The hon. gentleman has made use of an ex parte' statement. He tells this House that it rests upon evidence that satisfies him. He does not tell us how long he ha*

been in jjos'session of that evidence. Presumably, it is not yesterday, and he has allowed this session to run through and has not taken the steps that might have been open to him at an earlier period to bring about, perhaps, an immediate investigation.
I do not intend to go into the discussion of the well or ill-foundedness of the charges and accusation made by the hon. member for Westmorland. It would be impossible for any man immediately upon hearing these charges, coming as they came to us this afternoon, to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion not only as to their truth or falseness, but even upon the question as to whether or not there was -a prima facie case made out against any of the individuals whom he so seriously impeached. The hon. gentleman asks us to order a judicial investigation not merely of the particular charges that he madte, but of the entire taking of the soldiers' votes. The charges he made, as has been pointed out, are entirely charges of misconduct on the part of officers and men, who, at the time they are alleged to have committed these offences, were stationed in England. Many of these men, if not all of them, to- . day, have gone forward. He recognized that himself in his motion because he feels the necessity of withdrawing from the judge whom he asks to have appointed to investigate the power of summoning witnesses whose presence would interfere with the performance of their duties as soldiers.
What is this so-called remedy that he aske for the condition of affairs that he has described? Let me deal with it as he dealt with it, in so far as it would be applicable, in so far as it calls for judicial investigation at the present moment and held in England, into the conduct of the election so far as military voters were concerned, and so far as that election was Held in England. I think the House is satisfied, after the exposition of my hon. friend and colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) that in the taking of that election, on the whole, and by and large, it was fairly and honourably conducted. If the particular charges that are made here to-night were true it would not alter the fact that upon the whole, on the evidence we have before us, we are in no position to say that there is ground to suspect that there were any general irregularities throughout that election. Such an investigation in England, at the present time, for the purpose of clearing up these charges which the hon. member for Westmorland would make, must, in the first place, involve the most serious possible ineonven-

ience and interference with the military operations on the other side, an interference and obstruction that could only he justified by its being established that some adequate, effective result would be obtained by that investigation. I did not understand that, by either of the hon. gentlemen who spoke, it was contended that any of the irregularities that they alleged affected in any way either the general result of the election, or even the result of the election in any particular constituency. Had it been so contended, one would naturally have expected that a remedy other than that which is sought by the present motion would have been asked or. I think the form of the present motion goes to confirm the impression gathered from what was said in support of it that there is no contention that either the election as a whole or the election in any particular constituency was affected by the irregularities charged, either upon the other side of _ the Atlantic or upon this side. Were there any such contention it is obvious that the proposed remedy would afford no correction of any unjustified result in any particular election. What, then, is the purpose that could be obtained? It would be the maintenance of these charges if the ihon. gentleman is right in his contention. Is it of sufficient importance that at the present time, with all the difficulties that would be in the way of a satisfactory investigation, with the necessary interference that such an investigation must bring about in the military operations on the other side, we should ascertain whether these charges without affecting in any way the result of any election, are, or are not ill founded?
When the suggestion was made from this side that these alleged offences did not affect the result of the election, we were treated with some expressions as to our standard of morality on this side of the House. I do not think there is implied any suggestion-and certainly on my part there is intended no-such suggestion-that because these alleged irregularities and this misconduct, if they took place, did not affect the result of the election, they are not to be seriously condemned. But is it of sufficient importance at the present moment, if this motion he carried, to justify our setting on foot an investigation, which, as I have said, must necessarily be carried on in the face of insuperable difficulties and obstacles which most assuredly must constitute a serious interference with the regular carrying on of military operations? For the reason, therefore, that I have


19J8
[Stage Direction]
pointed out, I think it is impossible for any one not ready to declare his lack of confidence in this Government, because certain military officers acting as election officers may have misbehaved themselves, to vote for this motion requiring us to crder an investigation because the investigation, if it were ordered and held at the present moment, would afford no effective remedy in any way for any wrong or any evil committed by any person in this- country or in any constituency of this country by reason of its being represented by one who was not lawfully elected. The only purpose that might be obtained immediately and now, whether certain officers are or are not deserving of condemnation is not a purpose which would justify our resorting to the method which has been suggested, and therefore it seems to me we would clearly not be justified in adopting the present motion, even if it stood as a substantive motion, and in asking for an investigation of the kind, that is sought into the operations in connection with the election as held in England and in France.
Now the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) has laid before us to-night what he claims to know to be facts with regard to the election as it was carried on among the soldiers in the constituency which he represents. It may be -I think it is-perfectly fair to point out when he expresses such grave indignation concerning what he alleges to he the conduct of certain officers in the barracks at St. Johns, and such severe condemnation of those officers in themselves, that he, in possession of all this information-and let me say in that regard that I agree with him, if his statement be true, if his statement be well founded, and I do not mean to suggest that he himself does not believe in their truth-and notwithstanding his indignation against those who, in his belief, are guilty of this very grave misconduct, has retained that information through all these months, and notwithstanding the knowledge that he has had up to this time hut has only imparted to us to-night, has never felt that there was any duty upon him to take the proceedings that it was oipen to him to take to vindicate the law and to impose upon those gentlemen to whom' he imputes such-very grave misconduct, the condign punishment that their conduct, if they are guilty, would deserre. He referred to the fact that he had. moved for the production of certain envelopes used in the election in the county of Chambly-Vercheres, and he was scandalized because it was pointed out
to him that under the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act those documents, whether in the original hags or in the final ballot box in which they were deposited, were contained in a sealed receptacle, in regard to. which the law enjoined that the seals should be broken only in the presence of the tribunals mentioned in the Act and produced before those tribunals only upon the order of the judge presiding over them, and that only when there was either an election contestation or a charge of some kind in which the documents were necessary as evidence, could such order be given -(because this was pointed out to him, and because, furthermore, his attention was specially called to the fact that it was necessary to go into the question of the right or power of this House to- order the breaking of those seals and the production of those documents, because he had laid no charge before this House; no charge was made before the House into the investigation whereof those documents would be necessary)-because those things were pointed out to him, representations in which he acquiesces by dropping his motion, he seems to think that those incidents and the action of the Government in regard to them are in some way connected with these charges he has brought for the first time to-night, although he might have had them before the House at an earlier date, when a satisfactory method of dealing with them might have been proposed. I am not going into this question now: it is certainly not possible we should deal with them in that way now, and this motion does not ask that we should do so. Eliminating for a moment the form of the motion-which makes it, as I have pointed out, absolutely unacceptable, and necessarily so-that motion asks for a general investigation into the entire elections so far as regards the extent to which the military vote was poMed. The hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres, as' ground for his support of that motion, limits himself to making these very grave charges against the officers in command, I think, of a regiment of engineers, who were at the St.. Johns barracks during the election. 1 am not here to plead any extenuation of the offences which he has alleged those gentlemen were guilty of. Neither am I here to say, on the ex parte statement that we have heard this evening, that these men were guilty of those offences; but in so far as that particular charge is concerned, or series of charges, against that particular
24G2
[Stage Direction]
group of men-which charges are brought to our knowledge to-night for the first time -I am quite prepared to say that if the evidence of which the hon. gentleman is in possession -and of which we are not in possession, makes a prima facie case in support of those charges, they should form the subject of a most thorough investigation. In. fact, if the evidence which the hon. gentleman has and which we have not, makes a prima facie case against the men whose names he"has mentioned, it would seem to. me that that evidence constitutes a better foundation for a prosecution for those grave offences than for a judicial investigation, which can, after all, be nothing else but a preliminary inquiry. But I am quite prepared to say-I do not want to make any distinctions-that at the least they are a proper subject matter for judicial inquiry.
And as regards this case which has been brought to our attention, when this House has disposed of this motion in the only way which is open to this House, which by its large majority has confidence in this Government, and which has heard this *evening nothing impugning or attacking this Government or affording ground for any lack of confidence in this Government -when I say, this House shall have disposed of the motion which is now before us in the only way which it is open to a House composed as is this House to dispose of it, that is by rejecting it,-the Government will, nevertheless, realize, as we all realize now, the propriety of there being investigation into the case that had been laid before us-judicial investigation.
Charles Murphy: When?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As promptly as that can be done.. Let me say this: I do not want to introduce into this discussion anything that might give it any tinge of bitterness. But I am glad to believe that it was thoughtlessness, but it was most painful, I am sure -it certainly was most painful to me, and I am sure, when my hon.. friends on the other side come to think it over, it will be painful for them,-to remember that they sat here this evening and cheered to the echo the evidence which, if it was true, would show that certain of our soldiers have shown themselves unworthy of the confidence that this Parliament reposed in them. When the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) brought out what he considered this conclusive evidence, it was met by the resounding cheers of gentlemen upon the other side.
IMr. Doherty]
Surely, when they come to think it over, they with us all, if these men are guilty, will be sorry that these men should have been guilty. I am sure, after all, they, with all of us, would be glad if, notwithstanding the evidence which the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres informed us he Had in his possession, it should be found that there was some explanation of this conduct that would make it consistent with innocence on the part of these men.
And let me say this: I do not want to prejudge the case-it is easy to run away with the most condemnatory conclusions. Sometimes you find that, even in what appear to be strong prima facie cases, your first impression was very much mistaken.
I am not going to discuss the propriety of the publication of this newspaper which we had to read here, nor am I going to go into the question whether the opinions expressed in it were well or ill founded; nor whether they were expressed in just the language that would be considered most desirable. I do not want to prejudge now a case that is to be the subject matter of investigation by others. But, after all, if we all of us look back to the past election, and to elections which preceded it, shall we not perhaps- realize that under t'he influence of strong conviction the language of some of us has perhaps been as strong as the language that was read from that newspaper? There was the difference in the last election that exists between men of strong convictions when they differ on .a question of first importance. And I think we should all of us be willing to forgive, even to the soldier, wihat may appear to us sitting here this evening to be perhaps the exaggerated expression of a strongly-entertained conviction, that appealed after all, whether he was right or wrong, to his profound sense of devotion to our common country.
As to the charges that are made as to the conduct of the election itself, we heard very positive affirmations of perjury and subornation of perjury. These are grave charges. The hon. gentleman, no doubt, believes that he is in possession of the evidence to substantiate them, which moved him to throw all this matter before this House to-night, I do not say with the purpose but with the necessary result, that the men that he has accused here to-night must remain under suspicion until someone initiates proper proceedings that will lead to their condemnation or to their exoneration; and, -as I have pointed out already, he might have, carried these serious *'.harges

to a tribunal -where both sides could be heard and where the public would have had an opportunity of knowing in a reasonable way whether those charges were well or ill founded. Now we have heard this absolute assertion of . perjury and subornation of perjury. I am not here pleading for these men; I do not know what the circumstances were; I know nothing of them1 beyond what the hon. gentleman has told' us. But I do know this of my own personal knowledge, that many and many an honest man, absolutely an honest man in the province of Quebec, believed that under the Military Voters Act it was the privilege of the soldier to choose his constituency. And how w.as that belief brought about? By the persistent assertion, by the persistent mis-statement, coming from almost every platform of the party in opposition to this Government, that that was the state of the law. I spent much of my time in the course of that election making it clear to people that that was not the state of the law-perfectly honest people who had been misled into that belief by those who, being interested as they all were to bring about my defeat in particular, and the defeat of this Government as a whole, were industriously engaged in charging me with being the author of a law that told the soldier; "You can vote anywhere you please." And gentlemen who sowed that seed are astounded and indignant when there comes back to them what I do hot say in this particular case was, but what-very well in this case may have been, the result of the doctrine that they themselves had been preaching. It may be that all of these men committed perjury. It may be that many *of them acted in the honest belief that they were entitled to vote at the place that they selected.
Before we come to absolute condemnations, it would be well for us to know that these men were sworn at all. If things were as irregular as they are said to have been, it is not impossible that these soldiers were not sworn. If so, these wholesale charges, of perjury are certainly unfounded. I have not said these things because I want to defend these men if they be guilty, or because I want to prejudge the question whether they be innocent or guilty. When hon. gentlemen adopt a method of bringing these charges to the public which gives no opportunity of reply to the men accused, .some one should joint out in the meantime that it would, be well for the public to withhold their judgment. To-night we Are asked for an investigation; but the
whole tone of the ground upon which the investigation is asked for is the condemnation as guilty without further proceeding of the men against whom the charges are brought. I have no desire to introduce any feeling into this discussion; matters of this, kind are bigger than parties and bigger than governments and ought to be regarded from both sides and in as judicial a frame of mind as we are capable of bringing ourselves into. But in view of the fact that so many methods were open of bringing about a clear and satisfactory investigation followed by proper punishment or deserved exoneration, all fair-minded men will regret, with me, that the method adopted, which must be unfair to the accused, should have been considered the proper one. I think it is generally conceded that it is the duty of a good citizen, when he has information justifying the belief that crime has been committed, to lay that information before those who are charged with the enforcement of criminal law, and thus set the law in motion. But as the hon. member for Chambly and Ver- . cheres has not seen fit to adopt that course, and has-for what reason I am at a loss to imagine, because I should not like to impute to him any motive that I should not wish to have imputed to myself in like circumstances - adopted this particular method, the Government will take the steps that may be necessary to bring about judicial investigation of the case that has been put before us in this way to-night.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what way?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That has been put before us by the member for Chambly and Vercheres; this case that is alleged to have happened in Canada and that it is. therefore, possible for us to deal with directly.


Charles Murphy: Will the inquiry toe limited to that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As far as I can say,
the inquiry will be limited to. the case that is 'brought before us. If other hon. gentlemen have other oases in which they can show us that there is cause for inquiry, we shall be glad to inquire.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then you will grant an investigation, right away?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards the case that has been put before us.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the motion now before the House?


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to this case of Chambly and Vercheres which has been

put before the House this evening. Let us have no misunderstanding; we will see that it is properly and judiciously investigated. As to the incidents referred to as having happened in, England, I have given sufficient reasons why it would be highly improper, even if we could hope to arrive at any practical result, to embark upon an investigation in England and France, the bulk of the necesary witnesses in which would be men who have other work to- do than that of giving testimony (before the courts, whether to inculpate their comrades or to exonerate themselves. In respect of the matter put before us by the member for Westmorland this ^evening, individual cases may justify some action in the way of further inquiry, and, perhaps, the taking of some measure looking to the disciplining of officers who may have been guilty of some offences. Should that he so, some action from this Government may toe called for, even in England. But of one thing the House can rest assured-: that the Government has no desire to cloak any guilty man or to encourage any of its officers in violation of the law. In saying that, I do not say that there was made to us this- afternoon a ease that would justify our ordering an inquiry in such a large and general way as has been suggested.
The Government feels that this is a motion with regard to which only one course is open to it and to those who have confidence in it. The Government realizes also the duty that has come to it with regard to this matter of Ohambly and Vercheres and is alive to such duty as may come to it, in proper cases and under proper circumstances', to look into charges involving the due performance of duty on the part of its officers, with an eye to such disciplining as circumstances may call for. But we should be doing anything but the work we are here to do if we cast over our forces overseas at this moment a general dragnet to see whether or not we might gather into it some soldier who had been guilty of some misdemeanour, some irregularity, or even some serious offence. If there be soldiers of that kind there will be time and place for dealing with them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, when a man walking along the street finds that some one has unsuccessfully attempted to purloin his pocket-book, he is apt to be almost as angry with the intended thief as he would have been had the attempt been successful. I am one of the candidates who was marked out by the

Union Government to be defeated. I dv not know how many ministers in the present Government formed part of the Unionist organization. '


Charles Murphy: Two.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Had the plans laid
by the Unionist organization been successful, I would not have had the pleasure of [DOT]meeting hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House in friendly converse in the *corridor or have had the honour of representing the constituency I represent in this *House. I shall endeavour, as I trust there is no bitterness in my make-up, to follow the suggestion of the Minister Of Justice (iMr. Doherty) to discuss this case in the calmest and most judicial manner possible.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) addressed the House at some length. His main objection to the 'speech made by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) was that it was too long. His second objection was that those irregularities which had happened across the seas were irregularities which must have happened by inadvertence or carelessness, and the fact that many military voters had forgotten to answer questions Nos. 6, 7 and 8, was to be put down only to the feebleness of human memory and not to any ulterior or improper motive. The Secretary of State, after attacking the plantiff's attorney, also attacked one Of the plaintiff's witnesses.
I do not think the character of that witness is in issue here to-night. What is before the House is- a statement made toy an hon. member of this House, seconded toy another hon. member, that they believe that oertain irregularities and frauds were committed in connection with the taking of the soldiers' vote, and they ask for an investigation. They have brought before the House certain facts which, in my opinion, make out in many respects a prima facie case for an investigation. Apart from that, we have had a very able exposition of the electoral crimes- committed in the barracks at St. Johns, Quebec. Those have so impressed the Government that the Government has promised an investigation into them!. Would I be unfair in laying down this principle?-that, if I show that similar actions are likely to have occurred elsewhere, in connection, for instance, with my own election, that a similar investigation should toe granted into that, and if I showed that the facts make out a prima facie case that those irregularities and frauds were general, I make out [DOT] a case that the investigation should be

general and not confined to one particular case? I think I do.
The Minister of Justice says that the hon. member for Westmorland could not have expected his motion to carry. Why not? If there are serious grounds for believing that irregularities and electoral crimes v. ere committed in connection with the taking of the soldiers' vote, either across the seas or in Canada, why should not this Government grant an investigation? We have been told, with a modesty so peculiar to this present Government, that it represents, as the President of the Council has told us, the best elements in both parties. Surely the best elements in both parties will not allow any doubt to be cast upon the purity of their escutcheon. Surely, if any reasonable grounds for granting an investigation are brought before the House, they will hasten to show that they are true and honest men, above reproach. Why should we, on this side of the House, expect that the motion made by the hon. member for Westmorland should be defeated? The Minister of Justice referred to the fact that those men who are charged with having committed those irregularities-to follow the example of the Minister of Justice, we shall call things by their pleasantest names -are soldiers. We know that. We are not suggesting to the Government what punishment they should mete out to those men if they are found guilty. It may be and it certainly is true that, as far as the private soldiers were concerned, they were not free agents to begin with, and many of them will now, by their efforts, by their spilt blood upon the field, have expiated any commission of an offence. But I shall ask the Minister of Justice-does he lay down the principle that because a man is a soldier he is relieved of his moral responsibility towards his fellow Canadian citizens? I do not accept that. That has never been the manner in which the British people have looked upon the responsibility of their soldiers. I would go back to history and say that one of the greatest soldiers that ever commanded a British Army in the field, John Churchill, was once accused of serious crimes, and was very heavily punished. But now a more serious argument is brought forward by the Minister of Justice. He says: You cannot have such an investigation as you propose, without seriously interfering with military operations in the field. On the face of it, that is a serious objection if it is well founded in fact. But is that the case? The soldiers, when they voted; all placed on their envelopes, if their ballots were counted, the place where they lived in Canada, or they stated that they did not live in Canada at all. Those envelopes are in the possession of the Government. The ballots are in the possession of the Government. The names and addresses of the soldiers are in the possession of the Government. The whole investigation may, in very large measure, be made by an examination of the envelopes and the ballot papers which are in the possession of the Government. That course was followed in connection with the British Columbia soldiers' vote, and it is a matter of interest to this House to recollect that a precisely similar investigation was held under a commission appointed by the British Columbia Government, and .that by examination of the voting papers and the envelopes, they were able to determine that out of a total of 8,488 military votes, 3,796 were legitimate. What the British Columbia Government did was to cast aside the soldiers votes and refuse to accept them, because there had been such wholesale misconduct in connection with the taking of that vote.
I should like to deal with these points calmly and seriatim as they come to my mind. The Minister of Justice blamed the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres because, having this information as to those electoral crimes in his possession for some months, he had not moved the criminal courts of Quebec to arrest and punish those men.
I dio not know whether the MinisieT of Justice meant by his suggestion that my hon. friend should have arrested some 750 men. If he did suggest that I beg ti tell him that a lawyer practising in Montreal cannot contemplate t'he expenditure of some $3,000 for warrants alone as a mere bagatelle. But there is a much more serious reason for my hon. friend having stayed his hand in that connection. The members across the floor of this House, as well as the members on this side, will remember that for some time after the election in this country there was a considerable amount of public excitement, public friction, a feeling between one portion of the country and another, a feeling which I am gilad to say has largely disappeared and is disappearing day by day, and we can thank Heaven for it; but if at that time my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault), a French-speaking gentleman from the province of Quebec, had done what the Minister of Justice proposes, and had arrested these English-speaking officers of the

provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick it would have been a very unwise thing to do, and would have caused a lot of hard feeling in this country. Surely the Minister of Justice cannot blame us when we come to him who is supposed to bi the fountain of justice in this country, for redress.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: Besides, he did not know until he got the return.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My hon. friend says that he did not know until he got the return, but he had a very shrewd suspicion of these matters. He had not, however, his complete evidence until he obtained it during the session of this Parliament, .and as the Orders of the Day have been pretty well encumbered day by day, I do not think it becomes very highly the Minister of Justice of this department, when a serious matter is brought before him, to meet it by dilatory exceptions or exceptions to the form. Let us go to the very heart and essence o'f this matter, casting aside the juridical niceties about jurisdiction and procedure.
The Minister of Justice says that these articles which appear in Knots and Lashes must be more or less forgiven- that was the inference-because people say harsh things of each other in times of elections. They do, and they have done so in this country, but I am glad to say that never before in Canada have we had such an election as regards bitter attacks as we had last December. I do not think there were very many bitter attacks directed from this side of the House to the other; there may have been some, but I say that for months and months before the last election there was no epithet too grossly insulting to be hurled by the Conservatives or Unionists at the Liberals of this country. The Minister of Justice blames us because he says we circulated the impression throughout this country that the soldiers could cast their votes where they liked. Nothing is more mistaken than that. The soldiers were not free agents at all. But I think there is a good deal of proof in the record, or will be before I have finished the case, that soldiers had to give their votes in many instances, not in all, where their officers who were acting as election officials told them they must vote.
Now I will proceed to discuss why I think this general investigation should be given. First of all, let us look at the soldiers' vote in general. In North America the soldiers' vote amounted to 54,500, and the total votes

rejected amounted to 17,114, or 31i per cent; that is almost one man out of three improperly marked his ballot. How does that fact square with the pretension of the Secretary of State that it was all done by inadvertence, that the people forgot to answer Nos. 6, 7 and 8, or made some other mistake. Does the Secretary of State suggest that we at least on this side of the House have such a low idea of the intellectuality, the mentality, and ability of those men in Canada whose brothers form the finest fighting unit on the Western front as to think that one man out of three marked his ballot improperly by inadvertence? I cannot believe that; I do not believe that. In England-in Great Britain I should say because those of us of Scottish race do not like the old country to be called England; Great Britain is the name which suits us better-in Great Britain 104,377 soldiers votes were cast, and of these 19,251 were rejected, or 18i per cent, and the same argument that I have made in respect to the votes in North America applies, though in not quite so strong a degree, to those votes cast in Great Britain. In France 128,073 votes were cast, and 15,025 were rejected, just about 12i per cent. Is it likely that twelve men out of every hundred more or less improperly marked their ballots in France by inadvertence? I do not think so;
I do not think any member on this side of the House thinks so; I think few members on the other side of the House think so.
And now, if I may be pardoned a personal reference, let me take up the county of Brome, in which I ran, to show how the soldier vote worked out there. Brome is a small agricultural county in the eastern townships. It has no urban centres dignified by the name of "town." The largest village contains about one thousand 'people. Brome had sent some 225 boys to the war, and at the time the vote was taken, from deaths, wounds and discharge, sick- ' ness and discharge, there were not more than 175, or at the most 200, Brome men in the Canadian military forces. Now how many men do you think voted in Brome?
I cannot tell you how many ballots were cast in France to apply in the county of Brome, but 84 were counted, and I presume a large number were rejected. If we take 84 from 200, that leaves 116 Brome men yet to vote. In Great Britain how many Brome men voted? There were 216 votes rejected and 57 votes counted. In Canada there were 112 men voted in Brome. Perhaps I should not have said that men voted in the Old Country, because while my hon. friend from Westmorland was addressing

the House, we learned that some lady was induced by a chaplain to vote, 'in Brome, on the ground that she had "been kind to the Canadian soldiers."
One hundred and twelve men or women voted in Canada under the provisions of the Military Voters Act in the county of Bronio. If we take the same proportion for the votes cast in France as for the votes cast in England-and of course these figures are in the possession of the Government and they cbm verify everything I say-you will find that about three times the number of men who were in the army at the time of the election voted in the little county of Brome. Had all these votes been counted, the splendid majority the people gave me, the largest majority which was ever given in the county of Brome at a really fought out election, a majority of 609, would have been wiped out and I would not have had the pleasure of meeting hon. members on the other side of the House.
Bet me deal, in connection with the vote in Great Britain with the argument advanced by the hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) that if a few mistakes were made, they were merely mistakes and inadvertences. I nave a copy of the list which has been certified to by Mr. Fraser and Mr. Soles. Mr. Fraser was the special returning officer and Mr. Soles was his clerk. I do not know Mr. Fraser but Mr. Soles is a gentleman occupying a responsible position in the Civil Service. He is a well known civil servant and he was sent to France for the purpose of counting the vote. I think he is one of the inspectors engaged in laying out rural mail routes, he has his headquarters in Sherbrooke, and he is a perfectly responsible gentleman. I wish to state that the punse was not made away with, that I still retain my seat which I won, and that the 216 men whose votes were rejected failed to answer questions, 6, 7 and 8. Where did these gentlemen come from? Were they all gentlemen who came from the old country and who had a right under the Military Voters Act to apply their votes in whatever county they wished? No. I do not propose to read a long list of these men. I have not the address of every one of them but from the investigations which have been made, and the examination of the rolls of the regiments, it was ascertained that 62 of them came from counties, stretching, to use the expression frequently employed by orators in this county, from the stormy waves of the Atlantic to the calm waters of the Pacific.


George Green Foster: Spare us.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Perhaps I should. As it is getting late I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. Out of the 62 names on this list investigated only one belonged to the county of Brome, a man called Plouff, who came originally from Sutton and who bad become a United States citizen.
Now let us come to the question of the vote in Canada. 112 votes were cast outside of the county of Brome, for the county of Brome. Of those 56 were counted and 56 were rejected. We have a record of how the questions were answered by those 56. Some 40 answered to the effect that they had resided in Canada at the time of their enlistment, but like those poor, unfortunate forgetful fellows in the barracks at St. Johns, Quebec, they did not Ijnow where they had ever lived in Canada, or they could not say where they had lived in Canada. Some 40 or so answered the questions. Others who had tenderer consciences or had not been so well coached answered questions that they lived in Canada at the time of their enlistment and then did not answer 6, 7 and 8 and applied their vote to Brome. Does any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House desire me or any member to believe that these votes were cast by inadvertence or by a strange coincidence in the county of Brome? No, I will tell you why I was picked out for slaughter from the first. I do not think that I am a particularly bad man; at least my badness has not made me notorious. I was picked out for slaughter by this Union Government because I was running in one of the two essentially English-speaking constituencies in Quebec, where the population is English yet by a very considerable majority. In the county of Brome. about two-thirds of the voters are English-speaking and about one-third French-speaking. The population is divided about 60 per cent English and about 40 per cent French. The difference between the voting strength and the population is due to the fact that there are a great number of people whose children have left them to go to out West or to go into the city of Montreal, and a great number of French Canadians with large families of children have come into the county in comparatively recent years. I was picked out for slaughter because this Union Government did not wanj, it to be shown that there was an English-speaking county in Quebec that could be carried for Laurier and the straight, grand old Liberal party. They failed, and if I speak with some warmth about this matter it is because I think I have a right to. I ran as clean a campaign

in the county as any man ever ran in the Dominion. I had as my opponent a gallant and distinguished soldieT across the seas. What did this party, that includes the best elements in both political parties, do? They stuck placards on every barn door and on every rock in Brome saying, "Draper is fighting the Hun, McMiaster is fighting Draper; for whom would the Kaiser vote?" The old, old Tory trick, to endeavour to pretend that they have a monopoly of the patriotism of the country and any one who does not agree with them is not patriotic. I ask why the soldiers voted as they did? I ask why there were so many irregularties committed' in connection with the soldiers' vote tooth in Canada and across the sea. I will tell you; it was on account of the campaign of misrepresentation and abuse that this Union Government put up in the last general election. Let me just rehearse very briefly why the people of Canada lost their heads in the last general election. On the first day of December the Prime Minister made a speech in a certain western Ontario town and 'was not very well received. And the next- day there was held in Toronto, at the house of a very godly gentleman there, a meeting of some tw'enty people, who were very prominent in Y.M.
C.A. work, and who were also endowed with a goodly portion of this world's goods. Diligence in business was united with fervour of spirit, and these gentlemen who protested that they were followers of the God of love made up their minds that the Ontario farmer was in a very difiieult and uncomfortable frame of mind for- the Unionist party and that something must be done. And out of that meeting there came a committee-out of that meeting, or similar meetings, out of that class of men there came a Citizens' Union 'Committee. These men, who said they were followers of the God of love, went out for the purpose of winning an election, to sow hate between different sections of our Canadian people. Was there ever more horrid, hideous and odious hypocrisy? I do not think there has been. These men-I wish they were within the sound of my voice-are familiar with the history of the Founder of our religion. They know that although He dismissed with a kindly word the poor woman taken in flagrant sin, that although He forgave the penitent thief on the cross, He preserved the vials of His righteous indignation for those whom He called scribes, and Pharisees, and hypocrites, those who liked to broaden their phylacteries and stand at the corners of the streets making long prayers to be seen of all-these men 
went out, and this is the sort of stuff they spread through the papers of Ontario:
Is a united Quebec to rule all Canada?
The glaring advertisement in which this appeared had the Union Jack and the British, lion prominently displayed at eadh of its four corners.
To-day in our national crisis Quebec along among all the provinces stands more united than ever before. She knows what she wants:
(1)	Withdrawal from the war.
A downright lie as black as any that ever came from the abode of the father of lies himself.
(2)	'Bilingual schools everywhere.
(3)	Weakening of the ties of British connection.
(4)	Political control of Canada.
Political control of Canada! As if one province of >a population of a little over two millions could control other provinces whose aggregate population amounted to six millions. And listen, Mr. Speaker, to this gem :
Within the last few weeks, Quebec has mobilized all her forces to dominate Canada under the unified leadership of Bourassa and Laurier.
The united leadership of Bourassa and Laurier. Why, if there has been one man in the province of Quebec, who, for the last forty years, has been standing four-square against the prejudices of his province it is my revered, and honoured, and beloved leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The Montreal Weekly Witness well said that such a statement was effrontery worthy of the Prussian general staff. But they had another untruth to tell about those people who did not agree with him politically:
All Canada knows that Germany has been working through agents, spies and bribes in every country in the world. The latest evidences are the revelations recently made to the world iby President Wilson. Do we Canadians think the Kaiser has overlooked Canada? If we do, what a fool's paradise!
Now, I have in my hand the Ottawa Evening Journal of Monday, December 10, 1917, and this paragraph appears in all its wicked untruthfulness in full in that paper. But in the Ottawa Citizen of about the same date I find that the last most odious statement and inference that German gold was being used at the last election is left out.
I do mot know who is responsible for it. Perhaps this was a little too strong for the Citizen's stomach, although the Journal was able to swallow it. There is something I want to say-I think it should he said, although it may not be agreeable to say it:
I have no quarreil with people who believe

that their political duty obliged them to join the Union Cabinet, because they considered that conscription was a large enough and broad enough issue upon which to base a government. It always struck me, Mr. Speaker, that conscription was a very narrow platform on which men of different political traditions and different political outlooks should get together, because, after all, it is a matter of procedure, and the somewhat interesting thing is that the conscription law on which these gentlemen joined together has been, by their own declaration, practically admitted a failure, and they have had to change the very essence of their law and get rid of the selective feature which characterized it. But I have no quarrel with any one who joined that Government because he sincerely thought it was his duty, to do so-I respect the convictions of all. I have expressed what I think of this sort of thing:
The Citizen's Union Committee. A NonPartisan War-Time Organization to Support Union Government. J. W. Lyon, Guelph, Chairman ; Norman Sommerville, Toronto, ViceChairman ; G. A. Warburton, Chairman Executive Committee; Albert H. Abbott, Secretary.
G. A. Warburton is a name, if I mistake not, I have seen connected with the prohibition movement in the province of Ontario, and also with Y. M. C. A. campaigns in the same province. That sort of thing is just the very worst and most wicked thing that we could have in Canada, and that was spread abroad throughout Ontario in both Liberal and Conservative papers. I asked myself this question: Did the leader of the. Unionist party in Ontario try to stop that sort of thing, or did he profit by it? Because if he profited by it, if'he allowed that to go unchallenged, and if he did not do everything he could to stop that sort of thing he did wrong. I am willing to pause to find out from him now whether he tried to stop that sort of thing, because I do not want to accuse him unjustly and I await his reply.


Jacques Bureau: He will not reply.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No answer. I do not
want to say anything that would not be fair and right to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). What did the President of the Privy Council do in this campaign that was going on? He went up to North Bay and made a bitter attack upon the French Catholic orders that had come to this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if his words were true, I would not have very much to say. I
would permit myself, perhaps, to criticise the wisdom, in an election of this sort, of raising a personal attack upon those Orders 'of a religion to which I did not belong. I think that would be fair criticism. But the President of the Council, eight weeks ago, was told in the most firm and unmistakable manner, and with proofs, that his assertion was incorrect. And although we have had a statement handed out to the press, which is, possibly, a new way in which men belonging to this- Government answer their adversaries-or some of them;
I don't want to be unfair to those who use the old fashioned way and come into the House to make their own defence- eight weeks have passed without reply; and except for this statement handed out to the press, we have had no statement from the President of the Council either adducing the proof that he was right when he made those charges or that he withdraws them like a man.
Now, you may ask, why should I say this, what object have I? I have no desire to hurt the feelings of the President of the Council. I admire his ability and his devotion to the public service; he is a hardworking man. I say it for this purpose: that very shortly the President of the Council is going over to the old land, and I do not want him to represent himself as a Liberal there, as a sort of modern George Brown, who has joined a Union Government for the sake of saving Canada. I think I know what you are looking at, Mr. Speaker. You are wondering whether I am keeping to the motion. And therefore I have said all I need to say on that question. With his usual acumen and nimbleness of mind, the President of the Council knows exactly what I mean. I will see his career in the Tory party with pleasure, but I do not want him to represent himself as a Liberal.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member will confine his remarks more closely to the subject.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your indulgence. Now, have I made out a case, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, not yet.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was addressing my remarks to the Speaker. Have I made out a case, Mr. Speaker, for a general investigation? I believe I have. It will be for the Government now to grant an investigation now, or not to grant an investigation. And if they are successful in getting their followers to vote against their desire

. and against their will for the maintenance of the power of creating life titles in Canada, I do not know how the vote will go, but I leave it before the House.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to detain the House very long at this , time of the morning in regard to the discussion of the election that took place on the 17th December last, and which, for the first time, we are discussing this evening in this House. I have been a little disappointed, in connection with this matter. Having for a great many years taken an academic interest in the conduct of the affairs of the Dominion of Canada, I have noticed that, after every general election, in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, or the very first available opportunity in the House, the members of the Opposition, whichever that Opposition might happen to be at that particular time, devoted the greater part of the first session to showing the country that they had obtained a moral victory. That has been the custom ever since Confederation; and here we have waited now for two or three months, and to-night is practically the first time that it has been brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Opposition obtained a moral victory in December, 1917.
The reason that has been brought to your attention to-night is peculiar. A gentleman has just arrived from England with the * evidence, according to the first speaker in this debate, which has proved that the Opposition obtained a victory, or should have obtained a victory, if they had had their rights. They ignore absolutely-and it is absurd to discuss the question-that the people of Canada, utterly regardless of all the soldiers' votes, returned the supporters of this Government by a very considerable majority. They ignore the fact that if they consulted the figures they would probably find that if all the soldiers had not voted at all, or if in the bulk of the constituencies they had all voted against this Government, the result would have been very much the same in a great number of cases. These things are absolutely immaterial to the members of the Opposition in connection with this matter. They are not so much material to them as they are to the particular member who last addressed you in regard to this, because he has taken a low stand, as if a gentleman of his eminence and ability, representing an English-speaking constituency in the Province of Quebec, should not

receive any opposition from the members of this side.
Mr. MoMASTER: No.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: I have had some part in elections for a great many years, and I have always proceeded upon the basis that every member of the Opposition and every supporter of the Government should be opposed honestly to the best strength that all the members of these respective parties have, and no member has a right to get up and say that he received special attention and that was made an object to defeat him. They did not succeed to do it in all; nor in the County of Brome they did not' succeed. And they did not succeed, because, as the hon. gentleman has shown, the officers of this Government, whom he now blamed for not taking part properly in the conduct of this election, threw out the soldiers' votes that he says would have defeated him if they had been counted. And because the officials in the conduct of the election carried out their duty as it was carried out, because a number of soldiers' votes that were improperly cast either in England or in. Canada were thrown out by the officials of this Government, and the member for Brome was elected by the resident voters of that di = trict, therfore he says that he was the subject of special attack and singled out to be defeated. Apparently the gentlemen who were in charge of the campaign either in Toronto or otherwise were not competen' for their job.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Something slipped.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: They apparently succeeded in a great many places in accomplishing what they were for, but they fell down in the constituency of Brome. And, as a consequence, Mr. Speaker, we have the privilege of listening to the address we have had to-night. And the hon. member for Brome forgets all about the soldiers, he forgets about the importance that it is to the Dominion of Canada to see that there is an investigation into the conduct of soldiers abroad; he forgets the important things that were mentioned by the first gentleman who moved this resolution in regard to the effect on the country. He devoted,the greater part of his speech to a political address in opposition to the people of Toronto and to the President of the Council. What has this to do with the motion with which the member for Westmorland has occupied the time of the House in connection with the vote of the soldiers overseas? As a supporter of this -

Government and as a private member of this House, I am opposed to any judicial investigation of what took place in England and in France in connection with the soldiers' vote. Every one knew when the War-time Elections Act was passed-any one^who did not know should have known -that it was impossible in a time of war to take the vote of the soldiers overseas in the same manner that the civilian vote at home is taken. Every one recognized the fact that you could not pass a law making perjury in England perjury in Canada; that you could not pass an Elections Act that could be enforced in England and France as it could in the constituency of Brome, for instance, or any other constituency of Canada. When Parliament passed that law they left it to the honour of the soldiers to vote in accordance with the dictates of their consciences and in what they believed to be the best interests of their country. If Parliament could not trust the soldiers, they had no right to provide for the taking of the vote overseas, because under no circumstances can the soldiers in France and England be made subject to the same rules that are applicable to an election in this country. Either the matter had to be left to the honour of the soldiers, or the' soldiers had to be left without votes. At the last session Parliament chose the other course; they gave the votes to the soldiers overseas, and so far as I have been able to discover, the Election was carried out as well as it could possibly be carried out under the circumstances.
We are told that the soldiers were in-' fluenced by their officers. Hon. gentlemen who make that suggestion know perfectly well that the soldiers did not need to be influenced by their officers. Only to-night a man who has just come from there and who was present in one of the units on the occasion of the election told me that three soldiers in that unit who desired to vote for the Opposition, and did so, immediately asked to be locked up in the guard-room in order to escape from their comrades who unitedly supported Union Government. It .was not necessary for the officers to issue any instructions; the privates would have risen in rebellion against them if the officers had not allowed them to vote as they did vote, almost unanimously, for the Government pledged to carry on the war to the very utmost of its ability. That is the view I take with regard to this matter; that is the view which I believe will be taken throughout the length and breadth of
Canada and by the vast majority of the members of this House.


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not want to trespass at length upon the time of the House, and I shall confine myself to a very few minutes. Most of the ground has been traversed well by my three colleagues who have spoken on this side of the House, but there are two or three points that I think we might touch upon before the vote is taken.
There is a saying-it is hardly a saying, for it consists of only two Latin words,- which has come to me out of the degree of my former Latinity, whatever 1 may have possessed. I refer to the expression "cui bono"-to what good purpose? These words have been on my mind all the time during which this debate has been going on, and they were running through my head more rapidly during the speech of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). Viewing the matter in the light of the present situation, in the light of this gathering of 200 busy men from every part of the Dominion of Canada, in the dying day of the session, with the weight and the burdens of the war in their hearts, upon their minds and on their shoulders, and in the light of the duties awaiting them at home,-to what earthly good the speech that was made by the member for Brome? Let each one try to answer that question. As the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Sifton) said, my hon. friend drifted entirely from the impersonal question of the soldier and the war, and made the mistake that a young preacher often makes: That of putting himself in the front and not getting behind the pith and essence of the gospel which he is preaching. My hon. friend did not add to the weight of moral tone or the firmness of moral fibre in this country when he-held up to the ridicule of this House? no; he could not do that; this House is a little hit too serious to look upon it as a matter of ridicule-but >when 'he attempted to hold up to the ridicule of this House men such as he mentioned as forming a committee in Toronto or in Ontario. Cui bono, to single out worthy Christian workers in any line-the Y.M.C.A., or workers on behalf of prohibition, temperance or any other good cause. Why single them out and hold them up to the scorn of a hundred or two hundred men and to the scorn and the laughter, if he is able to provoke it, of the people of the country? We have none too much of this moral fibre in our country, and I never like to hear a man chiding or

jeering at men whose chief object in life
is doing Christ's work in the way they com sider to be the most honourable and the most effective way of doing it. Cui bono? Is it an aimless curiosity that prompts such talk as we have had here to-day? It is curiosity to look into the workings of a watch and to tear it to pieces, to see how the wheels go around, well knowing that it is an old watch which will never be used to keep time again. I can see that there would be some purpose in having an investigation into the methods of the election in England and France if that mode of election were ever supposed to be used again 'in choosing the members of the Parliament of Canada. But that method of selection has been forced upon us by a great war. It would never have been possible under other circumstances, and we hope that it will never be used again because it is made necessary by another great war. It would be infinitely interesting and amusing to my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) if he knew exactly everything that took place in the trenches when soldiers were voting, how they were led to vote and everything like that. But cui bono? Where is he going to apply it as a lesson to aid and help, for the, good of this country or of his own constituency? May I say to my hon, friend that when, as he well observed in the early portion of . his remarks, there was a change in the relations of peoples and sections of peoples in Canada at the present time, as compared with what was the condition six months ago, twelve months ago, more or less-what earthly good would it be to bring again into the arena and fight at the old causes of separation and dissention, and renew, 'so far as he could pour oil upon the fire, the smoke and the flame of a contest and conflagration which we were all hoping had died] down never to be relighted again-? To what good again, I say? No argument has been given here this evening at all to show that, if all those investigations were carried on and all the information was gathered, there would be one iota of change in the parties, and the policies, and the principles, which govern this country as a result of the election of the 17th of December, 1917.' There is no national political interest in the matter at all, because no amount of investigation could! ever cause any change in the policies and principles being carried on in this country at the present time. I think this is a fair method of criticism. There were several things which could have been done. But just now the thought comes to my mind'-to 
what good! again? There are in this country, people who. do mot like the war, people who do not care much for our soldiers, some people-il hope there are not very many-who roll under their tongue as a sweet morsel anything which will derogate from the war party, from the soldier, from that portion, that effort of the Dominion of Canada which is behind this war and is pushing it to the conclusion to which it must be pushed if we are to keep our lives and liberties and status intact. Does it help to throw the blur and fog and mist and darkness of mistakes that have been committed by soldiers, if mistakes have been committed; of irregularities that have been committed by soldiers or officers, if irregularities have been committed? Does it help in the united purpose of this Dominion of Canada that such should be dug up and thrown out? I do not think it does. I have, flashing before my mind just now, two illustrations of that in the history of the present war. Galipoli and Mesopotamia were dark features in the campaigns of the last two or three years. There were allegations; there were thoughts; there were ideas; there were even facts which in normal times would have carried like a whirlwind investigation of the very keenest and deepest kind. Great Britain did not investigate. The war was on, and nothing was done which would dim the public ardour, nothing which would tend to make confusion or disorder or lack of unity and purpose in the carrying on of the w-ar, either as affecting Great Britain herself or her standing and that of the army and that of the war in the -view of the warring enemy. So, many things that otherwise would have been looked into have been left over until the war is at an und. Will it <Io any good at all for us to fling out a drag-net investigation into soldiers, lieutenants and captains, and with that dragnet proceed through Great Britain, and, if we are logical, through France as well and elsewhere? Will it help in any way? To what good again? It is a matter which appeals to my mind as being one of infinitesimal importance in comparison with the great purpose for which we are handed together and which this country is doing its very best to carry out.
There is close at hand an element which has been imported into this discussion. My hon. friend from Chatnbly and Ver-cheres ('Mr. Archambault) had three courses before him. He has chosen one. He has ignored the other two. There was one course,-I do not know whether this

course is politically possible or not. He has had the knowledge of what he calls irregularities and if his statements are proved, if the prima facie evidence turns out to be true evidence, he has made statements which reflect upon the honour of soldiers and which involve strongly a moral question. One course open to him would have been to come with his information the very first moment he got it and lay it before the Government and ask them to deal with it and make such investigations and mete cut such discipline as they thought possible. My hon. friend smiles-that is not the party way of doing such things; that would not have had the effect for him nor for his party that he hopes has been had by the method of procedure which he did ultimately adopt. But I take it that, in many a case, in grave situations like this, the quiet way of scotching an evil and preventing it from spreading is the best way, and that was one way open to my hon. friend. But he did not'take it. There was not enough light and shadow about that. There was another way. The moment that the hon. gentleman got into this House, the moment that the House came together, why should he not, burdened with all that information which showed to his mind dire and dreadful iniquity, the influence of which could not be good for soldier or for national life, bring that information and put it upon the table of the House and press for an investigation early in the session when the House would have had an opportunity of dealing with the matter? Instead of doing that, he waits until the day before the House is to prorogue and then on an independent motion he and his confreres bring those matters and chuck them into the House. Such a motion, under those circumstances, no Government could .allow to pass. In spite of all the camouflage and smoke screens that may be thrown up, there is no possibility, on a motion such as this of a discussion which would be fair or an investigation which would be thorough by a Committee of the House or by the House .itself in any capacity. One of those two courses he could have taken, but he has taken a third. I am only criticising the method.


Joseph Archambault: Is my hon. friend not aware that on the I6th of April I put a question on the Order Paper asking for the production of documents, which, if received, would have enabled me to move for this inquiry .earlier?
.156


George Green Foster: My hon. friend put on the Order Paper questions which if they had been .answered or could have been answered would have .enabled him to bring in two sets of information; first, the information that he has read out as to where these men were bom, where they enlisted, their residence .and the like of that. He had the sworn .affidavits of his own men .as to that in his pocket all the time. Men of his own ctioosing, in whom he had confidence bad furnished him with the prima facie case he has put before the House to-day. That was made a little stronger by the documents which he did get. I take leave to ,say that the stand taken by the Minister of Justice, which the Government has stuck to, was the fair thing, namely, that it is not the right of any person to go in and take hold, for any purpose whatsoever, of the documents which are the records of the elections of the country, .and which are guarded as great secrets. They can be brought out for use in a judicial commission or in an investigation by a Committee of the House, if they are ordered, but it is irregular, and it would lead to dire consequence's if these documents could be fished into for information at any time and every person. So I say that my hon. friend having .sufficient evidence, evidence of his own choosing, furnished by his own scrutineers in whom he had confidence and who had charge of his election, if he had laid it before the House at an earlier period of the session, it would have brought the House to a discussion of the matter under such conditions as would make it a real discussion and would enable a conclusion to be come to by the House on the merits of the case. But to throw into the House to-day, as has been done, a vast mass of stuff that took four hours and a little better to read-how can a Government or how can the House itself make any valuation. of these things? A thousand and one incidents may have to be probed in order to test whether those things are worthy of an investigation or not. However that may be, the matter has come before the House; the Government has met it, and the Minister of Justice and my other colleagues have spoken in detail to the House.
I have but one thing more to say. The moral quality in the question which has been raised by my hon. friend from Cham-bly and Vercheres is a different phase of the matter. To- what good may well be asked with reference to the other phases I have discussed, because they are ephemeral; they cannot have any very .great advantage as a guide for future action. But moral



delinquency stands on a different plane. The moral question was what was raised by my hon. friend from Chambly and Ver-cheres, and that cannot be ignored by any House of Parliament or by any Government. With reference to that, while I am not going to say on prima facie evidence that officers of the militia or military formations of this country have done anything that is dishonourable or wrong-we cannot say that until the matter is investigated-I am bound to say that when things of that kind come before the House the Government and the House itself must take cognizance of them, 'because the moral quality is one which pervades the community to-day and pervades it always, and it must be kept as pure and as strong and as elevated as we can possibly keep it. And so when evidence of that kind is put before it the Government is prepared to say-it could not do less-that it will be probed to the very bottom, and that in so far as the evidence goee to show wrongdoing, the wrongdoing will be punished, even though we may be sorry in our very heart of hearts that such things do occur and have to be made examples of. The Government purposes to do that.
My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. MiMas-ter) started out with the idea that he could put up as direct a case as was put up by my hon. friend from Obambly and Ver-cheres, but he forgot his case in attending to himself, and so he put up no case for an investigation.
As to a general dragnet thrown over this country in one of the crises of our country's efforts impugning the whole military organization of Canada, putting it under suspicion and having it menaced by the coming investigation, whether anything has been proved or not in the first case, no man of good common sense would think that a good thing to help on the war at the present time. But we will take this particular case, and it will be looked into thoroughly and speedily, and as the evidence is brought forth so will the punishment rest on individuals who have been guilty of wrong-doing. The Government must go on; we must have our Supply, and we must stand by the motion to go into Committee of Supply. That, I believe, is a sensible thing to do, and that is what I think will be done when the vote is taken.
Sir WILFRhD LAURIER: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from four ministers, and now the motion comes at last to' what we might have expected; the Government take it as a motion of want of confidence. Now

an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply is a motion of want of confidence if the Government wauts to make it a motion of want of confidence, and it is not a motion of want of confidence if the Government does not choose to make it so. Again and again in this House amendments have been made to the motion to go into Committee of Supply by members of the Opposition, and again and again Conservative governments and Liberal Governments have accepted those motions, and not treated them as motions of want of confidence.


George Green Foster: Those occasions are exceedingly rare.


Wilfrid Laurier: Such cases
have occurred in the Government of which my hon. friend was a member. I remember a case in the eighties, when my hon. friend was a member of the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald, on a motion for 'Supply Mr. Mills, the member for Bothwell, moved an amendteient that public buildings should not be built except in. places where the revenue justified it. Sir John Macdonald accepted the motion at once, as it was a proper motion. He did not treat it as a motion of want of confidence, and my hon. friend assented to it also. I can remember a case in which the Government of which -I was the head accepted an amendment to the motion for Supply moved by Sir Charles Tupper and seconded' by my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster).


George Green Foster: I suppose my right hon. friend's memory will carry him back to the occasions where he refused it over and over again.


Wilfrid Laurier: Only yesterday a motion was made in this House, as to the merits of which every one was agreed, but the Government chose to take it as a motion of want of confidence.
But the Government made this a party question, and therefore everybody has to bow. Yesterday the Government was concerned. They had just passed an Order in iCouncil which to a certain extent negatived the motion, and then wanted their supporters to stand by them. But in this case the Government are not involved. Neither my hon. friend who moved the motion, nor my hon. friend who seconded it, accused the Government. They made charges of wrong-doing. In those charges the Government are not concerned. Up to the present time not one word has been said against the Government. Will the

Government step in and have an investigation? No, they say, we will not grant this inquiry, we will make it a party question, and therefore every follower apparently will have to do what he did yesterday, swallow his convictions and support the Government.
My right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) stated a lot of objections to this motion. It comes too late; why did it not come earlier? My right hon. friend asked my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) why he did not bring this matter to the Government. Whoever heard of a matter of this kind being brought to the Government. This is the great inquest of the nation, this is the place where all accusations are brought, and I will ask my right hon. friend, if he will permit me, if he ever heard of an accusation of this kind going to the Government? Did he ever hear of it? Such a thing never took place. It is a phantom of the imagination of the right hon. gentleman to try and bolster up a bad case.
Then my hon. friend from Chambly-Vercheres was asked by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) why he did not take this to the courts of law. He might have accused somebody of wrongdoing. He certainly might have done so, but does any one pretend that when such grave charges are brought to the attention of the House as those which my hon. friend from Chambly-Verchbres has placed before us to-night, that justice would have been done to the public if there had been an appeal to the courts of law? Some parties might have been punished. But what we want is not to punish parties, but to uphold and vindicate the honour and dignity of the law. That is why this motion is made. My right hon. friend told us that even if the charges were true no national interests would be served by an investigation. Let me answer at once that we know we cannot change the complexion of this Parliament, and such is not our intention. But, is the matter confined to that? Does my right hon. friend pretend that when an election has taken place, as it took place under the circumstances of the last election, the honour of the country is not a? consideration, that the law of the land is not a consideration, and that we are not interested to know whether or not the law has been observed? It is not to change the complexion of this House, it is not to change the Government, but it is to maintain the principle of the electoral law of the land, without which there is no liberty whatever.
We are fighting to-day for liberty. That is our pride, but will my right hon. friend tell me that, when we are fighting for liberty to-day, if such charges as these are brought they should not be investigated? These charges are either true or they are not true -I think they are-but we do not condemn anybody. We simply ask that the Government should have an opportunity to have an investigation, in order to find out whether these charges are true or not. It is not necessary to tell us that there are no national interests involved. It is the honour of the land that is involved. It is more than that. It is the foundation of the institutions under which we live. If there is anything that is sacred in this country, or wherever British institutions exist, it is the freedom of elections and the sanctity of the vote. That is what is at stake to-day. We are told that we should not vote for this motion. It is a principle of British justice, a principle of British institutions, that whenever and wherever a crime has been committed, no matter what it is, that crime must be investigated. If I find on the wayside a dead body, it is my duty to notify immediately -an officer of the law; the coroner comes, empanels the jury, summons witnesses, and leaves no stone unturned, until the murderer is discovered, and justice is done. It is the same thing here. The principle of electoral freedom lies prostrate, killed in the House of its own . friends, and this is simply a coroner's inquest called to inquire into the matter so that the culprits may be brought to justice.


INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MjAOLEAN:	I move that
order No. 19 (Bill No. 62 to amend the Insurance Act, 1917) be discharged.
Mr. LEIMHiEUX:	Is that the Bill that
came up to-day?
'Hon. A. K. MACLEAN: This is a Bill that was recently referred to the Select .Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, and their recommendation is that it be not proceeded with this session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. F. B. CARVELL moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 41 to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act be read the second time and concurred in.
Wilfrid Laurier: What are the amendments in question?


Mr. CARVELL:: As the Bill was drafted it provided that the Minister of Public Works alone should have the right to say what works might be forcibly removed from the navigable streams, and also that he alone should have the right to state what works might be placed in the stream. When we came to examine the situation we found that the harbours of Montreal and Vancouver, and wherever there are harbour commissions, are really under the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department. Therefore when the Bill went to the Senate we had its provisions changed, otherwise it would have taken away from that department their jurisdiction over those national harbours.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 53, respecting the Civil Service of Canada be read a second time and concurred in.	[DOT]
He said: The amendment to section 34 is the insertion of the word "transfer" in the first line after the word "appointment" so that the section will now read: " So much of this Act as relates to appointment, transfer and promotion," and so on. Section 41 is amended so as to provide that no person shall be admitted to any examination unless he has been a resident of Canada for at least three years. As the section stands now it reads " one year." The last section of the Bill, which is the repeal clause, was changed in three particulars. In the first place, certain provisions respecting the selection of reporters and assistant reporters and clerks and servants under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, are repealed. The provisions regarding employees of the Post Office appointed in the statutes of 1912, known as case examiners, are repealed also. They hold the examination of the railway mail clerks. Just why they are called case examiners I cannot recollect at the moment. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) might tell me that.
Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend mentions the reporters of the Supreme Court.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The provisions of the Act-.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do not apply?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, they have been
repealed1.


Jacques Bureau: Under what clause would that come?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is in the repeal section.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the second reading of Bill No. 72, to amend chapter 39 of the statutes of 1917-Sir Robert Borden:
Wilfrid Laurier: This is a contentious Bill, Mr. Speaker.


George Green Foster: Is it contentious?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: Then we will not take it to-night.


LEAD BOUNTIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN moved that Order No. 25-resolution in favour of continuing in force the provisions of the Lead Bounties Act, 1913-be discharged.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN moved the second reading of Bill No. 109, to provide for the payment of bounties on zinc produced from zinc ores mined in 'Canada.
Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that there may be some discussion upon this Bill. I would suggest that it stand until the next sitting.
Motion stands.


BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT AMENDMENT.
George Green Foster: We might take Bill No. 117, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act. It is not on the Order Paper, but it is printed.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not distributed yet.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Some copies were distributed this morning. The purpose of the Bill is merely to amend the Banking Act to provide that a bill of exchange may be protested at half past two in the afternoon instead of three o'clock. It is a great convenience to the bankers, and d'oes no harm to any one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has it the fiat of the Bankers'' Association?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been asked for by the Bankers' Association. I move the second reading of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1:
Rodolphe Lemieux: What will the public think of this change?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It merely makes a man's note subject to protest half an hour sooner than it otherwise would be. A very large number of young men have voluntarily enlisted from the staffs of the banks and others are taken under the Military Service Act. If the banks are obliged to defer action until three o'clock in the afternoon, they have to keep their staffs, now greatly reduced, working very late.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this intended to be permanent?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Only during the war, and a year after.


Mr. CAHILL:: Suppose a man's note was protested at half past two and the bank is open for deposit until three? He might expect by three o'clock to have money in the bank to cover the note?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is proposed that the banks shall close during the period of the war at half past two o'clock. The banks might d'o that without any amendment to the Banking Act, but the Act provides that obligations not paid cannot be protested until three; and that is the purpose of the change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 2.39 a.m., Thursday.
Thursday, May 23, 1918.