1919-07-05

FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1919-20.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1920, was presented by Hon. A. K. Maclean, read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Veterinary Director General for the year 1918.-Hon. F. B. Carvell.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 179 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margery Berridge Grey.-Mr. Richardson.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inform the House that either later in the day or on Monday I will make reply to the question 'asked me in respect to the situation of the Ukrainians in Europe in conflict with the Poles. The material has been prepared for me, but up to the present time I have not had opportunity of going over it.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: If the right hon. the Prime Minister has not an opportunity of answering the question in the House, would he be good enough to issue to the newspapers a statement in regard to it?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I will do either one or the other. If the statement can be got ready in time, I would prefer to give it to the House, but if not I shall give it to the press.



THE GUELPH NOVITIATE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the right hon. the Prime Minister at the Conference, the question concerning an inquiry into the Guelph Novitiate came up, and it was arranged that the inquiry should be conducted after the return of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). I suppose that has not been lost sight of?


Robert Laird Borden: It has not been lost sight of. The Minister of Justice left London on Wednesday on the Olympic, and immediately on his arrival the matter will be taken up.



PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I would ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if he would care now, or when the franchise question comes up before the House later on in the day, to make any statement in regard to the question of proportional representation which I brought to his attention in this House a short time ago.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet):: 
Robert Laird Borden: I know that the subject to which my hon. friend (Mr. Trahan) has directed my attention has been under consideration. It is my recollection that no conclusion has been reached in regard to' it. The amount of evidence which has been collected: toy the commission reaches to very great proportions. If I remember correctly, there is a recommendation in the report that the evidence should be divided into volumes and printed. We shall give our best consideration to that recommendation as well as to the representations of my hon. friend, as soon as we possibly can, after prorogation.



NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: May I ask the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) if, judging by the progress that is being made on the Parliament building, if he has any idea when we can resume our sessions there?


Hon. F. B. CARVELL (Minister of Public Works'):: I would think that at the session of Parliament which is to be held after the new year, we would toe able to occupy the building. I feel satisfied 'the House of Commons will toe practically finished. The House of Commons corridor will be finished. Practically all the rooms, such as members' rooms, and rooms for offices will be completed. I do not think the Senate Chamber will be completed, tout there are other rooms that might be used toy the Senate for a session or two, if absolutely necessary.



THE LETTER POSTAGE RATE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ISAAC E. PEDLOW (South Renfrew) :	I would like to ask the right 'hon.
leader of the Government if, in view of the fact that the United States Government, beginning on July 1st, have gone back to the two-cent rate of postage, it is the intention of the Government of Canada to return to the two-cent rate of postage, and if so how soon?
Robert Laird Borden: That is a question of taxation, and that must be taken up in connection with the budget. I do not think any announcement can be made at present.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Motion of Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the 'Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide in the proposed Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act, (Bill 178), now before the House, that the compensation of revising officers, registrars, enumerators, and all other officers and persons engaged in or about the preparation *and revision of lists, and all expenses consequent thereupon or authorized by the said proposed Act, shall be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, but such sums as shall be determined by the Governor in Council and no more shall he allowed or aid: for such services and expenses.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman, this is the resolution which is necessary for the purpose of considering the Bill mentioned therein, and I would suggest that it might be passed pro forma, in order that it may be referred to the committee on the Bill with 'the other provisions of the Act in question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not approve oi enumerators and of revising "'barristers'. I am also opposed to any principle contrary to that of a provincial franchise, and therefore if this resolution is carried it must be carried on division.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: I wish to object to the principle of the resolution. The Liberal party have, for a quarter of a century, stood for the adoption of the provincial franchise. This is a direct blow at that system. It is the War Time Elections Act over again, with some slight changes. It enables the partisan officer appointed by the Government to nominate all the enumerators to make the lists for each electoral division. That is a direct departure from the principle that has been in force for the last twenty years, under which all Dominion elections have been conducted. As far as I am concerned, I am distinctly opposed to furnishing any money for the purpose of maintaining such a system.


Mr. PROULX:: There is a list in course oi preparation in Ontario for the holding of a plebiscite on prohibition, which will be held in September or October. There is a provision in the Provincial Elections Act to use



this list for provincial elections. If by-elections in Ontario were held after this list was prepared, I submit that it could be easily used. The same electors appearing in those lists are entitled to the franchise under the Dominion Franchise Act. I 'think a provision should be inserted in the Bill to use the provincial lists which have been prepared, say, within a year.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentlemen will see when I come to explain the teams of the Bill that practically all their objections will vanish. However, these questions can be discussed very well in Committee on the Bill, as this is merely a necessary provision under the British North America Act and under the rules of the House to permit discussion of the Bill as a whole, including these money provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to, on division.
Thereupon'the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden moved the second reading of Bill No. 178, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before the Bill is read a second time, it is both convenient and appropriate that I should make some explanation of its provisions. Its purpose is to provide machinery for by-elections; it is not intended that it shall provide for a general election. The only machinery at present existing for by-elections is the Wartime Elections Act, but it is not thought desirable, for many reasons, that that machinery should be employed; more than that, it would continue to be in force only during the period1 of demobilization. I do not recall that there is any provision in the War-time Elections Act which fixes the method by which the conclusion of demobilization shall be determined. I may, however, say that as a matter of policy the Government intend to consider demobilization completed on the 1st day of August, 1919, so far as the War-time Elections Act is concerned. I might add, further, that we intend to pass an Order in Council which shall set forth that conclusion as the considered policy of the Government.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Would my right hon. friend allow me one remark? The War-time Elections Act remains in force until demobilization is completed, but it is also said to be in force during the present war. The war is not finished until peace is proclaimed. So that those two things must be considered.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall bear in mind what my hon. friend has said about that. As a matter of fact, the provision to
fMr. Proulx.l
which he hasi called attention, and which for the moment had escaped my memory, does not in any way interfere with the policy which I have announced. Now, if we eliminate the machinery provided by the War-time Elections Act for the purpose which we have in hand, we must consider what other machinery is available, and if no adequate machinery is to be found it is necessary to provide it, and that is the purpose of this Bill. I should have added, so far as the War-time Elections Act is concerned, another reason why that Act is not available. The provisions for the voting of soldiers overseas have ceased to be applicable, because nearly all of those soldiers have returned, and doubtless all of them will have returned before any by-election could be held after the conclusion of this session. They cannot vote here unless some provision is made for that purpose. Another reason is the fact that the franchise is now extended to all women, whereas under the War Times Elections Act it was granted to certain women only.
Having disposed of these questions, the next consideration that arises is as to the sufficiency of the Dominion Elections Act as it was passed in 1906 and as it was in force in 1908 and 1911. There are equally cogent reasons why that Act in its present form is not adequate for the purpose intended. In the first place, there is no provision for adding the names of women to the lists in those provinces where they are not included in the provincial lists; and, in the next place, it is necessary to provide lists where none now exist, because owing to alterations in provincial laws we would be confronted with the fact that no lists available for the purpose could be found if we undertook to hold by-elections under the Dominion Elections Act of 1906.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In what provinces are the lists not available?


Robert Laird Borden: There are none in Ontario, as I understand, and I do not think there are any in British Columbia or in Manitoba.
It is proposed, therefore, that these byelections shall be provided for by necessary amendments to the Act of 1906. These amendments will provide for the preparation of the necessary lists where none exist, and will give women the right to vote and also the right to be elected to Parliament.
Coming very briefly to the main provisions of the Act, I may say that where provincial lists exist, as, for example, in Nova Scotia and Quebec, which are not

more than a year old they are accepted as they stand and so far as they go. Provision is made only for adding to them the names of males and females who are qualified and who are not iat present included on the lists.
The next consideration is the provision of machinery for the creation of lists where lists d'o not exist. The machinery provided for the purpose is two-fold in its character. One provision or series of provisions relates to uhban communities with a population of one thousand or more; the other provision relates to rural communities. In urban communities with a population of one thousand or more, lists are to he revised or prepared under a system of personal registration. Registrars are to sit for six days and take applications personally. After they have completed their lists, provision is made for courts of revision to he presided over by revising officers appointed by the judiciary. When such lists in urban centres of the character which I have mentioned are finally revised, they become closed lists, they are printed, and only those whose names appear upon them have the right to vote at any election.
In rural communities ia somewhat different system has been provided. The necessary revision of existing lists is, in the first place, entrusted to enumerators appointed by the returning officers. But where enumerators' lists have thus been prepared and printed, they are not final; they are merely a guide or an assistance to candidates and election officers. Persons whose names are on these lists are not to be regai-ded as necessarily qualified; they may be sworn as to their qualification. On the other hand, persons whose names are not on these lists may have them placed there on election day by merely taking the oath of qualification.


Edmond Proulx: If a man's name is added to the list by the deputy returning officer, does he vote on the regular ballot?


Robert Laird Borden: There are no
tied ballots under this system, but the ballots are to be marked "sworn" in all cases where an oath is tendered, and if the oath is refused the necessary note is to be made upon the list and the ballot in that case is not received.


John Howard Sinclair: If the enumerator decides that an applicant is not qualified, may that applicant go to the polling booth on election day, take the oath, and vote?


Robert Laird Borden: In rural communities he can do so. Under the enumeration system, although he has been rejected by the enumerator he may still tender his ballot and is entitled to have it received if he takes the oath of qualification.
The only other important provision of the Bill to which I should invite the attention of the House is the provision for the limitation of the franchise of foreign-born women. Some amendments will probably be necessary to the Bill, and these have been prepared. The provision to which I invite attention is contained in section 2, which enacts section 5, subsection 2, of the Dominion Elections Act. It is as follows:
For the purposes of this Act the aJUegiance or nationality of a person, as it was at the 'birth of such person, shall be deemed incapable of being changed, or of having been changed, merely by reason or in consequence of marriage or change of allegiance or naturalization of any other person, or otherwise than by naturalization of such first mentioned person. Provided; however, that this subsection shall not apply to any woman horn on the continent of North America.
Women born on the continent of North Anerica-that is, all such as we have in this country and all such as were born in any part of this continent from which immigration comes to this country-are more or less familiar with our institutions or with institution's of almost the same character. They are accustomed to taking part in public life; they have a knowledge of the public institutions of the country, and there seems to be no reason why the limitation which has been provided in respect of women coming from other countries should be extended to them.
I am not aware at 'the moment of any other provision to which it is appropriate that I should direct the attention of the House, but any further explanation can, of course, be made in committee.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: Scandinavian women-who are, of course, not alien enemies 

would be excluded under this provision?


Robert Laird Borden: The provision
excludes all women who claim naturalization otherwise than through personal naturalization, unless they were born on the North American continent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are these the principal features of the Bill?


Robert Laird Borden: These are the principal features.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has given us a very clear explanation of the purpose of this Bill. No subject

goes so close 'to the very foundation of the principles upon which our free institutions are based than the question of ihe franchise-
We hear a good deal of discussion about proportional representation. I have no doubt that proportional representation would be a step in advance and an improvement on the franchise to which we have been accustomed in this country for the last fifty years or more, but the great question is to make the very best use of that system of franchise which we have and to which we have been brought up in Canada. Perhaps one of the greatest jolts, if I may use the term, was the franchise upon which we ran the elections of 1917, and I am very glad to hear the Prime Minister say, >at all events by implication, that on the 1st of August next there will be an end put to the War-times Elections Act, or anything that can be done under it.
I wish to remind the House that at Confederation the wise men of that day adopted the principle that* provincial franchise would be acceptable to everybody. Such men as Sir John Macdonald, George Brown, Sir Charles Tupper and other leading men of Canada, who were, I think, just as wise and as liberal in their views as we are and just as jealous of the safety and pride of this Parliament, adopted the lists prepared by the local machinery as the lists upon which members are elected to this House. That system was in vogue until 1886; or to be exactly correct, in 1885, the Act was passed by which the municipalities of Canada .for the first time adopted .a universal franchise and universal machinery for the preparation of the lists. That machinery and that system continued in vogue until 1898, when it was repealed, the revising barristers dismissed and we went back to the old system of provincial lists. Provincial lists and the system under which they were prepared had proved quite satisfactory to the people of this country for a very long time, but for some reason which I need not. expatiate upon just now, a new system was introduced in 1917. There was no good reason why there should be two or three systems of franchise in this country. We have the same people; the same people are represented in the municipal institutions, in the local legislatures and in this Parliament. Why then should one set of men be qualified to send representatives to this Parliament and another set of men be qualified to send representatives to the local legislature? The logical and sensible thing is that, when it is a question of

the same people dealing with the same rights, the same property, and acting for the same men, the same qualifications should be universal. I am sure 'that is the system that is going to ensure the greatest safety and to give the greatest satisfaction to the people of this country.
In my province, in the preparation of the lists, we have a machinery that gives everybody that has a right to get on the fullest opportunity to get his name on the list In the rural communities men can send their names in on or before the 20th day oi January; they can continue to send in applications at any time until the 5th day ol March, on which date there is a revision at which the lists are practically set. Then there is a further period until the "3rd or 4th of April, when there is, another revision before the sheriff of each county, when a man has a right to have a further application to have his name put on or when names may be struck off. That system has been working in our province ever since the franchise was first exercised there, which is nearly 200 years ago. It has grown into such an institution and is so much a part of the life of the people of our province that interference with the franchise is the same as if one interfered with their religion. It is a privilege that has been handed down from father to son for nearly 200 years under perfect freedom, and such a thing as trickery or crookedness in connection with dealing with the lists is not tolerated anywhere. The system that was introduced in 1917, while I presume that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet did not intend to have it work crookedly, worked crookedly and badly, and the men in whose handis it was placed did not do justice to the electors nor to the names that should be placed on the list. Imagine, in my county, one list handed to me with all the names on it, and, to all intents and purposes, a good list, and another list, not the same list at all, scores of names being left off, handed to the returning officer! The good list was given to me to lull me to sleep. I had a right to appeal if any name was left off and to have the name put on, but there was nothing for me to do, as I was given a perfectly good list; but when those people went to poll their votes they found that their names were not on the list, because, by miserable trickery, a different list entirely had been handed to the returning officer. Is it surprising that there is dissatisfaction in my constituency and in my province when machinery is furnished by which, such a thing is possible.

Sir ROBERT it'ORDEN: They could vote, could) they not, by taking the oath?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They could not vote In Nova Scotia at the last election, the list was a closed one; there was no power to put names on. There may have been power in the West to do that at the last election, but in Nova Scotia the list was a closed one once it got into the hands of the returning officer.


Michael Clark: We newer do those things in the West.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not saying what is done in the West. I am only sorry to say that in that portion of the world-the wise men are supposed to come from the East-such a thing was done.


Michael Clark: Very shocking.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to impress upon the Prime Minister and the House the necessity of not giving the power of juggling with the sacred rights of the people of this country into the hands of any man who is so devoid, of principle and so lacking in that proper appreciation which belongs to a civilized country like Canada as to tamper with lists in that way. The Government and the House will understand that my objection to this Bill, to enumerators or to any person dealing with lists except the revisers, or men who are responsible to the people as they are in our province, is based upon the reasons I have given. The manner of appointing revisers in Nova Scotia is very simple. They aTe appointed by the municipal councils, which are responsible to the people and to which men of all shades and1 conditions of politics are appointed, so that men who are appointed revisers are not hard and fast partisans, and such a thing as dealing crookedly with the lists is not tolerated at all. I hope that this Bill will not go out of the hands of the House without its being so framed that conduct of this kind will be impossible.
By the names of women being put on the lists in Nova Scotia, the women of that province have votes. The lists have been prepared with the women's names on them and on the third day of April last there was a completed list in Nova Scotia, the name of every man or woman in the province who had a right to vote being on that list.
I cannot see why, if there happened to be a by-election in Nova Scotia between now and next April, the lists that are now completed would not be accepted, because everybody who has a right to vote has had
an opportunity of having his name put on the list.
This naturalization qualification for women voters is a new idea. It is a departure from the Franchise Act, chapter 20 of the statutes of 1918, which we passed last year. Section 1 of that Act provides:
(1)	Every female person shall be entitled to vote at a Dominion Election who-
(a)	is a British subject;
(b)	is of the full age of twenty-one years and upwards;
(c)	possesses the qualification which would entitle a male person to vote at a Dominion election in the province in which said female person seeks to vote : Provided that a married woman or unmarried daughter living with her father or mother shall be deemed to have any necessary qualification as to property or income if the husband or either of the parents is so qualified.
(2)	For the purposes of this Act a female person shall be deemed to be a British subject,.-*
(a) if she was born a British subject and is unmarried' or is married1 to a British subject, and has not become a subject of any foreign power;
Last year, therefore, we made the wives of all British subjects eligible to vote, and until that Act is repealed every woman in this country who is married .to a British subject, British either by birth or naturalization, is qualified to vote. Why should we not leave it at that? Last year we defined who should vote; we said that the qualification of the husband as to naturalization was sufficient for the qualification of the wife. If that was good law when we passed it last year, I know of nothing that has happened in this country in the meantime which would justify us in changing it.
When the Naturalization Act was going through the House a few days ago, the Solicitor General was asked whether the wives of British subjects, either by birth or naturalization, would be qualified to vote, and Hansard will show that he answered yes.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend, I think, perhaps overlooks the fact that when introducing the Bill last year providing for the extension of the franchise to women, I intimated that some provision of this character would be necessary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I distinctly remember
the Prime Minister stating that it would be necessary to make provision with regard to the making of the lists, and I do not object to that provision being made wherever women are not on the list already. But surely the Prime Minister does not say that he is going to change this Act, which

distinctly says that the wife of a British subject, without any other qualification except that she is the wife of a British subject, is entitled to vote. That was the law as assented to on the 24th day of May, 1918. and if that was a reasonable and proper law to pass at that time when we were in the midst of a war and it was necessary to provide safeguards with respect to the alien vote, and we did not then think it necessary to embody any such provision as this in that Act, surely it is less necessary to make any such provision now that the war is over and peace is practically restored. I submit, therefore, that in that respect we should stand by the law that we passed in 1918.
With these observations', and with the distinct understanding that we on this side of the 'House are not committing ourselves to any principle that may be involved in this Bill, or favouring any change in the system of franchise which was in vogue in Canada from the early days of Confederation down to 1885, and from 1908 to 1917, which we believe _ affords the simplest, fairest, and the greatest possible opportunity for the people of this country to express their opinion freely at the polls, I have no objection to agreeing to the second reading of this Bill. I do not think there will be any division upon it, but it is to be distinctly understood that we on this side of the House hold ourselves absolutely free to deal with any franchise measure that may be introduced at another session of Parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: One of the features of this Bill which commends itself to me is that, at least after August 1, it will do away with what has been popularly called the nefarious War-time Elections Act. I wish also, to emphasize what has been said by my leader as to this Bill being of a purely temporary character for the purpose of providing for the holding of by-elections. It is to be distinctly understood that support or lack of criticism of certain provisions of this Bill does not in any way mean an acceptation of the principle it embodies, and that we are not in any way committing ourselves to the principle of any Franchise Bill which will be introduced at another session.
I wish also to criticise that part of the Bill which discriminates against certain naturalized British women. It is a discrimination absolutely contrary to the ordinary law. Under our law the naturalization of a husband means the naturaliza-

tion of his wife. The wife of a British subject is herself a British subject; the wife of an alien is an alien, but under the Bill before us the wife of a naturalized British su/bject is considered alien for the purpose of the franchise. Now that is absolutely unfair, and I do not think that provision should be adopted by Parliament. When the new Naturalization Act was being considered by this House I pointed out to my hon. friend the Solicitor General, who was in charge of the Bill, that there was machinery already for the naturalization of the wife of an alien; the wife of an alien may apply for a certificate of naturalization for herself. I asked the Solicitor General whether it would not be possible to provide machinery for the naturalization of the wife of a naturalized British .subject, and he very properly answered that there was no necessity for making any such provision because the moment her husband becomes naturalized she also -becomes naturalized. There is no necessity, he says, for providing that she shall apply for a personal certificate. Well, I may refer the House to Hansard of June 30, at page 4399. Here is what occurred between the -Solicitor General and myself -in reference to the matter:
Mr. E. Lapointe:	It has already been suggested that to exercise the franchise a woman must be personally naturalized, and not only be a British .subject, toy reason of the fact that she is the wife of a naturalized citizen.
Mr. Guthrie:	TJn-der this Act it is most clear
that the wife of a British subject, wherever she came from, shall be deemed to be a British subject, and that the wife of an alien shall be an alien. The declaration is quite plain. Even if a woman is Canadian-born, she is an alien if she is the wife of an alien.
Mr. E. Lapointe; According to my hon. friend the wife of a naturalized British subject shall be entitled to vote as well as her husband under any franchise law?
Mr. Guthrie:	There is no doubt -about that.
Well, under this Bill these women will be prevented from voting, and what is most unjust is the fact that they cannot apply for personal naturalization. There is nothing in the law that gives them an opportunity to get personal naturalization, and for all time to come, until either the naturalization law or this law is changed, the w-ives of naturalized British subjects will be the only persons -in -Canada who will be refused the franchise. I think this constitutes an injustice and a discrimination which should be abolished. As to the other provision of the Bill, I think we may reserve anything we have to say until the Bill is in Committee.


William Henry White: Coming from a province and a district which

this new system of enumeration affects, I must say that there are many clauses in this Bill which in my opinion will not be fair to the people of Western Canada. The Bill itself, to the extent that I have been able to examine it during the short time I have had an opportunity of studying it, appears fair enough to any one who does not understand the conditions. With the exceptions mentioned by my hon. friend from Kamourasika (Mr. E. Lapointe), in which there is a discrimination against certain people, the Bill, in the hands of an honourable person could, it would seem, be as fair as anything that could be suggested.
If the Bill had been brought down before 1917 and before 'the last election I myself would have accepted it and considered it fairly satisfactory. I am not going to dwell at any length on it or go into details, further than may be consistent with my object, concerning 'the election of 1917. But it will be necessary for me, in order to support my argument, to . bring to the notice of the House a few concrete cases. I do not wish to deal to any great extent with the way in which that election was carried on, because as a Canadian I do not think it was creditable to either the country or the country's laws. I do not, therefore, care to give more publicity to that matter than is necessary. The appointment of the returning officer in charge of each constituency is to be made by the Government. It was suggested by some of the members on this side of the House who were honoured by the confidence of the (Minister of Immigration, who invited them to discuss this Bill with him, that a public officer, or sheriff, or some responsible person should have charge of the election and conduct it. The Minister of Immigration did not see fit to agree to that suggestion. In the last election the returning officer, with the powers given to him under the Act, took all his recommendations for his subordinate officers, such as enumerators, altogether from the Union candidate, and this man in many cases changed the enumerators when he found that they would not carry out his instructions to his satisfaction. The House will see that this is altogether unfair, and if this matter were taken out of party politics and it were left to the sheriff to appoint the enumerators, I would withdraw my objection to that feature of 'the Bill. I may give some illustrations to show the extraordinary powers the enumerators had. I hold in my hand, from the Clerk of the Executive Council, a return showing just how this enumerating system .may affect the election. I am taking constituencies to show the vote that was
polled at the provincial election in June, 1917, and the vote polled in the same constituencies in the Dominion election. In the Dominion election, in Victoria district, where there were over 2,000 volunteers, some
3,000	women may have been added to the list, being mothers and sisters of soldiers, so that there should have been a greater vote than that which was taken in the provincial election.
Let us take the district of Vegreville, which is a complete provincial district within the boundaries of Victoria. There are seven provincial constituencies included in the Federal district of Victoria, and to show the difference there was between the Dominion and the provincial elections I will give the respective votes. In Vegreville constituency, where the lists were presumably fair, at the June election the total vote in June was 3,153, and under the Wartimes Elections Act it was reduced to 1,527, or less than one half. In the district of Vermillion there were 3,273 votes in June, 1917, and in December, 1917, the vote was cut down to 218. Taking the seven districts, the (vote in December, 11917, under the enumerating system of the Federal Act, with the extraordinary powers given to the enumerators, was in the majority of cases cut down to about one half, while in many cases it was about one tenth. Vermillion district, where we may presume the provincial franchise was fair, is the constituency that was represented by the former Premier of that province, now Minister of Customs.
In that district there were only 218 votes. I know of many cases where the enumerators actually refused to put men on the list. They not only refused Canadian citizens but in some easel Canadian-born voters the right to have their names on the list and to vote. Out of many affidavits that I have in connection with the last election, I will offer one to the House, because it shows clearly how the enumerators exercised their powers under the Act. Here is an affidavit that has been sent to me from the city of Edmonton. It is the statement of a foreign-born Canadian who was naturalized in 1893, who had a son, a volunteer, serving in France, and it shows how he was used by the enumerator and by the returning officer. His statutory declaration reads as follows:
In the matter of the War-Time Elections Act Statutory Declaration
Canada
Province of Alberta,
To Wit:
In the matter of the War-Time Elections Act being Chapter 39 of the Statutes of the

Parliament of Canada, 1917, and in the matter of a Dominion Election held on the 17th day of December, A.D., 1917.
I,	Adolphus Klukas, of the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, make oath and declare as follows:-
1.	That I am a British subject by naturalization :
2.	That I was born in Kussian Poland on the 2i3rd day of April, A.D., li8'64 ;
3.	That my " mother tongue " is German.
4.	That I came to Canada in the year A.D., 1893, and became a naturalized British subject, in the province of Manitoba, in the year A.D., 18 9*6.
5.	That 1 have resided in the City of Edmonton for the past 12 years and that I have resided in the electoral district of West Edmonton for the past 6 yeans.
6.	That I have, since my naturalization as aforesaid, voted at municipal, provincial and dominion elections, and in all other respects have enjoyed the benefits and Performed the duties and obligations of a British subject.
7.	That at the time of the Dominion election, held on the 17th diay of December, A.D., 1917, I resided in the said electoral district of West Edmonton, and my name was on the voters' list prepared in pursuance of the said Act for use at the said election.
8.	That one, Mrs. Harry M. Williams', of Jasper Place, Edmonton, came to my house prior to the said election and informed me and my family that she had been appointed Official Enumerator for the polling subdivision in which I was residing, and was entitled to vote in pursuance of the provisions of the said Act.
9.	That the said enumerator immediately interrogated me as to my political affiliations and talked to me and my family for at least two hours in an effort to persuade me and my family to vote for the candidate of the Unionist party, and informed me that if I would promise to vote for the said candidate, that my name would be placed on the voters' list.
10-. That soon after my arrival in Canada, I took up a homestead and secured a patent from the Crown thereto, but; in order to secure the said patent, I was required to file my original certificate of naturalization with the Crown.
11.	That I was warned by the said enumerator that I would be required to produce my naturalization papers to the Deputy (Returning Officer in charge of the polling subdivision in which I was entitled to vote on the occasion of the said election.
12.	That accordingly I procured a certified' copy of my said certificate of naturalization.
13.	That on the ocoasion of the said election I attended at the said polling place and asked for a baUlot, but the said Deputy Returning Officer refused to give me a ballot or allow me to vote unless I produced my original certificate of naturalization ; and rejected the said' certified copy of the said certificate.
14.	That my wife, Wilhelmina Klukas and my daughter, Lydia Klukas, were also refused ballots on the same ground.
15.	That my said wife and my said daughter were entitled to vote in pursuance of the said Act.
16.	That I have a son, one Private Herman Klukas, in His Majesty's Canadian Expeditionary Force, who was at that time and is now in the Service of His Majesty overseas.
17.	That my said wife and my said daughter were in all other respects entitled to vote at the said election.

18.	That the said deputy returning officer refused to pllace the ballots of myself, my wife and my said daughter in the ordinary ballot box, but placed the same in envelopes as disputed ballots.
19.	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.
Declared before me at the
(Sgd.) A. Klukas. city of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, this 8th day of April,



A.D., 1919.

[Stage Direction]
Sgd. Geo. H. Van Allen,
A notary public in and for the Province oi Alberta.
I have read this affidavit to show the kind of enumerators who were appointed by the returning officers under this Act. This affidavit shows that they were able to spend many hours in a canvas in order to persuade voters to cast their ballots in a certain way. Surely that is not a fair way to carry out the provisions of the Act, surely it is contrary to the intention of the Act and it cannot be pretended that such a procedure was calculated to secure a fair vote of the electors. .Many other cases of a similar character have been brought to my attention. I have several affidavits, but I think the one which I have quoted will suffice to show that partisan returning officers will naturally appoint partisan enumerators who will use their positions to further the ends of the party in whose interest they are acting. This case shows that if a man would not promise to vote for a particular candidate, the information would be passed on to the deputy returning officer and the returning officer would not allow the ballot to go into the box in the regular way. I want to protest against the provision of the Bill that places such a power in the hands of a partisan returning officer.
Probably the worst feature qf the Bill is that which permits discrimination against certain classes of women, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe). Every one who comes from the Western country, and particularly the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), knows that there were thousands of foreign-born young men, so-called alien enemies, who enlisted in the service. The mothers and sisters of these soldiers, under the War Time Elections Act, were entitled to vote, hut I can prove by many affidavits that these mothers and sisters were refused the right to which they were entitled. In one case where the enu-erator had put them on the list, some one

in the interest of my opponent travelled around the district, and at seven or eight polling divisions, red-lined the lists.. Next day the returning officers took these lists that were so revised by some outsider, no one knew whom, and would not give any of the mothers or sisters of soldiers a ballot, or allow them to vote.
We have a large population of Scandinavian people in our country, particularly in the district of Camrose, and the young men of these people enlisted as freely as people of other nationalities. We find that the mothers and sisters of those soldiers are going to be discriminated against, are going to be put on the Indian list, and treated as people who have no rights of citizenship. This Act will unfairly disfranchise thousands of the mothers and sisters of men who volunteered and served at the front. The majority of the Scandinavian people have been in this country for a great many years. They are very progressive. They have a Scandinavian young ladies' college in the town of Camrose, they are taking a great interest in education, and many of the young people who have taken advantage of the educational facilities there provided, are acting as teachers throughout the district. I think it is unfair to these progressive people that the mothers of these young ladies and of these men, other than soldiers, should be discriminated against. The same thing applies to others, and we have several from France and Belgium, allies of ours.
Rodolphe Lemieux: And Icelanders.


William Henry White: And Icelanders the same. All others except those in the foreign district 'are to have a privilege that other good citizens, their neighbours, are not conceded. Without offering any more evidence-and1 I have affidavits to further support my statement-I would like to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, without saying anything about the WarTime Elections Act and its unfairness, that we should go back to the condition we had even in 1916-to the same free Canada that we had in 1911. We want to be Canadians, we want to be one people, without any division or discrimination-we want this to be a democratic country with all people treated as equals politically. If there are any persons of alien birth in our section of the country who are not worthy of citizenship, deport them. No one has a right to ask us to live among them. But give us one franchise law. In the older provinces, for political and other reasons perhaps,
there have been divisions. There have been divisions in one section of the country, where it is said it is necessary to belong to a certain society in order to get any political support. Other people claim that down in the province of Quebec-but I know this is not true-that you have to speak a certain language to achieve politioal success. But in the Western country up to 1917 there was no such condition of affairs -race, creed or anything else cut no figure politically; we were all pioneers, all animated by one common interest, and we were a happy and contented people. There was none of this revolutionary talk that we have to-day, there was no unrest. I would ask that whatever this Franchise Bill is to be, that it will be of such a nature as to put us in the same condition that we were in in 1911. I might call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that when he went to the country in that year he must know, as everybody knows, that the franchise was fair and open enough, as the people were able to turn one party out of power and bring into office his own party with a large majority. We are not. asking for any better franchise than we had at that time, and I would appeal to the Prime Minister to give us as good a franchise condition as he found when he took office.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIB (Antigonish and Guysiboroughl [DOT] 1 am opposed to the principle of this Bill as I stated at the outset, and Ihis is the time for me to register my objections. The Government is open to censure on account of having brought this Bill before the House at such a late hour in the session. This is one of the pieces of legislation promised to us in the speech from the Throne. In a few days it will be five months since the House was convened, and on the last day of the dying hours of the session we have brought before us an important piece of legislation that affects the people of the whole Dominion, without any proper time to give it consideration or put forth our Views. I say that that is a reprehensible proceeding on the part of the Government. The same tactics were resorted to in 1917. Hon. gentlemen will remember that under the very same circumstances in 1917, when everybody was tired, when we were, rushing through to close up the session, the War-Time Elections Act was placed before the House, and Black Kod was knocking at the door of this Chamber at the time the last clause of that Bill was being considered. Those were the circumstances undeT which the disgraceful
46.30

War-Time Elections Act was passed, and now we have a repetition of the same tactics.
We are assured, if I remember rightly, when this War-Time Elections Act was being passed that it was only a temporary measure, and that it- would be dispensed with as soon as the war was over. The Government, for some reason that I do not understand, has made no provision in this Bill for the repeal of the War-Time Elections Act. Why they are still keeping it on the statute book is a puzzle to me and is not understood, I think, by any of my colleagues. Should there not be a clause in this Bill repealing the War-Time Elections Act? We have the Dominion Elections Act, we have the War-Time Elections Act, and we have this. By-Elections Act, all on the statute book at the same time to create confusion in the minds of the people. We should have a definite statement from the Prime Minister that the War-Time Elections Act will not be resorted to in- any further elections.
One of my main objections to this Bill is that it repeals a large part of the Dominion Elections Act. The Dominion Elections Act is the Act under which candidates were elected to Parliament for almost a quarter of a century, and it has worked well. There is nothing unfair in the terms of that Act. Provision is made for cases where there are no regular lists, there being provinces where some such method is necessary. But the Dominion Elections Act is being repealed by this Fill and a new system is being introduced which I regard as a retrograde step. We are now-eoming back to full control by the party in power of the appointment of the revisers arid enumerators. I submit that feature is objectionable, and I am sure every fair-minded man will share my view. The system that has been in force in the different provinces whereby revisers were appointed by the muncipal councils has been a fair system. No single political party can control the municipal councils of this country. There is a municipal council in every county, and that council is composed of a number of the leading men in the constituency. In the province from which I come'the reviser for the district is nominated by the councillor for that district in an open meeting of the council. There is no back-door business about it. He stands up in the open council and names his man. If he names a crook that is very soon discovered by the other members of the council. He must name a decent fair man, and he does. The council may be of

one political complexion or another; there may be more 'Conservatives than Liberals, or there may be more Liberals than Conservatives. But that is bound to be the case, and that is one reason why it is so fair, that both parties are well represented, in the municipal councils. Those revisers make out the lists, which are printed, and they are then the official lists for the provinces for the municipal elections, with some slight changes for the provincial elections, and also for the Dominion elections up until 1917.
What could be fairer than that? In Nova Scotia, electoral lists are prepared by the municipalities every year. Their preparation is not optional; it is a law of the province. The work is Ibegun in January of each year; ample opportunity is given to every man and to every woman to get on the list, and the revision is completed yearly on the fifth of April. It is foolishness, therefore, to spend money in revising the lists for Nova Scotia undter a system of enumerators unless the idea is to get some party advantage. That can be the only idea of refusing to accept the properly revised lists which are now in existence in Nova Scotia. But this proposal provides that the old lists may be chapped up, added to, subtracted from, and practically made entirely new lists, for if is in tihe discretion of the enumerator to strike names off or to put them on. I quite admit that there is a saving clause in the provision under which a man who is struck off can go to the poll, be sworn before the returning officer, and register his vote. That provision will help in certain cases, but a great many .people have serious objections to going to the poll and making an affidavit on election day. The ordinary man will say: If you do not put me on the list I am not going to bother about it at all; I am not going to be the subject of a row between the two parties in the polling booth. Especially so far as the women are concerned, there will be a decided objection to making the list in the polling booth, with one side objecting to what the other is doing. It is a miserable system, a system which will create disturbance, which will bring about quarrels, which will make it necessary to have oaths taken on election day to greater extent than is the case at the present time. In our country it is a rare thing to put an oath to an elector in the polling booth; the people are well known to one another and it is not necessary to do so. There are very serious objections, therefore, against making the list in the polling booth as is proposed by this Act. -

The great objection to this Act is that it puts 'the control of the lists altogether in the hands of the party in power. The *party in power names the returning officer. It is not provided that the sheriff or any officer of the county shall be the returning officer. The returning officer is simply a partisan nominated by the party in power and that partisan will select forty or fifty other persons who will do the work of the party as has 'been described by my hon. friend (Mr. W. H. White). These men become canvassing agents for the party in power; there is nothing fair about the system. The fair thing is to use the provincial lists whenever they can be used.
This Aot is bad, but it is not as bad as the War-time Elections Act was. The Wartime Elections Act was a disgraceful piece of legislation; that is admitted by everybody who has studied it. But the Act itself was not as bad as the instructions which were given by the Department of Justice. I want to read one paragraph from the "In. structions for the Guidance of Returning Officers, their Deputies and Enumerators, approved by His Excellency the Governor General in Council," dated 1917 and issued by James B. Foley, Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada. On page 15 of this book I find the following:
'Section &5A, 5 (4), iprovidies that the enumerator is authorized to accept as prima tacie evidence of the right of a person to he put on the list a statutory declaration of qualification. Note that such declaration is not necessary, although authorized, the only requirement being that the enumerator should he satisfied as to the qualification. Being satisfied he may put a name on the list without any statutory declaration. Not being satisfied he may refuse to accept even a statutory declaration if he deems it not credible or is in, doubt.
These are the instructions that were issued by the Minister of Justice at the time of the election of 1917, and put into the whole hands of partisan enumerators giving them the power to strike a name off the list in their own discretion; giving them the power to throw into the waste basket the solemn affidavit of a citizen stating his right to vote, and to refuse to put his name on the list. Surely the partisan enumerators should at least be left alone to administer the law. Is it necessary that the Minister of Justice should give hints to them as to what can be done to prevent an honest man from voting, and as to rejecting the affidavits of citizens who come forward to prove their right to vote at an election? But here it is; the Department of Justice tells the partisan enumerator what he is to do, authorizes him
without a hearing to strike names off the list, to reject affidavits, and to refuse to allow a decent citizen to exercise his franchise.
Several attempts have been made in this country to gain party advantage by legislation in respect to the franchise. The first was the Gerrymander Act of 1882, which was one of the most "disgraceful pieces of legislation that was ever introduced in a free parliament. The second was the Franchise Act of 1885, under which the Government of that day took the right to appoint partisan revising barristers in every county in Canada to make the lists and to take out of the hands of the people the whole procedure connected with the making of those lists. The Liberal party objected to that. At the convention of 1893 it was one of the planks of the platform of the Liberal party that the Franchise Act should be repealed and that we should restore the provincial franchise. The Liberal party redeemed that pledge in 1897, and from that day up until 1917 we had a decent franchise which was satisfactory to every honest man in this country. The third attempt to gain party advantage out of the franchise was made in 1917 in 'the case of the War-Time Elections Act. Everybody knows that these three attempts to gain party advantage by legislation were all -made by the same political party.


Mr. McMASTER:: Under different names.
Mr. J H. 'SINCLAIR: Yes, under different names, but the leopard's spots were unchanged. I have directed attention to the case of Nova Scotia. I object to this Act, in the first place, because of the unfairness of handing over the making of the lists to partizan enumerators. I object to it also on account of the expense; there is no need of it in Nova Scotia. I believe that other provinces are in the same position as Nova Scotia, although I am not so familiar with the conditions in other provinces as I am with those in the province from which I come. There should be a clause in this Bill to provide that in any province such as Nova Scotia, where a regular list is made by municipal authorities and is ready for an election, this Act shall not apply. When we come to the appropriate clause of the Bill in committee I shall ask the Prime Minister to consider a proposal of that kind.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been claiming that they are not partisans; they have been putting forward in this country the claim that this Union Government is not a partisan administration; that it is above

party politics. If that was the case, why did they not leave the old Dominion Elections Act alone? This is certainly a party advantage that is sought to be gained, and, I presume, when they put forward a Bill* like this, even for by-elections, that they intend, when they come on with the regular election measure at the next session, to model it after the same system as they have put on the table to-day. That is one reason why I want to register "my protest against the provisions of this Bill. I have said that my hon. friends opposite have endeavoured to convince the country that they are above partisanship; but when it goes out to the country that they have introduced a measure regarding the franchise that cancels the ordinary election law of this country and that throws the revision altogether into the hands of partisans, it will be difficult for them any longer to maintain that position. I am distinctly opposed to the principle of this Bill, and I want to endeavour to impress upon the House for a moment the importance of the matter referred to by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. W. H. White). It is a sad thing if we are to create unnecessary divisions in this country. This disqualifies all married women born in European countries. What is the matter with our Scandinavian fellow citizens in the West? Are they not good citizens? I have always heard that especially the Icelanders in Manitoba have been among the best citizens we have in that province. I know it to be a fact that there are good schools in that province amongst the Icelanders; that they prize education; that some of their scholars have won the Rhodes'' scholarship; that they have taken a fine position in that regard in Manitoba. Some of them have gained high places in the Government of that province, and that being the case, why should we put on the statute-book anything that would put these people in a different position from other citizens of this Dominion? Surely, it is far enough to go to say that alien enemies should be dealt with in this way; but when we include all aliens, alien friends as well as alien enemies, we are working up for ourselves trouble that will tend to create race feeling, and that should not be tolerated. This is vicious legislation and I wish to be permitted to register my protest against it.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I shall not be here on the committee stage of this Bill, I should like to say one or two words. I scarcely think the Government are deserving of the censure 
that the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) bestowed upon them in regard to the time at which this Bill was brought in. It is for a very limited purpose, and something must be done in the last days of the session, and the reason, I presume, why this is taken up now is that the Government can see now for the fi#st time when demobilization will be practically complete. I think that is a sufficient answer to my hon. friend as regards the censure which he saw fit to make in his opening remarks, regarding the Government.
I do not share the fear of the enumeration system that exists in the mind of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), although I was very much impressed by some things that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. W. H. White). My experience in the West is that enumerators have, under both political parties, done their work with fairness, and that if a man had a policy big enough to recommend itself to the people, he got a majority and got a fair electorate to appeal to.
I do share absolutely the views of my two hon. friends to whom I have just referred, as regards the disfranchisement of certain women. I honestly think the Government are making a mistake, and I should like to say quite frankly that this is a blunder from every point of view. We have been engaged with the rest of our allies, for nearly five years, in work of destruction in this world, and amongst other things that have been brought very near to destruction have been the nerve fibres of our people, and the greatest thought that can occupy the minds of any one of us, from the humblest ranks of our citizens to the highest ranks of our statesmanship is-how shall we turn the thoughts and minds of our people from processes of destruction to those of construction ? I want to put that point very strongly to the Prime Minister, because I have the greatest confidence in the breadth of his mind along many lines. If we honestly try to answer that question, we shall, I think, be compelled to conclude that by this unfair, unjust and unnecessary discrimination, we are continuing the work of destruction, at least to the extent of keeping up unnecessary irritation and jealousy and dispute amongst our people.
I put that as the first broad ground upon which I am opposed to this Act of further disfranchisement. I think the thing is paltry too, when we have regard to the fact that it is undertaken for the

very small purpose of a few by-elections. Nothing much is going to happen to either political party Or to the nation at large as a result of those by-elections. The Government have done big things in the war, and they, I think, will concede to me that I have given them full credit and support for the big things they have done in the war. I have done that to the point of political misunderstanding on the part of thousands of people of this country with whom in former years I was accustomed to co-operate. I do not regret having done that; far from it, I am proud of having done it. It was my duty to do it, hut while I do not regret it, I do not take any credit for it. But I repeat I have given them credit for those big things, and I want to base an appeal to them on this consideration-why not continue doing big things and not paltry things at the beginning of the period of reconstruction? I have said that this is unjust. It is unjust on the face of it. As the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) has pointed out, it is only pos' sible, if I understood him aright, by what amounts to an act of denaturalization. These women are naturalized now according to our law and their being put off the lists of voters is only possible by a process of denaturalization. Surely, that is a thing we do not want to be done. It is unnecessary, so far as these women are concerned, from the point of view of having only people vote who are able to bestow at least some intelligence upon the questions upon which they vote. I have in my immediate neighbourhood and my constituency some Norwegians, who were mostly former friends of mine, almost to the point of an equal division; some of them supported me very strongly in the 1917 election, and the others most mistakenly-at least I think so-opposed me. But my point is that, whatever they did, I know those people personally, and they did it intelligently. I live near them, and I have in memory at the moment two brothers-, both very good men, one of whom voted against me and the other for me, but both of whom told myself personally and in an intelligent way the grounds upon which they based their action. I did not interview their wives; I did not know that their wives had votes. I am no-t so well acquainted with their wives, but whether 'they could have defended themselves or not I have a shrewd suspicion that if they had had the vote the wife in each case would have voted with the husband, and I would have come out even on the deal. So I say it is unnecessary from the point of view of wise policy.
Then I want to appeal to my right hon. friend along this line. He has stood for what is solid in the conservative thought of this country, and I think that in the progress of human affairs it is probably necessary to have the two sides of what is essential in human character represented in the politics of the country. Now is it wise to link up either party in this country with this unpalatable and unnecessary discrimination? I do not think it is. It is courageous enough, because the time will come when these people will have the vote and it may be that these things will rankle for a generation hence and put a black mark on a -party which will be operating in- the affairs of this country after most of us have gone hence. It is an unwise thing even from the party point of view. Indeed, I can see nothing to. defend it.
I repeat the heads of what I have said: It is non-constructive work; it is paltry; it is unjust; it is unnecessary; it is unwise even- from the party point of view, and looking forward as my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) did to the time when the larger Act comes in, I would say to the Government: You have plenty of ability. I am not even- sure that the personnel, of the -Cabinet needs much reconstruction, except that I would cut it down, take two out and put one in-however, I am not Cabinet-making this morning. You have plenty of ability, and reorganization of the Government is not so much necessary as a thorough reorganization of policy, and I could give no word which, from my point of view, would be better worth the consideration of the Government and more useful in their guidance than to say: For Heaven's sake, in these very early stages of the process of reconstruction help all you can, as Mr. Asquith -put it the other day, to close the wounds of war. He said, "It is the business of wise statesmanship to close the wounds of war and not to leave them open."1 We shall close the wounds of war the more we trust our people.
I thoroughly endorse what my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. 'White) said, that if we have seditious people, if they are bad citizens, march them out. There is no picture that I have looked on with greater pleasure than those on the back of the Sketch of London showing the Huns who had actly badly in- England during the war being marched in groups to the seashore and being put out of the-country. If

our people' in the West, and it is equally true of the women as well as the men, are making part of the wealth of the country and paying a fair share of the taxes of the country, trust them, make them citizens, treat them all alike, and I am sure that if we act along these lines we shall have a better and a bigger and a happier and a more prosperous people.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned, to be resumed this day. I make this motion for the purpose of dealing with Senate amendments to Bill No. 78 to Amend the Criminal Code (Sexual Offences). _
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
(SEXUAL OFFENCES.)

Arthur Meighen: The Senate has amended Bill 78 in several particulars. The first two sections they passed without amendment. Section 3, they amend by inserting after the word "girl" in the fifth line the words "of previously chaste character," and by inserting a proviso at the end of the section as follows:
iNo person accused of any offence under this subsection shall be convicted upon the evidence of one witness unless such witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.
They have struck out clause 4 entirely and added) three other clauses. In order that the House may understand what the effect of the Senate amendments is, it is necessary for me to revert to the first clause of the Bill, which has the effect of providing against seduction or illicit intercourse with girls between the ages of sixteen and eighteen of previously chaste character. Previous to the passing of that legislation, or indeed up till now, that protection was granted only up to the age of sixteen. This legislation extends it to the age of eighteen, and the House will mark that a condition of the offence must be proof that the girl is of previously chaste character. The previous section 211, repealed by our first clause and the clause I have just referred to, provided that there should be two years' imprisonment' as a maximum punishment for any one violat-

ing a girl below the age of sixteen years. That is repealed and1 the age is raised to eighteen years. The very fact of that change substituting the ages of sixteen to eighteen for those of fourteen to sixteen, requires legislation to take care of the cases that fall between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. Consequently our Bill by section 3, provides punishment for offences committed against girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen and does not provide that they must be of previously chaste character. The Senate amendment insists that they shall be of previously chaste character, thus putting them in the very same category as girls between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. The effect of the Senate amendments is, therefore, to make the same law as regards protection from sexual offences applicable to all girls between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, with this difference only, that the punishment has a maximum of five years for the first two ages, and in the case of the second two, two years. While I do not personally agree with the soundness of the amendments, under the circumstances I shall move concurrence, because I think it is better that we should concur than that we should lose wholly the effect of this legislation. The other amendment to clause 3 provides that there shall be corroborative evidence. That, I think, is a sound principle in this case. The 'Code provides it in similar cases, and I have no hesitation in moving concurrence so far as that amendment is concerned Clause 4 is struck out. That is the clause which has reference to the offence of signing in a register or putting up ut a hotel under the pretence of being man and wife when such is not the case. The Senate struck that clause out. entirely. I think the Bill would be much better with the clause in it, but I shall move a concurrence in that amendment as well, rather than lose the benefit of the legislation. The next amendment adds to the Bill certain clauses as four, five and six. The first clause is to change the word " five " to the word " ten " in section 216, as re-enacted in 1913. That is known as the White Slave Law, and the maximum penalty is changed by the Senate from five to ten years. I shall move concurrence in that amendment. Clause 6-I shall deal with clause 5 in a moment-simply brings the Act into operation on the first day of October, 1919. That is wise, because it enables the law to get into the hands of all magistrates concerned, and consequently I shall move concurrence in that also. Now I

come to clause 5, which the Senate proposes to add. It is as follows:
On the trial of any offence against sections 1, 2 or 3 of this Act, the trial Judge shall instruct the jury that, if in their view, the evidence does not show that the accused is wholly or chiefly to blame for the commission of the said offence they may And a verdict of acquittal.
That is to say, the Senate proposes that in so far as the offence by employers against girls between the ages of fourteen and eighteen is concerned the judge shall in every case instruct the jury that unless they are convinced that the accused was wholly or chiefly to blame, they are free to bring in a verdict of acquittal. In my judgment, the insertion of that legislation would have the practical effect of repealing the entire Bill as regards any results that are to be expected. I think that the foundation principle of criminal legislation for the protection of young girls against crimes of this nature rests upon the presumption that they have not reached that stage of mentality and maturity of character that enables them to come to resolution for their own protection, and to resist importunity not physically but mentally. If we are now to commence to measure degrees of culpability among joint offenders, it occurs to me that such action is subversive of the fundamental principle of our common law. Even in the civil law there is no contribution among tort-feasors. But if we are to cany the criminal law to the point of weighing the apportionment of guilt and compel the judge to instruct the jury that it is their duty so to do, it seems to me there is very little use in attempting by criminal legislation to protect young girls in this country. Consequently, I beg to move:
That this House do concur in amendments 1, 2 and 3 made by the Senate to Bill 78, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Sexual Offences), and to the 4th amendment in so far as concerns clauses four and' six thereby proposed to be added to the said Bill, but does not concur in clause 5 thereby proposed to be added. The reason for such non-coneurrence is that if clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the said Bill are to effectively deter ,persons from committing the offences against girls therein defined the comparative culpability of the parties concerned cannot be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further .Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1920, was presented by Sir
Thomas White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the consideration of the motion of the right hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 178, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, finding myself so clearly opposed as I am to the principle of the Bill that is now before the House, I feel I would not be doing justice to myself if I did not associate myself as strongly as possible with the views expressed by hon. gentlemen who have already spoken in this debate. I feel, Sir, that I would offer a very much stronger opposition to the measure if it were not for two reasons. The first is, that I am glad to know that this is only a special Act being put through the House for the purpose of conducting any by-election which may he held in the near future. The second reason is because it in effect repeals the War-time Elections Act, as the assurance has been given by the Prime Minister that no elections will be held under that Act. That assurance cannot be embodied in the Bill, as I understand, and possibly for very good reasons, but we have that assurance from the Prime Minister and we are prepared to accept it. I do not intend to take up any of the time of the House discussing the features of the Wartime Elections Act, because the time has arrived, or very nearly arrived, for it to die a natural death. I am sure that every member of this House, and particularly every person in the country will be very glad indeed to have that assurance. In preparing a Franchise Act it should be the desire of every member of this House to get as fair and equitable a measure as possible. The objection I have to this Bill, Sir, is that it contains a proviso which, to my mind, gives the political party which happens to he in power a very great advantage in the conduct of elections which may be held under it. That has been proven without doubt by hon. gentlemen who have already discussed this matter, particularly my hon. friend from Victoria, Alberta (Mr. W. H. White) who placed on Hansard to-day an affidavit showing how unfairly an Act of this kind may be administered, as the War-time Elections Act. It has been, and I presume always will be, the prerogative of the Government in power to appoint their returning
4G36

officers in the different constituencies throughout this Dominion. As in the past, no doubt partisan officials will be appointed, but I have no fault to find with that because I think it has been the practice, and I have every reason to believe it will be the practice in the future, to select good men in the different constituencies to be the returning officers. But the unfortunate part is that when we clothe these deputy returning officers with authority to appoint enumerators we are drifting into the stream where irregularities, unfairness and dishonesty may occur.
The main objection I have, Sir, to this Bill is schedule B, which provides for the preparation of the lists in the different constituencies. It may be that I am somewhat prejudiced, because I think that in our province we have the very best system that can be devised for a fair, proper and honest revision of the voters' lists. The law regarding the matter in the province of New Brunswick provides for three revisers in each parish; two of these revisers are the county councillors of the parish, the third is appointed by the local Government of the province. In that case, Sir, we have almost without exception, if not entirely without exception, both political parties represented on the revising board. More than that, we have two county councillors who have to appeal to their respective parishes for re-election every year or every two years as the case may be-the term of office varying in some of the constituencies-and they are interested in having all the names put upon the list, because their election or defeat depends upon the proper revision of that list; consequently, the work is well done. I find it hard to bring myself to agree that we should depart from that system even for this special Bill now before the House, and I agree to the departure with this distinct reservation-that if I have the honour to sit in this House when any Franchise Bill comes before it, I shall insist as strongly as possible that we adopt the system of making up and revising the voters' lists that obtains in the province of New Brunswick.
We want no better proof of how that system works out than the election of 1917. The lists were prepared under the Wartime Elections Act in the province of New Brunswick, but the enumerators were selected from the revisers throughout the province. The sheriffs, who are officials of high standing, were the returning officers in each constituency, and the returning officers appointed the revisers as enumerators, and so far as I know, barring possibly some

trifling irregularity that will always creep in during an election campaign, there was not one single word of dissatisfaction or complaint throughout the province. Both parties got a square deal, the lists were properly revised in the different polling subdivisions, the revisers worked together harmoniously, and we got a splendid, and an almost perfect, list in every constituency. Under the other system, Mr. Speaker, we have evidence to-day from hon. gentlemen, the enumerator system was put into effect, as it is now being put into effect throughout the Dominion, we found unfortunately very many irregularities. This goes to prove beyond peradventure, I think, that the system followed in the province of New Brunswick is very much superior to the system followed in the other portions of the Dominion, and which is proposed to be followed under this Bill.
Much has been said in regard to the disfranchisement of certain portions of the population in the western part of the Dominion. I have never had the privilege of being in that part of our country for a sufficient length of time to meet those people, but I have a very strong personal feeling in regard to their disfranchisement. I do believe that every naturalized citizen is entitled to the franchise. If he is not sufficiently loyal in the opinion of our officials who have charge of such matters then it is the duty of the Government to see that that citizen is deported. Unless the citizens who came into this country some years ago under the implied contract in regard to this matter are fit and proper persons to exercise the franchise, then they should not longer remain citizens but should be deported.
That, Mr. Speaker, is all I have to say. Realizing that everybody is anxious to get away, I have taken these few moments to put myself on record in regard to this matter, accepting the Bill that is being introduced by the Government with the distinct reservation that it is only to apply for a special purpose, and that when a regular Franchise Act comes before this House, I shall, as I said before, if I have the honour of being a member, exercise my full privilege of protesting in the strongest manner possible against deviating from the system we have in our own province for making up the voter's lists.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I think I voice the feelings of gentlemen elected from the province of Quebec when I state that this Bill is highly objectionable. This morning I registered a formal protest against the naming of enumerators and returning to the system of revising officers.

I wish to renew that protest. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to any federal franchise I believe the provincial franchise should guide us as regards representation in this House. The principle of provincial franchise was accepted, I think, definitely in 1897, when the Minister of Justice of the day introduced the great reform which had been promised by the Liberal party as soon as they should assume office. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that for twenty or twenty-five years, and especially since 1882, the year of the Gerrymander Act, the bone of centention between the two great parties had been this question of electoral reform.
After many combats the Liberal party pledged itself in 1893 that if returned to office it would do away with the franchise that had been adopted by the majority of the House of Commons in 1885. In 1897, a year after the Liberal, government took office, this iniquitous franchise Aot, which had created a large number of partisan revising officers and had been the cause of many electoral frauds, was practically unanimously voted down by the House of Commons, and the old system of the provincial franchise, which had been in operation from Confederation until 1882, was reverted to. I thought at that time that no party would again venture to tamper with the franchise. In view of the fact that the policy adopted in 1897 with regard to the franchise received long ago the eloquent and weighty support of men like Edward Blake, David Mills, Alexander Mackenzie and Richard Cartwright, and in view of the fact that that reform has worked out successfully with both parties -because both parties were returned to office on that franchise-it seems to me that we should hesitate before discarding it. I am in favour of a provincial franchise because, to use the language of Mr. Blake, the House of Commons of Canada is the mirror of the people, and if the franchise which elects members of the House of Commons is artificially arranged, you deface thereby the fair form of representation; you destroy its substance, and you may as well discard the theory. The provincial franchise, therefore, is, in my humble judgment, the proper franchise for this country.
By the British North America Aet, the measure which was the basis of Confederation in 1867, the principle is established of representation by population. Who are the people best able to say on what basis representation of the people in Parliament should
be determined? Are they not the people of the various provinces? The people of the provinces are the people who should guide us as to the method of electing parliamentary representatives. In United States, as in Canada the federal principle prevails, but in .the United States they have no federal franchise; they have a State 'franchise whidh is accepted for federal purposes. In the neighbouring republic there are more States than there are provinces in Canada, but our circumstances are the same as theirs so far as regards variety of races and creeds and extent of territory and thousands of miles separate the various provinces of the Dominion. It is natural that what is in the best interests of these various races, creeds and peoples throughout the length and breadth of Canada should be best known by the people themselves in these various centres of activity. It is not possible that there should be uniformity of procedure in all the provinces of Canada or in all the States of the American Union; we must be content with the principle of diversity.
The machinery created by the Federal Government for the preparation of the lists in the cities by certain officers, and in the rural districts by certain other officers, will entail a great deal of labour, expense and difficulty. As little labour, as little expense, and as little difficulty as possible should be involved in the granting of a popular franchise. If the intention of the Prime Minister is carried out, with the Franchise Bill that will be introduced next session or the session after, we shall have both a federal franchise and a provincial franchise-a double franchise, which will mean double lists, double machinery, and double expenditure. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is well for the nation that we should double the lists, double the expenditure and double the difficulties; the franchise should be made accessible to all citizens of a free country. What will be the result if we double the cost of the franchise; if we surround the granting of that privilege of every free citizen, with too many difficulties? You will favour the few who are able to bear that expenditure and to shoulder the burden of these difficulties, but you will prevent the great labouring masses and the poorer people from having access to the legislative halls of this country. Therefore, I protest against doubling the lists and against doubling the 'expenditures. Why should we not trust the municipal councils? In England, the country from which we draw our traditions, politically speaking,



the making of the lists, and therefore the creation of the franchise, is the privilege of the minor local hoards, and has been from time immemorial. In Canada we have our municipal councils, where the free people conduct their own municipal affairs, and where, so to speak, they are being trained into the discussion of public affairs. In these municipal councils all parties are represented, and I have yet to learn that as a result of action taken by any of our municipal councils, whose members are, so to speak, face to face every day with those who elected them, or voted against them, any substantial injustice has ever been done. Therefore, we should trust our municipal councils and not suspect their political animus in the making of the lists.
I see that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden)-I should say the gallant gentleman-has declared this morning, and it is in the Bill, that we shall have in all .provinces woman suffrage. When this question of woman suffrage came up last year, I opposed the Bill which was introduced, together with my friends from the province of Quebec.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not all, but mostly all.


Robert Laird Borden: No one voted against it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am still opposed to woman suffrage, tout as Sir Richard Cartwright said once in this House, "An accomplished fact is an accomplished fact." I know that the women of my province will exercise their franchise in an honourable and creditable manner.


Ernest Lapointe: In a charmjng way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But there is another
question, and I know that if any of the ladies of my province were elected to this House of Commons-	.


Mr. BUREAU:: There would be no business transacted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -they would certainly no less grace this House than any of their sisters from the other provinces. But this is one of those questions on which there are radical differences of opinion. Sir Wilfrid Laurier very often said that in our province the woman did not seek a franchise because she, unlike His Majesty the King, did really reign and govern in her own house. The people of France are a very enlightened people, and I suppose nobody will deny that they have very advanced views on public questions, and yet
[IMr. Lemieux.]
they have never considered seriously the question of woman suffrage. And it is the same with us in Quebec. Why then should the Government not leave this question of woman suffrage to each province? If Ontario, if the provinces of the West, believe in woman suffrage, I have no objection; but if in Quebec, we do not believe in woman suffra'ge, why not respect the almost unanimous opinion of our province? At all events, as- I stated a moment ago, since we have woman suffrage in our province, since women can be elected to this Parliament, I accept the decision of the majority.
On that other question of the disfranchisement of aliens, this Bill, in my judgment, is most ungenerous and certainly unBritish. When I was a young member of this House, twenty-two years ago, I remember Sir Wilfrid Laurier once moved a resolution, which wag adopted unanimously pledging the support of Canada to the cause of the Uitlanders of the Transvaal and the Orange Free 'State. What was the reason adduced by the then Prime Minister thus to pledge the support of Canada in favour of the Uitlanders? We pledged the support of Canada to the Mother Country, because the Uitlanders, the British subjects of the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State were denied their franchise by Paul Kruger. I remember the speeches which were delivered by my good friend the Prime Minister of to-day and several other hon. gentlemen who supported that resolution. How is it that, after having expounded that principle, that every British subject, whether he is born a Briton or not, is entitled to his franchise, should we to-day discard that principle? Why refuse the franchise to our fellowmen who do not speak our language, but who hold in their hand the parchments that were given to them when they became British subjects? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) said this morning that the Government should realize that the war is over and should now trust the citizens of Canada. I am not speaking of the aliens of Germa* blood, who came to Canada immediately before the war, but I sa^ that the Government should not refuse the franchise to Scandinavians, to Icelanders. Why should -the Government consider a French woman, married to a British subject less intelligent than an American woman? There are no more intelligent nor more brilliant women in the world than the French women, and the Government is denying them the franchise even though they have married Brit-

ish subjects- The Government is drawing an invidious distinction. I appeal to the gallant Prime Minister of Canada who has just returned from France, who has lived the life of France. I ask him-would- he dare to return to Paris, would he dare return to France, with that blemish on the statute book of Canada?
I appeal to his sense of fairness, and to his chivalry. I tell him that the French woman married 'to a British subject is just as brilliant, intelligent and wise as the American woman married to a British subject. Why should my hon. friend in these days of radical reform stand for privilege and class distinctions, reverting, so to speak, to medieval times when foreigners were only tolerated? We have spread our literature all over Europe and have had otfr agents in every part of the world inviting foreigners to settle in Canada. We have told them that after a few years of residence in this country they would be entitled to a homestead and the privileges of British citizenship. I would not urge that we should give the rights of a fully fledged British subject to men of German blood who came here just before the war, but I say that the men of German blood in Waterloo county, for instance, who came to this country twenty or twenty-five years ago, and those who have settled in the West and are the best immigrants that we can have, should be given their franchise. Let the Government be generous and give them British fair play. I shall resume my seat in the hope that the Prime Minister will think these matters over and give us a franchise which will be truly Canadian in spirit and truly British in ideals.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: In my opinion this legislation is nothing more or less than midsummer madness. The hot weather we have had for the past few days seems to have affected the Government to that degree that they are prepared to bring down a Bill of this kind. The section to which we particularly object is that making it incumbent upon the wife of a British subject to obtain special naturalization on her own account unless she was born on the North American continent. It is an unheard-of piece of legislation, and I have not yet learned from the Government side why this provision is inserted. I venture to say that we could not find on the statute-books of any other country in the world a declaration that, although a woman may be a British subject, yet for the purpose of voting she is not a British subject. What is the reason for it? It may be remarked . that this is only a temporary measure to take care of five or six vacancies in this House, but I would point out that with one exception all these vacancies are in Eastern Canada, and I venture to express the opinion that outside of the electoral district of Assiniboia there will not be ten people who will be affected by this particular provision. Therefore, why is this legislation being put upon the statute book? I think I know the reason. It is because the Government wish to establish the' principle that they can take away from certain British subjects the right of the franchise, in order to have that principle finally embodied in the Franchise Act which is to be brought down at the next session of Parliament. That 'being the case, it is our duty now to protest in the most vigorous manner against the insertion of this provision in the law. The section would be amusing if it were not so tragic. Just imagine the gentlemen of the Government getting around the Council table and declaring that in the by-elections in Glengarry, Quebec East, South Ontario, Assiniboia, and one or two other electoral districts, the wife of a British subject can vote if she was born in North America, but cannot vote if she wais born in Europe. The position needs only to be put to the House to show how preposterous it is. Why should a person born in Europe not be allowed to vote, when a person born in America is able to vote?
Let me instance a few of the people in North America -who may be able to vote under this legislation. Take the republic of Hayti, for instance, where black rules white-where a white person has about the same privilege as a black person has in the State of Alabama. If a lady from Hayti comes to Glengarry in the next few weeks and marries a Glengarrian she will have t'he right to vote because she was born on the North American continent, but a lady from France or Belgium is not allowed to vote. I distinctly remember an eloquent address delivered by the Prime Minister on the campus of McGill University a few years ago in which he told what Belgium had done for the salvation of civilization. But when it comes to giving the vote to the Belgian lady who marries a Canadian, the Prime Minister cannot see his way towards doing it. Take the republic of Guatemala. We have in the city of Montreal about one hundred and fifty or two hundred citizens of that republic who Were brought here a few years ago. They happen to be of the female sex, and black in colour. They were brought

here to enter service, but many of them find their way to the police courts. I hope that they are not the best type of citizen that Guatemala produces. Under this legislation one of those ladies can go to South Ontario or Quebec East or any other of the electoral districts in which by-elections are to he held, and vote, if married to a British subject, while a lady who was horn in France and is married to a British subject would have no right to vote at all. Legislation of this kind brings the Parliament of Canada into disrepute. We have all heard of the mountain labouring and bringing forth a mouse. We were told in the speech from the Throne that a Franchise Act would be introduced. Apparently this is the Franchise Act over which the Government has been labouring for the last five months.
What pains me particularly is the fact that this legislation should have been put through with the concurrence of gentlemen who at one time formed the vanguard of the Liberal Party. Truly, association has contaminated them. I still think I hear in my ears the thunder tones of the hon. Minister of Public Works when he denounced the War-time Elections Act in 1917 and designated it as a blot on the Statute Books of the country-the most horrible piece of legislation ever enacted in a British country. Why, this legislation goes very much further than that denounced by the Minister of Public Works. Under the War-time Elections Act, a naturalized British subject whose son had gone to the front would have the right to vote not only for himself but his wife also had the same right. She would have the right to vote because of the fact that her son was at the front. Now you are taking away from that lady the right to vote. Why? Because her son has come back from the front, I suppose. That is the only reason. She was able to vote so long as her son was in the trenches of France, but so soon as he comes back there is no necessity for obtaining from her any favour and consequently she is put into a category lower than that of the lady from Guatemala or Hayti. Mr. Speaker, during the last two or three months there has been put upon the statute books legislation in which the line of demarkation has been drawn very tightly between British and non-British subjects. Where there was nothing on the statute books respecting British subjects, we made special enactments dealing with them and separating them from aliens. Only yesterday we created a Board of
pMr. Jacobs.]
Commerce, and, Sir, we have in that Act a clause which says that if a man knows that another person has committed a crime against the Act he cannot denounce the offender to the Board of Commerce if the denunciating party is not a British subject. Did you ever, Sir, in your life hear of any such insane legislation?-I would go so far as to put it in that way. A man is not permitted to denounce a person who has committed a crime because the man who knows of the offence does not happen to be a British subject! Then we have further legislation with regard to British and nonBritish subjects wherein it is declared that a person in order to be within the law in having a weapon concealed in his* house must be a British subject. If he is not a British subject he cannot have a weapon concealed in his' house. It has been said that British fight with their fists and foreigners fight with stilettos. Under this Act we have it declared that the Britisher can now fight with the stiletto and the foreigner must fight with his fists. In the Naturalization Act introduced by the 'Solicitor General the other day we have clauses declaring that before certain residents of this country can become British subjects they must be resident here for a period of over ten years from the date of the termination of the war. But there is a clause-section 8, subsection (b) 2-which declares that this shall not apply if the person "is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments." If he belongs to an enemy race or community he cannot obtain his naturalization in five years. He must wait ten years from the termination of the war. I should like to asik the Government why that is not applied to the Bill now under review. Why do we not simply declare that if the lady who seeks to vote belongs to an enemy nationality she has not the right to vote for ten years? Why extend the prohibition oveT the whole of the female sex in the Dominion of Canada who do not happen to have been born in a British country? I can go on pointing out anomalies here for another hour, but I think I have shown sufficient to the House to make it see that this legislation is not enacted in the interests of the country, and I trust that the Prime Minister will see his way to withdraw this objectionable clause from the Bill before it goes further.


Robert Laird Borden: (Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The Prime Minister i3 replying.


Mt. J. A. MAHARG (Maple Creek):: Will that close the debate, Sir?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


John Archibald Maharg: With the permission of the Prime Minister tl shall speak for a moment or two. It is not my intention to enter into a lengthy discussion, but I desire to put my position clearly before the House, as I see it and as I believe this Bill will affect our province. I am more than surprised at the nature of this legislation. I never expected that anything of so drastic a character would emanate from a government in Canada unless, through some catastrophe, we were thrust into another war similar to the one which has just concluded. We have heard very strong language in connection with the War-time Elections Act, but, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the viciousness of that Act pales into insignificance compared with the present Bill. There may have been excuse for the Wartime Elections Act. We were at war and had subjects of the enemy countries in our midst, and it may have been necessary to use drastic measures. But the war is over now, and we admit that male aliens who were naturalized citizens previous to the war are entitled to the vote. Thereby we admit that they are entitled to full citizenship in the Dominion, and having made that admission we immediately say that their wives and daughters are not entitled to the same privilege. I cannot understand for the life of me where the justification for that comes in. The Bill will apply to a few by-elections, but were it a general Franchise Act, so far as I am concerned the only thing that would let it pass me would be the application of the closure as has been done on different occasions. I could not permit it to go through without opposing it to the very utmost of my ability, both physically and otherwise.
- Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


John Archibald Maharg: Hon. members need not misunderstand me. This seems to tickle the palates of some of them, but they will find in different constituencies in Saskatchewan, not only in my own, but in many others, a different view will be taken, and not altogether by persons of enemy alien extraction either. In my opinion we are committing one of the gravest errors in showing this spirit at this particular time. We have heard from the lips of men from all walks of life-and we have heard it in this House repeatedly-that the one great problem before the country now is the unification of the different races in the country. We have been told that we must bring them together in one great homogeneous whole. We hdve probably the most heterogeneous mass in Canada it would be possible to find, and if there is anything we should do, it is to bring this mass together so that we may eventually assimilate the different races and Canadianize them all.
How are you ever going to get a person to submit if right at the start after the war is over, you show such unfairness as is shown under this present Act? I do not wish to take up the time of the House, as you are anxious to close, but I did not want to allow this opportunity to pass without registering my protest against this Act.


Mr. J. F. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I must not allow this opportunity to pass without registering my protest against the clause whereby we disfranchise certain classes of women in this country. In the constituency from which I come, we have not as many of these foreign-born people as there are in some of the other constituencies of the province of Saskatchewan, tout still there are a number, and I want to bear testimony to the good character and qualifications of these people. If I understand this Act correctly, we will disfranchise all women who are the wives and! daughters of foreign-born men other than those horn on the American continent. In connection with floating the Victory Loan in my constituency last year, and 1917, there were no better workers in their own districts than the Norwegian settlers. If we are going to build up a United Canada, this is a very poor way to go about it. These people have done their duty and done it well. Many of the so-called aliens in this country have done their work in connection with the war quite as well as some of our Canadian-horn people. We have another settlement of so-called Austrians in my district. In reality, they are not Austrians because they come from the province of Croatia, and were a conquered people in the kingdom of Austria. I have come into close touch with those people and there is no finer class of people in Canada than some of these settlers. They are entirely in sympathy with the aims of the Dominion of Canada, are conversant with our laws and institutions, and are becoming real Canadians. They left their own country because the conditions did not suit them. They are a very bright, intellectual people, who are anxious to assimilate and become good Canadian citizens-. Their chil-

dren attend the public schools and speak nothing but the English language at these schools. I was reading an account just a few days ago of a school fair or picnic- this was not in my constituency-at which
2,000	children were congregated. It was remarked by those in attendance that even in the excitement of their play, these children used nothing but the English language. The work of assimilation is no small undertaking, and such legislation as we have in this Act does not assist the people of the province of Saskatchewan and other western provinces, who are endeavouring to make good citizens out of these people. I hope the Prime Minister will see his way to do the right thing by these people and assist those of us in the western provinces who are trying to' do our bit in building up a united Canada.
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE (North Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House, but I desire to utter a protest against a certain principle embodied in this Bill. The Bill does not matter very much because it will only affect possibly two or three ridings altogether. The remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite, and some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, surprise me very much. After taking advantage of the War-time Elections Act to get into this House, they turn around and give us to understand that they are so strongly against the War-time Elections Act. It is like a man climbing a ladder and then kicking the ladder from under him. It is a well-known fact that the Var-time Elections Act was brought about oy a condition that existed largely in the West and in the neighbouring province of Quebec, with the result that hon. gentlemen opposite, in the last Parliament took strong ground in opposition to the war. They did not do so at first, but as the elections came near they took strong ground against the war and against our sending men by means of the Military Service Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. CURRIE:: I speak by the book and by the speeches which I have listened to in this House. Not only that, but we had rioting and dynamiting going on in Quebec and in the West. In Saskatchewan and Alberta the Germans are being rallied to byelections and were driven to the polls in thousands to vote against the British who were killing their German friends and neighbours in the war. That state was brought about not by the Conservative party but by the Opposition.


William Henry White: Would the hon.
gentleman allow me to correct him? I do not think that is true as to Alberta. I know that I heard it about Saskatchewan.


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend (Mr. W.
H.	White) also proved by the speech which he gave to the House to-day that such a condition existed in Alberta. We know that in many of the school sections in these provinces the German language alone was taught and that they were turning Saskatchewan into a little Germany.


John Archibald Maharg: Is the hon. gentleman referring to a Dominion or provincial election?


John Allister Currie: I am referring to the provincial election in which the hon. member (Mr. Maharg) took part. He was one of the leaders of a party which was very antiBritish in that provincial election.


John Archibald Maharg: I would ask for a retraction of that statement. It is absolutely false from start to finish. I never took part in any provincial election in that province in rriy life, whether anti-British or any other kind.


John Allister Currie: I will have to accept the hon. gentleman's statement as a matter of courtesy in the House. But there was a provincial election in that province at which they sought office by appealing to the anti-British sentiment of a certain section of the community there. You have 250,000; voters of enemy alien origin in the Western Provinces, and if these hon. gentlemen's views are accepted you will give every one of these men back their votes. At this present moment we have a great deal of discontent in this country. Who has produced the discontent in these Western Provinces? The alien. In the city of Winnipeg who were the men who were shot? They were aliens.


John Frederick Johnston: Who were the leaders?


John Allister Currie: I do not care who the leaders were. They were men like some politicians not very far away from here who are trying to get into office with the assistance of this class of people and who are anxious to stand in with the foreigners. The fault of this Bill is that under it a soldier who has returned after fighting our battles in the war finds that the foreigner next door who did everything he could against the war and to get this country to pull out of it, is given a vote just the same as the soldier is.

I think that the British won this war. I am not ashamed to be a Britisher, and I do not believe in going around the country polishing the shoes of any foreigners. The time has gone by when we should do that. We have realized, and Great Britain has realized, through this war that the too free granting of the franchise and the policy of opening the door to strangers was a policy that did not make for the welfare of the country. Naturalization is a privilege, it is not a right, and never in the history of Great Britain has an alien been allowed the full privileges of citizenship. One would think to hear some hon. members that these foreigners who came in here had exercised the franchise in their own country. The foreigners in the west did not 'have a vote in their own country. They did not make any objection to that at home, why should they make any objection here? It was not until Great Britain defeated their country that they got the right to vote at home.
The principle involved in this Bill of giving a vote to an alien enemy who has become naturalized is a principle that I am strongly opposed to, and I believe that every Canadian who has taken part in this war is strongly opposed to it. For this reason: If you give aliens the full privilege of voting before all the trouble occasioned by this war is settled, and while you have a province like Quebec filled with a national element largely anti-British, you are certainly going to turn this country over to them, and you will not succeed in having this a British country-we might as well speak plainly and say it right here. Hon. gentlemen from the west who have spoken against this Bill got into Parliament by virtue of the War-time Elections Act. Why did they take advantage of that Act if they did not approve of its principle? If I did not approve of the principle contained in that Act I would not want to run as a candidate for this House, yet we find those gentlemen very anxious to get into Parliament, and then they start knbcking the props from under the British Empire when they get here. The facts of the case are simply that we have gone to work and have in this Bill given away the principle underlying the War-time Elections Act. whether it is right or wrong, it is a principle that I am prepared to defend on any platform in this country. I believe that the m^n who fought in this war, and their wives, sisters, brothers and parents, will not approve of turning the future of this country over to the pro-Germans of the west, for
that is what this Bill does. It does not affect matters very much, because the Bill will only apply to two or three by-elections, but I want to tell the Government that if they go to an election in Assiniboia they will find that those aliens will vote against them. It does not matter where you are, if you are a man of strong feelings, your sentiments must naturally be with your own country; that is only human nature. For that reason I do not blame these people at all for doing whatever they could against Great Britain during the war; they were perfectly justified as far as the laws of war are concerned. But for anybody here, for the sake of petty politics, to go down on his knees in the House of Commons and say: "I am so sorry we took the vote from you. We brought you in here, we gave you citizenship, w4 gave you free land, we did everything for you, and now we find you are opposed to the British policy. We are very sorry, but we are going to give you the vote even though you are against that policy." That I am opposed to. When the time comes for another Franchise Act to come up, I hope to be in this House to see that clauses are put in it to prevent alien enemies and those who fought us in the war, and who are 'o-day stirring up trouble among the unions and trying to cause riots and insurrections-I hope I shall be here to prevent those people getting the right to vote, so that we will be able to carry on the business of this country with the help of people who are in sympathy with the aims and objects of the British Empire.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The hon. gentleman referred to certain members who got into Parliament by virtue of the War-time Elections Act. Does he mean that this Act gave those members an undue advantage over their opponents? If not, what does he mean?


John Allister Currie: I think the hon. gentleman's question is not apropos.


Ernest Lapointe: It is very apropos.


John Allister Currie: I would say that the War-time Elections Act did not give an unfair advantage, but it enabled people of British blood and those who had sympathy with our war efforts to put men in office who were in sympathy with them, and if these hon. gentlemen from the West had expressed on the hustings the sympathy that they have expressed here to-day, not one of them would have been returned to Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined to think that if the Bill had been permitted to go into Committee, Mr. Speaker, a good deal of the misunderstanding -which is manifest in many of the speeches that have been delivered would1 have been avoided. My hon. friend from' George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) speaks of this as "unheard of legislation." I shall venture to show in a moment that if this Bill is inspired by us he says, "midsummer madness," that madness must have fully possessed him last session when he sat silent and neither by vote, nor by voice protested against legislation of precisely the same character. Some of the hon. gentleman's language appeared to transcend in the violence of its tone the bounds of reasonable criticism.
'My hon. friend the member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) observes that this Bill proceeds to lay unholy hands upon the principle of provincial lists, which is very dear to his heart. If he had put less eloquence and more study into his speech he would have discovered that the principle of provincial lists is directly recognized by this Bill, and that its provisions, apart from that, are merely for the purpose of providing lists where provincial lists are not available. It may not be amiss for me to remind my hon. friend that I have known him in this House when provincial lists were not quite so dear to his heart as they seem to be to-day; and perhaps he can recall the occasion without my reminding him of it. In 1907, after Conservative administration had come into power in Ontario, in Manitoba, and in British Columbia, my hon. friend was very ready to put aside provincial and substitute Dominion lists, and with no such safeguards as this Bill contains. So the enthusiasm, of my hon. friend with regard to provincial lists seems to vary from time to time as occasion may demand. His determination to uphold provincial lists is very keen to-day; it was not quite so keen in the spring of 1907.
Let me allude to one or two other matters that have been mentioned. My hon, friend the member for Victoria, Alta. (Mr. White), has read a number of affidavits. I do not propose to discuss them. The reading of affidavits is not really very helpful in settling the principle of a Bill, which is always under consideration in the debate on the second reading. Let me, however, remark to him that the evils which he mentions are cured by this Bill, if I understand it correctly, and I am afraid my hon friend has not given such attention to its provi-
[Mr. Ourrie.J
sions as would have been helpful to him in discussing the second reading.
The law as it existed in Alberta and Saskatchewan for many years is preserved in this Bill. That law was passed with his npprqbation and received his support, I understand. More than that, under this Bill, there are to be no tied ballots, although if I mistake not my hon. friend is a strong supporter of the Government of Alberta, which preserves a System of tied ballots in that province. So that I do not find very much merit or very much substance in the criticism which my hon. friend has offered to this Bill,


William Henry White: I explained that until 1917 we had never had any instances of enumerators and others taking upon themselves the powers which they did take and refusing to allow people to vote. I said that at the present time I was not in favour of the appointment of partisan returning officers, who were responsible for these abuses.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend seems to have been very well satisfied with that law for a very long period when his party appointed the returning officer; his difficulty, I understand, arose only in recent years.


William Henry White: Exactly.
Sir ROBERT BORDE Well, I really do not know how much [DOT]importance we ought to attach to such a viewpoint. Perhaps some other people may have been very much dissatisfied with the operation of the Act during the period when he was satisfied with it, and they may be more disposed than he is to regard its present operation as satisfactory.
The member for Antigonish and Guysbor-ough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) spoke of this Bill as being a great surprise. I did not intend that it should be a great surprise; on the contrary I have personally had very little to do with the preparation of the Bill. I asked some of my friends on this side of the House to get in touch with hon. members on the other side and endeavour to ascertain their views as to some reasonable provision of a temporary character for byelections during a certain period, until we should have a general Election Act. I am informed that that has been done and that the provision of this Bill have been well known to my hon. friend for several days; probably for nearly a week. Therefore his suggestion that he is taken by surprise does not command very much merit.


John Howard Sinclair: I may say that I saw the Bill yesterday for the first time. But I was not complaining of that at all. I did not complain that I had not had time to study the Bill; I was referring to the fact that the Bill had been introduced so late in the session that other hon. members had not had an opportunity of studying it.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose other members are quite capable of speaking for themselves; it does not devolve upon my hon. friend to speak for every one in the House. As a matter of fact. I am informed by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Car-vell) that the hon. gentlemen spent two hours the day before yesterday, not yesterday, in discussing the provisions of this Bill.
My hon. friend objects to this Bill because, he asserts, partisan officers are to be appointed. I should like to point out to him provisions to be found on page 11 of the Bill, under which a judicial selection committee is to be established for the purpose of appointing revisers. These officers are to be selected by an impartial judicial tribunal. My hon. friend will, perhaps, remember that there has been a pretty strong but unsuccessful agitation in Nova Scotia for a quarter of a century that appeals from the decisions of the officers who prepare the lists in the first instance should be to judicial tribunals and not to the sheriffs. My hon. friend has never felt aggrieved by the fact that that agitation has been unsuccessful; but he is very much aggrieved by the provisions of this Bill. Where is his constituency? I venture to affirm that there never was a Franchise Act presented to any Parliament by a Government of this Dominion or of any province of Canada that was fairer than the Bill now presented to the House. It is the result of a conference which I brought about for the purpose of avoiding controversy and in order to meet as far as possible the wishes of hon. gentlemen on the other side; but it has been received in such a way by some hon. gentlemen as to be rather discouraging any such effort in the future.
With regard to one provision of this Bill which has been very much criticised, I should like to make hon. gentlemen acquainted-some of them do not seem to be acquainted-with legislation which passed this House last session without a dissenting' voice, either on the second reading or on the third reading; and to inform them that it was and is the intention of the Government to follow the line of that legislation but to remove in some respects the restrictions created thereby. Therefore, if this Bill as we propose it is an outrage, hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House consented to a worse outrage last year.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask the right hon. gentleman what was the Act to which he refers?


Robert Laird Borden: I will read it; my hon. friend need hardly have asked the question, because he could not have anticipated that I would leave my statement at that. The legislation which passed this House last year without a dissenting vote is chapter 20 of the Acts of 1918. Section 1, subsection 2, of that Act reads as follows:
For the purpose of this Act a female person shall be deemed a British subject,

(a)	if she is born a 'British subject andl is unmarried' or is married to a British subject, and has not become a subject of any foreign power; or,
(b)	if she has herself been personally naturalized as a British subject and has not since become the subject of a foreign power; or,
(c)	if she has become a British subject by marriage, or by the naturalization as a British subject of her parent while she was a minor, and: in either case has done nothing (other than in the second case by marriage) to forfeit or lose her status as a British subject, and obtains and presents to the official or officials in charge of the preparation or revision of the voters' lists of the constituency while he is so engaged in such preparation or revision a certificate under the signature of a judge of any court of record or of any superior court, under the seal of the said: court, certifying that such female person is of the full age of twenty-one years, has resided in Canada a sufficient length of time, and is possessed of all requirements necessary to entitle her, if unmarried, to become naturalized as a British subject, and that she has taken the oath of allegiance to His Majesty.
That was the Act pasesd last year, and we intend to proceed along the same line under this Bill but with certain modification relating to people who are born on the North American continent. So that this measure, which has been described' by some hon. gentlemen as an outrage, will be well within the limits of an Act which was con sented to by the unanimous voice of this House only at the last session.


John Archibald Maharg: That was not the only bitter pill we swallowed last session.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon? I hope my hon. friend agrees with the statement which I have just made and which I have verified this morning by a careful examination of Hansard. The reasons for that provision were

set forth in the debate of last year, when I explained them very fully; I allude to them to-day in moving the second reading of this Bill. The reasons are very obvious. A woman coming to this country from some part of Europe or elsewhere might be in Canada only three or four weeks when she would marry a natural-born or naturalized British subject. Unless there was some such provision in this Bill, she would immediately become entitled to exercise the franchise. As regards the man, we do not allow him to exercise the franchise until he has resided in this country for five years and until he has undergone a certain examination as to educational and other qualifications. For what reasons then should we place a female immigrant upon a superior status as regards the exercise of the franchise? The Act of last year properly required that any woman who had become naturalized by operation of law should have the same residence and should pass the same examination with respect to her qualifications as any man who obtained naturalization. Is there any hon. gentleman in this House who will say that such a provision is either unwise or unfair, and if so, for what conceivable reason can it be regarded as unwise or unfair? The woman is placed in exactly the same position as the man. If he comes to this country, he must have a certain residence and must possess certain qualifications before he can become naturalized and exercise the franchise, when the woman comes to demand her franchise, she must have had the same residence and must possess the same qualifications. That is all that need be said about the matter.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Naturalization Bill, which we passed a few days ago, does not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: I am dealing
with franchise and not naturalization. If this Parliament sees fit, for the purpose of the franchise, to lay down certain limitations so that a woman coming to this country can exercise the franchise only under the same conditions as a man, my hon. friend is sufficiently acquainted with the power of Parliament and with constitutional usage to realize that nothing stands in the way.
The charges made against this Bill, namely that it is an outrage, resolve themselves merely into what I have already said. We are following the line of the legislation of last year which I am prepared to justify anywhere, and we are keeping well within the limit, because we , 
purpose, when we reach the committee stage, to provide that such certificate need not be taken out by any person who was born upod the North American continent. I explained, when I moved the second reading of the Bill this morning, that the immigration into Canada from the North American continent is practically altogether from one country, that is, from the United States of America. The people who thus come into our country are familiar with institutions almost identical with our own, and they have become accustomed to take their part in public life; they realize and understand the principles upon which democracy on this continent has been built up. For that reason we thought it only just and fair that with respect to them the provision to which I alluded should be relaxed.
Thus, to sum up: We are using the provincial lists wherever provincial lists are available; where they are not available, we are providing means which, so far as I oan see, are equitable and fair to prepare lists for the purpose. With regard to women who have not been personally naturalized we are following the legislation of last year in requiring them to have had the same residence and to possess the same qualifications that they would,have been obliged to possess if they had made personal application for naturalization.


John Archibald Maharg: What will be the status, under this Bill, of a woman who has come from a European country, say, ten, twelve, or fifteen years ago, as the case may be, and has obtained her naturalization through process of law, or by marriage, or in any other way?


Robert Laird Borden: If she has obtained it by marriage, she must take out a certificate under the provisions set forth in the Act of last year, which will be repeated in this Act when we have an opportunity to propose them to the committee; that is,, if the committee should accept them. If she has been naturalized upon personal application, this Bill does not affect her at all; she has a perfect right to vote without obtaining any other certificate. She has the same status as any male elector. Like him, she must take any necessary oath when properly required to do so under the terms of this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The House thereupon went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.

On section 2-Act to apply to by-elections except for Yukon:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move that subclause (1) of clause 2 be lettered " A," and subclause (2) be lettered " B." That is necessary because this Bill will eventually be printed in the general Act, and in order to make it understandable, this change is necessary. When we come ,to later clauses, we shall require to change two others to " C " and " D." If hon. members look at the bottom of page 6, they will find there below clause 21, a subclause (4), which would look at first blush as if it were a subclause of clause 21, but such is not the case; the idea being that this becomes subclause 4 really of clause 2 of the Bill. It is necessary to letter it as I suggest so that, when this is printed as a part of the whole Act, it will properly carry out the intention.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Does the committee understand that clause 2 covers the entire Bill ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is true .that clause 2 covers the entire Bill, but I do not by any means mean, to say that we are carrying the entire Bill when we carry clause 2.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall we take up
clause 2, subclause by subclause ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.
On subclause 5-who may vote:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move to strike out the words "one month" in line 7 on page 2 and to replace them with the words " two months." That is to provide for the necessary residence qualification. The voter must have resided in Canada for one year and in the electoral district for two months. In the text it is one month.


John Howard Sinclair: Why not make it three months? Two months is rather short.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Committee agreed
on two months, and I have always supposed that when committees come to an agreement the agreement is respected.


John Archibald Campbell: Suppose a man moves from constituency A to constituency B one month before the issue of the writ of election, where would he vote?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He would not vote in
the 'constituency he moved to unless he had lived there two months prior to the issue of the writ.


John Archibald Campbell: Would he have the
right to vote in the constituency he had left?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


John Archibald Campbell: Then he would have
no vote at all. That would not be right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think it is possible to frame an election law under which you cannot conceive a case w'here a man will be deprived of his right to vote. Perhaps down in the province of New Brunswick we have come as near to meeting the situation as any other place I know of. We have provided in the first place that at the time of the election a man must be a resident of the electoral district in which he attempts to vote. If he only moved into that constituency the day before the election but became a bona fide resident, he has a right to vote there, provided he had been registered in his former constituency and receives a certificate transferring his vote.


John Howard Sinclair: How long would he have to be in the constituency before he could vote?	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No time at all. Under the provincial law he can vote on producing the certificate transferring his vote from his former constituency.


John Archibald Campbell: I can quite understand the desirability of a provision that a man shall have resided in a constituency for a certain length of time before he can vote in a provincial election; that gives him time to become familiar with the affairs of the province. But I do not think there should be any such provision in the case of a Dominion election, because a man will be just as familiar with Dominion affairs in one constituency as in another, and he should have the privilege of voting either in the constituency he has left or in the one he has moved to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman's contention was carried out, let us see where he would land. Suppose you reduce the time to the lowest possible minimum, say, one day's residence. You could easily bring in five hundred people into a constituency just before the election, and you can see what the effect would be. You must fix a term of residence; otherwise the law would be open to abuse.


John Archibald Campbell: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I have no objection to the ' man being refused a vote in the constitu-

ency to which he moves, only a short time before the election, but I maintain that he should have a vote in his former constituency in which he has resided for some time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There Is nothing in the Bill to say that he could not go back to that place and claim his right to vote.


John Archibald Campbell: It is not clear in the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I admit that.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister misunderstood my question The case he referred to was that of a man who had a vote in another constituency. I am informed that five months' residence is required in New Brunswick before a man can vote, so if a man moves into a new constituency just one day before an election he would not have a vote there unless hfi had resided five months in the other constituency, in which ease he could have his vote transferred. That is a very different matter from this. The trouble with this section is that it opens the door to people being sent in from across the boundary line or anywhere else. The residence is so short that it is impossible to know whether the voters belong to the district or not. In the province of Nova Scotia a residence of one year is required. Of course, the regulations of the different provinces vary considerably. I submit that two months is very short. While it would work both ways, it is a bad feature, and I think we should change it to three at all events.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is a scheme to prevent fraud rather than encourage it. We are providing that a man must foe a resident of the constituency in which he is going to vote for two months prior to the issuing of the writ. One can hardly conceive that people would go to work two months before the writ was issued to import pluggers into a constituency to violate the law. I cannot bring myself to conceive it would be at all possible.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection 2.
Samuel William Jacobs: I move to strike out this subsection.


Ernest Lapointe: The Prime Alinister-said a few moments ago that the wife of a naturalized British subject could apply for a certificate from a Superior Court judge under the Act of last year. I do not think she can under this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I am going to propose an amendment to this subsection.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is already a
motion before the Chair to amend this subsection.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am willing to withdraw my motion for the moment. Perhaps the Prime Minister's amendment will be acceptable.
Amendment withdrawn.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move to strike out subsection 2 as printed on page 2 of the Bill and insert the following in place thereof:	.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the allegiance or nationality of a person, as it was at the birth of such person, shall be deemed in-cajpable of being changed, or of having been changed', merely by reason or in consequence of marriage or change of allegiance or naturalization of any other person, or' otherwise than by personal naturalization of such first mentioned person. Provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any person bom on the continent of North America, nor to any person who in person applies to and obtains from any Judge having jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings a certificate under the hand of such judge and the seal, of any, of his court to the effect following:-
To All Whom It May Concern:
This is to certify that from evidence submitted before me, I am satisfied that A.B. of

in' the. Province of

(occupation) is a person naturalized as a British subject by operation of law, who, but for such naturalization would be entitled at the date of the issue of this certificate to be personally naturalized in Canacteu
Dated at

this

day of

.
Judge of etc.
The effect of that is precisely what I stated! in speaking on the second reading of the Bill, that is to say,'that any person who has been naturalized1 by operation of law is entitled to vote under this Act if that person was born on the North American continent or if such person procures the certificate above mentioned as to the possession of qualifications which would have entitled him or her to naturalization in the ordinary course, if he or she had not been naturalized by operation of law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think this is a very difficult law to carry out. Why should there not foe some simple machinery by which the enumerator or the person who has the preparation of the list might be able to deal with this matter instead of imposing upon a person the duty of being obliged to go before a judge and submit evidence and have a trial, then go and get

the certificate? It involves an enormous amount oi unnecessary labour. We have all become accustomed to the idea that a man with an ordinary amount of energy can get his name on the list, and this woman might be enalbled, I think, to go before the reviser or the enumerator and satisfy him by some act of her own that-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Would you be willing to leave the decision as to whether a woman possessed the necessary qualifications for naturalization, if she desired to apply in the ordinary way, to a partisan returning officer or enumerator?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, the Prime Minister struck one of his most eloquent notes this afternoon to tell us that they will not be partisan. They are to be appointed by judges.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My friend suggested that the enumerators, who, he and others have stated, are partisans, should have the right to say whether or not a woman should come in that class. It is a fair question whether he would allow the enumerator to have that much power.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am quite willing to leave it to any person who is fit to prepare the list, whatever officer he may be. If I entrust an officer with the extraordinary power of preparing the list he should also have the judicial power of ascertaining who should go on the list. I am prepared to go that far.


Robert Laird Borden: I am bound to
say that if an Administration desired to use this Act for a partisan purpose it would accept the offer of my hon. friend at once. But there are other considerations. After all, is there any reason why a person coming into this country, not a natural born British subject, should not be required, for the purpose of exercising the franchise, to obtain just the same certificate and from just the same judge or other official as if that person were making personal application for naturalization? Where is the hardship? There is no limitation of time as to when a person may apply for and obtain the certificate. A person may go in advance; there is no need of waiting until the election comes on. The proposal is perfectly fair in that respect, and I hope my hon. friend will consider that the high privilege of exercising the franohise in this country is really worth all the inconvenience that is suggested here and a great deal more for that matter, and that any
such inconvenience should not be regarded as a hardship.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It has never been the law in this country that a woman who married a British subject and by operation of law became a British subject herself should wait for any lapse of time to receive the full fruition of the privileges that come to her by the marriage. It was never the policy and has never been spoken of here or elsewhere until now, that although a woman became, through operation of law, a British subject she still had to wait two or three years before she was in reality a British subject. The law has been that the marriage confers upon the wife all the privileges enjoyed by the husband. It is the same as in the case of the annexation of a piece of territory. By process of law the people in that territory become British subjects. They do not have to wait any length of time, because they automatically become British subjects by virtue of the fact that the territory in which they live has become a British possession. I urge on the minister the fact that it was never contemplated that there should be a lapse of some years, in this case ten years.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope that my hon. friend will agree upon reflection that he is mistaken in saying that never until this moment was any such thing suggested. A measure containing precisely the same condition as this went through this Parliament last session without a vote being challenged from first to last. This is merely a repetition of that provision, with a certain remedial amendment which is now proposed to the Committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We hear a great deal about this Bill of last year. Personally, I understood this Bill to be one giving the franchise to women, and that is all I thought about. It-was in the hands of the Prime Minister and I thought it would be a fair Bill. I never read it until yesterday. I take it it was a Bill conferring on the women of the country the right to vote, and if there are complicated wheels in it which I do not understand I do not feel myself bound by it.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you speaking of the Bill of last year?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, if you will only be as confiding now as you were last year there will be no question. The hon. member said he left the matter absolutely

to me last year and I hope he has not since lost confidence in me.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is an old saying that if a man fools you once it may be his fault, but if he fools you the second time it is your fault.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is far too clever to be fooled by any one. The only difference is that last year he was in his proper state of mind and this year he has developed a certain unworthy suspicion.	j


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Samuel William Jacobs: I imove in sub-amendment that subclause 2 be struk out.
Amendment negatived.
On section 6-Absence while serving not to disqualify:


Ernest Lapointe: I think there should be some limit as to length of residence. The Act is giving the vote to any soldier who is now resident in the district, although he may have resided there only since yesterday. The form of the oath which he has to take is the Form AAA, in the schedule on page 16, under which he has to swear: "That you are now resident in this polling division." There should be at least one month if not two months of residence. Surely it is very dangerous to leave the clause as it is. A party might bring into an electoral district where a by-election was being held hundreds or even thousands of soldiers who might vote on swearing simply that they were resident there, although they might have been there only a day or two.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think there should be a residence of at least a month.


Ernest Lapointe: Will you
amend the clause?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. It will be in the oath.


Mr. CALDER:: It is only necessary in the oath.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You might make a proviso at the end of the clause.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I think you had better make a proviso, putting in another subsection, 4, and also making provision in the oath, form AAA, to the effect that "you have been so resident for the last thirty days in this polling division."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps we could go on to another section and in the aneantime we

will work out something. I would like to move:
That subsection 2 of section 6 be amended by inserting-, after the word " this," in line 29, the word " section."
Then it will read:
If the name of any person qualified as an elector under this section is upon the list of voters-


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to make another amendment to subsection 3. There seem to be two subsections numbered 3. I suggest that the latter be designated subsection C the same as we designate the others, A, B, etc. When it comes to be written into the Act it will work out all right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I also -move to strike out the word "fourteen" in the second to last line of subsection C and insert the word "fifteen," and to strike out the word "eight" and insei't the word "seven."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That disposes of section 6 excepting the suggested amendment by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) about residence and also the change in the oath if necessary.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 8-voters' list:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move that this section be numbered "7."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Howard Sinclair: There is no reason why we should have a second revision in the province of Nova Scotia, where the lists are revised and completed by the 5th of April every year, and made the lists for that year. They include the women voters as well as the men. It would involve an immense deal of trouble to go over the revision in that province, and it would be a large and useless expense. In the last election there were about 1,000 enumerators appointed in the eighteen counties of the province. If you give them $50 apiece that will be $50,000 which will be absolutely thrown away in this revision. I do not know whether there are any other provinces like Nova Scotia, but in provinces where they have complete lists, including the names of women voters, this law should not apply. We should not appoint enumerators and expect those enumerators to chop up the old lists and add and take off names',

because it is absolutely unnecessary that it should be done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose that when an arrangement is made between two parties, committees are appointed and an agreement is arrived at, that that agreement shall be respected. I have spent a good deal of time in the last week over this matter, time that I would have liked to devote to other matters, expecting that this would be all settled. Of course, if the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) does not want to accept what his confreres have done, I suppose this is a free country and he is perfectly at liberty to object if he wants to.	.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not want to have any misunderstanding about this, I do not know what any of my friends have done, but I do know what I have done myself. The minister was kind enough to show me the Bill the other day and I protested against this clause then. I did not agree to it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I agree with that.


John Howard Sinclair: I am here trying to represent my province, and I am making this suggestion. If it is not accepted, I cannot help it.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 9-certified copies of voters' lists to be furnished by custodian upon payment of fees:


John Howard Sinclair: Are these typewritten or printed lists?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you use the word "written" list, it will comprise typewritten lists.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) puts a good deal of stress upon an arrangement in this matter. I had no arrangement myself, except that a certain document was handed to me after some talk with the hon. gentleman. One of its terms is the adoption of existing permanent lists if there are any such in the respective provinces to which the women's names have been added. If there is any bad faith about this thing it is not mine.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not mine, because I never furnished any such document as that.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there is any bad faith on the part of any body.
I was one of those to whom the proposed legislation was submitted, and there was no arrangement in regard to it. I admit that I myself offered suggestions; some of them were accepted, others were refused.
I have never said that I would be bound to accept the legislation in whole or in part. We have simply tried to make it more acceptable, if possible.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Everything that my hon. friend from Kamouraska says is absolutely true, Mr. Chairman. He has tried and we have all tried-I have tried to make this as acceptable ds I could. I think I can call on my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) to confirm that. I realize the difficulties under which we are all labouring and I want to make this list as fair as I possibly can. In our committee meetings we balked entirely without reserve. I have felt all day that a lot of this discussion might have been avoided.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is nothing I abhor and despise so much as a person making, an agreement and not keeping it. It has been hinted that we have made an agreement and have not lived up to it. Here is a document sent to me by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House in which this is stipulated:
That where there are permanent lists finished and completed in the province, they shall he accepted, and probably this rule will apply to Nova Scotia and British Columbia.


James Alexander Calder: Might I say a word? In this Bill we have carried out the principle that where there are existing provincial lists not more than one year old, those lists are accepted. There is this provision added, that where those lists do not contain the names of all persons within* the constituency in which a by-election is to be held, machinery is to be provided whereby the names of those persons may be added to those lists. The only object we have in view is not to disfranchise any one. If the lists were nine months old, I think every one would agree there might be a number of persons in the constituency whose names would not be on those closed lists. All we have done in the case of Nova Scotia is to accept those lists and devise machinery whereby there may be added the names of persons who are qualified and not now on those lists. I think every person will agree that that principle is fair and right. There may be some objection to the machinery provided, but I think I may say in all, fairness that we have endeavoured in the best way we could under

somewhat trying circumstances to devise machinery that would prevent the exclusion from the lists of any persons who are qualified to vote; and, personally, I am inclined to the view that we have succeeded pretty well.


Mr. MURPHY:: Lest there should be some misunderstanding in connection with this committee, in addition to the explanation already given, let me say that so far as I am aware there was no hard-and-fast committee. Certain members on both sides of this Hoqse conferred together and discussed certain terms of the measure. I, as one of the members of that conference, very much appreciate the action taken, which I might suggest, if exercised oftener, would tend to advance legislation, and, perhaps, contribute to a better feeling in the House. The point raised by my hon. friend from Anti-gonish (Mr. Sinclair) I think I have personal knowledge of, by reason of the fact that it was not discussed when he happened to be in the room; that is, all the members who took part in the conference did not happen to be present at all the sessions or all the time. Those who took part, no matter what were their views on the legislation, finished the conference with their views unchanged as to the principle of the Bill. A great many of the changes suggested were accepted by the members representing the Government, some were not, and those members who held the opinions upon which those- suggestions were based hold them still-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And reserve the right to hold them still.


Mr MURPHY:: Yes, as the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough stated; and there is no bad faith in giving expression to those opinions to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to go back to section 6, subsection (1). If my hon. friend would refer to the end of that subsection he will see it reads:
Or in any air service, or while acting as a war correspondent in connection with any war in which any military, naval or air forces of Canada are or have been serving.
I would move to amend the subsection by adding:
Provided that no such person shall he qualified to be enumerated os an elector or to vote at an election unless he has been for the period of one month a resident of the district in which the election is held.
That would be the whole electoral district -the county, or whatever it might be.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose a soldier has just returned home?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would not apply at all, because 'he would not have lost hi3 residence.


Samuel Hughes: Many of these soldiers have no homes. Why not let them vote wherever they happen to toe?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There may be a few scattering exceptions, but as a rule every soldier had a home before he left Canada.


Samuel Hughes: A great many had no residence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My 'hon. friend will understand that practically every man has a place of residence somewhere, and wherever he enlisted he had a residence. He never loses that; even if gone five years, he still has that residence.


Samuel Hughes: Thousands of soldiers enlisted at places far from where they were living. Take the Northwest, many men were working far from Edmonton and Calgary who enlisted in those cities. Take my own home town, the battalion formed there was made up to a great extent of men working in the next county. The only point I make is: Why not let the soldier vote wherever he happens to toe?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think that a fair proposition. We are trying to make this an honest law. There is a difference of opinion as to how to do it, but I think it was in the mind of every person to see if we could not provide a law, fair and honest law, that will allow every man to vote who has the right to vote. Let us assume a by-election in North Ontario,-not far from my hon. friend's constituency. Some person wanting to be dishonest could bring in five hundred or a thousand soldiers the day before the polling.


Samuel Hughes: I have heard of its being done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think my hon. friend would want that, and I do not think any man in this House would want it. But if a man has been a resident there for a month, he becomes a resident as a matter of fact and should have the right to vote.


Mr. NESBITT:: The returned men are not soldiers now.


Samuel Hughes: I know of fifty soldiers in my home town, mostly from the Northwest, who are visiting their friends

there; the same in North Ontario. Why should they not be allowed to vote there, although their homes are in the Northwest?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They are not residents there.


Samuel Hughes: A labouring man has no residence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under this amendment, if he moved into North Ontario, with the intention of residing there, after a month he would have the right to vote.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-polling divisions and voters' lists for the several divisions:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move:
That the word " due " be inserted after the word' " in " in line 44 of section 10.
It will then read "in due time;" that is the wording of the old law.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any provision in this Bill under which the returning officer is obliged to put up notices as to where the poll is to be held? I was put in a very difficult position at the last election because of the fact that the returning officer in a neighbouring town did not put up any notice, and refused to tell us where the poll was going to be held. It was in the short days of December, and as the poll opened at six o'clock in the morning all my friends could do was go out and follow the men who were proceeding to the poll by lantern light. The intention was to open the poll without any of my agents being present and then to refuse to swear them. That is the advantage which was taken of the War-time Elections Act on that occasion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I assure my hon. friend that we are preserving the old law as it has been on the statute book practically since Confederation. We are not working under the War-time Elections Act-I would hope not, too. We are getting back to the old law under which notices must be given and such procedure has as my hon. friend has been used to all his lifetime.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-voters' lists in polling divisions in cities and towns in places with over
1,000	population:
John Howard Sinclair: There are incorporated towns with less than a population
of 1,000. Would they be regarded as polling districts?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would think not.-If 1
could have had this section drafted as I wanted it, I would have had it read " in cities and incorporated towns." So far as conditions in Eastern Canada are concerned, that would be the proper way to draft the section; but we are told that that would not be impracticable in Western Canada. A great many of the incorporated towns there have a population of not more than 300, 400 or 500, and the result would be that you would be providing for the registration system in these small com-muuities where there ought to be the enumeration system. It was decided, therefore,	to draft the	section as itnow stands. Then,	somebody	had
to decide what places should come under the principle of registration, and what places^ should come under the principle of enumeration. I do not know that some better scheme might not have been devised, but it was thought that the Secretary of State would, be in the best position to determine whether a place is a city or town and whether it has a population of over 1,000 persons.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Take the town of Bad-deck; no one can tell where it really begins or ends. It is a little village, a shire-town, and it spreads out and thins out until you get to the farms. If I had to make a delimitation of the boundaries of the town, I could hardly do so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the town of Baddeck incorporated?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No. It is sipply one of those towns which may or may not have a population of 1,000; it is not incorporated. It is part of the municipal district of Baddeck; the town itself and a large area around it constitutes a polling division.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I understand this section, Baddeck would certainly not come within the registration system; it would be enumerated. This only applies to cities and incorporated towns, or those places which, under the provincial laws are cities and incorporated towns, "and" which have a population of one thousand or over.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If that is the case, there is not so much objection.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The section'reads1:
In polling divisions wholly or partly contained within places having a population of more than one thousand persons and which places are. under the provincial law, cities or towns, the



voters' lists shall be prepared and completed under a personal registration system and the rules and directions set forth in Schedule B to this Act shall apply.	,


John Howard Sinclair: Does that mean, according to the last decennial census?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that would be a matter of fact. That is why the Secretary of State was designated as the person who should decide, whether the place should come under the registration system or under the enumeration system.


John Howard Sinclair: That would involve the taking of a census.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No; the Secretary of State would have the last census to go by, and he would have also the usual data which are in the statistical office at Ottawa. I see no better way of working it out than to leave it to the Secretary of State.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would be better if the word "incorporated" was added before the word "cities" in line 4 of this section.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would prefer to have it read "cities or incorporated towns."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps that would be better.


Samuel Hughes: Is not a town an incorporated organization?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will give my hon.
friend a very outstanding case, in New Brunswick; I refer to the town of Sackville, where there are about 3,000 people who are living in what we call a town, but it never was incorporated, and for municipal purposes and for election purposes, it takes in a large area of country territory. Therefore, it would be a hard matter to draw a distinction. But if you use the words " incorporated town " there would be no question at all that Sackville would not be included. I move to insert the word " incorporated " before the word " towns " in the fourth line of this clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection 12-voter's lists in polling divisions in cities and towns in places where population under 1,000:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move to insert the
word " incorporated " before the word " towns " in the fourth line of this subsection.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and subsection as amended agreed to.

On subsection 13:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move to insert the
word " incorported " before the word " towns " in the fifth line of this subsection.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 15-persons on voters' list entitled to vote:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There appears to be
some idea that, although you take a complete list, taking my province for instance, it is the intention that some names can be struck off. I strenuously object to any power being given to strike off any name once it has been regularly put on.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The three subclauses
IS, 14 and 15 refer to the municipal portions of constituencies, that is, the portions which are enumerated and not registered, and there is no striking off in the enumeration, because no matter what the list may be that is placed in the returning officer's hands, any person who is qualified to vote can go to the poll on election day and, if his or her name is not on the list, can demand the right to be sworn and his or her vote is deposited in the ballot box. So that my hon. friend will see that the erasure has no effect whatever. When I read subclause 15 first, I thought it might be construed to mean that only the persons whose names were on that particular voters' list had a right to vote, and I had an amendment drafted and, indeed, I have the draft here. But when I came to examine into the thing a little more carefully, I was satisfied that the subclause was properly drafted. Subclause 13, practically at the end reads:
And, such oath having- been taken, the deputy returning officer shall at once cause such person's name to be added to the voters' list, with the word sworn written thereafter, and subject to the two next following sections of the Act. such person may thereupon vote.
The idea is this. When a man goes into the polling booth and his name is not upon the list and he demands the right to be sworn, the moment he is sworn his name is added to the list, so that before he can vote his name is on the list. Once his name is on the list he can be challenged on account of residence, on account of bribery-he is subject to all the challenges that any voter would be subject to. It means that, as soon as he is sworn, his name gets on the list, and then subclause 15 provides that all persons whose names are on the lists have the right to vote.


Samuel Hughes: Does that apply to registration?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, only to enumeration. As regards registration, the lists are closed four days before the election.	.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 21-penalty for registrar, etc., falsely signing, etc., statutory declaration to be used for registration of voters:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any provision in this Bill for penalizing any official, enumerator, registrar or any other election official, who may be guilty of fraudulent or criminal conduct under the law? In our provinces, the revisers and people who make up the lists are subject to a very severe penalty if they do anything wrong; anything to disfranchise a person. Is there any provision whereby any election official who may lend himself to irregularities or malfeasance in office can he penalized?
Mr. CARVE,LL: Let me give an illustration. There is a certificate, form JJJ, on page 21, which reads:
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy or
the voters' list in polling division No	
(or as the case may he) of the electoral district of	as prepared
hy me for use in the election of a member (or members, as the case may be) of the House of Commons for the said electoral district, now pending.
That is the enumerator's certificate. This subsection provides that if he makes a false statement or false oath, he is 'subject to a penalty. In addition to that, all the penalties under the old election law are still maintained. That law is not changed in the least particle from what it has always been. This is an additional penalty, because additional officials are being provided by this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move that the numbering (4) be changed to the lettering "D" in the twentieth line on page 6.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move that the figures "275" in line 29 of page 6 of the Bill be struck out and the letter "E" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There has just been placed in my hands a proposed amendment by the Prime Minister to the subsection dealing with the voting of women of foreign
birth, which I will read so that hon. gentlemen may consider it during the dinner hour. The amendment is that a further section be added to the Act as follows:
3. In the case of such a bye-election, clause (c) of subsection 2 of section 1 of Chapter 2<0 of the Acts of 1918, An Act to confer the Electoral Franchise on Women, shall not apply.
Hon. gentlemen will observe that we have introduced the principle that a woman of foreign birth will be allowed to vote by obtaining a certificate from a judge that she is possessed of the necessary qualifications entitling her to naturalization. It seems to me, in view of the amendment we have made this afternoon to subsection 2 of section 5, a certain portion of the Franchise Act of 1918 conferring the franchise on women should be repealed. Otherwise there, would be a conflict, because the provision we have' inserted in this Bill is not exactly ,in accordance with the provisions of section 1, chapter 20 of the Acts of 1918.
I am not just sure also that we have not made a mistake in inserting the word "incorporated" before the word "town." I am afraid that might lead to our having the system of enumeration followed in some very large places where there should be registration. The system of enumeration, of course, can be a great engine for wrong if used except in rural communities. I do not think you could ever work out an enumeration system which would be anything like a protection against fraud in a large city where people do not know one another well. The theory of the enumeration system is that in the country districts everybody knows everybody else, and it is almost impossible for fraud to be perpetrated. The town of Sackville occurred to me while I was thinking this over. Sackville is not an incorporated town, but yet it has about 3,000 people, and some factories and industries; people might be coming into that town to work right along. If the word "incorporated" is left in, that town would have to be enumerated and not registered.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In other words, it is an actual town, although not a legal town.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish the minister would consider during recess the proclamation part of the amendment moved by the Prime Minister to subsection 2 of section 5. I am getting to be a very old lawyer, but I find it very hard to understand that proclamation, and I am not sure whether the ordinary layman would understand what it really means.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.
The Committee resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was in error in moving to insert the word " incorporated " in sections 11, 12 and 13. They had better be left as they are, as there might he less danger of confusion. Chapter 20 of the Act of 1918 provides the qualifications entitling a woman to vote. She must be a British subject, twenty-one years of age, possessing the qualifications necessary, and for the purpose of the Act shall be deemed a British (Subject, etc. There is a provision that she must obtain a certificate from a judge of a court of record stating that she possesses qualifications which would entitle her to naturalization. In this Bill we are going over the same thing providing qualifications for the woman voter, using different language. I move that we add a new section 3 to the Bill as follows:
3. In the case of such a bye-eleotion, clause (c) of subsection 2 of section 1 of Chapter 20 of the Acts of 1918, an Act to confer the Electoral Franchise on Women, shall not apply.


Mr. MORPHY:: Does this mean that the provisions in that Act are not required because you have other provisions?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have included provisions in this Bill for the same thing, but they are somewhat different.


Samuel Hughes: This phraseology refers only to the provisions of that Act and not to women voting?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. There was a clause with regard to women of foreign birth obtaining the certificate which gave them the right to vote. We have changed that and made it a little broader than in the Act of 1918, and for that reason it is better to repeal the Act of 1918 and incorporate the provisions in this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule " B ", subsection 5:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: Why not say, a relative within a certain degree? You do not want a Scotch cousin.


Samuel William Jacobs: Or an "unmarried wife."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the same paragraph further down strike out the letter " s " in the .word " persons " and make it singular.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, and subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection 11 of Schedule B.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Cal-der) has a proposition which I think is agreed to by all parties.


James Alexander Calder: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Except in the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec, where there are, in Quebec, a chief justice, and in Montreal, an acting chief justice, there are no senior judges.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, in Sherbrooke.


Jacques Bureau: And in Three Rivers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In all the other districts there is no senior.


James Alexander Calder: If there is only one, he will be the senior. It will not be any one else.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are you going to make a change about the registrar acting as* clerk ?


James Alexander Calder: That is struck out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: With regard to the expression " senior County Court judge," that is all right in Ontario, because there are senior County Court judges, hut in the other provinces there are no senior County Court judges. You may reason it out that way, hut I do not think it is very good drafting to talk about a senior judge, when there is only one.


James Alexander Calder: You might put in "the senior County Court judge or the County Court judge."


Rodolphe Lemieux: And it will be the same about the Superior Court judge.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is better drafting to leave it as it is. If there is only one judge, he is the senior judge. In different provinces we have different conditions. In Ontario, we have, in many counties, two judges, one called the senior and the other called the junior.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because there are two.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Because there are two. In other cases there is only one. If you use the word "senior" you use the proper word.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why should we do a stupid thing by talking about a senior judge, when there is only one judge?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In my judgment, the other would be the stupid thing.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It fits in Ontario, because in many counties there are two judges, but in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, there is only one.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There has 'been quite a change made in section 11. The Bill as printed provides that the registrar shall act as clerk of the revising officer. The amended section does not provide that; it provides that the revising officer may appoint a clerk. I do not think it is right that the man who is acting as registrar should become the clerk of the man Who is acting in an appeal capacity on his work. It brings him too close to the appeal tribunal. Therefore, I suggest that that should be, struck out, and that the revising officer should appoint his own clerk.
On subsection 12 of Schedule B:


Ernest Lapointe: Would you leave in the provision that requires the revising officer to be sworn before another judge previous to acting? That was all very well with a barrister, hut I do not think it is necessary to require the Chief Justice to be sworn before acting as a revising officer. His ordinary oath of office ought to be sufficient.


James Alexander Calder: Might we not insert the words "unless a judge"? I beg to move that in the fifth line the words "unless a judge" he inserted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You had better put the verb in there, "unless he be a judge."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is better.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It might 'be a great inconvenience when a county court judge appoints an assistant. In my riding, for instance, Judge Finlayson might act in Cape Breton county where he lives; tout my riding is made up of a part of Cape Breton county and a part of Victoria county, and parts of tooth of these counties are in Judge Finlayson's district. He was in the same position at the time of the election in 1917. He acted in Cape Breton where he lived, but he had to appoint another man in Victoria county. There might toe a case where a man might have to go a long distance before he got before a court of record to

be sworn. He is sworn before the Superior Court.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That will be the case in my own constituency. On the other hand, without very mature consideration, I would rather maintain it as it is, for this reason. These are pretty important officers, they are taking the place .of a judge. I think they should go to the judge, who appoints them, even it means half a day's ride on a railway train, and should be sworn by him and instructed, in order to make them realize the importance of the duties they are going to perform.
Subsection 12 as amended agreed to.
On schedule D-Form AAA:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The old section 6 is entirely eliminated, and therefore the old section 7 becomes section 6. The "and 7" should be struck out.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are there sections 3 and 4 to this Bill?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no section 4.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are you going to have one?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. As the Bill is drawn section 1 provides that this may be cited as the Dominion By-elections Act, 1919.
Section 2 provides for the whole 8 p.m. machinery, until you get down to the very end on page 6, where we have added another section, No. 3, which is that revision suspending the operation of the statute of 1918. This may appear hard to understand, but I am sure when these are read with the remainder of the law they will read all right.


Ernest Lapointe: Oath No. 1 must be amended. Instead of "you are now resident in this polling division," you must have "you have been resident for the last thirty days in this polling division."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Why not make it read, "I have been a resident in this polling division since" -such and such a date?	*


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have to follow the amendment we made in the law in regard to the military voter, where we provided that he must have been a resident a month. If you did that you might compel him to reside in the polling division more than a month.


James Alexander Calder: I move to amend Oath No. 1 to read:

That you are now and have been for the last thirty days a resident of this polling division.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the reason of Oath No. 2?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is in case of a war correspondent. It is copied from the old law.
Mr. MoMASTER: That term might be extended quite broadly. A lady has been over on the other side, we will say, with her daughter, married to a junior officer; she is writing home constantly. Is she to be a war correspondent. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), who has a knowledge of military affairs, nods his head. I would take it in a narrower sense, as the war correspondent of a newspaper, but when an authority such as the Minister of Naval Service says the term is to be taken in a broader sense, it seems to me wise to cut it out of the Bill. Really, if we provide for the soldiers and the sailors, I do not think we need provide for the war correspondents.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister had better drop it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think we will have to leave it in. It is exactly the same as the old law.
Form AAA as amended agreed to.


On Form EEE:: 


Charles Murphy: This is one of the objectionable forms in the War-time Elections Act. 'Should there not be something in the form providing for the signature of the officer before whom the affidavit is made that purports to be signed by the person to whom the interrogatories are addressed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know. The theory is that in order to save time the officer administers these interrogatories orally.


Charles Murphy: But should not the officer certify by his signature that such has been done? Should there not be a jurat?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a reasonable
suggestion. I move that a jurat be added in these words:
Sworn to before me this	day
of	A.EV	 at	
	(signature)
	Registrar.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. .McKENZIE: In view of the amendment requiring a woman who is a foreigner to produce a certificate from a judge entitling her to toe registered as a voter, would it not be well to put in an interrogatory with regard to that?
Mr. OARVE'LIL: I think it would be well to do that. I move that the following be inserted in Form EEE, as interrogatory No. 10, the following:
10. Have you a certificate from a judge entitling you to foe registered as a voter?
It will be necessary, of course, to renumber the interrogatories accordingly.
Amendment agreed to.
Andrew Ross McMaster: Will women be eligible as enumerators under this law?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.
Form EEE, as amended, agreed to.


On Form GGG:: '
Mr. 'CARVELL: Several amendments are necessary to this form, as follows:
Strike out the word " Your " at the beginning of the first paragraph and substitute therefor the word " you."
Substitute "(ISo help you God.)" for " (So help me God.)" at the end of the first paragraph.
Strike out interrogatory No. 7 and substitute therefor the following:
7. Are you related to the applicant, and if you are, what is the relationship, or is he in your employ?
Add the following as interrogatory No. 12, and re-number the sections accordingly:
12. Has he a certificate from a judge entitling him to foe registered as a voter?
Then in interrogatory (13)-that would be the new (14)-strike out the words "one month" and insert the words "two months" in place thereof.
I move that a jurat be added at the end of this, the same as was added at the end of form EEE.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The interrogatories are
all to be administered orally?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, but we want some sort of a certificate from the officer that the man has been sworn.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is not a jurat.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is more of a certificate than a jurat. It is just "sworn before me at"-so and so, etc.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, and form GGG agreed to.	.
On form Z No. 1-oath to be taken by electors.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move to strike out the words "one month" and insert in place thereof the words "two months" in the sixth line of this form;


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and form Z No.
1	agreed to.
Bill reported.
On the motion of Mr. Carvell for the third reading of the Bill.
Samuel William Jacobs: I move, in amendment,
that this Bill be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of striking out subsection (2) of section 5 in clause
2	of the Bill.
Amendment negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House reverted to the Order "presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees".

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS (Strathcona) presented the final report of the Special Committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel and other necessaries of life, etc.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House resumed consideration of Government orders.

[Stage Direction]
REPORT OF MANAGERS' FREE OONFHR-[DOT] HNCE WITH SENATE.
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I beg to present the report of the managers appointed by the House to confer with the Managers of the Honourable the Senate with reference to Bill No. 107. The report is as follows:
Tour managers foeg to report that three proposals were made at the conference With respect to Bill 107. The first was made by the Senate Managers and the other two by the Managers of this House:
1.	That the legislation should foe in force for one year from the 11th of November, 1918, being the date of the armistice;
2.	That the legislation should foe in force until the end of the present fiscal year, that is to say, the 31st of March, 19 2'0 ;
3.	That the Bill as passed by the House of Commons foe concurred in with a proviso that upon the application of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province to the Governor in Council asking that an order of the

Governor in Council! be made repealing the regulations incorporated in the Bill with respect to such province after peace has been proclaimed, or after such date thereafter as may be stated in such application, the Governor in Council should make such order; and that upon the making of the order the regulations and any amendments thereto should not apply or be in force in such Province, or with respect to such province or any business therein, after Peace has been proclaimed or after such date thereafter as might in the said application and order be mentioned.
The Managers of the conference were, however, unable to effect any agreement in the premises.
I beg to move in connection with that report:
That this House insist on its disagreement to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 107, and that a message be sent to Their Honours to acquaint them therewith.
That the Clerk do carry the said message and the said Bill to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration oi amendments made by the Senate to Bill No 160, to amend the Criminal Code.-The Minister of Justice.
Arthur Meighen: Many of the amendments made by the Senate are of a minor character. The first one is in subclause 2 of clause 1, which reads:
Any property, real or personal, belonging or suspected to belong to an unlawful association, or held or suspected to be held by any person for or on behalf thereof may, without warrant, be seized or taken possession of by any person thereunto authorized by the Chief Commissioner of Dominion Police, and may thereupon be forfeited to His Majesty.
The Senate have added, after the word " Police " the words " or by the Commissioner of the Northwest Mounted Police," that force having police judisdiction in western Canada. The next amendment made by the Senate is to strike out the minimum penalty of one year's imprisonment in each ease.
They leave no minimum, but they leave the maximum at twenty years The next is a similar amendment making the Commissioner of the Northwest Mounted Police of equal authority with the Chief Commissioner of Dominion Police in respect of subclause 4 of the new section 97B. The next amendment changes the number of days within which an accused person may elect speedy trial. The Senate have made it thirty days before trial instead of forty, and they have changed our fifty days to forty. 1 think it will make the effect of the amendments more clear if I read the clause as it stood, and as it will stand if these 
amendments are agreed to. The clause as ft passed this House read:
And provided also that no prisoner shall have a right to re-elect later than forty days before the day fixed for the next sittings of the eourt at which trials by jury can be had, unless the prisoner was committed for trial within fifty days' 'before the said date, in which event he must re-elect not later than ten days before the day fixed for the next sittings of the court at which trials by jury can be had.
As amended by the Senate it will read:
And provided also that no prisoner shall have a right to re-elect later than thirty days before the day fixed for the next sittings of the court at which trials by jury oan be had, unless the prisoner was committed for trial within forty days before the said date, in which event he must re-elect not later than ten days before the day fixed for the next sittings of the court at which trials by jury can be had.
They have followed the very same principle as we sought to embody in the law, but they have gone a little further than we did. They have gone up to thirty days of trial instead of forty days; consequently, they have allowed only forty days for demand for trial, whereas we allowed fifty.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is "re-elect" the proper word?


Arthur Meighen: That is how it was
drafted in the'first place. I presume it must be the right word.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Suppose a prisoner elects to go to the Supreme Court. He has the right afterwards to " re-elect " to be tried by jury.


Arthur Meighen: Then " re-elect " will be the right word, according to the explanation of my hon friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This does not change the old conditions of electing in any way?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Charles Murphy: To what does the fifty days refer?


Arthur Meighen: As it passed this House, if a man were committed earlier than fifty days before the trial he had to make his election for speedy trial, or re-election, as it would be more properly called, before forty days previous to the trial. The Senate amendments provide tnat if he is committed before forty days for trial he must make his re-election earlier than thirty days before trial.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: By the expression " before trial " does the minister mean before the meeting of assizes at which the trial will be held?

Mr. MEIGHHEiN: Yes, that would be the more correct expression. Then section 16 as the Bill left this House provided for the Act coming into effect 90 days after assent. The Senate have amended it to bring the Act into effect on the first of October next.
I see no substantial objection to any of the Senate amendments, and I therefore move that they be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 177, to amend the Judges' Act-Mr. Meighen.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice) f The Senate has made two amendments to, this Act. As both amendments have relation in a certain sense to revenue, and as on that account there might possibly be some doubt as to the propriety-I fancy not the constitutionality-of the amendments being made in the Senate, I might explain that they were made at my suggestion. It will be remembered that at the last moment an amendment was made in this House providing that the exemption as to taxes and deductions that had been provided for in the Judges' Act should not apply in the case of any judges whose salaries were not increased by the Bill. I had in mind at that time that the increases of salaries were $1,000, and did not have in mind that in the case of Prince Edward Island there were three increases, two of them only for $300, and the other for $500. In the case of the $300 increase I fear we shall be taking out more with the left hand than we put in with the right, because the whole income is to be taxable. Consequently, the amendment that was suggested and was adopted by the Senate was to limit the class of judges whose salaries are now being made taxable to those whose salaries are increased by this Act by more than $500.
The other amendment made by the Senate has the effect of restoring the allowance for divorce for the judges in divorce in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. As the Bill passed this House these allowances for judges in divorce were eliminated.
Special judges have been appointed known as judges in divorce in these two provinces only. The reason the Bill was introduced and allowed-so far as I was concerned-to pass in that form was that I anticipated the passage in this House of the Divorce Bill by which jurisdiction in
divorce would have been given to all Superior courts. Consequently, there was no reason why any special allowance should be made to any special judge for acting in divorce proceedings. But inasmuch as that Bill has not passed, there is no reason to justify the taking away of the salary that has always been paid to those judges for that work, because those judges alone have jurisdiction in divorce and do all the work in divorce as well as their share of the work of the higher court in other matters. Therefore the Senate restores the salary in each case to the judge of divorce in New Brunswick and the judge of divorce in Nova Scotia. The allowance to each is $500, just as in the past. The amendment makes the section read:
The first five lines of section 9 of said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor; ; and so on.
By repealing only the first five lines the divorce allowance remains in the old Act.
John Howard Sinclair: What does the judge in Nova Scotia get?


Arthur Meighen: In Nova Scotia I believe the judge is Mr. Justice Ritchie. He is not Chief Justice. He receives $7,000 with the allowance of $500. The same applies to Judge Crockett in New Brunswick.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is another anomaly which I had hoped the minister would observe. We did not touch the salaries .of the Superior judges in Ontario and Quebec. Now the judges of the other provinces are on the same footing with those, but we have the anomaly that the judge in Manitoba pays income tax on the whole of his salary and his confrere in Ontario pays nothing. That is an extraordinary condition.


Arthur Meighen: When the suggestion was first made it appealed to me to be of some force, though possibly not compelling force, but I was immediately answered by the member for Shelburne and Queens to the effect that we had already passed the income tax and made the -salary of the judge appointed from now on taxable, while his confrere sitting beside him was receiving a non-taxable salary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They should all be
taxed or not taxed.


Arthur Meighen: I thought there was as much force in the answer as in the objection and consequently I think it should stand at that. I move that the House con-

our in the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill.
Motion agreed to and amendments concurred in.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The amendment is as follows:
1.	Page 1, line 17,-After clause 1 insert the following as clause 1A:-
1A. Section fifty-seven of the said Act is hereby amended by adding thereto the following as subsection 5 :-
5. In all cases where, pursuant t0 any rules and regulations under subsection 2 of this section, a warehouse receipt for grain in store is issued by a [DOT] private elevator, the person to whom such warehouse receipt is issued, and all subsequent legal holders thereof, shall have good title to the grain therein described as fully and effectually as to the like effect as if such warehouse receipt had been issued by a terminal elevator under the provisions of this Act."
2.	Page 4, line 41.-Leave out the paragraph lettered "(e.)"
I have no objection to offer to this amendment, and move concurrence.
Motion agreed to and amendment concurred in.



NEWSPRINT CONTROL-POWERS OF COMMISSIONER.


[Stage Direction]
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 180, to provide for the completion, after the declaration of Peace, of work begun and the final determination of matters pending before the commissioner and controller of paper, and the paper control tribunal, or either of them, at the date of such declaration.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to call the attention of the minister again to the section of the War Measures Act that I read yesterday. I am clearly of the opinion that all the power the minister requires is in that section. I would like to know if he has consulted the Department of Justice about the matter, or if he thinks he requires more power than is contained in that section.


William Thomas White: I should apologize to my hon. friend for not having spoken with reference to that point which he raised 
when the resolution was in Committee. I looked up the War Measures Act and reached the same conclusion that he had come to, namely, that all powers necessary to complete the work of the commission were provided there. But that is not the opinion of counsel whom we have consulted, and it is thought advisable, in order to put it beyond all doubt, that this Bill should be passed. The Commissioner and Controller of Paper, Mr. Pringle, thinks it is desirable that this legislation should be enacted, and so do counsel for the Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company, which is immediately concerned. In the circumstances, after having given the matter careful consideration, we reached the conclusion that this Bill should be introduced and adopted by Parliament. I may say that prima facie I was precisely of the same view as that of my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon; Mr. Steele in the Chair.
On section 1-Powers of Commissioner and Controller of Paper:
William Thomas White: I have an amendment to suggest. The words "declaration of peace," while I think we all know precisely what they mean, are not as definite as they might be, to show the exact intention of the legislation. I consulted parliamentary counsel and he made the suggestion the the words "declaration of peace" at the end of the section be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The publication in the Canada Gazette of a proclamation by the Governor in Council declaring that the war which commenced on the fourth day of August, 1914, no longer exists.
Those are the words in the War Measures Act. No court would be likely to mistake what "declaration of peace" means. But it should be related to some war, and our counsel suggests that instead of the words "declaration of peace" those which I have read should be inserted. I have no objection, I would move that the words "declaration of peace" be struck out and the words I have just read be inserted in lieu thereof.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not like the expression "no longer exists." It does not strike me as being very good English. Would it not be better to say "determined and closed"?


William Thomas White: I am assimilating the language here to that of the ' War Measures Act, so that no doubt can possibly arise.

On section 2-powers of Paper Control Tribunal extended to determine all matters pending at publication of proclamation and subsequent appeals:


William Thomas White: I move:
That in line 20 the words " declaration ot peace " be struck out and that the following words be inserted " publication of said proclamation."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-powers to cease upon publication of proclamation except as above:
William Thomas White: I move that the words "declaration of peace" in the last line be struck out and that the words "publication of said proclamation" be inserted-in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: Shall I report the Bill?


Mr. ROWELL:: Yesterday, the hon.
leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) intimated, when the resolution upon which this Bill is founded was before the House, that a letter had been written by a member of the Government to the Paper Controller in which he had stated that he dared not investigate the newspapers. My hon. friend asked that the letter be produced. Yesterday I intimated that the matter would be dealt with when the Bill came up in Committee. I desire now to read the letter referred to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The letter would be
better understood if we had the Order in Council.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Orders in Council
have already been laid on the Table.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We do not know what they are. If the minister would read the part of the Order in Council authorizing an inquiry into the operations of the newspapers he would understand it better.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is none, and that is the reason why the statements made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) and repeated by the leader of the Opposition are incorrect. The Order in Council authorized the Controller to "conduct an inquiry into and concerning the manufacture, sale, price and supply of newsprint paper within the Dominion of Canada. I am now referring to the terms of the Order in Council before reading the letter. The other Order in Council was
that the Controller should "investigate the cost of production of pulp, book and halftone papers." The letter is as follows:
Ottawa, Feb. 26, 1918.
Dear Mr. Pringle,
Following up the conversation I had with you yesterday I brought the matters we discussed to the attention of Council and the view of Council.was that the manufacturers should continue to supply the publishers with paper on the terms of the Orders in Council pending a final fixing of the price.
In the former Orders in Council was there not provision that the manufacturers should continue to supply the publishers whom they had been accustomed to supply with newsprint? Does this provision remain in force and still govern or should there be supplementary provisions covering this point?
I was also authorized by Council to say that it was not the intention of Council in passing the recent Order to authorize an investigation into the newspaper business. The intention of Council was only to authorize the completion of the investigatio'n you already have in hand. If the terms of the Order in Council as drawn up might embarrass you in dealing with the matter it can be amended so as to put beyond question the intention of the Council.
Yours faithfully,
N. W. Rowell.
R. A. Pringle, Esq., K.C.,
Paper Controller,
Ottawa.
As I understood the Orders in Council, and as the Government understood them, they did not authorize, and never were intended to authorize, an investigation into the newspaper business. Therefore, in the letter I stated what the intention of Council was as expressed in the Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister (Mr. Rowell), if he will look at Hansard, will observe that when the matter was mentioned I did not take any responsibility for the statement that was made. I simply reminded the Minister of Finance that this statement was made, that it was serious if true, and that it ought to be inquired into. I did not take any responsibility for it. It was not necessary that I should do so, and I am not taking any responsibility now. Hansard will show exactly what I did say.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



HIGH COST OF LIVING.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order for Motions:
Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS (Strathcona) moved:: That the recommendations contained in the third and final report of the Special Committee,

appointed for the purpose of inquiring forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel, and other necessaries of life, etc., etc., presented to the House on Saturday, 5th day of July, 1919, be concurred in.


William Thomas White: I have looked over the report which is somewhat lengthy, but concurrence is asked only in the recommendations, which are as follows:
Your Committee, in accordance with the resolution passed by this House on the 30th day of May last, have engaged the services of accountants and necessary assistants in order to expedite the inquiry for which they were then appointed. Their accounts have been presented to the Committee, were found reasonable and were approved. Your Committee recommend that they be paid.
Your Committee, in submitting this report for the consideration of the House and the Government, also append hereto a copy of the evidence which has been printed from day to day for the use of the Committee, and do recommend that the remaining copies be bound under a paper cover for distribution to the members of the House, together with a table of contents to be prepared by the clerk of the Committee, also to contain the second and third reports presented to the House and the statements or records which have been ordered printed as an appendix to the evidence, given by the witnesses who submitted the said statements or records at the request of your Committee.
Your Committee also recommend that their reports, the evidence taken and the statements or records submitted in connection therewith, be also printed as an Appendix to the Journals of 1919, and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.


Mr. FIELDING:: I had not the pleasure of attending the later meetings of the Committee, and therefore have no knowledge of the report, hut I take it for granted that it is all right. If there is anything very wicked in it, I am not responsible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. ROWELL laid upon the table of the House the report of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police for the year ending 30th September, 1918, including the report of the Bathurst Inlet patrol, 1917-18.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government

Department of Indian
Affairs-To provide for one clerkship in First Division, subdivision B, at $2,200, $2,200.
['Resolved. That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1920, the sum of $162,527,610.91 he granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.\nResolution reported, and concurred in.\nSir THOMAS WHITE moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 181, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1920.']
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, when the Main Estimates for the Department of the Indian Affairs were up. I
TMr. Douglas.]
stated that on the Supplementary Estimates I would give the House a state-9 p.m. ment of the Greater Production Work on Indian farms in Western Canada which has been carried on since February 16, 1918, under the charge of Mr. W. M. Graham. Mr. Graham was commissioned in that month to undertake the task of speeding up the production of grain and cattle by the Indians in the three Prairie Provinces only, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. An appropriation of $300,000 was made to him for the purpose. I wish to give an account to the Bouse of what Mr. Graham has succeeded in doing with that appropriation. I can do so, I think, without taxing the patience of the House even at this very late and sensitive hour.
Mr. Graham's activities were in three spheres. First, came the establishment of what he terms Greater Production Farms.
Under that head he has so succeeded- and indeed, he just had one year to succeed in-that the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs is now the largest farmer in the Dominion. The Department of Indian Affairs has this year in crop of its own 30,448 acres of new land, all of which was broken last year with machinery owned by the department by men engaged by the department and under the charge of Mr. Graham. That land cost the country to break and make ready for crop an average price of $5.60 per acre,-and those who know anything about the breaking of land in Western Canada under present conditions will not make very much complaint as to what it cost the Dominion to break those 20,448 acres last year. I do not think there is any cost figure even in private enterprise in farming in Western Canada, last year at all events, that will bear competition with the figure Mr. Graham was able to reach.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does the minister call breaking? Ploughing, of course.


Arthur Meighen: It means turning over the soil for the first time and making it ready for crop.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am told it used to be $2 an acre in the old days.


Arthur Meighen: That is beyond the memory of living man.


Mr. J. F. REID:: Does that include breaking for preparation of crops, discing, etc.?


Arthur Meighen: It must, because the items are such that they would include that

operation. The cost of these operations "was $.337,573.36, the details being as follows:
Expenditures in connection with greater production operation to 31 May, 1919.
Machinery	$67,029.77
Vehicles and sundry equipment.. 2,053.49
Horses and harness	 10,191.65
Wages, engineers and teamsters, etc. 50,648.18
Oils and fuel	 38,533.13
Repairs, blacksmlthing, freight, etc. 16,859.92
Feed, hay and oats	 5,556.17
Sinking wells	 1,521.74
Buildings, granaries, etc	 25,155.75
Seed grain	 46,093.29
Live stock	 32,322.05
Fencing for pasture	 870.75
Pigs, feed, pasture, etc	 10,786.41
Fuel, light and water	 814.86
Telegrams and telephones	 863.02
Office salaries	 143.00
Office rent	 1,762.50
House rent	 823.14
Commissioner's allowances	 1,225.00
Office furniture	 401.10
Office expenses, postage, express,
stationery, travelling, etc	 1,234.07
Paid Indians for surrenders, and cost
of fencing for lessees	 22,684.37
Total	$337,573.36
Less refunds approximately	 27,573.36


Mr. CAHILL:: What were the refunds mentioned-the $27,000?


Arthur Meighen: I cannot tell the hon,
gentleman just what they arose from.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When we get agricultural implements in free and compete with other farmers, it is hardly fair. I suppose the refunds represent duty paid on farm implements.


Arthur Meighen: No, we did not refund anything. We paid the duty like men and never said a word about it, because we
found in actual practice that the proportion it bore to the real cost of farming was practically negligible, and we did not think it even worth while making a political fuss about. We saw that we were gaining 100 per cent more, in a day by efficiency than we would lose in a month by paying the duty.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose the Receiver General is the same receiver general for all the departments? You are taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into the other.


Arthur Meighen: The following statement shows the percentages of increase in the areas utilized on Indian reserves for cultivation and stock raising as a result of the greater prdduction campaign:
Indian Farming.
Areas .utilized.
Total acreage cropped by Indians
1918	50,173	acres.1917	40,285	"Increase	
9,888	"	or	24^%
Total acreage cultivated by Indians
1918	76,656
1917	57,385
		Increase..					
Total	acreage	estimated	to	be	cropped	by	
		Indians	in.				
"						1918			50,173
		Increase..					
Total	acreage	estimated	to	be	cropped	by	Indians	in.	. . 1919	66,483"	1917	4 0,2'85
Increase
26,198
or 33^%
or 32} %
or 6-5%
Cultivation by Individual Indians, by Lessees and on Greater Production Farms:
Total acreage estimated to be sown in 1919 is as follows: Acreage, fall and- spring plowing, by Indians.. 4-0,000 acres.
Broken by Indians, 1918	14,9715	"Summer-fallowed by Indians, 1918	11 ,',508	"Broken by Lessees, 1918	10,416	"Broken on Greater Production Farms	20,712	"
97,611
Total acreage cropped by Indians, 1913.. 50,173
Increase	47,438	" over 1918, or 941%Increase	57,3>2:6	" over 1917, or 142}%Estimated acreage of open land in reserves chewan	
Acreage utilized previous to 1918.
For Indian cattle, estimated	
For Indian horses, estimated	
Indian crops, 1917	
Indian breaking, 1917	
Indian summer-fallow	
Acreage utilized 1918.
For Indian cattle, estimated	
For Indian horses, estimated	
Indian crops, 1918	
Indian breaking, 1918	
Indian summer-fallow, 1918	
Leased for grazing	
Leased for farming	
Breaking on Greater Production farms
Percentage of Increase, Land utilized in 1918
Alberta, Manitoba and Saskat-	1,933,138 acres.
22-5,840 acres.
115,000	"
40,285	*'
4,697	"
1i2i, 407	398,225	"	20%
Leaving 1,534,913
2'2'5,840 acres. 115,000	"
50,17-3	"
14,975	"
11.50S	"
226,980	"
17,493	"
20,712	"	632,681	"	35}%
Leaving 1,250,457
over 1917	 712/5%
I

The following recapitulation shows the total number of cattle sold and used for beef in Saskatchewan and Alberta:
Number Steers sold.	Ave. Price	Cattle. Value Number. Received. Cows.	Ave. Value Price. Received.	Number Animals. Value, beefed.Alberta.. .. Saskatchewan.	.. 243 .. 590	$39,094.72 99 71,673.42 153	
$9,897.30 	
11,304.75	350 $21,984.70 no record.833	110,768.14 262	21,202.05	350 21,984.70Greater Production. File Hills. . .	. . . 3.29	$112.38	39,976.35 47	$90.67 4,261.60	Total animals	sold from beefed in not held.	Agencies Alberta	1,085 where sales	$131,970.19. 21,984.70	Greater	Production.	1,435 	
376	153,954.89 44,236.95	Grand Total	$193,191.84	
The figures may also be given as to the acreage of timber cut in each reserve, but I do not think I should delay the Committee by giving these figures now.
I now come to the third sphere of activity, namely, the obtaining of the consent of the Indian to utilize unused land on his reserve for leasing for farming and grazing purposes. We pay the Indians for these surrenders, and we release for farming and grazing purposes these lands so surrendered, under specified conditions. By these operations a very considerable profit, indeed, will accrue to the department. Just what is to be done with that profit-indeed, we hhve the profit already-is not finally determined. The surrenders are taken only temporarily, of course; only for use during the time of the greater production activity. By this arrangement the Indian is the better off by the amount we give him for the surrender; the Government is the better off by the profit it makes in .connection with the business, and the country is better off by the production that accrues as a result of that policy. I shall be able to give the House at the next session some account of the production that actually does accrue this year as a result of Mr. Graham's activity in this third sphere of his work; it will be greater, in my opinion, than was the case in either of the other two spheres. But I have gone far enough to show that no more successful enterprise has ever been launched in Canada, or, up to the present time at all events, no better managed enterprise. The results will be good from the point of view of returns from the money invested; they will be better still from the point of view of the good resulting to the Indian, who is taking more interest in his
[Mr. Meighen.l
work than he did and is keeping busy instead of idle. But the greatest value of all accrues so far as the nation is concerned in the tremendous increase that Mr. Graham has been able to secure in the actual product of the soil upon those Indian reserves in Western Canada.
I believe that I have delayed the committee as long as I should at this period of the session, but had the time been earlier I would have done the credit to a very able and very devoted public servant that he well deserves by a much more detailed account of his operations in greater Indian production.
Indians-Ontario and Quebec-relief, medical attendance and medicines; further amount required, $14,700.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Have we any treaty
Indians in these provinces?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I think they are treaty Indians. Part of this item, $5,000, is required for the establishment of a hospital and six beds at Fort St. George, the headquarters of the Anglican Mission on the east coast of James bay and Hudson bay, to serve partially the wants of 1,600 Indians and Eskimo. The department is having difficulty in discharging its duty with regard to these Indians and Eskimo. Ever since the great fire of thirty-five years ago, the effect of which was to drive the caribou away into the interior of Labrador and toward the Newfoundland end of the Labrador peninsula, the Indians have found it almost impossible to subsist; the habits they have had to follow to make a living have impaired their health and they have been dying rather rapidly. An item of $5,000 is to take care of a herd of reindeer which has been taken over from

the Grenfell Association. The idea is that we establish a reindeer herd of sufficient size on the east coast of Hudson bay that ultimately will enable the Eskimo and the Indians there to get back to their original mode of life. It is the only mode that enables them to indulge in those habits which they have indulged in through so"many generations and which are, consequently, so necessary for their health.


John Howard Sinclair: Will they be allowed to kill the reindeer?


Arthur Meighen: Not for some time, except very few. We hope to multiply the herd; we are succeeding to some extent, end we hope to bring some more in.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I very much sympathize vith the habits of the Indian and love to see him enjoy his native haunts, but it would appear to me that if the old habitation of the Indian has been burned up, if the place has been rendered uninhabitable for the Indian in his usual habits, some effort should be made to take him away from there and put him somewhere else where he would become a useful citizen and, perhaps, farmer, as the Indians appear to be in the West. The minister has told us that the Indians have increased their production as farmers by 35 or 40 per cent, and as regards those Eskimos and Indians away back in Quebec or in the back settlements of that far-away region, would it not be better in the interest of humanity and along the lines of humani-tarianism for the department to take them away from there and put them in some better place?


Arthur Meighen: These are mostly Eskimos and you cannot take them away from there. If you do, you might as well take them away to the cemetery at once. There are a few Indians, but they are not indigenous to any farming country. They have to live there as well.	*
Department of External Affairs, $8,750.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are these new appointments, and if so, have they passed through the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. KEEFER:: The $2,000 item will be a new appointment to provide for a linguists The permanent deputy required some one who was able to speak two or three languages.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope some of our hon. friends in the House will apply.
Miscellaneous-salaries and expenses of the Paris agency-further amount required, $7,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does this mean an increase in salary for Mr. Roy, Commissioner General of Canada at Paris, or is it for the expense of the office?


William Thomas White: Provision was made for some increase in salary to the commissioner, but not in this item.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the item for?


Francis Henry Keefer: The item is made up as follows:	.
Publicity	$3,000
Increase in proposed salary to the
secretary	 1,500
Increases to the staff, either by way
of promotion or bonus	   900
General increase in cost of supplies
and incidentals	 1,600
Total	 $7,00'0
Scientific institutions-Geodetic Survey of Canada-further amount required, $17,000.


Jacques Bureau: What is this for?


Arthur Meighen: This is for additional work in British Columbia in accordance with an agreement made with the British Columbia Government in connection with the boundary between that province and Alberta.
Administration of Justice-miscellaneous expenditure, $10,000.	"


Jacques Bureau: What does this cover?


Arthur Meighen: The services which are covered by this appropriation comprise the following: Cost of administration of justice in the Northwest Territories as now constituted, and in unorganized territory; expense incurred in connection with extradition cases, and cases of fugitive offenders from or to other parts of the Empire; expenses of commissions of inquiry; copies and translations of evidence required in dealing with applications for clemency; and sundry small expenses not otherwise provided for.
The expenditure in 1915-16 was $9,988.79, in 1916-17 $9,989.69, and in 1917-18 $ 9,905.34. My hon. friend will see it does not keep up with the increased cost of living The ordinary yearly expenditure is $10,000.
Contingencies and disbursements, salaries ot officers (sheriffs, etc.), books, magazines, etc., for Judges, not exceeding $300, $7,500.


Jacques Bureau: Are these books and magazines, law books and reports to which the judges subscribe, or is this item of $300 for notebooks for the judges?


Arthur Meighen: There appears to be an annual provision not exceeding $300 for books. The accountant tells me they are law books.

467U


Jacques Bureau: What about the Supreme Court Library? Why should this appropriation be made? Are the books for the judges' own private library?


Arthur Meighen: The accountant tells me this vote has been in the Estimates a great many years. I do not know just how these books are distinguished from those the judge buys for his own private library, but I would presume they are the property of the Crown and go to the Supreme Court Library.
Printing, binding and distributing Exchequei Court Reports, $1,000.


John Howard Sinclair: To whom are these reports distributed?


Arthur Meighen: The present contract
expires in November and this appropriation is needed to Carry on until another contract is made. The money may not be required, but on the other hand it may be. The reports go to all the Supreme and Superior Court judges.
Expenses under the Pecuniary Claims Convention with the United States (Revote), $5,000.


Charles Murphy: What stage has this convention reaohed?


Arthur Meighen: Nothing has been spent during the war, but now we may go ahead.
Cost of proceedings before the International Joint Commission, $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Early in the session I inquired as to the appointment of a commissioner to succeed Mr. Mignault who has been appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. A new commissioner has to be appointed. I understand that Mr. E. J. Bisaillon, K.C., has been offered the position by the Minister of Justice, but that the matter has been left in abeyance since. Has the Government come to any decision in the matter?


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister, I know, has given very considerable attention to the subject, and to use his own words, when he comes to a conclusion an announcement will be made in due course.
Further Supplementary Estimates 1919-20- Administration of Justice-Difference between military pay and salary of Mr. Justice Dennis-toun, from July 2, 1918, to March 29, 1919, $1,005.19.


Arthur Meighen: The explanation is this: Mr. Justice Dennistoun was appointed to the Benoh when he was Judge Advocate General residing in London, England, under the Overseas Ministry of Militia. Sir Edward Kemp was very anxious not to re-

lease him, so he stayed there. Then he returned to Canada and took up his duties, whereupon his salary commenced. Shortly after that his services became again imperatively necessary in England and he returned and was drawing only military pay. This amount represented the difference between his military and civil pay.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is he now?


Arthur Meighen: I think he is back in Winnipeg.
Pension to Miss Nellie Hopkinson, $720.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was Miss Nellie Hopkinson assisting the police, too?


Arthur Meighen: That is not in my department and I do not know anything about it. We shall let it stand.
Dominion Police-Further amount required, $15,500.


Jacques Bureau: This item was passed while I was out. What is this amount for?


Arthur Meighen: I think it is on account of increased force in different parts of the country. It is due to pay and expenses of one inspector, two sergeants and twelve constables required to guard magazines at George Island and Fort Clarence, Halifax, $24,800 less expenses of one sergeant and six constables withdrawn from Esquimalt, $11,300. We have taken over the guarding of the magazines in those islands.


Jacques Bureau: That does not cover increase or bonus to the general force?


Arthur Meighen: No, that will be taken care of under the Main Estimates, which show an increase over last year. There have been increases to Dominion police in the per diem -allowance.


Jacques Bureau: They were not paid a bonus the same as the civil servants?


Arthur Meighen: No, they are not civil servants in the regular sense.


Jacques Bureau: They are Government employees just the same. I understand they were offered an increase of a quarter a day and they refused.


Arthur Meighen: I did not know that they had refused an offer of twenty-five cents a day but I remember that after considering the matter I thought they should be allowed that, and I cannot understand why they refused it.


Jacques Bureau: The idea was that they were to get the bonus on the same basis as others who were in the employ of the Gov-

ernment, and this twenty-five cents a day did not amount to anything like the bonus paid to other employees, and that is why they refused it.


Arthur Meighen: I don't remember details sufficiently to speak in the House on the subject, but my impression is that they received on previous occasions increases on the same basis as the other employees in the various departments.


Jacques Bureau: Not bonuses.


Arthur Meighen: No, not bonuses; increases in pay, by reason of conditions. They did not have to follow the regular Civil Service routine and consequently could not claim a bonus on the same grounds as ordinary civil servants. They are entitled to fair treatment the same as other servants, but it is not done by way of bonus. I am very anxious to see the Dominion Police, who, to the best of my observation, are not only competent, but throughly devoted to the service of the State, get a fair remuneration.


Jacques Bureau: The men thought they would get a bonus which was given to other employees owing to special conditions, such, for instance, as the high cost of living. The increase was just the same as the civil servants, $50 per annum, minus the bonus. If there is a class of men who do good service and who are exposed to hardships, it is the police. They are always at war, so to speak.
Royal Northwest Mounted Police-To provide for one clerk in Third Division, subdivision B, at $700, $700.


William Stevens Fielding: This item is small in
itself, but it is important in conjunction with other matters. There is no objection to an item providing for one clerk in the Third Division but all through the list of the Supplementary Estimates provision is made for large additions to clerical staff. It has been repeatedly said in the House, apparently with good authority, that the Civil Service is overmanned, and we have a report made by a committee of the House representing that there is a considerable overmanning of the public service. Yet, we find again and again a number of extra clerks being provided for. We find in the office of the Governor General's secretary, two clerkships, in the Department of Justice, three clerkships; in the Department of the Secretary of State, six clerkships; in the Department of Immigration and Colonization, two clerkships; one clerkship in the Department of Indian Affairs; and in this item another one is
296J
mentioned. Then there are eight clerkships in the Department of Agriculture, and in the Department of Railways and Canals three clerkships; in the Department of Trade and Commerce, fourteen clerkships. The Department of Labour has no fewer than seventeen clerkships. I do not profess to have any knowledge as to the need in any particular case, but it is a curious fact that when we have a report to the effect that the Civil Service is overmanned scores of new clerks are being appointed.	*


Newton Wesley Rowell: With reference to this
particular item, the only one of which I have personal knowledge, we need this additional clerk and indeed we need more, owing to the increase of administrative work as a result of the increase in the Force. This clerkship may be filled by a civil servant in an existing department but we must have authority in the Mounted Police Department for the clerkship and for the money to pay the salary.


Jacques Bureau: You do not show a decrease in any other department to offset this?
Mr. ROWELL,: If there is a transfer from another department then the expenditure in the other department will not be made.
Mr. FIELDING There is nothing to show that these clerkships are to be transferred. I agree that you must get an appropriation for each particular department concerned, but I shall be agreeably surprised to find that these clerkships are filled by transfers. I am not alluding to this particular one, which is a small item, but throughout the list there are numerous additions to the Civil Service, while we have a report stating that the Civil Service is overmanned.


Newton Wesley Rowell: All these places must be filled by the Civil Service Commission. It is the view of the Government, communicated to the Civil Service Commission that where vacancies occur in any department they should be filled as far as possible by available persons from other departments without bringing in outside clerks. But the question as to where a clerk should come from is finally settled by the Civil Service Commission. The Government asked all the departments to furnish a list of clerks in their respective departments who could be dispensed with, and these lists were furnished the Civil Service Service Commission in order that they might, in filling positions where

vacancies occur, draw from the existing staffs rather than bring employees from the outside.


William Stevens Fielding: Take the case of the Department of Labour, which is to have 17 new clerks.	*


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I gave last evening the explanation of the increase in this department. I am sorry I have not my notes here to refer to.


William Stevens Fielding: That item is not under consideration, I admit.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My impression is that the work of the department has been considerably extended during the past two or three years, and it is desired to make permanent appointments to the positions which have been temporary.


Jacques Bureau: Has the department not been relieved by the transfer of the Statistical Branch to the Department of Trade and
Commerce?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, the Statistical Bureau was under the Department of Agriculture, and that has been removed to the Department of Trade and Commerce. There has been an increase in the clerkships in the Department of Trade and Commerce due to the fact that the Bureau of Statistics has been extending its operations and giving the public more diversified and extended statistical information. I think these clerks were all necessary. In connection with the Bureau of Statistics Branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, created two years ago, the work has been carried on by temporary provision and a vote this year has been taken to provide for permanent employments.


Jacques Bureau: Has not the branch of the Department of Labour, which had amongst its duties to ascertain the cost of living, been transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce? '


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the Statistical Bureau proposes to do most of the work for the Department of Railways and Canals hereafter.


Jacques Bureau: I am talking about what has been done.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would not like to say that the Statistical Bureau are doing that work now. I think they are doing some. The Department of Labour is not a department that is overmanned in any respect.


Jacques Bureau: I am not saying that, but I remember having heard the statement in the House last year or the year before last that the Department of Trade and Commerce was taking over the Statistical Branch and that part of the work done in the Department of Labour was being turned over to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not desire to criticise any particular department, but we have the main facts before us that the service is admittedly overmanned, and yet we are going to ut on a lot of new clerks. If we were given the assurance that these vacancies are going to be filled by transfers from branches which are overmanned, that would be a reasonable explanation; but I would advise my hon. friend not to give a guarantee as to that because the Government might have difficulty in living up to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it would be impudent to give the guarantee; but, notwithstanding, the advice of my hon. friend is well-founded. The statistical section of the Department of Railways and Canals is about to be closed and transferred to the statistical bureau of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Mr. McFall, who has been doing some work for the Department of Labour during the war, really belongs to the statistical bureau, and he will go back there. That is true of a great many other branches of the statistical work. I think there will be considerable diminution in the staff of the Customs by reason of the Department of Trade and Commerce taking over a good deal of the statistical work.


John Howard Sinclair: With the increase in the number of clerks, I am afraid we are not getting a corresponding increase in efficiency. I had occasion to ask for some statistics recently, and there was very little that I could get. I wanted to find out what was the total amount of the succession duties collected in the various provinces, and also the appraised value of the estates in those provinces. The statistical branch was not able to give me the appraised value of the estates in Canada from which succession duties have been collected. I thought that was a very poor showing by a branch which is supposed to collect statistics. The fact that we may want at some future time to levy taxation on estates indicates to my mind that this is a matter that might engage the attention of the statistical branch. There are no very com-

plete returns, as far as I could find out, to be got in that branch. It has been my experience when I asked for information to find that it was not available-not always, but very often. No one objects to proper support of the statistical branch, if we were assured that we would get the value for our money. In reference to the point raised by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) the growth in the number of officials is alarming, in so far as I can judge. I drew to the attention of the House the other night the fact t-ha't the cost of civil government has grown from something like $4,000,000 to $6,000,000 within the last few years. There ought to be some check put upon that. There are expenditures being made that are not remunerative and are therefore not justified. I could refer to some of them, for example, the Department of Public Information. We are absolutely wasting money, in my judgment, upon that department. I asked a question in the House not many days ago as to what it was costing and-would you believe it, Mr. Chairman-they are spending $7,400 a month on the Department of Public Information. That is $240 a day, or $10 an hour. While my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) is asleep, this expense is going on. If he slept eight hours last night, there was $80 of the people's money spent while he slept, and if he took another hour this morning to bath and say his prayers that would be $10 more.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I rise to a question of privilege; the House did not rise until two o'clock this morning, and I only had five hours sleep.


John Howard Sinclair: That may be, but I am making a plea for economy and I hope my warning will be listened to by the members of the Government.
Royal North West Mounted Police. Pay ol force, further amount required, $1,195,951.17.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It should be possible for those in charge of a department such as this to approximate more nearly what the needs of the force will be in the Main Estimates, and not come down within a few days of the close of the session with Supplementary Estimates of a million and a third dollars.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The explanation is very simple. Since the original Estimates were prepared, it has been decided to double the force from 1,200 to 2,500. This estimate is to provide for the additional expenditure involved in doubling the size of the force.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I assume the decision was arrived at after the Main Estimates were laid on the Table?


Newton Wesley Rowell: After they were prepared.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-Outside Service-$9,605,405.


Samuel William Jacobs: In connection with this
item I would like to say a word or two with regard to the department. For some time, as I understand it, the member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy) was Parliamentary Secretary for the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department, and after he had held the position for five or six months he resigned. Within the last few weeks another gentleman, who was at the head of the Medical Department, also resigned, giving pretty much the same reason as that given by the hon. member for Colchester. I would like to draw the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to one paragraph in the letter of resignation of Dr. McKelvey Bell. It reads as follows:
Under the circumstances, the retention of my present position as Director of Medical Services would he a tacit admission of concurrence in principles against which 1 have made the stronges possible protest. I have always felt that unless the organization of the department were placed upon a sound and economic basis, it could not continue to operate indefinitely or successfully.
I have not before me a copy of the letter which was sent to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Colchester when he resigned, but I understand that in that letter the hon. member stated that he had *been waiting for five or six months in order that his duties should be defined, and when he found no action was being taken upon his application he resigned. We have not had the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) or from the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mewburn), the minister responsible for that department, any explanation as to the causes which led to these resignations; that is to say, what the department have to state concerning the matter. I think it is time now that this item is before the committee to hear from the Government something concerning this matter, which is of vital interest to the entire country. May I say that in an editorial published in the Montreal Gazette,-a journal which I understand is not inimical to the Government -the following occurs:

In his letter of resignation, Eieut.-Col. F. McKelvey Bell, Director of Medical Services for the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establish- ment, criticizes the conduct of what has become an important branch of the public service. His views on medical organization have been, he states, at variance with the system established under the late Military Hospitals Commission, and which, or much of it, was continued in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. Although the department is concerned only with sick and disabled soldiers, the medical service has been made secondary to almost every other branch of the organization " and has become merely one cog in an unwieldy machine." For this state of affairs Ool. Bell is not disposed to assume any personal responsibility. On the contrary, he states that recommendations made by him, looking to greater degree of unity and increased efficiency, have been disregarded or given only cursory consideration. He charges a lack of sympathy and understanding of medical requirements and even " antagonism to the profession generally," and finding his position an impossible one, he takes what, if his criticisms are well-founded, is the only course left open to him; he resigns.
A little later in that editorial-I do not intend to read it all-occurs the following:
The tenor of Col. Bell's letter of resignation is curiously similar to that in which Mr. F. B. McCurdy resigned as Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment last September. Read together the two communications create an impression that is disturbing. (Mr. McCurdy complained that his duties had never been defined, although a period of nearly seven months had elapsed', and that for many months no meeting of the Hospitals Commission had been held. He was unwilling to accept responsibility where he could exercise no authority, and he resigned.
Now, I understand with regard to this Soldiers' 'Civil Re-Establishment Department that something like fourteen hundred officials have been employed without the concurrence of the Civil Service Commission. I should like to know from tbs' minister if those are the facts, and, generally, we should like to have from him some further details respecting the matters which I have brought before the committee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In reference to the last statement of my hon. friend, that some fourteen hundred officials had been appointed without the concurrence of the Civil Service Commission, I am informed there is no foundation for it. The officials of the Department of Soldiers Civil ReEstablishment are appointed by
10 p.m. the Civil Service Commission the same as in the other Departments of the Government according to my information. With respect to the other matter mentioned, the resignation of Dr. McKelvey Bell, the Prime Minister himself laid the correspondence upon the Table and is looking into it. I have no personal knowl-
4Mr. Jacobs.]
edge of the matter. But, speaking generally with reference to the work of the Department, my hon. friend will realize, and the members of the Committee will realize, that the work of this Department is something entirely new-it is breaking new -ground in all sections of Canada and undertaking a very difficult piece of work.
Officers interested in similar work in Great Britain, France, and the United States representing the governments of these countries have all recognized the excellent manner in which the work has been planned in Canada and the results which are being secured. Representatives from Great Britain, France, and the United States have visited Canada with a view to inspecting the -work now being carried on under this Department, and these representatives have, quite in an unsolicited way, written to the officers of the department bearing testimony to the very efficient character of the work. I submit that such testimony is evidence that so far as our work is concerned, compared with that carried on in other countries, we are doing exceedingly well.


Samuel William Jacobs: Had they read Mr. McCurdy's letter at that time?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know if they had had the advantage of reading that letter.


Samuel William Jacobs: Or Dr. Bell's?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They may not have had the advantage of reading Dr. Bell's letter either. But they did have the advantage of seeing the work carried on, and that was their testimony. It is a tremendous task, as my hon. friend will realize, and it would be surprising if some mistakes were not made in developing a new type of work all over the country where large staffs must be employed; but, as I say, the testimony from independent sources is that the work is highly satisfactory and the results secured, according to the information furnished me, indicate that the work is efficient, and that the men who have secured positions after leaving the retraining establishments of the department have proved efficient in the industries they have entered.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. minister states that the fourteen hundred officials to whom I have referred were appointed through the Civil Service Commission. I am instructed that those officials were appointed first by the department, and approval was sought from the Civil Service Commission

afterwards. I would like to know if that is a fact or not.
Mr-. ROWELL: What I understand is that so far as the headquarters of the department is concerned and the staff here, they have all been appointed through the Civil Service Commission, as I intimated to my hon. friend. Ini carrying on the work of the department when the Civil Service Commission did not have an eligible list, the department did select certain men and submit their names to the Civil Service Commission for approval.


Samuel William Jacobs: After they had been named and appointed?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know that it was after they had been appointed.


Samuel William Jacobs: After they had started their duties?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In cases where the department needed certain staff in the outlying districts, they did, because the Civil Service Commission did not have an eligible list of men available for the particular type of work to be carried on, hunt up persons whom they believed to be suitable, and submitted the names to the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission approved those names.


Samuel William Jacobs: How long after they had entered upon their duties?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I understand that the
names would be immediately submitted to the Civil Service Commission. My hon. friend will see that this work is of an emergent character. This department must be in a position to deal promptly and efficiently with men who come to them for treatment, as do thousands after their discharge from the army. If a man is suffering from some incurable disease or from an injury from which early recovery is not expected, he is discharged from the service and is passed on to the Department of Soldiers1 Civil Re-Establishment, which, in addition to carrying on the work of retraining, deals with all incurable and tuberculous cases. The department must have staffs at all the outlying centres in order to deal with the men who are sent to them for their care, and they must secure such officials as they require for that purpose. I understand that these are the conditions under which these officials were secured.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister will not deny the statement I make that 1,400 officials were employed and that the approval of the Civil Service Commission was not
sought until some considerable time after these men had entered upon their duties.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; that is not my understanding of the situation. I have already explained my understanding of it, and it is of record on Hansard.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that there are three medical departments working concurrently, and in many cases overlapping. One department is under the Charge of the Canadian Army Medical Corps, of the Militia Department. Then there is the department over which Colonel McKelvey Bell presided; and the cause of his resignation was that the department sought to appoint an executive in connection with medical work who would not be responsible to Colonel Bell. I would like to know whether that is the fact and what the minister has to say respecting it. N Mr. ROWELL: My hon. fiiend is again in error in his presentation of the situation so far as he refers to overlapping. The work of the Army Medical Service, under the Department of Militia, is entirely distinct from the work carried on by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. The Army Medical Service deals with the man so long as he is a soldier and deals with hospitals in which soldiers only are treated. But if a man requires further treatment after his discharge he comes' under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, and as the Department of Militia and Defence ceases to require particular hospitals for the treatment of soldiers, these hospitals are transferred to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. There is no overlapping in the work; one staff looks after one set of hospitals and another staff looks after the other. There are not two separate services; the Army Medical Corps looks after soldiers; the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department looks after men who, after their discharge, require further treatment.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that one of the reasons for Colonel Bell's resignation was that the department was seeking to estaulish in the department an entirely new medical service, not to be responsible to Colonel Bell, but to work independently of him.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My information is that Colenel Bell is incorrect in making that statement; that the department did not want to establish an entirely separate branch. They wanted to keep it all in one branch.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister admits that there are two departments treating the soldiers medically, does he not?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I do not. There is one department treating soldiers; there is another department treating men after their discharge.


John Howard Sinclair: They are soldiers. Mr. ROWELL: Not after discharge.


John Howard Sinclair: Why should we have two departments dealing with the same thing?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because one deals with the man as a soldier; the other deals with him after discharge. After he is discharged from the army he is no longer a soldier, and the Department of Militia has nothing further to do with him.


Samuel William Jacobs: How many returned soldiers are included among the 1,400 officials that I mentioned this evening?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I gave that information on the Main Estimates. Referring to Hansard of May 23, I find that the figures I gave were as follows: Of the employees in the department, 37.8 per cent are females in clerical positions which are not sought by returned soldiers. Of the remainder, 34.8 per cent have seen service in France; 4.7 per cent have seen service in England;
4.2	per cent have seen service in Canada;
2.2	per cent had been rejected or exempted; 6.6 per cent were over age or under age, and only 6.4 per cent were male employees who had not seen service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If I remember correctly, the press stated that before he resigned Colonel McKelvey Bell demanded of the Government a salary of $10,000 and that the Government refused to accede to that request. Is there any truth in that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am informed that in
the correspondence which the Prime Minister laid before the House jvas a letter from the minister of the department in which that fact was set forth.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the minister aware that in answer to that charge, Colbnel Bell said: "It is a clever misrepresentation of the facts?" I may say just here that it is rather significant that the member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy), although he has been in this House for the last five months, has never seen fit to take up the question of his resignation and to air it in the House.
Is that because some official chloroform has 
been administered, to him or what is the reason?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy) is very well able to look after himself without the assistance of my hon. friend.


Samuel William Jacobs: The fact that he is able to look after himself and is not doing so is, to my mind, a little significant.


Mr. McCURDY:: I was under the impression that the public generally had a clear enough comprehension of the reasons that impelled my resignation, and I have had no intention of referring further to the matter. But the way my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) puts it, I must assure him there is no reason for silence on my part. No one has ever suggested any curtailment of expression. As the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) may not be aware, but as I am sure hon. members of the House generally are aware, shortly after my resignation as Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment was accepted, I was interviewed by a press representative and expressed in a general way the reasons for my retirement. At that time I stated it was "inaction." If I must be more specific at the present time, I perhaps had better read the official correspondence which passed,, part of which was talked of earlier in the session. The correspondence opens in September, 1918, by this letter which I wrote to the Prime Minister:
Ottawa, September 17, 1918. The Right Honourable,
Sir Robert Borden, P.C., M.P.,
Prime 'Minister,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir Robert:
On February 21st I read an official Ottawa news despatch in the Montreal Star stating that on that day a department of soldiers' civil
re-establishment had been created with	
	and F. B. McCurdy as Parliamentary
Secretary.	.
On the following day I called on you and Sir James Lougheed and learned that the report was correct, and that it had been decided that I should succeed Sir James as Chairman of the Military Hospitals' Commission operating under the name of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission.
On the following Monday I was furnished with a copy of P.C. 532 creating the Department of
Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment with	
and a Parliamentary Secretary " who shall have and perform such powers and duties as the Governor General in Council may from time to time prescribe."
No definition of these powers and duties was ever prescribed at that time or since, and in absence of such I of course then assumed that so far as office or executive activities between Sessions of Parliament were concerned I should carry on as Chairman of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission.

On March 1st, Honourable J. S. McLennan, Chairman, Executive Committee, Military Hospitals Commission, wrote the commissioners enclosing copies of recent Orders in Council, and advised them that a meeting of the commission would shortly be called. This has not yet been done. In fact, no meeting of the Military Hospitals Commission has yet been held since November 16th, 1917.
Having failed to have a definite line of policy outlined in so far as it affects my field of activity in this department, I on August 9th made a formal request of the minister (see copy of letter attached) that the secretary be instructed to call a meeting of the commissioners at an early date, but no action ensued. Under these circumstances I have had an idle summer, and in the war period when it has been the natural wish of every one to be unusually busy, the department has absorbed my time, but not my energies, for there has, under the circumstances, been nothing to do.
If a period from February 23rd to date (nearly seven months) has not sufficed for the Government to define the duties of a Parliamentary Secretary of this very important department, or determine whether the Invalided Soldiers' Commission as a body is to live or die, it augurs badly for a prompt and effective treatment at the Government's hands of the great problems that this department must face. .
If the Government had all eternity to work out its after the war soldiers' problems and to discharge the country's obligations to its gallant defenders it would not matter, but a policy of drift, inaction and delay is particularly inept here.
I have given freely and gladly of my time and energies in connection with the Government's operations, as a Member of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence, and in this department, but I am unwilling to risk my standing and reputation, in being attached to an undertaking whose duties and responsibilities are so lightly regarded.
I therefore tender my resignation as Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers* Civil Re-Establishment and Chairman of the so-called "Invalided Soldiers' Commission."
The letter to Sir James Lougheed which was attached to the letter which I have just read reads:
Ottawa, August 9, 1918.
Sir James Lougheed.
Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, Ottawa.
Dear Sir James:
The evident intention at the time of its authorization was that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment should take under its wing the various activities connected with returned soldier problems, and the public will probably expect the department, where it does not already possess the power, to move towards securing control over existing agencies and such extensions as time and experience demonstrate are necessary. In short, the returned soldier problem is on the department.
I have been anxious for some time past that a meeting of the Military Hospitals' Commission Commissioners should be called, at which you would formally advise them of the changes made and indicate in a general way what the future policy of the commission would be. I believe an intimation was conveyed to the commissioners by a member of their executive shortly after the name was changed to the effect that a meeting would be held at an early date. The secretary has, however, not yet sent out a notice.
As soon as you have acquainted them with the changes, the way would be clear for me to assume the duties of Chairman of the Commission. After full consideration I came to the conclusion that the best method of procedure is that the services formerly carried on by the Military Hospitals Commission should be continued through the medium of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission.	There would be no
change whatsoever in the personnel of the commission, but at their first meeting under the name of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission they should pass a resolution putting all executive power out of their hands.
Inasmuch as the Government, through the department, would be directly responsible to Parliament and the country for the Invalided Soldiers'	Commission expenditure it must
through its nominees exercise executive direction, but the commissioners with their interest in returned soldiers could by observation arid advice render excellent public service in an advisory capacity, which they would doubtless be glad to do.
I would therefore ask, if you concur, that the secretary be instructed to call a meeting of the commissioners at an early date.
Under date of November 7, Sir Robert Borden wrote me as follows:
Ottawa, Ont., November 7, 1918. F. B. McCurdy, Esq.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. McCurdy:
Since you conveyed to me, in the latter part of September last, your desire to be relieved of your duty as Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with you on two or three occasions when I expressed the desire and hope that you would reconsider your proposal and continue your duties as Parliamentary Secretary. It is with much regret that I learned finally your decision to retire, and it is only just that I should express to you my appreciation of the patriotic devotion and high sense of duty, as well as the conspicuous ability with which you have carried on your work in the Department of Militia and Defence, and in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. In retiring from the position which you have held during the past seven months you take with you the best wishes of all the members of the Government, who are fully conscious, as I am, of your fine service and the patriotic purpose which alone animated it.
Believe me,
Tours' faithfully,
R. L. Borden.
The matter of my resignation was, I take it, referred to by the Minister of the Department of. Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment for his comments, because among the papers-


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. member has not, read the reply to the letter of August 9,

to Sir James Lougheed, or was there a reply?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I stated in my letter of September 17, to the Prime Minister that no reply had been received.


Samuel William Jacobs: As yet?
Mr. MoCURDY: None, up to that date, and, of course, none since. And I advised the Prime Minister no action had been taken.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the hon. member say that he wrote a letter of resignation to the minister under whom he served, and that there was never 'any reply to it?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If the hon. gentleman will hear the rest of the correspondence-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not pressing for the letter. I am simply asking whether a reply was received acknowledging his letter of resignation, and if so, what was the reply?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The leader of the Opposition will realize that the position of Parliamentary Secretary is not that of secretary to a minister but Parliamentary Secretary to a department. Consequently, the appointment is made by Order in Council and the resignation when made is not addressed to the minister.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the Parliamentary Secretary is in the department, and, I take it, he is subordinate to the minister of that department.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, he is; but the letter of resignation properly goes to the Prime Minister.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has a reply been received from Sir James Lougheed?
Mr. MoCURDY: No. I stated in my letter to the Prime Minister that I had received no reply to my letter to Sir James Lougheed, dated August 9th, and that no action was taken upon it. I learned by a return which was laid on the table of the House that Sir James Lougheed wrote to the Prime Minister, under date of November 15, 1918, as follows:
My -dear Sir Robert,
Answering the letter of your secretary, dated 6th November, 1918, touching Mr. McCurdy's resignation as Parliamentary Secretary of this department (dated September 17th) I beg to say that this Is the first intimation I have had of his resignation being based upon the reasons mentioned in his letter.
Although I was almost daily in communication with him, and though I knew he .was not in accord with the policy of the Government

on certain questions, yet he never suggested that there was any difference between us upon whiich he contemplated basing his resignation. He did suggest to me, in August last, that a meeting should be called of the Military Hospital Commissioners. His suggestion did not appeal to me inasmuch as my view was that such a meeting should be postponed, pending further consideration being given to the constitution of the commission both as to number of members and duties. This view was based on the following:
When the commission was organized in the summer of 1915, it was proposed to be limited to a commission of six (6) members: Through pressure being brought to bear upon the Government, it was finally increased to twenty odd. As the commission was administrative, this large number rendered it unwieldy in the transaction of its business duties.
On the 31st March last, the Government yielded to the persistent demand of the Department of Militia and Defence for the control of the commission's institutions and forty-one institutions operated by the commission for the care and treatment of convalescent soldiers, representing 12,359 beds, were handed over to the Militia Department. This was owing to the strong pressure brought to bear upon the Government by . the Canadian Army Medical Corps (a branch of the Militia Department), which contended that this was peculiarly work that should be placed under their charge. It will thus be seen that almost the entire work for which the commission was organized and administered was transferred to the Medical Branch of the Militia Department, thus relieving the commission of the duties for which it had been chiefly created.
The Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment was then created for the purpose of carrying on a work largely distinct from that for which the commission had been originally organized.
I have pointed out to Mr. McCurdy that in view of a new department having been created, and the work of the commission have almost entirely passed over to the Militia Department, our first duty would be to complete the organization of the various duties with which the department had been charged before taking action as to the calling together of the commission. I pointed out that under the Order in Council the commission had large administrative powers and that it would be an anomaly to have a commission and a department both exercising administrative powers within the same sphere of action. Manifestly it was necessary that the first consideration was the working out of the departmental organization, so that there would be no overlapping of duties between the two bodies.
I further suggested that as practically all of the members of the commission had forwarded their resignations some time previously, in my judgment, it would be undesirable to take any step toward calling the commission together until we had clearly determined upon what the relation of the commission and the department should be to each other.
As I had been chairman of the commission from its organization in 1915 down to March, 1918, I was in a position to know that the situation had so changed as to render it undesirable to have a commission of twenty odd fnembers attached to a department until there was a clearly defined sphere in which it could

act without coming into conflict with the administration of the department.
Furthermore, there was nothing which a commission could then do and had the commission been called together they would naturally have required to he charged with duties and responsibilities. Their former duties and responsibilities had practically passed over to the Militia Department and up to that time, I was unaware of any defined sphere of work that could be assigned to a commission. Mr. McCurdy had no suggestion to make of any active work or duties in which they could engage, and the calling together of the commission would not have furnished him with any additional employment that could have been of value. By Order in Council, he was appointed chairman of the commission and had he pronounced views upon the subject, there was nothing to have stood in his way, as chairman, in calling together the commission. I, of course, recognized his courtesy in discussing with me the whole subject and though I did not agree with his suggestion, this would not necessarily have stood in the way of his exercising his right, as chairman, to call together the commission.
Ais to Mr. McCurdy's complaint that there was no definite line of policy outlined as to a field of activity for him in the department- this, I may say, was not in my power to define. If the Order in Council did not define his duties, it would have been rather presumptuous for me to suggest to him what clearly would not have been within my authority.
During the time Mr. McCurdy was in the department, I was under the impression that he and his staff were kept busy. They seemed to be so engaged during that period and I regret very much if, owing to my views having differed from his upon the subject of the commission, the Government has been deprived of that work of activity which Mr. McCurdy complains he had not been given an opportunity to enter upon.
In conclusion I may say that during his connection with the department, the personal relations between us were of the most pleasant character, and therefore. I the more regret that we should have parted company for any reasons that may have led to his resignation.
Believe me,
Yours faithfully, James A. Dougheed. The lit. Hon. Sir Robert Borden, P.C., G.C.M.G, Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
On perusing a copy of that letter I, of course, at once wrote to the Priime Minister. On March 19, 1919, I wrote as follows:
Dear Sir Robert:
Under date of 4th instant I have received from your Secretary a copy of the letter of Sir James Dougheed of l'5th November last with regard to my resignation as Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment and Chairman of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission.
Where Sir James states, "he did suggest to me in August last that a meeting should be called of the Military Hospital Commission Commissioners," I assume he refers to my letter to him of August 9th, 1918 (a copy of which 1
sent you) but I feel that in fairness to me he should have been more explicit and stated that he had received my letter of August 9 th and that it only reiterated many similar requests made verbally and continuously from the time of my appointment.
In stating that I might have called the Commissioners together it is possible that iSir James overlooked P.C. No. 446 passed subsequently to my appointment as Chairman, which Order in Council reads,-
" The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister advise that the invalided . Soldiers' Commission be under the direction and control of the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment."
But apart from the necessity of my having the minister's authority to really operate as Chairman, I would regard it as only courteous to him to have his consent to oali the commissioners together under the changed conditions; besides it was obviously a courtesy due the Commissioners who had made many sacrifices to do public service, that he should meet with them and, as retiring chairman, explain the matters detailed in his letter to you, and genera ally to confer and collaborate with them in the new circumstances touching the affairs and welfare of returned soldiers in which they had so long been mutually interested. I should have thought that an explanation of the necessity of the changes was due to those public spirited citizens and the delay in that regard on the part of Sir James and his department was, in my view, most embarrassing, unfair and unbusinesslike. Personally, I did not realize until perusing the letter above referred to that I was being appointed as chairman of a defunct commission: it was certainly not complimentary to me, and I am confident that you would not be a party to such a proposal; but as to his own appreciation of the circumstances, I should have preferred his frank avowal at a much earlier date.
I do not think I need say anything further regarding my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary beyond referring to the Order in Council creating the office, P.C. 432, wherein it is stated that the Parliamentary Secretary " shall have and perform such powers and duties as the Governor General in Council may from time to time prescribe."
When appointed Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence, my duties were specifically defined and, frankly, I must state that I looked to the Government and the minister charged with responsibility for conducting the Department to define such duties as I might be able to discharge, that in assum- ' ing activities I might not be subject to the challenge of any subordinate members of the staff. No one could be expected to direct effectively without authority.
In this connection I received a communication from Hon. J. S. McLennan under date of 17th Deoember to which under date of 2nd January I replied, and I enclose herein copies of these letters.
Sir James' very apparent innuendo that in assigning causes for my retirement I lacked candour is certainly unwarranted, and is quite foreign to his usually generous disposition. You, at any rate, know that where I have had suggestions which I thought would make for improvement of public policy I have not hesitated to advise you.

After my resignation was accepted I wrote the Military Hospitals' Commissioners, explaining what I had done and why I had been compelled to take action.
December 9th, 1918.
To all Military Hospital
Commission Commissioners,
Dear Mr. On February 21st last I read an official Ottawa news despatch in the Montreal Star stating that on that day a Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment had been created
	" and F. B. McCurdy as Parlia-.
mentary Secretary
On the following day I called on the Prime Minister and Sir James Lougheed and learned that the report was correct, and that it had also been decided that I should succeed Sir James as Chairman of the Military Hospitals Commission operating under the new name of the " Invalided Soldiers' Commission This was duly embodied in an Order in Council.
On the following Monday I was furnished with a copy of P.C. 432 creating the Department of Soldiers' -Civil Re-Establishment and providing for the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary " who shall have and perform such powers and duties as the Governor General in Council may from time to time prescribe ". But up to the present, so far as I am aware, no duties and powers have been defined.
A later Order in Council was passed placing the direction and responsibility for the operation of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission upon the Minister. With its passage, naturally the newly appointed Chairman could only proceed with the consent and approval of the Minister.
Inasmuch as the organization established by the Military Hospitals Commission was, in some form or other, to be taken over as a going concern by the new Department, I at once requested the Minister to authorize the Secretary to call a meeting of the Military Hospitals Commission Commissioners at which the Minister would outline the reasons for the creation of the Department and state along what lines it was desiraJble to operate and intimate in what capacity, if any, the Commissioners would be asked to carry on.
To me that appeared to be the first thing to be done and out of courtesy, if for no other reason, it seemed to me that the Commissioners should be at once called together. My own position was uncertain and undefined, and the Commissioners' status was equally anomalous until further considered and determined. I had been appointed Chairman by Order in Council * and I naturally desired to know the Commission and its functions as well as my own.
In March I was unofficially advised that a member of the Executive Committee of the Military Hospitals Commission had communicated to all the Commissioners that such a meeting would shortly be held, and it has no doubt been unsatisfactory to all concerned that nothing further ever came of the suggestion.
Whatever the merits of the organization and work of the Military Hospitals Commission have been, it must be recognized that the Commissioners had freely given of their time and energy and were doubtless anxious to promote the best interest of that branch of the public service. The problems of the Department and the Civil Re-Establishment of returning men were great and required profound consideration, study and treatment. And, apart from the 
necessity of first determining the Commission's own status and functions, I should have welcomed an exchange of views and the fullest collaboration in regard to all these matters at once, and long before the advent of Peace, when the larger numbers would be returning to Canada.
I had repeatedly requested the Minister to cause the Commission to be convened and as nothing was being done to that end, I formally wrote him on the 9th of August requesting that a meeting be called, but still no action ensued.
As this method of dealing with important urgent matters was foreign to all my previous business training and experience, and no action having been taken in response to my request, I forwarded my resigation to the Prime Minister on September 17th. It was accepted on November 7th.
Yours sincerely,
F. B. McCurdy.
December 9th, 1918.
Sir James Lougheed,
Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir James:
As I have been given some publicity as Chairman of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission and have received an enquiry from one of the Commissioners as to the reasons for my withdrawal, I have decided to write all of them whose addresses I can recollect. While doing so, I desire to furnish you with a copy of my letter to them, which you will, find enclosed.
Yours sincerely,
Senator McLennan's letter to me, just referred to in my letter of March -, 1919, to the Prime Minister, was the only communication received from any Military Hospitals commissioner that did not approve of my action. As it, inferentially, possibly questions that action, I shall read it:
Dear Mr. McCurdy,-
X have read with attention your statement of the course of events during the past summer, a considerable part of which time I was, as you know, absent from Ottawa.
I agree with you that as regards the Military Hospitals Commission and its successor, the course of events has not been satisfactory to the Commissioners.
I feel, however, that X should point out that you have taken a view different from mine as to the relative importance of deflning the status of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission as compared with the getting into operation the Department of Soldiers' CiviJ Ke-Efetablish-ment. This Department has wider functions than those of the Commission and it was more important to organize it than to deal* with the Commission. Its importance has been emphasized by the termination of hostilities, and the subsequent return of our troops sooner than could then have been anticipated. This view is confirmed by the fact that as Parliamentary Secretary of the Department it was within the scope, as ordinarily defined, for you to deal with all these problems from the standpoint of that office as effectively as from the standpoint of Chairman of the Com-misssion.
The care of the invalided men was being carried on during this period of transition with an organization and on principles es-

tablished by the Commission. I have been familiar from the beginning with the work of the commission, and without claiming that that work was perfect, my attendance at the Interallied Conference where I met representatives of the Allied Powers, dealing with this question, and after a careful examination of the principal centres where this work was being carried on in Great Britain lead me to believe that the principles which we adopted in the beginning were absolutely sound, and that the success attained in carrying them out compares favourably with that attained by other countries. I found also that the course taken by Canada in the formation of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and of giving to the Army Medical Corps the charge of all active treatment hospitals, was in conformity with the views of most European experts, and which as I now view the Canadian problem were steps in the right direction for us.
J. S. McLennan.
F. B. McCurdy, Esq., M.P.,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
To Senator McLennan I replied:
Ottawa, January 2, 1919. Hon. J. S. McLennan,
Invalided Soldiers' Commission,
Ottawa.
Dear Senator:-
I have your letter of 17th ultimo, forwarded to me from Halifax, and I am pleased to know that "as regards the Military Hospitals Commission and its successor, the course of events has not been satisfactory to the commissioners." I should not care to make any comparisons as to the relative importance of defining the status of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission and the getting into operation of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. My view is and always has been, and I think from a business standpoint it is quite sufficient, that both should have been established without delay. There surely can be no reason why they should not have simultaneously been organized effectively if those in full authority had so desired.
I must confess that I can hardly appreciate the reference contained in the third paragraph of your letter wherein you state,-
"This view is confirmed by the fact that as Parliamentary Secretary of the department it was within the scope, as ordinarily defined, for you to deal with these problems."
I cannot understand what is meant by "ordinarily defined." For my own part, I do not know what the term Parliamentary Secretary does mean unless it is specifically defined, and that officer is in fact impotent until there has been explicit definition of his duties, status and authority. In business operations I have aimed to be definite and, so far as I have been able, to deal promptly and effectively with business as it arises. Take the simplest illustration : In every corporation, society and organization the powers and duties of the president, secretary, treasurer and other officers are specifically stated in the constitution or by-laws, and it goes without saying that the more abstract and indefinite term of Parliamentary Secretary calls more loudly for definition inasmuch as it is dealing with public, not private business.
For your information I may say that when I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence my duties were definitely outlined at the time. And you are no doubt aware that when I was appointed Par-limentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment I naturally expected that my duties would be similarly determined, but on the contrary, according to P.C. 432 creating the department, they were restricted to "such powers and duties as the Governor General in Council may from time to time prescribe" and as no powers and duties were prescribed I was certainly left suspended in the air. So that your remark as above stated is without force because manifestly it is absurd to talk of overriding the Order in Council without which it would be impossible to function. Any other position would leave one open to attack by any subordinate, apart from considerations of propriety and constituted authority for his actions.
And with regard to the Invalided Soldiers' Commission, I may again remind you that when I was appointed as its chairman a further Order in Council was passed placing the commission under the direction and control of the minister. In the above circumstances, it could hardly be expected that any official, however anxious to perform public service with effectiveness or proceed with departmental work, could do so until both the Government and the minister of the department had taken fur-tner action, the former in defining the powers and duties of Parliamentary Secretary, and the latter in calling together his colleagues of the former commission and determining the 9tatus of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission. Nothing was done by either in the premises, and in the delay I, perforce, retired.
I feel assured that you will agree with me that I could not deal with problems over which I had no control, and in which I had, in effect, no status, until further action a6 indicated above had been taken by the authorities who alone could empower me to act, but who delayed and delayed and delayed.
Yours sincerely,
F. B. McCurdy. '
I have nothing to add to the correspondence. I trust that what I have said will be deemed sufficient.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before we leave this item I would direct the attention of the ministers to the discussion which, the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) will remember, took place in the early part of the session, and if there is to be a reconstruction of the Cabinet, as we hear, I trust that those who remain in it will bear in mind that we have been urging upon the Government that there should be fewer departments controlled by members of the Senate. This important discussion to-night, and the interesting disclosures made by the hon. member for Colchester, all goes to show that the minister ought to be here to -answer for his conduct of a very important department. It is

hardly fair to expect that the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) can take the responsibility for all these things, and be able to answer for them. In these last hours of the session, speaking for the Opposition, I again urge the idea that in this democratic country the departments of Government should be represented by their official heads in this House and not by hon. gentlemen who are in another Chamber and who, however estimable they may be, are apart from us and not as amenable to the will and the wish of the people as representatives in this House.
Quarantine-Salaries and contingencies ot organized' districts ; public health in other districts ; Tracadie and D'Arcy Island Lazaretto, and Public Works Health Act, $241,00i0.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What department has control over quarantine now?


James Alexander Calder: During the year the services of the quarantine branch were transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department bf Immigration and Colonization. Under the legislation put through this year all of this work will come under the Department of Public Health. The vote here is the same as last year. As I think I intimated in a letter I sent to the hon. gentleman, I have had an inquiry made with reference to all the services in connection with quarantine this year, and I have a report upon them. I propose to hand that over to the Department of Public Health when it is created, so that they may take such action as they think necessary. I am inclined to think that a good many changes could be made in connection with our quarantine service, but whatever I might have had in contemplation, I did not feel like taking responsibility of making them myself.
Charges of Management-clerical assistance in connection with transfer and registration of war loan bonds, etc., 11'5 0,0'00.


William Thomas White: There are 221 temporary clerks employed in registering and transferring War Loan bonds, the issue of over one million interest cheques yearly and the redemption and adjusting with the various banks of over six million coupons of War bonds. The clerks employed are as follows: 72 at $600 per annum; 84 at $650; 34 at $700; 8 at $750; 7 at $800; 8 at $900; 3 at $1,000 ; 4 at $1,200; 1 at $1,800.
Immigration and Colonization-Exhibitions- Salaries and general expenses, further amount required, $30,000.
Mr. McMAiSTER: I hope there is no allowance here to encourage the eating of
fMr. McKenzie.]
fish at Toronto exhibition, which we found fault with last year. It may be smuggled into this grant for salaries and general expenses. You remember that last year we found fault with a grant or payment by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in connection with which, the minister, in order to encourage the eating of fish by the people of Ontario, and particularly Toronto, gave $5,000 to provide fish dinners below cost to the people who visited that interesting exposition. We all admitted the possible necessity or advantage of it, but we felt that it should not be done at the public expense.
I observe that this item is found in Immigration and Colonization, and perhaps this exhibition is a different sort of exhibition and is not open to the objection which I have just put forward; if so, that might be told us by the minister.	.


James Alexander Calder: I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is nothing provided in this item for the eating of fish.


Charles Murphy: Nothing fishy.


James Alexander Calder: No. This is to provide for expenditure in connection with exhibitions, very largely in the United States and Great Britain. We carry on a series of exhibitions at state and' county fairs throughout the United States; in addition to that, we put up small exhibits for distribution among schools. We carry on work to a similar extent in Great Britain. So there is nothing here of the character to which the hon. gentleman alludes.
Mr. MoMASIER: This will be to attract immigrants to our country?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would recommend the minister not to put on exhibition the different Acts passed this session in which aliens, foreigners-newcomers to this country-are put on a lower level than ordinary citizens.
Public Works-Chargeable to capital-Marine Department, $10,000,000.	'


John Howard Sinclair: What does the minister propose to do with that money?


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that all hon. members of the committee are fully aware of the Government's programme for shipbuilding. The very modest amount that we have in this item is to complete the Government's programme.


John Howard Sinclair: Could the minister give us any idea what he expects to earn from his ships? I asked a question the other day about the rate earned on the cargo that the Warrior carried, and the answer I got was that it was not in the public interest to give us the information, and that at the end of the year a statement would he made by somebody to the shareholders-which is the Government-but that the people did not seem to have anything at all to do with it. The owners of ships in centres of business make no objection to the publication of the rates they receive for their freights. If you read the New York trade papers you will find the rates quoted day by day. I do not see any good reason why the minister should not give such information to a member of Parliament when he asks for it. The minister said, in the answer he gave to my former question, that he carried a certain amount of cargo from one port to another. He did not state the rate he received, and when he was asked to state it he declined to do so. In connection with this matter, I want to obtain from the minister, if I can, the rate that is being charged on raw sugar from the north side of Cuba to Montreal. I drew to the attention of the Minister of Railways some 11 p.m. time ago that I was informed that the Shipping Board of New York had made a rate for raw sugar from the north side of Cuba to New York at 384 cents per hundred pounds, and had made a larger rate to Halifax of 584 cents- 20 cents per hundred pounds more. It was a curious thing to me, that the Shipping Board of New York was fixing a rate on raw sugar to a Canadian city; that was the first point. Then it transpired that one of the Government's ships had been used for carrying sugar from Cuba to Montreal for the benefit of the Montreal refiners at 384 cents per hundred pounds,-the rate fixed by the Shipping Board of New York to New York,-whereas Montreal is twice as far away from the north side of Cuba as is Halifax; but the refiners at Halifax had to pay 584 cents per hundred pounds. I want information on two points:	In the
first place, is our Government willing to submit to the New YoTk Shipping Board fixing the rate to Halifax from the north side of Cuba? In the second place, is the Government using its ships to carry raw sugar for one particular concern at 20 cents per hundred pounds less than to their competitors in Halifax and St. John? I would like to get that information from either the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Chairman, the reason I was unable to give the hon. member the information he asked for in regard to rates on cargoes carried by Government ships is due to the fact that these ships are being operated by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine under Mr. Hanna and his board of directors; it was with no desire on the part of the Government to withhold the information were we in possession of it.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose, Mr. Hanna is a public servant, and if the minister does not know he could get the information by asking him.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will be very glad indeed to get it.


John Howard Sinclair: What does the
Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) say? He is in charge of this business. I notice he smiles. He ought to be able to give me that information. I notified him a few days ago that I wanted to get it before the closing of the House.


Mr. J. D. REID:: The operation of the
ships has been by the Marine officials and under the board of directors operating the Canadian National railways. The rates made are kept by that company. Any information, of course, I would have to get from the board of directors, and I can get it if it is in the public interest that it should be given at any particular time. That is the only question that will have to be taken up and discussed at some future time-the question of giving information of that kind just at the time transactions may be made in connection with our great railway and steamship systems. This is what happens in connection with our railways and also with our steamships. Some person wants to get information that will be of assistance to him individually, and it would not be in the public interest to furnish it to him. I admit that members are entitled to all information that is in the public interest to impart, and I would suggest that at another session both sides get together and decide what information we should give out, for the reason that if it is against the apparent successful operation either of our steamships or our railways, I am sure there is not a member who would want the information. With reference to the rate mentioned, I do not know anything about it, but there has been in force on the Atlantic for years an understanding that the rates from Atlantic ports to foreign ports are the same whether from Canadian or United States ports.

The rate from Montreal to Liverpool would be the same as from Portland or from New York, and probably the rate from Cuba to Montreal would be the same as the rate from Cuba to New York. The matter of getting a return cargo has probably something to do with these rates being generally the same to the Atlantic ports.


John Howard Sinclair: Why are the rates higher to Halifax than they are to Montreal?	.


John Dowsley Reid: I will make inquiries and get the information.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The sugar rate from the British West India Islands, which enjoy preferential treatment under our West Indian Treaty, was fixed by the International Sugar Board. My impression is that the International Sugar Board fixed the rate on sugar from British West India Islands to Halifax and St. John at 57 cents.


John Howard Sinclair: Did they fix the rate to Montreal?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, because during the war Montreal was getting its sugar via New York and the New York rate from the British West India Islands was somewhat lower because of the fact that the rail rate from New York to Montreal had to be taken into consideration. The, situation to which my hon. friend refers was unfair to the sugar refineries at Halifax and St. John, and as soon as I learned of it I protested. The Montreal sugar refineries wanted the Cuban sugar for the purpose of manufacturing it and selling it in the United Kingdom, and if the refineries at St. John and Halifax could not get the same rate as the Montreal people got, they were under a disadvantage in attempting to sell sugar in the United Kingdom. Later, however, I understand, the railway made the same offer to the refineries at St. John and Halifax as was made to the Montreal refineries.
I myself think that a mistake was made in the first instance.


John Howard Sinclair: My point is that the Government ships have been used for the benefit of the Montreal refineries and to the disadvantage of the refineries at Halifax and St. John.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I heard Mr. Hanna make the statement that he was quite prepared to carry sugar at the same rate to Halifax and St. John as he carried it to New York for the Montreal refineries.


John Howard Sinclair: The rate ought to be less from the north side of Cuba to 
Halifax and St. John than it is to Montreal, because it is only half the distance; but the rate to Halifax and St. John is 20 cents more than the rate to Montreal; and that is due to the interference of the Government. I am informed on credible authority that the Government have contracted- to carry
36,000	tons of raw sugar from the north side of Cuba to Montreal at 37} cents per hundred pounds. If that is true, it will be impossible for the refiners at Halifax and St. John to compete with the refiners in Montreal. The point is that the Government should not use Government ships to favour the Montreal refiners against the interests of the refiners at Halifax and St. John. If the minister cannot clear that point up, the people of the Maritime Provinces will not be satisfied.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I thought I had made it quite clear. The Government have nothing whatever to do with the operating of the ships or the fixing of rates. The Government took care to see that just such a case as the hon. member has mentioned should not arise, as it possibly would arise if the Government operated the ships and fixed the rates. But the operation of the ships and the fixing of the rates is entirely in the hands of Mr. Hanna. The Government did not carry that sugar; the Government did not fix the rate; the Government had nothing whatever to do with it. If the facts are as the hon. member states, I am quite sure that the Minister of Railways will be glad to take the matter up with Mr. Hanna. But I know that the Minister of Railways, like all the other members of the Government, does not want to interfere with Mr. Hanna; we want to give him a free hand to operate the ships, just as we give him a free hand to operate the railways. But I did hear Mr. Hanna make the statement that he was quite prepared to carry raw sugar to Halifax and St. John at the same rate that he carried it to New York for the Montreal sugar refiners. Mr. Hanna would naturally be glad to get a return cargo, and sugar is about the only cargo he could get.


Frank S. Cahill: I understood that these ships were to be built for the advantage of the Canadian people, but we are told that the ships have been handed over to Mr. Hanna and that Mr. Hanna may do as he sees fit; that he may suit himself, not the Canadian people. It seems to me that we could do without this item of $10,000,000 if it is of no advantage to the people.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not quite satisfied with the explanation made by the Minister of Marine. He tells us that the management of the Government steamships has been handed over to Mr. Hanna; I suppose he means that it has been handed over to the Beard of Directors of the Canadian National railways, not to Mr. Hanna personally.


John Dowsley Reid: The Board of Directors, of which Mr. Hanna is President.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is what I understood.
The Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) says that the Government have no control of the rates; that that is all left to Mr. Hanna; that the Government do not want to interfere with him in regard to the steamships, any more than with him in regard to the operation of the railways. We were told by the Minister of Railways last night that when any complaint was made with regard to railway rates those who were interested could appeal to the President of the Canadian National Railways, and if they were not satisfied with this decision they could make a further appeal to the Governor in Council, who would take the matter into further consideration and see that a decision was given which was in the interests of the public. If that is the case with regard to the Canadian National Railways, surely it ought to be the case with regard to the steamships built by the Government of Canada and operated by the Canadian National Railway Company.


John Dowsley Reid: These Government steamships have been handed over to the company of which Mr. Hanna is the President. Under our new Railway Act the Canadian National Railways come under the Board of Railway Commissioners the same as any other railway, and we have the right of appeal in these cases just as any other railway has. Some of our steamships may be under the Railway Act and thus come under the Board of Railway Commissioners. But the hon. member knows that in any case where an injustice has been done there is the right of appeal to the Governor in Council, through the Department of which I am the head, and any appeal so made will be taken up and dealt with with a view to doing justice to any hon. member who makes complaints, or to any individual. But until it comes before the Government in that way, of course, we leave the responsibility for chartering and operating those vessels as before. The only difference is this: You cannot fix a general rate as you can with the Board of Railway Cornmissioners. A vessel may arrive at Montreal, and you may want to charter it to China, Japan or Liverpool, and the rates may differ from time to time. I do not think it is easy to get a standard rate. I rose only to assure the hon. member that at all times there is the right to appeal to the Governor in Council, to the management of the vessels or to the minister himself in connection with either Government vessels or railways.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If the information which the hon. member (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) has given to the committee to-night is correct, namely, that there has been this discrimination of 20 cents in the freight rate as between Montreal and Halifax and St. John, the Governor in Council should not wait for some one to make an appeal, but should take the matter in hand at once and see that justice is done.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The rate to
Halifax and St. John was not fixed by the Government steamships nor by the Board of Railway Commissioners; it was fixed by the International Sugar Commission which owns and controls all the sugar production of the British West India islands until next September or October, and in some way or another they control the freight. Two years ago they fixed the rate from the British West Indies to Halifax.


John Howard Sinclair: What has the
Government done to rectify this? Has the Government taken any action at all?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It could not be rectified because it is a rate fixed by an Inter-Allied Commission.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand the Board of Railu ay Commissioners, knowing that raw sugar was being taken to the sugar refineries at Halifax and St. John at 58i cents per 100 pounds, afterwards entered into a contract using Government ships, for which the people of Canada pay, and gave the benefit of that 20 cents per 100 pounds to Montreal, and that means that for the benefit of some people in Montreal, absolute disaster is threatened to those two enterprises in the Maritime Provinces each having an investment of some $10,000,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Unintentionally a discrimination was worked against the Halifax and St. John refineries. They presented their opposition to this to the railway. Then the railway undertook to place Halifax and St. John in the same position as regards Cuban importations of sugar.



A mistake was made, I think, in the first instance.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What steps are the Government taking, in the interest of the people, to correct that mistake?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Government has had the matter up before the management of the Canadian National railways, and this matter has been placed before them. Parliament cannot correct it by discussing the matter here; it might well be left to the business interests involved and the good sense of the management.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In spite of what my hon. friend says, we are all interested. This is not a matter of whether I have money invested in that enterprise or not; I am interested just the same, and I do not think it is becoming to my hon. friend in a veiled way to insinuate that I have no right to discuss the matter here.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not say so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is what the hon. gentleman intimated, namely, that I had better leave the matter to the people who are directly interested. I am interested in this matter as a representative from the Maritime Provinces, and if a mistake has been made, while my hon. friend says that the matter has been referred to Mr. Hanna, that is all very well; that may be the proper way to get this matter adjusted, but when an item like this is before the Committee, people who are interested in enterprises in the Maritime Provinces, which enterprises are being driven out of business by circumstances which spell disaster to those enterprises, we should have some assurance from the Government that something will be done to see that those people are given a fair and proper settlement.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not want wrong information to get on Hansard. The Montreal Sugar Refineries applied to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to move the sugar. They had to move it at the New York rate, and they did so. Had Halifax or St. John made the same application to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, they would have received the same rate. I am sorry to disagree with my colleague (Mr. A. K. Maclean), but there has not been any error. When the other two refineries make application, they will get the same rate. There is no discrimination whatever.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then we are to conclude that there is to be nothing done to straighten

this matter out and to see that these incfus-tries in the Maritime Provinces are not discriminated against.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The matter has been arranged.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I just stated a moment ago that Mr. Hanna is quite willing to move sugar at the same rate for St. John and Halifax, as soon as the industries in the Maritime Provinces ask him to do so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Are vessels available to engage in the trade?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The St. John refinery has already received a cargo.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Why did the minister not give me that information half an hour ago?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I heard this only about five minutes ago.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How is the minister getting along with his contract for platemaking with the Dominion Steel company?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have had several interviews with the Dominion Steel company, and we hope to reach a definite settlement on Monday. I am sorry I cannot give any more information now. The problem is a large one, but Monday will decide whether there will be a modification in the. contract and the Government will go on with it, or whether the contract will be cancelled.
Lighthouse and coast service-to provide $5,000 for chairman and $2,000 each for commissioners of the Royal Pilotage Commission.


John Howard Sinclair: Who is the chairman?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This was a Royal Commission appointed over a year ago to investigate and report to the Government oni the pilotage system of Canada. I mentioned it when I was on my Main Estimates. The chairman was Mr. Thomas Robb and the other two were Captain James N. Bales and Captain J. W. Harrison.	.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There seems to be a great discrepancy between the amount paid to the chairman and the amounts paid to his colleagues. Generally the chairman does not get so much more than the other members of the board.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Chairman did the greater part of the work.


John Howard Sinclair: This is a special grant, not an annual one?


Mr BALLANTYNE:: A special grant.
Miscellaneous-Special allowance to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to cover travelling and other expenses in connection with his services while acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, $5,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I presume this will be given when the Chief Justice actually does travel. Am I right in my idea?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend, I think, is referring to1 the next item. This is an allowance to the Chief Justice for services while acting as deputy to the Governor-General.


Edmond Proulx: Is not this a large
amount; it used to be $2,500.


William Thomas White: No, it is $5,000; I looked that up particularly.
Special allowance to Mr. Justice Duff, to cover expenses when attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, $2,500.


Charles Murphy: Has it not been customary in the past for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to attend these sittings? Is Mr. Justice Duff over there?


William Thomas White: It has been usual in the past to pay the allowance to the Chief Justice, but I understand that by arrangement Mr. Justice Duff is overseas. Sir Louis Davies receives the $5,000 as Deputy Governor-General.


Charles Murphy: With whom or by whom was this arrangement made?


William Thomas White: I am unable to state definitely, but I understand through the Prime Minister. Mr. Justice Duff, who is a member of the Imperial Privy Council, has gone overseas and is over there now. I suppose no question can arise as to His ability. It seemed very proper that he should go over.
To provide for refund of fines exacted by R. W. Woods, J.P., of Regina, under the Military Service Act, fines remitted under Orders in Council of November 30 and December 5, 1918, $301.50.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should any fines be remitted?


William Thomas White: The Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) is not here, and I am sorry I am unable to give the explanation. If my hon. friend presses for it, I shall be glad to inquire into it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If it is the policy of the department to remit fines there will be many applications.
297i	;


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) may be able to give us some information about it.
IMr. COWAN: I was never in court, was never fined, and I don't know anything about it.
Air Service, $250,000.


Frank S. Cahill: What is this for?


Mr. MEWBURN:: This is in connection with the Act passed this session creating an Air Board. The Minister of Customs is chairman of the board, with which is associated the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The board is being organized to frame regulations with regard to aerial navigation in Canada, which it is hoped will develop on commercial lines.


Frank S. Cahill: Is this $250,000 for the expenses of this board?


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: For organizing the
board, the care of machines, and drawing up regulations. It was first suggested that $500,000 would be required for the year, but the amount was cut down, and they think that $250,000 will more than cover it. It is only in the experimental stage as yet.
For re-organization of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery by the Civil Service Commission, $17,000.


Charles Murphy: What is the explanation of this item?


Mr. BURRELL:: It is partly in connection with the classification scheme. In addition, we are trying to reorganize the Bureau on more modern commercial lines with a view to greater efficiency and greater economy. Some of the experts that are working in the organization branch of the Civil Service-are being entrusted with this work. The amount is charged up to the Bureau, as the Civil Service Commission do not think it should be charged up to them.


Charles Murphy: Has this money been paid, or is it to be paid?


Martin Burrell: Some has been paid, and some of it is to be paid. It also includes the possibility of putting in an expert commercial man for the first year when we get the whole thing reorganized.
Further Supplementary Estimates 1919-20- Provisional allowance for the Inside and Outside Services of the Civil Service, to be paid to such persons and classes of persons, in such amounts and at such times as the Governor in Council may determine, $10,000,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In connection with this item, I would again remind the Govern-

ment-I have already brought the matter to the attention of the President of the Privy Council-that there are a great many messengers around the House who are expecting to participate in this bonus. Some were helped and some were not. I trust that they will all be treated equally under this vote.


John Dowsley Reid: I desire to give some information as to the operation of the railways and the money that will be required in connection with them during the present fiscal year. For the Canadian Northern Railway system the gross earnings will amount to $94,000,000 and the working expenses, including fixed charges, will amount to $103,946,000, or a loss of $9,946,000. The Government system's earnings, it is estimated, will amount to $37,321,485, and the working expenses $42,812,240, or a total loss on the Intercolonial and Transcontinental part of the Canadian National system of $5,490,755. That is the statement made at the beginning of the year. It is estimated that the loss on the Grand Trunk Pacific will be about $9,000,000, and the loss on the Canadian National Railway system as a whole, say, roughly, $19,000,000, or a total of $28,000,000. In leply to a question asked by a member last year, I would state that this estimate includes interest on all the Canadian Northern Railway system. There is nothing for interest on capital in connection with the Intercolonial or Transcontinental Railway system. Expenditure on the construction of betterments this year on the Canadian Government end will be $11,121,600. On railway equipment, rolling stock for the whole system, $20,000,000. That is the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial and Transcontinental. On the Canadian Northern system only we estimate $21,421,000, made up as follows: Western lines construction, $6,975,000; Western lines betterments, $4,479,000; Eastern lines construction, $2,082,000; Eastern lines betterments, $6,885,000; and general, $1,000,000. This means a total of $9,057,000 for construction, and $12,000,000 for betterments. The following is a summary of the moneys to be supplied to the Board of Directors to meet the expenditures enumerated: Loss, $28,000,000; construction on the Canadian Government Railways, $11,121,000; equipment, rolling stock, etc., $20,000,000; Canadian National Railway construction and betterments, $21,421,000, or a total of $80,542,000. These are the figures as estimated for the coming year.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the title of that rolling stock in the department?
	\


John Dowsley Reid: It is in the Canadian National Railway system and the Government is nominally owner of all stock. Contracts have already been given for locomotives for some $2,350,000; freight equipment, $8,650,300; passenger equipment, $4,450,000; or a total of some $16,555,000 odd.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the total investment in the railways and what are the liabilities?


John Dowsley Reid: The amount given last year is $438,000,000, which has been added to some $25,000,000 during the present year for loss and for equipment.
Port Nelson Terminals-$100,000.


John Archibald Campbell: There is an item of $100,000 in connection with the Port Nelson terminals, and in the Supplementary Estimates $300,000 for Hudson Bay railway construction. What work is it the intention to do in connection with these items this- year?


John Dowsley Reid: This vote of $100,000 is to pay for items in connection with the staff we have there and cleaning up around the terminals during the present year. I have put $300,000 in the Estimates to cover ties to finish the Hudson Bay railway. The rails will be taken from the main line where we are putting on new rails, and as soon as we get the ties and rails we intend to start the work on Hudson Bay.


John Archibald Campbell: Is it the intention to lay the rails this year?


John Dowsley Reid: If we get the rails and the men.


John Archibald Campbell: I do not think anything like $100,000 will be used for terminals this year, and considerably more than $300,000 will be needed on the other work if any rails are going to be laid. 1 would suggest that this be amended to add to this1 item the Hudson Bay railway.


John Dowsley Reid: We cannot amend the Estimates, but I will be glad to take the hon. gentleman's suggestion into consideration. The engineer will look into the matter and if his suggestion is practicable it might be carried out.


John Archibald Campbell: If my suggestion were adopted, there would be $400,000 for the whole proposition. You would need only a small amount for one part of the work and you could use the rest of the money in connection with the other. I would ask

the minister why it is not the intention to complete the railway this year. In last year's estimates there was an item of $1,000,000 for the completion of the railway. I understood at that time that it was the intention of the Government to complete the railway last year but for special reasons that were given it was not done, and I naturally supposed that if they did not complete it last year the same vote would be made this year. Why is this $1,000,000 not revoted?


John Flaws Reid: I cannot say. The estimates are there.


John Archibald Campbell: It seems rather peculiar that a railway which has been under construction for such a long time and which is so nearly completed has not been finished. Only ninety-two miles of steel is necessary to complete a railway of four hundred and twenty-four miles, under course of construction since 1912, and on which $20,000000 has already been spent. Lands have been set aside, of which $28,000,000 worth has been sold, $13,000,000 having been already collected. The country is paying for the railway in this way and it seems strange to me that under these circumstances that railway should not be gone on with this year, when so many new enterprises are being undertaken.
For some years there have not been very much in the Estimates in connection with certain enterprises, but I notice on the same page as this that there are very material increases in the expenditures for the Welland Ship Canal and the Trent Canal. We are spending $20,000,000 on good roads, $25,000,000 for housing, and $10,000,000 for something else. These are entirely new enterprises, while this work has been under way for a number of years and it is almost completed. Now, it is being allowed to lapse. It is an uneconomical way of proceeding with the railway; it suffers severely by deterioration and the result will be a great loss to Canada and to the Government. It is very peculiar that expenditures in connection with other public works of a similar nature are being increased this year, while for this particular work which has been under way for so long a less amount appears in the Estimates than in any one year for some considerable time. If the Minister of Railways can explain that, I would like to hear him do so.
Resolutions reported and concurred in. WAYS AND MEANS-THE SUPPLY BILL.
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


William Thomas White: Resolved. That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1920, the sum of $162,527,610.91 he granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolution reported, and concurred in.
Sir THOMAS WHITE moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 181, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1920.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, and read the third time and passed.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at twelve o'clock midnight.
Monday, July 7, 1919-