1938-04-05

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the standing committee on. railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Vien.

[Stage Direction]
Orvis A. Kennedy, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Edmonton East, introduced by Mr. Blackmore and Mr. Landeryou.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) to a Canadian press dispatch which appeared last evening in the Ottawa papers in respect to the dismantling of guns at the city of Halifax. The dispatch states:
Halifax is being stripped rapidly of any semblance of defence against possible war-time attackers.
I should like to read the whole of the dispatch, but shall be content to point out the importance of the statement so far as the garrison city of Halifax is concerned; I hope the minister has already been made aware of the article. I am asking him if the report is correct, and whether the defences of Halifax are being stripped in the manner indicated.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to notify me of his intention to ask this question. I have observed the contents of the dispatch to which he refers, and may I say immediately that the dispatch in question is absolutely crowded with the most glaring inaccuracies. Not only have the defences at Halifax not been weakened in recent days, but they have been actually strengthened. More guns of heavy calibre have been moved to the vicinity of Halifax than have been taken away from there. Certain guns which were "unallotted," or "in reserve" for some years, have been moved from the district, but I can assure the hon. member, with reference both to guns and to munitions, that nothing whatsoever has been done to impair the effective defences of Halifax city. The reference in the dispatch to ninety naval families being transferred is equally untrue. A few key naval ratings may be transferred, but no more. I only express
my personal regret that the Canadian Press saw fit to carry this dispatch, which several journals refused to print, without investigation at headquarters here in Ottawa.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. F. C. BETTS (London):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). On Sunday last, commencing at 6.30 p.m., radio station CBL carried a broadcast by a Mr. Ferguson who is an editor or other employee of the Winnipeg Free Press. In the course of his remarks he suggested that Britain prefers a weak Spain in order that her line of communication to the orient may not be threatened and, further, that the failure of Britain to support General Franco in Spain is attributable largely to Britain's desire to protect her investments in Spain. I should like to ask the minister whether this broadcast was made after review by and with the approval of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If so, I should like to know the name of the reviewing officer.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question. I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that no officer of the corporation had prior knowledge of the subject matter of the address, and no officer reviewed the address.



CATTLE SHIPMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. A. M. EDWARDS (Waterloo South):: I should like to inquire of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as to what progress has been made in securing boat space for the shipment of cattle to England.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: No further space has been obtained since we discussed the matter a few days ago.



POLITICAL EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Political Expenditures
[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting political expenditures, and to make provision for the appointment and the salaries or remuneration of certain officers and employees and the payment of certain expenses in connection with the administraiton of the said measure.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the legislation which is being introduced by this resolution will be known as the Political Expenditures Act. The preamble to the bill reads:
Whereas it is desirable that the source and disposition of sums expended for federal political purposes should be readily traceable and that the amounts expended in promoting the return of members of the House of Commons should be limited.
I believe those words express succinctly the objects of the proposed legislation. The first object is to make traceable and provide a public record of all receipts and expenditures for political purposes. The second object is to limit expenditures which may lawfully be incurred in promoting the election of a member. The bill is comparatively simple. This house acquires jurisdiction in connection therewith through its control over banks and banking and also through the right which the federal government has to constitute corporations for other than provincial purposes. The provision with regard to the limitation of expenditures will operate only during the electoral periods while the other provisions will operate at all times. I may digress here to say that with the provision for the tracing and publication of contributions operating at all times there is a probability that the public will become, accustomed to the other provisions and more readily acquiesce in their operation when the electoral period comes around.
Political expenditures can be incurred only by special corporate bodies constituted by mere request into corporations sole. Political contributions can be made only to such bodies and such contributions must be deposited in a bank with duplicate deposit slips. All payments must be made by cheque. A return of expenditures and contributions will thus automatically be made by the transmission to the officer appointed by this house of the duplicate deposit slips and cheques. This officer, who will be known as the inspector general of elections, will have the duty of setting up corporations on request and making a return to parliament of all receipts and expenditures by those corporations. This return will be along the lines of that made by the auditor general and will be annual.
The limitation of the expenditure in any particular constituency will be achieved

through identifying the corporation or corporations which are charged with the duty of promoting the return of any candidate to parliament. Any one else, a corporation or otherwise, will be forbidden to spend any money for that purpose. The amount of expenditures permissible will be calculated on the number of electors in a given electoral district. There is also a provision in the interests of the public placing a limitation on the amount to be expended on radio broadcasting, which limitation will be based on the number of electors. In as simple language as I can use, these are the chief provisions of the bill.
I have every reason to believe that this bill is sound both in law and constitution. It was drafted by Lieutenant-Colonel Bjggar who for seven or eight years was chief electoral officer of Canada. There are certain features of the bill upon which I should perhaps enlarge. It was thought advisable in connection with the provision for the limitation of expenditures to leave blank the amount to be allowed to be expended in any given constituency. I submit that this amount should be fixed by the committee of this house which will be called upon to deal with the bill. A distinction has been made in the bill as between rural and urban constituencies.
Another difficulty had been solved, perhaps not to the satisfaction of everyone, in connection with the distribution of moneys expended from the central or national campaign funds. It was decided that the bill should provide that these moneys should be distributed equally among all constituencies. It may appear to hon. members that this provision will make the amount expended in any constituency appear to be somewhat large when it is charged with its portion of the national expenditure. It will certainly bring it out of line with the limitation imposed in other countries on expenditures in constituencies. In Great Britain, for example, if my memory serves me aright, the expenditure is five pence per name of elector in the constituency in boroughs, and six pence in counties. It is hoped that this difficulty, which is perhaps not a very real difficulty but one to which certain objections will be taken, can also be ironed out in committee.
The definition of political expenses and political purposes will perhaps not appeal to all those who are intended to be covered by this act. The definition of a political expense is so drawn as to include all outlays designed to affect public opinion or governmental action other than such action as is consequent upon

Political Expenditures
judicial or semi-judicial procedure. And "political purpose" means:
The purpose of promoting or opposing the selection of candidates or of any person as a candidate for membership in the House of Commons, the return of any such candidate, the enactment or repeal of any legislation either by parliament or affecting its legislative jurisdiction, the adoption of any resolution by either house of parliament or the adoption of any policy or the taking of any action by the governor general in council, and extends to and includes all and any analogous purposes.
This definition will at once appear to the house to be pretty broad. Certain associations and corporations who do not, generally speaking, consider themselves to be of a political character will inevitably when they engage in their normal activities be embraced within this definition. I could say, for instance. that if such an association existed as a civic reform league which wished to engage counsel for the purpose of promoting the passage of this bill, it would itself probably be the first to come under its provisions. But may I point out to the house that it is essential that all who take part in or undertake any political action must come under the provisions of this act. Otherwise there will be loopholes left for individuals and organizations, and it might be that the effectiveness of the legislation would be destroyed. We must, if this bill is to be of any effect whatsoever, take all precautions to prevent any evasion of its provisions.
I agree, and I presume this will be urged during the discussion, that we must not go beyond the lengths to which public opinion would want us to go. This may be perhaps considered as legislation similar to sumptuary legislation or to liquor prohibition legislation. It must have the support of the public, and this particular legislation must have the support of the persons most directly interested, namely, members of parliament. Otherwise it cannot be of any effect. I am quite aware it will be urged that you cannot make people honest by act of parliament. Perhaps you cannot make them honest by act of parliament but you can point out in legislation what their responsibility is with respect to the carrying on of perfectly legitimate actions on their part, and explain to them by that legislation that if they do not follow the prescribed procedure they will be obliged to submit to certain penalties.
I suggest that here is a draft bill which covers the main points of certain objections which have been made to our electoral system. Here in cold print the members of this house may see a means of getting away from the abuses which have been inherent in our 51952-128
system. It is their responsibility to study it, and I suggest that it is worthy of their study and attention.
Two points I think will be brought up during the course of the discussion, and perhaps I had better deal with them now. First, is a central campaign fund necessary and essential? To this question I reply that, although it may not be absolutely necessary or essential, it is undoubtedly of some advantage to the public. We in this house and in our political activities, however important we may believe our policies, our pronouncements, our discussions and debates may be, must realize that there are outside of this house and throughout the country many, many thousands of persons who are far less interested in us and in our activities and in governmental activities than they are in the sports page of the newspaper, or in the radio or the movies. These people, when election time comes along, must be educated. It is true that under our present system this education is partisan; it is carried out by political parties. But I submit that it is some kind of education, and it provides a means by which an informed verdict may be rendered at a general election. But I would also say this, that a large part of the expenditure made is unnecessary and wasteful, and that a great deal of it is made simply to keep up with the Joneses. If one political party sees that another political party has set up a billboard in a conspicuous place, immediately it must set up a billboard of its own. If one political party has a half-page cartoon in a newspaper, immediately the other parties must have a similar cartoon.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Maybe a better one.


Mr. POWER:: Possibly a more expensive one, which all goes to prove my point that a large proportion of the expenditure thus made on advertising, billboards and the radio, is almost wholly unnecessary.
With respect to the second suggestion, may I pause to deal with a suggestion that has been made that the state assume some responsibility for this expenditure in relation to the education of the people during a general election. It might be done, but I submit that the difficulties in endeavouring to apportion the moneys which parliament had voted for the purpose of an election as between the contending parties or the contending candidates would be so great as to make it almost impossible to carry it out-and I say that advisedly in the face of the knowledge which we have that in Great Britain it is possible, without too much complaint, for the British Broadcasting Corporation to allot certain
Political Expenditures

hours to the different political parties for radio broadcasting. But even there, I have lately heard, all political parties and groups are not satisfied with the allotment given them by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The second question, which is perhaps more important, is, will the publication of campaign contributions bring about the disappearance of such contributions altogether? I admit that it will curtail them somewhat. But we have the example of the United States before us. In the United States, first by voluntary action, I think in 1908, and later by enforceable legislation, the details of campaign subscriptions were made public, and even though we do hear that political parties have not on all and every occasion all the funds which they believe to be necessary, we know that they are able to raise considerable sums for the purpose of their electoral propaganda. But I believe that in this country, if once it were firmly established that no large contributions could be made and that no large funds existed, a very large number of people, stalwart adherents of the theories of government to which their parties were attached, would come forward, finding that their five dollars or ten dollars, which they feared would not be acceptable-on account of their comparative insignificance-under the old system, would now be acceptable, and would support their parties with such donations. In any case, I submit, democracy is in a bad way indeed if we cannot function without secret funds, backdoor subscriptions and underground contributions. What is perhaps still more dangerous is that the widespread belief in the existence of such funds leads to an insistent demand, sometimes very difficult to refuse, by constituency organizations for large sums of money to be expended on individual constituencies.
That brings me to the second object of the bill, that is to say, limitation of expenditure by candidates in promoting their election to parliament.
May I say here that I do not believe that a wholesale purchase of votes is any longer either effective, practicable or popular, whatever may have been the case thirty or forty years ago; and it is perhaps within the memory of very many of us-I know it is within my memory-that people were literally bought on the market place, gangs of forty or fifty men actually sitting on the fence waiting until funds were provided so that they could vote.


Miss MACPHAIL:: No women.


Charles Gavan Power: Women were not allowed to vote in those days. There are some who will say that the present parlous state of our

politics was brought about after the women were given the vote. I am not saying that. But I think I can affirm that the barter of votes as carried on in days gone by no longer exists except perhaps in certain backward communities and remote constituencies. Nevertheless the fact is evident that the cost of elections is getting higher year by year. I make no reference to any particular constituencies. My own experience has been that when the money was available it was spent and when there was no money the work was done just the same.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps better.


Charles Gavan Power: That gives me ground for the hope that if, generally speaking throughout all the constituencies, the same condition existed-a very small amount of election funds -the election would go on just the same and the result would not be any different. I also have some hope that if there was provision in the legislation for the publication of the detailed expenditures, a very large number of persons who now desire to be compensated for their services would out of very shame be only too willing to work without any compensation whatsoever. There has grown up in our body politic a class of racketeers, organizers, in some cases owners of newspapers-


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful.


Charles Gavan Power: -owners of public halls, pamphleteers, writers and others who believe that the election period is a very carnival for them in order that they may charge, during that election, rates which they would never dare to contemplate at any other time. Even the righteous are sometimes attacked by the same virus. It is within the experience of most of us that candidates are ofttimes saddled with the performance of innumerable good works which they are not in the habit of performing at any other time. They must subscribe to carnivals, to bazaars, to tombolas, to church festivals-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sweepstakes.


Charles Gavan Power: -sweepstakes, and popularity contests, in order to make themselves solid with the electorate. It has been said, in a facetious way, perhaps, that the politician's extremity was the puritan's opportunity. Be that as it may, the demands on the purse of the poor unfortunate candidate are such that often it is absolutely impossible for the ordinary citizen to place his services at the disposal of the state. What must he do? He must turn either to his friends or to some one else, and more often to the party funds, for assistance. This assistance is often,

Political Expenditures
indeed almost always furnished to him without his knowledge as to its character and certainly as to its extent; and perhaps I may say here, with no disrespect and no intention of wounding the feelings of any of my colleagues or calling into question the word or conscience of any member of this house, that they are, with premeditation probably, the most blissfully ignorant class in the whole world.
I said that "keeping up with the Joneses" was one of the reasons which brought about the expenditure in connection with general campaign, funds. There is another motive which brings about large expenditures in individual constituencies. It is fear. No one of us would deliberately spend money for corrupt purposes. All the candidates and all hon. members, so far as I am concerned, are honest and law-abiding citizens, but in no other sphere of our life is there so ready an acceptation of the old axiom that "the end justifies the means," and that the other fellow is going to do it if we don't do it. What brings about the greater portion of unlawful, illegal, not to say corrupt political expenditure is the fear that the other side will do something similar and do it first. How many times, in discussing elections after the event, have not two or three or more men from different political groups or allegiances got together and said, "Surely it should be possible among ourselves, who in. every other one of our activities, are honest, decent, law-abiding citizens, to get together and see to it that our partisans and supporters shall be obliged to hew close to the line and run a decent, clean and honest election." Now, if two opponents can do that, if in individual constituencies that idea can be carried out- and I am told that it has been done-why cannot we all here as members of parliament, who know that evils exist and know what they are, also get together and by agreement decide which of these evils should be eliminated and then sanction that agreement by legislation? And that is what this bill proposes to do.
The bill is not a self-denying ordinance; it is a self-protective ordinance so far as members of parliament are concerned. From the purely practical politician's standpoint it proposes to fake steps to prevent an increase in electoral expenditure, and to bring it to the point where an ordinary citizen can face the prospect of an election with honest intention and clean hands. But altogether apart from our own purely selfish interests, there is perhaps a higher and more important aspect
of the question. ' Undoubtedly there is growing throughout the country a contempt for politicians and distrust of certain phases of party politics. There is a belief firmly implanted in the minds of many thoughtful men that the result of electoral campaigns is not a true reflection of the views and opinions of the people, but that these views and opinions have been influenced by propaganda and sometimes by corrupt and corrupting funds raised by people who hope to profit by the advent to, or the maintenance of one party or another in, places of power and responsibility.
Personally, and looking over the results of more recent political campaigns, in general elections particularly, I am not inclined to agree with that view. I believe that almost any one of us, giving a little study to the course of recent campaigns back through the last quarter or half a century, will come to the conclusion that there were many other factors than that of the expenditure of money that contributed, aye, that influenced and carried the verdict of the electorate. But the real point is not that there exist these corrupt practices and these enormous funds for the purpose of manipulating elections. The real point is that if they continue to increase future campaigns might be so influenced. And more important still is the fact that the impression is abroad that actually, and in the future, campaign results will be influenced by the expenditure of large funds on behalf of some party or other. This impression, I submit, is harmful; it is detrimental and it brings our whole system into disrepute.
Our present democratic system is built on confidence. Destroy that confidence and the value of our institutions is almost entirely impaired. A greater threat by far to democracy than the "isms" that now infest our body politic is the belief that electoral manipulation, electoral manoeuvring, "electoralism" as it is called in our province, is undermining the very basis of democracy. We must, if we wish to firmly establish democracy again in the minds of our people, pay some heed to that belief and endeavour to cure the ills that appear at the moment to be inherent in the system. There is going on at the present time a world wide struggle between totalitarianism and democracy. It has its reflection in this country, and it devolves upon us, who believe in our present system of government, to endeavour to cure the ills that are inherent in it. I believe that we can accomplish this by cleaning house where housecleaning is necessary, and I also believe that if we do not soon clean house we shall
Political Expenditures

be open to the charge of being indifferent and negligent in our duty.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: The very excellent address to which we have listened from the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) is, I hope, an augury of its reflection in adequate legislation. No matter has more engrossed the attention of thoughtful men than the question of electoral corruption, and in every country where democratic institutions have been established, an earnest effort has been made to secure their perpetuation by the generation that has had to deal with the problem.
It was not so very long ago that Walpole said that every man had his price; and yet great changes have taken place since that time. It was not so very long ago that we had open voting; and yet the introduction of the ballot did not result in what was very strongly hoped for at the time it was introduced. It was not so very long ago that the printing press made it possible to express the views of contending parties by the circulation of pamphlets in very large numbers throughout the constituencies; and yet the pamphleteer had his greatest innings m the eighteenth century. It was not so very long ago that we endeavoured in this house to deal with the difficulties of personation; and I can recall the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat when an effort was being made in that direction. I am bound to say that despite all the efforts that were made personation still continued and does continue in this country on a very amazing scale. It was not so very long ago that we talked about elections not being won with prayers; and yet I have it, on what I conceive to be not only sound but absolutely correct authority, that as much as $42,000 was made available for one seat in a local election in the province of Ontario.
That gives you some idea of what I mean. It was not so very long ago that we talked about the methods that were used for the purpose of circumventing the law. I do not think it would be very difficult to give the evidences, if I were called upon, of men who, canvassing, would ask for a glass of water and express a willingness to pay $10 for it. And I had it from a gentleman who himself was interested that not so very long ago, in fact within the last two years, large quantities of flour and sugar have been made available for very small sums of money to those who had the right kind of ticket to present in payment. Sometimes a cabbage would buy a substantial quantity of flour, or another vegetable would buy a substantial

amount of sugar. I am not suggesting for a moment that one party had any monopoly of these matters; I never have. But I cannot but remember investigations that have taken place in this house. I was reminding some of our friends who were discussing this matter with me the other day of what reached its flood tide level in connection with the Huron West election. If any hon. member cares to look at the journals of the House of Commons to see what was done, he will find that schools were established for the purpose of teaching people how to have a blacklead under the thumb nail so as to be able to mark a ballot in favour of a given candidate while the real ballot never reached the ballot box. All these are things which, I hope, we are outgrowing, but have not entirely outgrown. If the bill to be presented by the minister will do anything to accelerate progress in that direction, it will indeed accomplish much.
But it is not with that phase of the matter that this legislation proposes to deal. It deals with the relationship of the candidate to the constituency. By the candidate I mean his party, his organization, and-from what the minister has said; of course I have not seen the measure-the central authority which directs the operations of the campaign, that is, the general staff. No one who is familiar with these matters will endeavour to minimize the difficulty of dealing with them. He would indeed be a fool who would suggest that they can be dealt with by a stroke of a pen; who thinks that all you have to do is to pass a bill through parliament and the matter is ended. What is more, in nine cases out of ten-I think it is not too high an average-it is over-enthusiastic friends of the candidate who cause the difficulty. When I say over-enthusiastic friends I mean men who very often have no public conscience at all, who look upon politics as a game and the prostitution of the electorate as something to be commended rather than otherwise. No one who has read, for instance, the records of some of the election courts during the last half century, or the reports of the special committees in this house, can fail to realize that there has grown up-not limited entirely to one party, let me say again-a class of men whose one purpose in life is to flourish at election times and see how much they can get out of the candidate and the use they can put it to for the purpose of prostituting the electorate. There is the man who is handy with money. He is always in evidence. I have seen such men even in more recent years, who are perfectly willing to be entrusted with substantial sums of money to

Political Expenditures
meet legitimate election costs, and who unfortunately grow rich in the process while the electors become correspondingly poor.
When the minister said that the House of Commons was the most blissfully ignorant institution in the world in this regard I could not but recall an occasion on which I said: Will any hon. gentleman in this house say that his campaign has not been assisted by funds from another source than his own purse? I think there were two hon. members in the chamber who asserted their innocence, and one had such a bland and childlike countenance that I have never forgotten it. It was the personification of an innocence which could hardly live in the twentieth century, and was more entitled to the honour of sainthood than that of a member of parliament. It would be idle to disguise from ourselves as thoughtful men and as trustees for the future that this evil exists. The question is how it is to be met.
When I was away from Canada I endeavoured to ascertain how it was being dealt with by other democracies. I have studied to some extent conditions in the United States. I shall never forget what a distinguished man there said to me. As chairman of a committee connected with one of the service clubs, his duty was to do what he could during his term of office to advance citizenship. I asked him: " How do you manage, for instance, in a great city like Pittsburgh, in connection with elections"? He replied: "I really could not tell you, Mr. Bennett, how we deal with that in detail, but as far as I know the party says: We want a majority of say fifty from that precinct, and they take the necessary steps to get it." That was all he could say about it, which struck me as passing strange.
They have made great progress in the United States in dealing with the problem. The minister said he intended to give us some facts with respect to the progress made there; I assume that in committee he will do so. Each state has dealt with the matter from the standpoint of state elections. It will be recalled that the federal power utilizes the state machinery in connection with elections to congress, which take place every two years, and elections to the senate, which happen less frequently. They have made very great advances. Any hon. members who have read the life of Mark Hanna will readily understand what I mean: the tremendous cost involved in, for instance, the conduct of the last effort that he made to card index a state-I think Illinois-just before a very vital election.
The question of where the money comes from is very important. It is also very important to know where it goes. You may
have a small sum of money and may use it for corrupt purposes; you may have a large sum and use it all for legal and correct purposes. The question of the end or use to which the money is put becomes of great importance. Therefore apart altogether from establishing the source of funds it would seem that the extent to which money may be used to accomplish a purpose becomes of transcendent importance. We talk of this democratic form of government as government of the people, by the people and for the people; it flows very glibly from our tongues. But the first question that is asked in connection with an election, especially a by-election, is, what is it going to cost? Expert testimony could be given on that point in this chamber, I have no doubt. In fact I might be able to satisfy the curiosity of some of our friends in that regard myself. The question of the amount that may be expended in an election becomes of very great importance.
In England this matter was very carefully studied, and the amount that may be expended by a candidate in an election has been fixed. But as one of my friends said, that involves at once the question of the uneven distribution of votes in constituencies in this country. I pointed out here some time ago, for instance, that we realize that the redistribution in the eastern end of Ontario is not a fair distribution in the sense in which you and I use that word in everyday life. Yet the long established character of the constituencies, the fact that they always were separate from a neighbouring constituency, was given consideration. The effect was, of course, that one constituency in the Niagara peninsula has a population nearly as great, we will say, as two, if not three, of those constituencies. They were rural constituencies, while in the Niagara peninsula you had large urban communities. That has a direct effect upon the question of limiting the amount of expenditures in elections. If it is four pence or five pence per head of the population-


Charles Gavan Power: I said four pence. It is five pence for an elector in a borough, and six pence in a county.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I have called it ten cents, roughly, in our country.


Charles Gavan Power: Besides the personal expenses; they are not included.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it does not include that. The candidate pays for staying at a hotel over night, or for gasoline for his car, or the operation of a motor car. Those are expenditures made by a candidate for all
Political Expenditures

purposes, but not for getting in the vote. For instance, there are halls, bands, radios, advertising and all that sort of thing included in the five pence for the county.


Charles Gavan Power: And there is a mailing privilege also, of so much a name. There is permission for two ounces of election matter free, which amounts to a thousand pounds in some cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A very large amount, I suppose, in some places. But roughly, the figure I have used in making the computation was ten cents. Five pence is substantially ten cents. In some constituencies that would limit the expenditure to a small sum of money. In some it would amount to a very large sum of money. In a large city constituency, for instance, there might be a very dense population, and the expenditure would be large.
I do not know to what extent we may be able, in a measure, perhaps, to deal with the matter, and I am not going to anticipate what the measure provides in that regard. All I can say is I regard it as absolutely essential that some such restriction should be provided.
The question of compulsory voting was not referred to by the minister. In a sense, it has nothing to do with this measure; in reality it applies more directly to the franchise measure. But I am bound to say that the experience in Australia in that regard has been exceedingly satisfactory-most amazingly satisfactory. For instance, let us consider one of the difficulties we have all had. The law says that you shall not employ motor cars on election day to bring out the vote. If I were to ask for all those who have not paid for motor cars to hold up their hands, members who live in cities, I believe there would be a dearth of uplifted hands.


Mr. DUNNING:: Except from the innocents, who do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: There was one connected with the provincial house, in the north.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, in the Prince Albert constituency-and it is a terrible story to read, as it is reported, at any rate.


Mr. STIRLING:: And Athabaska.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Athabaska did not come,
of course, under the controverted elections act. We appointed a commission in Athabaska. The commission made a report; it was proven beyond peradventure what had happened, and the seat was ultimately vacated. But in Manitoba there was once a great deal of difficulty. I am tempted to remind the house of the part women sometimes play in enforcing a sense of morality on the part of their husbands. I believe it is sufficient for my purpose to say that in one instance a substantial sum of money was paid to a man for looking the other way while votes were being counted. His wife discovered what had been done. The money was brought to court and deposited there on the ground that it was ill gotten and had been improperly taken. It was the influence of the woman which had made it possible for that to be done.


Mr. MacLENNAN:: What happened to her?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell you, my cynical friend, what happened to her: she had the proud satisfaction of self-respect. That is what she had, and that is somewhat important.
During the last twenty-five years I can recall no federal election protests in Ontario. Before that we had substantial numbers. We will remember that there was a very important one from London; and we will remember too the one concerning the Hurons, which
it is unnecessary to discuss, and some others as well which need not here be gone into. In Quebec there have been very few in recent years, none so far as I can remember in twenty-five years in the federal arena. One of the most important ones you will find is in volume 1 of the supreme court reports. It had to do with that Minister of Public Works who was blamed for making a carpenter shop into the Supreme Court of Canada. I dare say that most hon. members are familiar with that story. Our supreme court, like the supreme court of the United States, was not dignified with very fine premises. As you know, the supreme court of the United States was not thought to be very important when it came into being and it was given a poor little room in which to sit. An old carpenter shop was turned into the Supreme Court of Canada. In connection with the question of the influence of the clergy in elections an appeal was taken by the late Sir Hector Langevin. The court decided against him and the Supreme Court of Canada never found other quarters.


Charles Avery Dunning: And have not to this day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And have not to this day. That was always the sort of tradition that attached to the story of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I ask this simple question: What are we going to do to make effective the provisions suggested by the minister? We have been making provisions of various kinds ever since we had an election law. We have been extending them year after year. I recall the observations of the then Minister of Justice who with the Secretary of State was dealing with the problem. The present Minister of Finance referred in a cynical way to the small effect that such legislation would have upon human conduct and action. At that time we were dealing with the question of impersonation, familiarly known down here as telegraphing. In western Canada we do not know it by that name and for obvious reasons we have had very little of it. I was much impressed then by the observations of the present Minister of Pensions and National Health in connection with the proposed legislation. He did not think it would accomplish much; I am not familiar enough with conditions to say whether it did or did not. But are we going to have this legislation accomplish anything, or are we going to fold our hands and say: Behold what we have done; look upon our goodly works! The same old story will go on and on in the same old way. Not so publicly, but nevertheless it will go on
Political Expenditures

because we have not made the punishment fit the crime, in the language of the Mikado.
If we are going to pass this legislation, then an inevitable result must follow. And it must follow by summary process, by a summary judicial effort. It must not be necessary to deposit a thousand dollars, it must not be necessary to meet all the technical requirements now in the act. The inspector general of elections should be in a position, at the request of any elector in any constituency, to demand that action be taken and that that action should be summary. A man should forfeit his seat upon proof of an illegal condition existing. If he says he did not know, that is no excuse. It is the job of a candidate to know what is being done. That is the reason he is a candidate. If we once open the door by saying that all that is needed is to say that a candidate has no knowledge, and therefore the result of the loss of his seat does not flow from .the proof of these conditions, you will be destroying entirely the efficacy of the law.
If we mean business, there is just one thing we must do. We must provide for summary process. In order to promote the effective and efficient administration of the law we must not hedge it about with conditions that make it impossible for the average man to take action. I am as satisfied as I could be of anything in the world that once we provide for summary process of dealing with these offences, you will see such a change in the electoral life of this country that you will hardly know it. I doubt if there is any greater offence against the sound conduct of elections, even in the payment of money for votes, than to have someone say on behalf of the government, "I promise you this if you will do so and so." I want hon. members to release me from any desire to make any personal application of this. That is a phase of it upon which I thought the minister was going to touch.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall come to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might have been done better in the minister's opening statement.


Charles Gavan Power: On another bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is very gratifying. It will probably have an effect upon all of us. When I say "all of us," I mean men in office and men who might be in office. As I do not intend to be in office any more, it is simple and easy for me to talk from a dispassionate viewpoint.
May I dwell once more upon one phase of this matter? We must by some means provide for a result when there is a violation of the statute. This measure as presented by the 
minister is admirable, but there are some expansions possible. I shall not go into them until we have the particulars; it is idle to talk about details when we have not seen the measure itself. But it will have to be expanded if we mean business. If we are to do something worth while, if we are to prevent the racketeer and the hoodlum, this combination which has been bleeding all parties during the years, from carrying on, we must provide a punishment to fit the crime. If a candidate is likely to lose his seat he will not have this combination going around handling his election. The minister quite properly puts his finger upon it. He has had more to do with elections than I and he knows what he is talking about. He said with great frankness that the danger lies in the fact that you have this type. of person dealing with a situation about which he does not want the candidate to know anything, and about which the candidate does not want to know anything- where the money comes from that runs the election.
That is the only phase of it that I should like to dwell upon. It is the only hope I have for any improvement in conditions. I shall discuss the question of compulsory voting on another occasion when another bill is before us. I do not think it properly comes under this resolution, but apart from all that let me say that if we are to make this measure effective there is just one way to do it, and that one way we should follow. Legislators are always very careful about matters of this kind because they realize sometimes that they have an election to run in the not too distant future. [DOT] They are always concerned about it. Here is a test of our citizenship. Here is a test of our love of democracy. Here is a test of our sincerity in dealing with realities and not with academic questions. Are we prepared to provide by summary means through a proper official that violation by an elected member of the provisions of this proposed legislation will mean the loss of his seat? If we do that, then we shall have really made a step forward, as they have done in other countries.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that it was the hope of the late administration that we might be able to deal with some of these matters, and we had information prepared for that purpose, but the pressure of many things which the present government has happily escaped made it not easy to do very many things one would like to have done. But here is something which the government has brought into this house, and which each one of us can help to make effective, not as a party matter, but as representatives of this

Political Expenditures
Dominion of Canada, under a representative system of government. If we mean what we say and say what we mean, then by providing for summary punishment by the loss of a seat in this house for violation of the provisions of this law, we shall have made a very long step forward and shall have made real progress-and progress, as I always say, is a change for the better, not mere change.
That is all I care to say at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I should like to examine the bill in its details before saying that to all its provisions I can give my support, but with the broad general principles that characterize the legislation I am certainly wholly in accord.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my
intention to make a speech but I should like to express a word of support for the measure as presented. One cannot sit in this house for any number of years without coming under the temptation of being somewhat cynical. However, I confess I was stirred by the appeal of the minister and I shall gladly take it at one hundred per cent value. We in this corner welcome this move towards cleaner elections, which, I agree with the minister, are essential if we are to maintain democracy.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in rising at this time is because of the experience we have had in this house of a bill not following exactly the terms of the resolution upon which it was based, and I believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is in a very good position to support me in that contention.
I must say that I had hoped that the legislation to do away with corrupt electoral practices would be much more sweeping than is indicated by the resolution before us. However, the minister mentioned that another bill would be brought down as supplementary legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is on the order paper now.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Thank you. I cannot
help recalling, Mr. Speaker, the remarks made in this house some time ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who told us that the things we had said were nothing but shadow's and the government had no intention of fighting shadows. But I contend that the minister has perfectly justified us to-day because in introducing this legislation he said in effect that the present electoral system was bringing our elections into disrepute. He did not particularize but he did imply that there was something radically
wrong with our electoral system; so I think it is clear that we were not speaking of shadow's at all but of things that actually existed, indicating that action was necessary.
The Prime Minister not very long ago explained to me how a petition could be presented under the Corrupt Practices Act, chapter 51 o<f the revised statutes of 1927, which provides that twenty-five or more electors may present a petition upon the deposit of $1,000, and so on. I suggest that if we want to have cleaner elections in this country we should eliminate this requirement of $1,000, as the leader of the opposition himself suggested. I realize that if that were done it might be said that all and sundry would be bringing petitions to the attention of parliament without proper justification, condemning elections held in various parts of the country. I suggest that instead of asking any individual or body of citizens to deposit $1,000 before making any such charge, the deposit requirement be eliminated on the understanding that if the charge failed of proof a certain amount of money should be forfeited for the trouble that had been caused. I hope that suggestion may be looked into by the committee to which this bill will be referred.
The language of the resolution is:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting political expenditures-
It makes no mention of political contributions. It is important to have the words "political contributions" in the resolution, because we remember how a bill founded upon a resolution was brought into this house which, in our opinion, did not carry out the intent of the resolution. Perhaps the minister will give us the assurance that political contributions will be included.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, if no one else is going to speak I should like to say a few words, and I hope that any criticism I may make will not lead the minister or the house to think that I am not heartily in accord with the principle of this resolution. No one, I think, would doubt that, and no one, I think, would oppose the principle of the resolution. But there are one or two points on which I should like a little more information, and perhaps the minister may be able to give it to me in committee.
He spoke of a corporation sole. To my lay mind that carries visions of an incorporated company, and of the expenses that go with incorporating it. I am not clear on that point.
Political Expenditures


Charles Gavan Power: There will be no expenses.


Alan Webster Neill: That relieves nay Scotch soul.


Charles Avery Dunning: You can be a corporation without any expense to yourself.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you. I also understood the minister to say that the amount would be based on the number of electors. Is that the number of electors on the voters' list, not those who actually voted?


Charles Gavan Power: On the list.


Alan Webster Neill: That may lead us to see that as many get on the list as possible. I presume, too, the amount would apply to every candidate, whether there was one or six running, that each candidate would be allowed the same expense?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: That is satisfactory. The minister also made some remark about each electoral district being charged, if I understood him, a pro rata allotment of the total national funds of each party.


Charles Gavan Power: That would not apply to my hon. friend, who, I take it, is an independent.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not want to have anyone running in my seat charged with the expenses of one or other of the parties.


Charles Gavan Power: Provision is made for independent candidates.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you. Then I understood that he spoke about five pence or six pence, which, the leader of the opposition suggested, would be about ten cents. Am I right in suggesting that possibly that would be the amount?


Charles Gavan Power: There is no fixed amount in the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, will not that have to be inserted?


Charles Gavan Power: That is left to the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I see. Well, anything like ten cents, as suggested, will be wholly inadequate in a sparsely populated district. In the cities perhaps it would be too much, but in large areas such as the district I represent, and I think also the districts represented by my hon. friends from Cariboo and Skeena it would be utterly impossible to run an election on any such sum as is represented by ten cents for each of the voters, because the expense of canvassing these sparsely settled areas is very great.
I believe it was indicated that contributions to party funds would be published. On the 
face of it that is an admirable idea, but it is provided for now. The act requires each candidate to publish a statement of all his election expenses and how they are contributed. The way they get around that requirement is to state that a certain amount is contributed by "Mr. Jones and others"-which of course renders the whole thing invalid. If it were made obligatory to give the names of everyone who contributed it would meet the circumstances to a large extent.
Another point upon which, I believe, the leader of the opposition touched, and which may be dealt with in another bill, relates to this matter of election returns. As the successful candidate is compelled, as he should be, to put in the returns of his expenditures, the defeated candidate ought to be compelled to do the same. I can see no reason why the unhappy candidate who succeeds is subject to the loss of his seat, while the man who has done all kinds of corrupt things against him simply says, " Well, you can't unseat me; go to it."


Charles Gavan Power: The returns are automatic under this bill.


Alan Webster Neill: That is very good. I was talking about the publication of contributions. I foresee this possibility of a danger which the minister probably has foreseen and guarded against. There should be some reasonable limit, some low point below which the names of donors would not be published. One can understand the situation of a man holding some small government position, or, someone working on the roads who might be asked by the government road foreman to contribute a five dollar bill to party funds. It would be very difficult for such a person to refuse to do so, and if he contributed, the money might go to the support of a candidate with whom he was wholly out of sympathy. Then after the election is over, the opposition perhaps having been returned, they look up the lists and everyone who contributed five dollars to the campaign funds of the losing party would be discriminated against in the way of road work or things of that kind. I suggest that small amounts, say up to fifty dollars, should not have to be recorded.


Charles Avery Dunning: No civil servant will ever contribute under a law like this. Of course he will not.


Alan Webster Neill: He might want to. Or he might be advised that it would be to his interest to do it, and it might be very difficult for him to refuse.
There is another point I should like the minister to deal with. Eventually the amount will be stated in the bill; I assume it will

Political Expenditures
be so much for each district. How is a candidate to know until the election is over how much it has cost him? I suppose that very few of us in the bigger districts know within five hundred or a thousand dollars what an election is going to cost until it is over. The candidate will have this haunting fear over him all the time that when the election is over it will be found that he has exceeded the amount allowed by ten dollars, fifty dollars, a hundred dollars. It seems to me there should be some provision by which that can be avoided.
There is another point. The minister says, we will be very strict and say that we must not pay any illegal expenses or even legitimate expenses beyond so much. I think he said that if we had to disclose the names of every person to whom we pay sums of money in connection with an election many people would not ask for any return for their services. That sounds very well, but there is this other side to it. Supposing I hire a man to go to a certain logging camp, perhaps for nothing more than to put up notices that there is to be a meeting there, and it takes him three days, and he asks for fifteen dollars and his expenses: if I pay him that money I have indicated my appreciation of his services, and I am under no further obligation to him. I have paid for that service a man who is perhaps in poor circumstances and may have lost some days' work; it is a thoroughly justifiable and legitimate proceeding. But if he is prevented from accepting money or I am prevented from paying him, then the opposite side of the picture comes around. When the election is over he comes along and says, "I am a poor man; I lost several days working for you; what about it?" I shall have a political claim upon me which I am not entitled to recognize and which perhaps I am unable to recognize. If I had paid him a justifiable remuneration for his work I would not be under the same obligation to him as if he were able to say, "I have worked for you for nothing." That phase ought to be dealt with, or we shall be instituting an evil almost as great as the one it is desired to get away from.
There is just one other remark I should like to make in connection with something which was said by the leader of the opposition, although I understand he was dealing with what it now appears will be dealt with under another bill. He emphasized very strictly that the measure will have no effect at all unless the member concerned will lose his seat by a summary process if he or anyone representing him has been guilty of any infraction, however slight. If that is carried
out in its entirety, no member will be able to sit here, because it is an almost impossible requirement, and it would be unfair. I am willing to go the whole length where a connection with a candidate can be shown, If the candidate has been guilty of or has lent himself to any corrupt practice, by all means unseat -him. But one can conceive a case in a sparsely settled district or in a large city where a perfectly honest man, representing the candidate at a little polling station, has done something which is technically illegal. Perhaps some one has rung up and said, "I want to go down to vote"; it is voting time, and in his enthusiasm the helper sends a taxi out for that particular person, yet because he has done that the member will be unseated. That sort of thing is not in conformity with the intention of our laws, and if it is attempted to enforce it strictly, the very opposite effect will result. Judges will hesitate to unseat a man on such inadequate grounds. I can see the point when the leader of the opposition says, "You must not begin to tinker with the law, the only way is to have it strict." Yes, -have it strict, but also have it work in a reasonable way. I have no doubt that my right bon. friend, as a great lawyer, knows cases where the very strictness of the law has led to its non-enforcement. I know of cases in British Columbia where- it was desired in a small way to stop the evil of what is called pit lamping.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Hard cases make bad law."


Alan Webster Neill: The right hon. gentleman has put it in a nutshell. If you make the penalty too strict the law will not be enforced. My right hon. friend has expressed it much better than I could.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are not my words.


Alan Webster Neill: We know of cases before a supreme court judge where a man, because he was personally entirely innocent of wrongdoing, has been relieved of penalities to which he would otherwise be subjected. But if the candidate is guilty let him be unseated, as far as I am concerned.


Mr. HEAPS:: I appreciate the statement that has been made by the minister with reference to this bill. I realize how many difficulties stand in the way before we can have what we might term clean elections, but I feel that it is the desire and intention of every hon. member that the elections should be conducted in as clean a way as possible, and that so long as we continue in haphazard fashion as we have done in the past it will
Political Expenditures

oe difficult, for the reasons outlined by the minister, to have the elections conducted as we should like them to be. The suggestion I am about to make to the minister and the committee is not a new one. Compulsory voting was, I believe, put before the house first by the leader of the opposition; it was discussed by the committee which considered the elections act last year, and was rejected by that committee. I believe, however, that if it were put into effiect a good many of the difficulties of the past with regard to conducting clean campaigns would automatically disappear. I have in mind the example of Australia, where they have compulsory voting and where little is known of the difficulties with which we in Canada are confronted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They had them once.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They maj have had them in years gone by, but now as a result in part of compulsory voting there, that difficulty does not arise. I believe that in one of the last elections in the Commonwealth of Australia over ninety per cent of the people voted.
If people were compelled to vote, or, if they were not in a position to do so, compelled to give some valid reason for not voting, the appeals that we have to make at the present time to people to vote, as we have to do in most constituencies, would automatically disappear. I would ask the minister, therefore, in his wisdom to consider the question of compulsory voting as one of the means of overcoming the difficulties that now operate against perfectly clean elections. I am sure it is the desire of every member of the house to see that result brought about.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Power thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 90, respecting political expenditures.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this bill to go to the committee?


Charles Gavan Power: It is to be referred to the committee immediately on second reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, the special committee?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. If there is no objection, I might move the second reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we should see the bill first. It is undesirable to refer to a special committee a bill we have not seen. The minister will appreciate that point.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly



ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons and to make provision for the printing and publication of the Dominion Elections Act and instructions issued thereunder, the printing of voters' lists and other election documents, including forms and ballot papers, and to provide for the salaries or other remuneration of certain officers and employees.
He said: The bill which will follow this resolution is entitled, "An act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons." As drafted, it puts in legislative form the recommendations of the committee on elections which has sat during the past two sessions of parliament. It will be remembered, that to that committee were referred the questions of proportional representation, the alternative vote, compulsory registration, and compulsory voting. There were also added, under a resolution of this house last year, instructions to make a study of methods employed in bringing about redistribution. With respect to this latter question no report has been made. As regards the first-mentioned matter the committee has made a report after a full and comprehensive study of proportional representation. May I commend to the members of the house the reading of the memorandum supplied to that committee by its counsel with regard to the alternative vote and proportional representation. After a complete study, and having examined into the legislation of countries wherein those systems are in force, the committee came to-the decision that the alternative vote and proportional representation, however excellent they might be, were not suitable to conditions in Canada.
John Ritchie MacNicol: They have very little excellence..


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend says they have very little excellence, and as far as I know he was one of the most assiduous students of those systems. If he has come to the conclusion that they are not to be recommended to the house I, for one, am quite willing to follow in his footsteps and concur in his suggestion.

Elections and Franchise
With respect to compulsory registration and voting, one depends upon the other. I think the committee pretty well came to the conclusion that there could not be compulsory voting unless there was compulsory registration. I do not intend to go into the details of that discussion. The point is that the committee studied very carefully all phases of compulsory voting and registration. As the leader of the opposition has said, information was obtained from Australia, which,
I am told, is the only country in the world that has in force absolutely compulsory voting. Other countries, I understand, have some approach to it, but Australia has it in an absolute form. As I say, the committee made a very careful study. It was found,
I believe, that compulsory voting had a tendency to decrease abstentions; that was admitted. It was the opinion of the committee that compulsory voting was not practicable without compulsory registration. I am speaking now only from a reading of the reports and from information, because it was not possible for me to attend many of the sittings of the committee. Therefore, if I am inaccurate in any of the statements I make, I have no objection whatever to being checked up by any member of the committee who attended last year.
It was also considered that, in view of the fact that the closed list was to be abolished, at least in rural constituencies, it was extremely difficult to bring in compulsory voting or registration without having the closed list in existence, because one of the sanctions of compulsory voting would be the dropping from the list of the name of the person who did not vote at the previous election. If there were an open list, however, there would be very little point to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That penalty was provided in British Columbia, where they had compulsory voting, but it has not always been included in compulsory voting legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: It was not in all, but it would appear to me to be almost fundamental that, if compulsory voting is adopted, provision should be made for dropping a person's name from the list if he did not vote. If there are open lists, there is no fixed list at all. The only alternative would be to provide that in case a man wanted to vote, say at a general election, he would be obliged to make some declaration such as this: "I did vote at the last election"; or, alternatively: "I did not vote, the reason being that I was caught in a snowstorm."


Alan Webster Neill: In Australia they fine them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter is dealt with by a provision for registration that takes place between the elections.


Charles Gavan Power: That question of provision for registration can apply only to closed lists.
I come now to the other sanction in compulsory voting, namely, prosecution. It was found by the committee, I believe, that prosecutions in Australia, were most infrequent and that almost any excuse was considered sufficient. I may be wrong in my figures, but I am under the impression that over quite a period of time only some three thousand persons were prosecuted in Australia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is provision there by which the chief electoral officer receives information with respect to these matters, and he determines whether or not prosecution should take place. I think in the last election something over ninety-one per cent voted.


Charles Gavan Power: I think that is correct; over ninety per cent of the people voted. The finding of the committee was, I understand, that the number of abstentions was considerably decreased. But we must remember also that the Australian system of voting differs considerably from ours. There one can vote under almost any conditions. One can vote by mail; one can vote in any polling subdivision in the province or state in which one resides. One can vote by what is called declaration, in case an elector's name has been omitted from the roll. So that would have a tendency to bring up the number voting. And one can register by simply sending a letter to the registration officer and receiving from him some kind of receipt. As I said, I did not follow all the discussion, but apparently the committee decided unanimously that compulsory voting and registration are not to be recommended. Since we have been considering these election bills, almost every hon. member who has discussed them with me seems to think the problem can be solved by the introduction of compulsory voting. It appears to be the general opinion both in the house and outside that compulsory voting would bring to the polls a very large number of people who do not now trouble to come. Whether that is true, I am not in a position to say because I have never given it sufficient study.


Donald MacLennan: Not only would it bring more to the polls, but it would prevent them from putting cars on the road and asking the candidate to pay for the cars. It would eliminate that expense.
Elections and Franchise


Charles Gavan Power: That may be so; I do not know. All I know is that compulsory voting was carefully studied by the committee of thirty members of this house during two years, and as far as I have been able to ascertain, that committee unanimously reported against it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Not unanimously.


Charles Gavan Power: In view of the strong support among the public and in this house for compulsory voting, I would make this suggestion to the committee about to be set up, that they study this question at least once more in order to be able to give the house a clear and definite opinion as to whether or not this system should be accepted in this country.
The disposal of these matters, that is, proportional representation, the alternative vote, compulsory registration and compulsory voting, cleared the way for the preparation of an elections act. It was decided by the committee that the franchise act and the elections act of 1934 should both be repealed and one act substituted. It was decided that the system set up under the 1934 legislation, by which there was an annual revision of the electoral lists, should now be discarded and there should be a reversion to the procedure established under the Dominion Elections Act of 1930 whereby the preparation and the revision of the electoral lists were made after the date of the issue of the writ. It was recommended that a provision for absentee voting enacted in the 1934 legislation should be dropped. I believe it was found on investigation that the procedure was most costly, most complicated, and, moreover, ineffective. I have before me certain figures which indicate how costly the system was. Out of a total of 5,354 ballots there were 1,553 rejected, leaving only 3,801 valid ballots. The total cost of absentee voting was approximately 8250,000, or more than $46 per electoral vote, and more than $65 for every valid ballot cast. The committee therefore recommended the abolition of absentee voting.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the minister the cost of advanced poll votes?


Mr. POWTER:: I have not.


Alan Webster Neill: For the purpose of comparison.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know whether a
comparison was made or not. I am referring now largely to the report of the committee. Connected with both the franchise and election machinery is the question of the respective merits of open and closed lists. An open list means that any person who is duly qualified as an elector in a rural polling division, but whose name does not appear on the final

list of electors for such division, may vote by taking certain appropriate oaths and being vouched for on polling day. A closed list means that any otherwise qualified person whose name is not on the list may not vote at all. Open lists were authorized, in rural polling divisions only, at the general elections of 1921, 1925, 1926 and 1930 and at all byelections held between 1920 and 1934. During that period urban polling divisions were those comprised in cities and towns of specified population. The minimum population required in any city or town to be treated as urban has varied with different years. In 1920 the minimum was 1,000; in 1921 it was set at 2,500; in 1925 it was set at 5,000; in 1929 it was set at 10,000, and in 1938 it is proposed to set it at 3,500.
The chief electoral officer informed the committee that during the period 1921 to 1926, with the exception of some abuses committed by summer residents in a few localities, the open lists appear to have given entire satisfaction.
In 1929, by amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, I think the question of summer residents was satisfactorily disposed of. Special legislation was provided, and as far as I am aware no complaints have been heard since that time.
It is provided in the bill, on the recommendation of the committee, that the chief electoral officer is authorized to declare urban any polling division of which the population is transient or floating, or where large gangs of men are employed at some special work.
In a locality wherein the population is less than 3,500, it is considered that closed lists are not necessary, because the people living within those localities know one another. I do not believe there is the great danger which exists where people are strangers to one another, and where the population is greater.
The committee devoted considerable time to the study of a matter mentioned by the leader of the opposition, namely, personation or, as it is sometimes called telegraphing. This is an extremely difficult matter to deal with. The person who commits the crime of personation lays himself open to the most severe penalties. Penalties as severe as could possibly be provided are already provided in the legislation; so I do not think any useful purpose would be served by increasing them.
What is sought is some means of preventing the organization of telegraphing. The former Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), who, I am sorry to say, is not at the present time in his seat, has on numerous occasions accurately described the offences committed by gangs of paid telegraphers.

Elections and Franchise


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have at certain
points the costumes to be used as disguises.


Charles Gavan Power: In other words, it is organized business. Certain gangs, mostly from the United States, will undertake to poll so many votes at an election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For so much money.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, for so much money. On many occasions the former Secretary of State has pointed out the difficulty of dealing with that kind of thing. I am told that it exists only in the cities of eastern Canada; that perhaps the western boundary is the Ottawa river and the other boundary the New Brunswick border.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was practised in Kingston during the last provincial election. I have the evidence of the case.


Charles Gavan Power: A great deal of thought was given to finding some means of overcoming these telegraphing difficulties. This expedient was hit upon, namely, of giving to each householder in every dwelling house in a polling subdivision a full copy of the list of electors in that particular poll. In other words, if there were three hundred dwelling houses in a poll, there would be three hundred copies of electoral lists distributed. I believe it would not be necessary to have all children of voting age receive a copy. In actual practice I suppose they would see one. This procedure would have the effect, first of all, of bringing on the electoral lists large numbers of names which normally would be omitted, because the people affected would not, unless they saw the list, take the trouble to have their names added. Neighbours would tell them that their names were not on the list and they would register. Second, it would clean the electoral lists, because people would see names such as John Jones or William Smith, and would know that those men had died five years ago. They might complain to the electoral officers asking that the names be removed from the list. Again, a person might see the name of someone who had changed his place of residence, or of someone who did not have the proper qualifications. At any rate, it would place where it actually belongs, namely on the individual citizen, a certain amount of responsibility for seeing that we have clean electoral lists.


Grote Stirling: Does that take care of the apartment houses?


Charles Gavan Power: A dwelling house would
include each dwelling within an apartment house. It is in apartment houses, boarding
houses and places like that where this legislation would, I believe, be most effective.
A large number of further amendments were suggested in the committee's recommendations, all of which have been incorporated in the bill. Therefore, so far as the chief electoral officer and counsel for the committee have been able to carry it out, this bill expresses the will of the committee, and is an interpretation of that will in legislative form.
Of course there are certain routine provisions which have been in every electoral act for many years, and those provisions are retained in the bill. Certain clauses which were in the franchise act of 1934 have been dropped, however, and I think it is only fair to call attention to them. The disqualification clauses of section 4 of the Dominion Franchise Act, 1934, have been changed by the elimination of clauses (x) and (xii) of subsection 1. The clauses eliminated are as follows:
(x) every person who is an inmate of an institution which is maintained by any government or municipality for the housing and maintenance of the poor;
(xii) in the province of British Columbia, every Doukhobor person and every descendant of any such person, whether born in that province or elsewhere, who is by the law of that province disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province.
Those clauses have been dropped from the disqualification section. However, I want to add that with those exceptions, in so far as counsel and the chief electoral officer have been able to do so, the bill carries out the wishes of the committee. Nothing has been added by officers of the crown, or by the government. There may have been some slight changes made at the suggestion of the chief electoral officer. Moreover, I have not endeavoured to make the changes which would make this election bill conform to the elections expenditures measure, because the committee have not as yet dealt with it. As can readily be understood, quite a number of the sections of the elections act, proper, would necessarily be altered or modified by the operation of the measure affecting election expenditures.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would the minister be good enough to repeat his statement with respect to the deletions?


Charles Gavan Power: Two clauses have been deleted, one dealing with the aged poor, and the other, which may interest the hon. member, dealing with the Doukhobors. Clause (xii) which I have just read, and which I
Elections and Franchise

would repeat, if the hon. member so wished is being dropped in the present instance.


Mr. REID:: Was it dropped by the committee?


Charles Gavan Power: No; as I understand it, the committee did not consider the matter.
The duty which now devolves upon the committee is to review the bill in the light of these recommendations, and to see to it that they are carried out in legislative form in the bill which will be placed before the committee. Because it was not considered advisable to introduce any new matter in the bill, it was thought well that certain amendments which, in the view of the government, might be of some use in any election act should not be introduced in the bill, but should be mentioned in the house so that they might be studied by members of the committee during the course of their deliberations.
It is suggested that examination be made into _ the practicability of inserting in the elections act a section or sections which would prohibit a candidate from seeking election on the ground, first, that he will, if elected, exert himself more actively or effectively than an opponent to promote the expenditure of public money in making money payments to any individuals, groups or organizations and, second, that the party or group of which the candidate is a supporter will, if it acquires power, consider proposals for making such expenditure more favourably than an opposing party or group. The language is not necessarily drafted in the form in which it will be submitted to the committee, but I think every hon. member will understand the principle involved.
There is another suggested amendment which would make it an offence for any person or persons, either singly or conspiring together, to endeavour to put force or constraint upon any speaker at a public meeting. In other words, this would do away with the practice which exists in some provinces-to some extent in my own province at any rate-of conspiring to break up public meetings by force. There may be some objection to this amendment on the ground that heckling and questioning are fair and legitimate. I believe they are, but the prevention of attempts to stop a candidate or a person discussing a public policy from speaking is something that can be done by legislation. Such a practice should be stopped if at all possible.
Another suggestion is to curb, if not to eradicate entirely, the practice which has grown u,p in recent years of submitting candidates to what I personally call a perfect

plague of questionnaires, pledges and written undertakings that he will take such and such a course of action if elected.. I am informed that this amendment may be very difficult to draft. It will be said perhaps that it is a negation of democracy. I am informed that in certain constituencies there were submitted to the unfortunate candidates no fewer than eighteen of these questionnaires, ranging all the way from pledges to abstain from the corrupt use of liquor during the election, a matter which is amply covered by the act, to pledges for the protection of property owners, a purely provincial matter. Our contention is that this forces a candidate to make a pronouncement, under duress, so to speak, on matters of which he cannot, during the election period, have had time to make a comprehensive study. It takes away from him and from the people themselves certain rights and is to some extent a negation of our democratic system of government whereby every member of this house represents all the people of Canada and not any individual class or section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bonus demand in the United States was the best illustration of that.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. This practice would
tend to make members of parliament mere delegates of classes or sections of the community, whereas those of us who still adhere to the old-fashioned theory, as laid down by Burke to the sheriffs of Bristol, believe that a member of parliament represents all classes and all sections and all people of this Dominion of Canada.
That is about all there is to be said with respect to this bill. The suggestions which I have mentioned will in due course be placed before the committee which, I am sure, will deal with them in its wisdom as it sees fit. When the appropriate time comes, I shall move that the bill be referred back to the committee from which to all intents and purposes it came so that it can be put into final shape.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appedle):: Could the minister tell me if the government has given any consideration to the alternative vote in the western* provinces? I was a member of the committee although I was not able to attend all the sittings. I know the majority of the members were not in favour of the alternative vote, but the .minister has made reference to the fiact that a member should represent all classes. I think if he reviews the votes in the last three elections in Saskatchewan, he will realize that all classes

Elections and Franchise
are not represented properly. I believe the introduction of the alternative vote is the only way to bring this about.
I have before me the figures for the last three eleotions in Saskatchewan. It was interesting to note that in the 1930 federal election the Liberal party polled 153,673 votes to elect eleven members; the Conservative party polled 129,420 votes to elect eight members, and all others polled 47,000 votes to elect two members. The total number of votes in that election was 330,093. In the 1934 provincial election there were 424,682 votes polled, or nearly 100,000 more than the number cast in the 1930 election. In this instance the Liberal party polled 206,191 votes to elect fifty members; the Conservative party polled 114,973 votes to elect no members, and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation polled 103,518 votes to elect five members. In this instance the representation was not fair as far as the general public was concerned.
In the 1935 federal election the total number of votes polled was 262,404. I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that the total vote had dropped nearly 200,000. It will be seen what compulsory voting would have done in this case. A great number of people never came out to vote and possibly that influenced the results. The Liberals polled 107,427 votes to elect sixteen members; the Conservatives polled 55,402 votes to elect one member; the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation polled 50,675 votes to elect two members, and the social crediters polled 48,900 votes to elect two members.
In 1935 a private bill to amend the elections act was introduced into this house, and this bill, which was eventually taken over by the government, came up for consideration at the very end of the session. I remember the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) asked the government to withhold the measure because a discussion would prolong the session. He gave general support to the idea of the alternative vote being practised in one or two of the western provinces. The opposition, as well as the government members, gave a general expression in favour of it. However, because of the nearness of the close of the session it was decided to drop the matter. When we consider the vote in Saskatchewan in the last three elections I think we must realize the need for compulsory voting and the alternative vote. If the government would like to put this into force all over Canada, it would be all right with me.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Is my hon. friend in favour of the alternative vote being applicable to only one section of the country?
Mr. PERLEY; I would be quite prepared to have it applied to all Canada, but I think the results of the last three or four elections in Saskatchewan are evidence of the need for it there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As a member of the committee I should like to say a word in support of the general principles of the bill to be founded upon what the minister has said. Perhaps I might take a minute or two to explain why the committee did not recommend compulsory voting. The committee went thoroughly into the question and had before them the for and against arguments from every country that had had compulsory voting in operation. Most members of the committee had looked with a certain amount of favour upon compulsory voting; but, upon hearing the facts submitted, the committee decided not to recommend any such change. Compulsory voting had been tried in Switzerland, and had been a failure; it had been tried in Czechoslovakia, and had been a failure; it had been tried in Belgium and Holland, and had been a failure in both countries; it had been a failure in the Argentine; but apparently it was a success in Australia.
On the other hand, our present system of voting in Canada has not been such a dismal failure. It is true that in Australia, under compulsory voting, the percentage of those voting increased materially. The percentage voting in Australia under compulsory voting is between 91 and 95 per cent. On the other hand, the informal vote has been as high as 11-35 per cent. In Canada in the last general election the percentage of those voting was 74-17 per cent. That rose in Prince Edward Island to over 80 per cent, and in many individual ridings the number voting was between 85 and 90 per cent. In two ridings it was over 90 per cent. So Canada has not so much to feel ashamed of in the percentage of those voting.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was not the 1935 figure an exceptionally high average, namely, 74-17 per cent?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would say no. The percentage may have been higher in previous elections. I would take 74-17 per cent to b' the average.
In the 1935 general election in Canada the number on the list was 5,918,207, of whom 4,452,671 voted, or 74-17 per cent. But in Canada the informal vote was approximately one per cent; that is, the spoiled ballots comprised approximately one per cent of the total vote, whereas in Australia the spoiled

Elections and Franchise

ballots rose to 11-35 per cent. So in the aggregate, I doubt if we are very much worse off in Canada than they are in Australia.
The committee felt that if compulsory voting were adopted in this country, it would be necessary to provide against elections being held in the winter months of December, January, February and perhaps March, for a bad snowstorm on election day would mean a drop in the percentage of those voting and would result in a great number of people being summoned for not voting. Someone asked, while the minister was speaking, what was the number summoned in Australia for not casting their votes. Out of over four million voters on the lists, 3,750 were summoned and prosecuted for not voting.
I was not quite able to follow the minister and tell whether one of the suggestions that had been made by myself had been adopted. The suggestion was, I believe, allowed to stand for further consideration. It is one that would, I think, eliminate a good deal of the trouble and expense which now surround voting in the ridings, and I commend it to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who, I know, desires to frame an act that will be one hundred per cent perfect. My suggestion is this, that if the government appoints the deputy returning officer for each individual poll, the opposition, or the party which had the second largest number of votes in the previous election, should appoint the clerk. My idea is this, that if we had two men from opposite parties in command of the poll in the subdivision, this would eliminate the necessity for scrutineers, which is quite an expense in any event; it would cut down the expenses of every candidate, and in the second place it would be difficult for either the returning officer, the deputy returning officer, or the clerk, to do anything irregular. If that proposal is not contained in the bill, I commend it to the Prime Minister's consideration.
The minister also said something about the possibility of preventing questionnaires from being submitted to candidates, and I am heartily in accord with that. I do not see how any candidate can sign a document committing himself to this or that particular thing if elected, without surrendering his independence to vote as he feels he should on the matters that come up in the house.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) said something about the alternative vote, and gave one or two instances in Saskatchewan; but for every instance he gave, ten could be mentioned on the other side to prove that the alternative vote has generally been a menace to constitutional government.

In Australia, for example, in one senatorial election held under the alternative vote, 860,000 votes were polled by the Liberal party and seventeen senators were elected; 820,000 votes were polled by the Labour party and one senator was elected; and 173,000 votes were polled for the Farmers' party, with no senator elected. I could give scores of similar instances of the failure of the alternative vote. It is a greater menace than even proportional representation, and they are both menaces. I am glad that the committee recommended that neither of them should be adopted in Canada.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has raised the question of the alternative vote, I think it might be well to put before the house the reasons why the committee rejected both proportional representation and the alternative vote. The question was referred to the committee and dealt with during the session of 1936. At that time we had three sponsors of proportional representation before the committee. We also had counsel for the committee make a study of proportional representation and the alternative vote. It may be well in the first place to put on record just what is meant by proportional representation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which system of proportional representation?


Charles Edward Bothwell: The system of proportional representation as defined by Sir John Fischer Williams is as follows:
Proportional representation is the name given to all those electoral methods which aim at reproducing in the elected party the opinions of the electorate in their true proportions . . . all such electoral methods have this in common, that they reject the attempt to represent by one individual the electors resident in one geographical area . . . and require constituencies returning several members. The members thus elected represent the sections of electors whose votes have caused their election.
The best definition of alternative voting which was put before the committee was that of Hoag and Hallett, of the United States:
The alternative vote has been devised to make it certain that in single-member constituencies no candidate can secure election unless he has behind him the support, if not of the majority of voters in a constituency, at least of a greater number than under the present system elects a member where there are more than two candidates.
Under proportional representation the method of voting-


Richard Bedford Bennett: -depends upon the
system.

Elections and Franchise


Charles Edward Bothwell: Well, the system that
is generally adopted in English speaking countries is the one to which we gave the closest study. There are several different systems of proportional representation, but that most applicable to English speaking countries is the single transferable vote, and the other system most commonly used is the "list" system. The "list" system is used more particularly in Europe, although on occasion it has been used within the empire, but within the British Empire the single transferable vote is the system of proportional representation generally in use.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Generally called the
Hare system.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes. It was devised,
I believe, by Thomas Hare, an Englishman, a great many years ago. The method of voting is to vote for the candidates in order of preference, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. In the first place, the Proportional Representation Society of Great Britain states that "a five to seven member constituency is the preferable form of constituency"; if there are less than five members to be elected in any particular constituency the proportional representation system does not work satisfactorily. The voter marks his ballot according to his preference, numbering it, let us say, from 1 to 5. After the votes are polled, when the results are being tabulated, a quota is arrived at in this way. The total number of votes cast is divided by the number of candidates to be elected plus one.


Abraham Albert Heaps: One vote.


Charles Edward Bothwell: And one added to the
result. That is, if there are five candidates to be elected, the number of votes cast would be divided by six and one added to the result in order to get the quota. Any candidate on the first count of the ballots who receives more than the quota on the first count is elected, and the surplus ballots over and above that quota are then distributed among the other candidates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including the ballots of those who have been elected by reason of obtaining the quota.


Mr. ROGERS:: That is, the excess ballots.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes. It is only the
excess ballots that are distributed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Charles Edward Bothwell: And there does not
seem to be any particular method of choosing which excess of ballots is to be used.
51952-129i


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh yes, there is. The hon.
member is not quite correct in that statement.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Well, that was the
evidence given to us by this man Wright of Nova Scotia who came to Ottawa in order to give information to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have the system
in Calgary, and they have it in Winnipeg.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have run into that system on several elections, and it is worked out on an exact basis.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Well, I have before
me a report of the 1936 Manitoba election for the Winnipeg constituencies, and in studying the count in that election I find some things which are rather strange to me. For instance, on the first count Stubbs had 17,591 ballots in excess of the quota. Those were then distributed, and apparently Webb was elected on that second count. That is, a sufficient number of the ballots of Stubbs went to Webb to elect him.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out to my hon. friend that there is a definite method by which that was done.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Then Webb's surplus
ballots were not distributed. The transfer gave him surplus ballots, but his surplus was not distributed until the thirteenth count. In any event, to continue-


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the hon. member
explain how the ballots of Stubbs were distributed after the first count?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Well, there are quite a number of names here. Bardal got 334; Berry, 647; Benjamin, 359, and so on. On the distribution of that ballot it elected Litterick, giving him 17,971 votes, whereas the quota was 7,214, and it elected Webb by giving him a vote of 7,250, and the quota was 7,214. It is a rather strange count.


Ernest Lapointe: How many Stubbs' ballots were given to Webb?


Charles Edward Bothwell: One thousand six hundred and sixty-nine.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what elected him?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes. Well, there were two men elected on that first transfer of Stubbs' ballots-Litterick and Webb. Lit-terick's surplus ballots were then distributed, but Webb's surplus ballots were not distributed until the thirteenth count. Litterick's, for some reason which was not explained, were
Elections and Franchise

distributed on the second count. I do not know that any of us noticed, when the witnesses were before the committee, that the count was made in that way. In any event there is no explanation of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that not depend
upon the relative position of the firsts on the first count? The hon. member does not have it before him, but my memory is that the distribution takes place in accordance with the position of the firsts on the first count. Thus, if Litterick was fourth, when they reached the fourth they would dispose of his surplus ballots; but if Webb was, on the first count, sixth, his would be disposed of when that point was reached, and so on.


Ernest Lapointe: It must be done on some definite basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, it is, I assure the minister. We have had the system in force in Calgary for mayor and council and in Winnipeg for mayor and council for long years. I took the trouble once to go over if with the city clerk, and I may tell my hon. friend that there is a definite method in dealing with it.


Charles Edward Bothwell: There were only two distributions there. They dropped the low man, the man with the lowest number of ballots, and his second choices were distributed, and so on, until you had the required number of persons elected. In each case the low man is dropped after the first two distributions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You deal with the elected ones first.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes. Then you take the low man and his second choices are distributed. In the alternative voting system you follow very much the same procedure. You strike no quota and have no surplus ballots to distribute, but you take the ballots of the candidate who has the least number of votes, and you drop him and distribute his second choices. There are said to be three hundred systems of proportional representation and the alternative vote in vogue, but for our purposes we confined ourselves pretty much to this system because it has been found the most effective.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Hare system.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes, the single transferable vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The grouping of constituencies would be the principal difficulty.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes. We found that in Canada, if five constituencies were combined it would be practically impossible to put into effect the proportional representation system. The constituencies are too sparsely settled and too large. Many constituencies in this country at the present time are almost too large for a candidate to get over, and if you combined five of these the electors would probably never see their candidate at all.
This system of proportional representation has been tried in many European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Austria, Poland, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, and France. Of these, five retain the system and apparently it works satisfactorily. These five are Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Finland and Sweden. Other countries have given it a trial and many of them have actual dictatorships. In other countries, particularly Germany and Italy, they have not been able to elect satisfactory governments. I should like to read an extract with regard to the working of the system in Germany. Sir John Fischer Williams, writing in reference to Germany, says:
It is the more necessary to examine the circumstances leading to the fall of parliamentary government in Germany because proportional representation was in use, and it has been asserted by many that the fall was due to the effects of P.R. The proportional system was not of the British type; it was different from the single transferable vote, with the free expression of choices which the latter affords. The German system was very rigid in form. The elector could vote only for a party as such: each party was given a number. The elector voted for, say, List No. 1, or List No. 5, or some other individual list; he could not vary names on the list or the order in which they appeared.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had to vote the ticket.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes.
The constituencies in which P.R. operated were much larger than is proposed in Great Britain.
However, we shall see what the results have been in Germany. In the first election after proportional representation went into effect there were twenty-four different parties or groups seeking election and twelve of those groups elected members, but no one party was in a position to carry on the government and there resulted government by compromise. In Poland the system of proportional representattion was adopted in 1921, and as a result of the election on November 5, 1922, the following parties were elected in the proportions indicated:

Elections and Franchise
National Christian Union	 163
Radical Peasant Parties	 55
Moderate Peasant Party	 70
Polish Socialist Party	 41
Jews	 18
Union of National Minorities	 66
Ruthenians	 5
Communists	 2
Others	 24
Again, no one party had a majority. In the Netherlands the system was adopted in 1917, and as a result of the election in 1922 the following parties were returned:
Catholics	 32
Social Democrats	 20
Anti-Revolutionist Party	 16
Christian Historical Party	 11
Liberty Union	 10
Democrats	  5
Other parties	 6
In Denmark the system was adopted in 1915 and amended in 1920. The election results, April, 1924, were:
Liberals	 45
Radicals	 20
Socialists	 55
Conservatives	 28
Slesvig (German Party)	 1
In Finland the system has been in operation since 1906. The results of the 1924 election were:
Social Democrats	 60
Agrarians	 44
Finnish Coalition Party	 38
Socialist Labour Party	 18
Swedish Party	 23
Finnish Progressive Party	 17
In Norway and Esthonia the results ended similarly; no one party was able to secure a majority to carry on the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they did carry on.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes; but many of those countries that adopted the system of proportional representation, in the course of a few years became practically dictatorships.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. member
attribute that to the system of voting?


Charles Edward Bothwell: It might be attributed to that. We had evidence before the committee of countries in Europe where there were two or three elections inside of two years because no one party was able to carry on the government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did we not have the same condition here in 1925-26?


Charles Edward Bothwell: That happened, apparently, in one election in Canada. The committee found that in most countries the elections were much more frequent than they are here, and governments did have difficulty in carrying on. In that conection I should like to refer to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 26, 1938. Apparently
the Free Press has always been very favourable to proportional representation and the alternative vote; yet in that editorial they say:
Throughout the session of the legislature just prorogued the results of lack of leadership by the government were painfully evident. The principle of responsible government was for the most part renounced. When that happens in any legislative body, it is like a vessel on the high seas with no one at the helm, driven hither and yon by the changing winds.
But what could be expected, with the government having a precarious hold on office-out on a limb so to speak? Towards the end of the session the views of the government were disregarded, and things which the head of the government was known to disapprove were done. And, because of the uncertainty of the government's position, the problem of Winnipeg's financial difficulties was dealt with in an arbitrary and extremely unreasonable way. It is safe to say that the result would have been different if there had been responsible government-by any group or combination of groups- instead of the state of disorganization that existed.
And the final paragraph says:
Instability of government, such as has existed lately in Manitoba, is entirely unsatisfactory and cannot long endure. In one way or another, we must have settled government with responsibility definitely placed. It can be done, no matter what the circumstances, and the people of Manitoba, in their own interest, must see that it is done.
The following is in the published proceedings of the committee, but I think it might be well to draw the attention of the house to some remarks which have been made by those who have made a study of proportional representation. George Horwill, in his work describing proportional representation, says:
A serious defect of proportional representation is a tendency to split combinations of persons who hold similar views on general matters into small groups with strong views on separate and less important subjects. In P.R. there appears to be a tendency towards the formation of small parties interested in some particular subject.
In 1900 political life in Belgium was comparatively simple and there were two great political parties, the Liberals and the Catholic Conservatives. The one pursued modern demoneratic tendencies while the other was stoutly conservative. Belgium adopted the d'Hondt system of P.R. in 1900. . . .
In 1922, after twenty years of P.r! development, although the great parties submitted lists in all districts, no fewer than forty-five different parties and groups were formed among the electors for the election of ninety-six members.
After giving the lists and results, he goes on to say:
The P.R. results in the countries mentioned (Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Esthonia) show that P.R. has made a stable majority government impossible in countries where it existed before P.R. was introduced. A stable govern-
Elections and Franchise

ment representing a general majority opinion may indeed be defective. In operation it may sometimes be distasteful to minority and majority right, but it is effective; it does maintain stability in social relationships, it does give that security necessary for continuous development. Italy has not been mentioned because its policy deserves special attention. The elections of 1913 were conducted by the ordinary majority political method of election and the results were as follows: Constitutionalists, 318; radicals, 70; republicans, 16; socialists, 77; syndicalists, 3; Catholics, 24. At this period majority government was at any rate real. On January 19, 1919, a new Catholic party, known as the popular party, arose with the sanction of the Vatican, and it advocated P.R. As a result the P.R. method was applied in the elections of 1919. The results were: Socialists, 156; liberals and conservatives, 132; Catholics, 101; democrats, 80; social reformers, 16; republicans, 15; Giolittians, 8. No party now had a majority. P.R. destroyed the hope of majority government and stimulated minority conflicts to such a degree that ultimately physical force minorities assumed dictatorship. The fascists then used P.R. to stabilize minority dictatorship; the law of November 18, 1923, turned the whole country into one constituency divided into fifteen districts, and it permitted a single party which obtained twenty-five per cent of the votes passed to appropriate two-thirds of the seats in the chamber. This indicates the great social dangers which P.R. stimulates. It shows that minorities can not only prevent majority rule but can enforce minority dictatorship.
I think I should read another quotation from Mr. Horwill's work. He says:
P.R. advocates fear the majority; they fear oppression and tyranny which majorities might use. What is the alternative? Minorities in parliament will fight each other. When combined minorities form a majority, fighting and struggling will be the rule. Forceful energetic minorities will then seize power, and the majority will experience oppression at_ their hands. It is a fateful moment in social evolution. We have to choose either to train the majority so that a social mentality can be _ created whereby cooperation can play the major part in social life, or else-dictatorship of a minority. The present system enables the former, if we can seize its advantages; P.R. the latter.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65, respecting Revillon Freres Trading Company, Limited, and to change its name to Rupert's Land Trading Company- Mr. Maybank.

Mr. A. G. McAVITY (St. John-Albert) (for Mr. Veniot) moved:: That the order for the house to go again into committee of the whole on Bill No. 66 (Letter E of the Senate), intituled "An Act respecting the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company," be discharged, and that the said bill be referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Niagara Observation Bridge Company-Mr. Damude-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 8-Power to construct bridge.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: When the bill was last before the committee we were considering section 8.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Before section 8 carries, there are some observations I should like to make. The section provides that the company may construct, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river, and so on. Since the destruction of the Falls View bridge, or what was commonly known as the " Honeymoon bridge," in January of this year, considerable attention has been given to the proposal to build a bridge which would become toll free after the capital cost had been taken up.
Proponents of the bridge have given a number of figures as to expected revenues and cost of construction which, at least to me, appear fantastic. While I am not opposing the idea of a toll free bridge, or a publicly owned bridge, and while I am not by any means advocating a private bridge, at the same time when the bill was before the committee many statements were made which appeared to me to be at least contradictory.
The Falls View bridge had been in existence since the 1860's and was owned by the International Railway Company. It took care of the traffic running between Niagara Falls, New York, and Niagara Falls, Ontario. It was a four-lane bridge, and we are told by an eminent firm of architects of Montreal, perhaps the most outstanding architects in Canada in the matter of bridge building, that this bridge was maintained in perfect condition, and at all times was capable of taking care of the traffic at that particular point. If any difficulties did arise, it was on what were known as peak days, such as the Fourth of July, the First of July, Labour day and other holidays. But only on four or five days of the year was there any difficulty in handling the traffic which passed over the bridge. Any difficulty which did arise on those days was due more to the

Niagara Falls Bridge
fact that not enough customs officers were on duty to clear the cars, than to the fact that the bridge was incapable of carrying the traffic. It could hardly be expected, however, that the government would keep a large force of customs officers to meet the requirements of only a few days in the year.
This bridge paid taxes of about $12,000 a year to the city of Niagara Falls, Ontario. I have no interest in the matter whatever, more than to see that a proper bill passes through the house, but so far as I can learn the people of Niagara Falls were perfectly satisfied with the accommodation they received at that bridge. The bridge which it is proposed to build would be two hundred yards below the site of the Falls View bridge, and is to be known as the Observation bridge. Necessarily those in charge will have to purchase property on both sides of the river and will have to build an entirely new bridge at an estimated cost of $4,000,000. I might add, in passing, that the approaches and buildings connected with the Falls View bridge still remain.
We were given to understand, not only by Canadian counsel but by eminent counsel from the United States, that the International Railway Company have a right to rebuild their bridge, under a charter they now hold, without going to any legislative body for further consent. That, of course, was denied by those supporting the building of the new Observation bridge. Up to date, however, no satisfactory answer has been given to the statement made by counsel in committee that the International Railway Company have a perfect right to reconstruct their bridge.
If both bridges are built, serious objections will arise. In the first place there is not sufficient traffic to support two bridges. In the second place, if the Observation bridge is built at the spot indicated, at a point about two hundred yards below the old Falls View bridge, the same distance from the proposed new Falls View bridge, its value as an observation bridge would be destroyed by reason of the new Falls View bridge being between it and Niagara falls.
Evidently the building of a new bridge is a subject of lively controversy on the United States side as well as on the Canadian side of the boundary line. An article appearing in the Niagara Falls Gazette, Niagara Falls, New York, on February 12, is in these words:
The earnings of a publicly owned bridge across the Niagara river to replace the Falls View bridge would be ample to ensure its being paid for in full and being made a toll free span within ten years, in the opinion of assemblyman Harry D. Suitor, this city, who plans to introduce a bill providing for the
creation of a government commission authorized to build such a span in the state legislature early next week as soon as the necessary legislation can be drafted.
Mr. Suitor declared to-day that on the Falls View bridge, figures on file in his office show that the International Railway Company-
Listen to these figures:
-earned $459,000 between April 1, 1935, and March 31, 1936, and that it received revenue of $540,000 for the period April 1, 1936, to March 31, 1937. For the period from April 1, 1937, to November 1, 1937, the bridge revenue totalled $521,000, Mr. Suitor declared. The bridge was wrecked by the effect of ice on last January 27th.
These are the figures which were given to the railway committee in connection with the proposed Observation bridge. In an effort to substantiate their claim to the right to build a $4,000,000 bridge, the company were calculating on these revenues to carry the load. What are the facts? The following are the facts which were produced by the counsel for the Falls View bridge. I understand that the two bridges are to be identical, each having four lanes for traffic. Therefore it is expected that the revenue which would be derived from the Observation bridge would not be greater than that which was derived from the Falls View bridge during the last ten years. I quote from the statement:
The facts are that Falls View bridge revenue for the year ended March 31, 1936, was $237,403 not $459,000 as stated by Mr. Suitor. The revenue for the year ended March 31, 1937, was $280,449 and not $540,000 as stated by Mr. Suitor. The revenue for the period April 1, 1937, to November 1, 1937, was $282,335 and not $521,000, as stated by Mr. Suitor.
It will be seen that there is a wide variation in the figures presented by the two parties. The figures presented by the proponents of the Observation bridge are purely an estimate, while those presented by the owners of the Falls View bridge are the actual annual revenues over a period of ten years. I quote:
As a matter of fact, careful calculations based on the actual revenue experience of Falls View bridge and the estimated cost of a bridge as proposed by the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company lead to the inescapable conclusion that the so-called "free bridge" can never become toll free.
An expenditure of $4,000,000 for a new bridge at a new site would be conceivable. Assuming this cost, the bridge would be faced with an annual deficit of $50,000 before taxes. Assume an average annual income of $325,000, interest charges at five per cent would be $200,000; operating costs, $95,000; depreciation at two per cent, $80,000, or a total of $375,000, a deficit of $50,000 a year without allowance for taxes.
Assuming a cost of $3,000,000, which is much closer to the reasonable maximum that could be spent prudently and wisely for a new bridge on a new site at Niagara Falls, the structure would earn a net income of $20,000 a year
Niagara Falls Bridge

before taxes. If tax free, such a bridge would require 150 years to liquidate its cost, retire its securities and become truly a public bridge, toll free.
The question of taxes, however, is important. The Peace bridge between Buffalo and Fort Erie, operated by a public authority, paid last year in Canada taxes of $34,700. Proportionate taxes levied against the proposed observation bridge, even at an estimated cost of $3,000,000, would transform the small annual profit into a loss and would destroy all possibility of the bridge becoming toll free.
With particular regard to the tax situation, it is significant that more than half the revenue of Falls View bridge accrued during the tourist season. This large proportion of the receipts comes from persons living at a distance and visiting Niagara Falls for a day or two. If the so called "free bridge" paid comparable taxes it could never become toll free. If it did not pay taxes, the citizens and taxpayers would lose this contribution to governmental expense and would have to make up the difference out of their own pockets, largely for the benefit of transients.
The question may well be asked, when consideration is given to the revenue figures I have quoted: Why should the International Railway Company wish to replace their bridge? The answer is obvious. According to the estimate of their engineers, their proposed bridge will cost possibly $1,200,000 and not more than $1,500,000. They figure that the net revenue will be in the neighbourhood of $75,000, based on past performances.
I notice reports in several papers that considerable objection has been taken to the proposed new bridge by the local municipality. It is contended that they will lose taxes amounting to $12,000, which was the amount paid upon the old Falls View bridge. They will also lose the taxes on the land that will be expropriated for the entrance to the new bridge. The city of Niagara Falls, Ontario, faces a considerable loss in taxes should this new bridge be erected. I quote from the Niagara Falls Gazette of Niagara Falls, Ontario, as follows:
Alderman John McAninch voiced a strong protest against the charter being granted to this company, without further information, stating that this city has been treated very discourteously by not receiving any information on the bill presented to parliament.
Speaking in this house on March 29, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Damude) is reported on page 1979 of Hansard as saying:
So that so far as the city of Niagara Falls is concerned, the province of Ontario, I am assured, will have no objection and will see that that municipality receives an assessment on this property.
Possibly the hon. member for Welland would be prepared to give us his authority for making that statement. It certainly does not

appear in the bill and I think we must take the bill as it reads at present. I quote from the Buffalo Courier Express as follows:
The old Falls View bridge, commonly known as " Honeymoon bridge," collapsed this winter due to heavy ice jams. The International Railway Company, owner of that bridge, opposed the bill because it claimed it had authority to reconstruct a bridge on the same site as the old one without any additional legislation.
We did not have any refutal of that statement presented to the committee. I quote from a Niagara Falls dispatch appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Maxell 29, as follows:
The city council to-night, by a vote of four to three, decided to telegraph Prime Minister Mackenzie King asking him to withhold presentation in the House of Commons of Bill 15 to grant a charter to the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company, until the city has protected its rights.
So far as I know, the city has not been invited to sit in on the discussion of this bill.
What took place in the committee had the appearance of a real attempt to rush the bill through, and I protested in the committee because of the power play which was put on. I think that in neither our railway committee nor any other committee of this house to which bills are referred should any pressure or undue haste be applied. It is very much better to allow a committee to discuss a bill thoroughly, giving it plenty of time, even if one or two more sittings are necessary, because this procedure saves the time of the house in the end.
I noticed in last night's Ottawa Journal a dispatch from Toronto headed, "Hepburn protests Ottawa Action over New Bridge." It reads:
Premier Hepburn registered "a formal protest" in the Ontario legislature to-day over what he said appeared to be "deliberate delay" of the federal government in passing a bill providing for a new bridge at Niagara Falls. Replacing the collapsed Falls View bridge, it is to be erected jointly by Ontario and New York state.
Well, Mr. Hepburn has a perfect right to protest if he wishes to do so, but just how effective his protest will be in this house I am not so sure.
I have nothing further to say. I object to this bill being passed for the following reasons, which I have summarized.
1.	The International Railway Company claim to have the right to rebuild their bridge under the existing charter.
This claim has not been satisfactorily refuted.

Niagara Falls Bridge
2.	There is not enough traffic for two bridges at this point.
3.	The proposed Observation bridge would be two hundred yards below the Falls View bridge, and the view of Niagara Falls would be obstructed by the Falls View bridge.
4.	The practical impossibility of the Observation bridge ever becoming toll-free under the present financial set-up.
5.	Approximately $12,000 a year has been paid in taxes by the International Railway Company to the city of Niagara Falls, Ontario. No provision is made in this bill to pay any taxes to this municipality.
6.	The great disparity between the cost of building the Observation bridge and the cost of rebuilding the Falls View Bridge, $4,000,000 and $1,500,000 respectively. These are the figures submitted by the proponents of the Observation bridge and the Falls View bridge respectively.
7.	The estimated revenue from the proposed new Observation bridge was double the figures submitted by the Falls View bridge of its actual receipts over a period of ten years.
The traffic capacity of the two bridges would be the same, namely, four lanes of traffic.
8.	The International Railway Company propose to rebuild their bridge at once. Plans are actually being prepared and the bridge is to be ready for traffic in 1939.
The Observation bridge could not possibly be ready until 1940. That is a very important point. The evidence in the committee was that the day after the destruction of the Falls View bridge, steps were immediately taken to provide for reconstructing the bridge, with higher spans and a wider spread so that there would be no danger from ice in the future. Those plans are in preparation and are coming along fairly well, and if the company is allowed to go ahead and rebuild the Falls View bridge, it promises to have that bridge in operation in 1939. The estimate is that the other bridge, the Observation bridge, would take three years to complete from the time they get permission to build. They have not yet received permission to [DOT]build from the New York legislature. They might get permission at the fall session; but, if not, they will have to wait until next year. So it will be at least two, and possibly three years from now, before there will be service at that point by the Observation bridge, and hon. members can see what a disadvantage that would be to the merchants and those doing business in that city.
9.	I am informed that arrangements can be made to have the Falls View bridge toll free when costs of reconstruction have been recovered.
That, I think, is a very important point, and it is something that should be fully considered. That is all I have to say, and I trust that the sponsor of this bill will have it referred back to the committee for further consideration.


Mr. DAMUDE:: The observations made by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Edwards) have, I think, been fairly well covered already in speeches made by other hon. members.
So that there may be no misunderstanding of the position of the city council of Niagara Falls with respect to this matter, I propose to read a resolution passed by that city council in session on April 4:
Moved by Alderman Thomas Grimster,
Seconded by Alderman Grant Donald, that
Whereas Bill No. 15 is a bill to grant a franchise to the Observation Bridge Company, and
Whereas this _ council has received assurance that taxation is a provincial and municipal matter in which the interests of the city will be protected, and
Whereas the granting of a franchise to individuals who will surrender their rights to the province is a matter of procedure as outlined by the Honourable the Minister of Transport, and
Whereas the tourist business is of prime importance to this city and to the country as a whole and every facility should be provided for that purpose, and
Whereas the terminal of the Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway, a division of the Canadian National Railways, is situate at the bridge head of the proposed bridge and is dependent upon such a source for traffic to St. Catharines and other points in the Niagara district, and
Whereas the erection of the proposed new bridge will act as a gesture of good will and as an aid towards friendly relations,
Be it therefore resolved that this council believes it to be in the best interests of the city and of the country as a whole, to expedite Bill No. 15 through parliament and that it is essential the erection of a new bridge be started at the earliest possible date and that the clerk forward this resolution to the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King and to the Right Honourable R. B. Bennett, and the seal of the corporation be hereto affixed.


Mr. LENNARD:: May I ask if that motion passed the city council?


Arthur Byron Damude: Yes; the motion was carried.
Further, in connection with this matter, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) addressed a letter, dated March 24, to the mayor of Niagara Falls-and I may say it was a very fine letter, taking up eighty-three lines of foolscap paper and consisting of 1079 words-asking the city of Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls Bridge

to say whether it appreciated his efforts on their behalf. This is what the city council says about his letter:
Council Chamber,
March 28, 1938.
That was four days later.
No. 91-N. J. M. Lockhart, M.L.A.
It should be M.P.
No. 91-N. J. M. Lockhart-re bill before House of Commons re new bridge. Ordered on the motion of Aldermen Twidale and Scott that the communication be received and filed.
I may say that that resolution was carried. Then, here is item No. 63 of the minutes of that same meeting of the city council:
Moved by alderman Inglis, seconded by alderman Donald: Resolved that the council receives with general satisfaction and appreciation the announcements of the Honourable W. L. Houck, M.L.A., and Mr. A. B. Damude, M.P., that the interests of this city are being protected in legislation and bills now pending; and that this council deprecates the statement accredited to the federal member of Lincoln in press reports from Ottawa, that the condition of this city is one of virtual insolvency; which is untrue, as all obligations have been met in full; that a copy of this resolution be wired to the Honourable Mr. W. L. Houck, M.L.A., and Mr. A. B. Damude, M.P.
This resolution was lost by one vote.
I have no desire to take up the time of the committee, but I believe there are a few facts which should be brought to its attention to show the necessity of a proper bridge at this point. Some of the older members of this house will probably recall that in 1927 a bill was brought forward by the then hon. member for Welland, Mr. George H. Pettit, seeking a charter to erect a proper, adequate and safe bridge across the river at this point. At that time the bill was defeated. In 1928 the citizens of the community prevailed on him again and in that year he presented a bill which met with the same result. Again, in 1929, the then hon. member for Welland brought forward a bill, which passed the House of Commons but was defeated, I understand by one vote, in the Senate. Hon. members will therefore realize that even at that time it was regarded as important that a more adequate and safe structure should be erected. Probably it should be known where the opposition at that time came from. It came from the county of Lincoln, the same place from which it is coming now. Probably there is a reason for this. A remark was made the other evening that there might be an Ethiopian. That is an old saying. Where there is an Ethiopian there usually is a woodpile, and I think the woodpile will be found at St. Catharines. St. Catharines possesses some excellent citizens who are vitally interested in

the lower steel arch bridge at Niagara Falls, a company which received from the Canadian National Railways a rental of 8100,000 a year. The president of this company, and the secretary treasurer also, two very fine gentlemen live in St. Catharines; directors live in St. Catharines. For eleven years the opposition to the building of a bridge across the Niagara river has emanated from that point. To be frank, it came from a late hon. member and minister who resided in that constituency. Hansard will bear out my statement; hon. members have only to look up the records in 1927, 1928 and 1929.


Mr. SPENCE:: I wish to say a word or two in connection with this bridge. I have listened with a good deal of interest to statements by various hon. members, and I have made up my mind that I am not going to support the bill for a bridge in this particular locality. I know the site very well. The lobbying and the pressure that have been put on the private bills committee to consent to the erection of a bridge there remind me of olden days, when the house was filled with lobbyists from all over the country asking that railway branch lines be built everywhere. We granted franchises and charters; some were built and some were not, and it would have been a good thing for this country if a great many had never been built, because they did us no good. The same with bridges; there were people coming from all over, straw men, men who had not a dollar in their pockets, getting charters to build bridges, having got the charters they went out to peddle them to somebody and make a few thousand dollars or, in some instances, up to a hundred thousand dollars, and if they could not make a deal with somebody who had money, the bridge never was built. I do not know whether that is so in this case.
I have no objection to the Ontario government and the state of New York building a bridge; but if it is built at all, it should be on the site of the old international bridge, for the convenience of the people of Niagara Falls. If the bridge is built six hundred feet farther down, the people of that city will be greatly inconvenienced. Many of them work on the other side, and they would have to walk six hundred feet further down, which is a considerable distance on a cold, wet morning. Why should the people be inconvenienced? If the International Railway Company can build a bridge for one and a half million dollars, why waste four million dollars, or why should Ontario contribute four million dollars to erect a bridge at that particular site, to please Mr. Hepburn or anybody else? I am not one of those who advocate public

Niagara Falls Bridge
ownership all the time; in fact, I shall be frank and say that I do not do it at all, because I have never seen a public ownership project make a dollar for this country or any other. I would let the International Railway Company do the work. Some say that the promoters of this bill are trying to sell the balance of their franchise to the state of New York. I do not know whether that is so, but there seems to be a nigger in the woodpile.


Arthur Byron Damude: We have told the hon. member where it was.


David Spence: I cannot see why we should rush this bill through to give a franchise to men we know nothing about. Perhaps the state of New York and the government of Ontario are willing to take the charter from these men who are seeking the franchise; but who knows? I do not know anything about the matter. There is too much secrecy about the whole thing. What is quite evident is that if a bridge is built on a site other than that of the old bridge, a great many people who have been travelling over the old bridge for many years are going to be inconvenienced. The whole city of Niagara Falls was built around that bridge. Why pass a bill which will involve much inconvenience to travelling people who live in the city of Niagara Falls?
I suggest that the hon. member who introduced the bill should withdraw it and give us time to consider the matter properly. I am not trying to play politics. I know the situation there; I know what transportation is; for many many years I have been associated with highways. I happened to attend the railway committee for half an hour and heard somebody say that there was not sufficient room at the site of the approach to the old bridge to accommodate traffic going across on certain days such as the first and fourth of July. I think that is all a piece of nonsense.
The alternative is to spend $2,000,000 for a bridge and $2,000,000 to acquire land

from whom? From the friends of somebody who has land to sell. That is the whole trouble; that is why this thing is going through. Hon. members should be careful with the country's money and not waste it in extravagant projects of this kind. The solicitor who represented the International Railway Company told the committee that they could, build a bridge for less than a million and a half dollars. Why waste $4,000,000 if a new bridge can be built upon the site of the old one for less than a million and a half dollars? But if the state of New York and the province of Ontario insist upon building the bridge,
let us insist that they build it on the convenient site of the old bridge, regardless of what they pay for the franchise to the International Railway Company. I am sorry to think that this committee should respond to pressure such as I believe is being put upon them.
I know something about city councils, perhaps as much as the hon. member who has just spoken. If you put pressure on many of the councils of this country, they will vote any way.


Arthur Byron Damude: I protest, for my council.


David Spence: The hon. member does not need to protest, because I am just as familiar ' with city council work as he is. I have seen the council of the city of Toronto change its vote between eight o'clock at night and one o'clock in the morning.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is only in Toronto.


David Spence: Toronto is just as good as any other place in Canada. Toronto is not a city that does anything very wrong at any time. But councils change their minds; there's many a man can change his mind that cannot change his socks; and that is the very thing that has happened. I ask the committee to be careful about what it does and not inconvenience the people of Niagara Falls. The city has been built around the bridge, very much as some cities are built around a big industrial plant. There are not five hundred people living at the end of the city where it is proposed that this bridge be built, so why build it there?


An hon. MEMBER:: To build another city.


David Spence: To build another city, yes, but not Niagara Falls. It will change the whole plan of the city and ruin the people who have built it up and are carrying its burdens to-day. Again, how long may it be before the new company which is talked about begins to build this bridge? How long are the people at Niagara Falls to suffer for want of transportation? We are assured now that if the International Railway Company builds a bridge, it will be finished a year from next May. Why inconvenience the people more than is absolutely necessary? We have no assurance that the proposed bridge will be built in the next two or three years; the straw men might not get the money to put up for it. If Ontario proposes to put up the money, why does it not come out in the open and say so and let us know what it intends to do?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


David Spence: No; it is not carried by a long shot.
Niagara Falls Bridge


Mr. HARRIS:: We have before us now an example of the manner in which public ownership of public utilities can be carelessly and loosely handled by administrations, sometimes not to the advantage of the public but for the benefit of some particular interests who at the moment may have control of the public purse strings. If it can be demonstrated to me that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) or the young member for Welland (Mr. Damude), with whom I have a great deal of sympathy at this time so far as this particular bill is concerned, has answered the questions which have been ' seriously put forward by this committee, then I shall be content to take my seat.
I am one of those who regard Niagara Falls, Ontario, as one of the greatest historic spots on the North American continent. More than that, it provides one of the greatest illustrations of the way in which public ownership can control and operate a public utility for the benefit of the people. That has been well and truly demonstrated by the conduct of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission during the last two or three decades.
It is not often that I have much to say on these matters; but when I see a bill brought forward purporting to construct a bridge which in the first instance was going to cost upwards of seven and a half millions of the people's money and then see the provincial Minister of Highways taking his place at the right of the chairman of the railway committee and bringing that sum down to four millions; when I see those objecting to the bill coming forward and stating, on one of the highest authorities in the dominion, Colonel Monsarrat of the bridge company that built the Quebec bridge, that the proposed structure now under consideration, a four-lane traffic bridge of the same capacity as the one which the promoters are asking for, could be put up for the sum of $1,250,000, or up to $1,500,000-when I see all this, I do not wonder that a few days ago the question was asked, "Where is the Ethiopian in the woodpile?"
May I say a word or two in a kindly spirit to the hon. member for Welland? He is a new member, and I can recall the time, fifteen years ago, when I, too, was a young man making my first speech in this house. I know how I felt then. Inasmuch, however, as the hon. gentleman has introduced this bill, he will have to stand for what we say. In a kindly spirit, therefore, and as an old man I offer him this advice:	Do not describe
the straw men from St. Catharines as those that are looking after their own interests,

until you answer the depositions that are on Hansard.
No doubt the hon. gentleman can, but there the record stands and it has not been answered. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) made this statement:
I might say that the manager of the Niagara Falls parks commission or the solicitor characterized these men as straw men. I do not call them that, but that is how he designated them. I am not even sure that one member of the commission is the brother of the local member of parliament. I believe that one of the members is his son-in-law. But the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Damude) will know.
I say to my hon. friend opposite: Before talking about the woodpile in St. Catharines, smoke out your own woodpile. And is there not something to smoke out? He ought to know, because since the estimate dropped from seven and a half millions to four millions, we find that there is on record in the provincial legislature a deposition to the effect that it might cost three millions.
When I last spoke on this matter I said that I had an open mind and that I was ready to vote for the public ownership of a public utility which would give a tax free, toll free bridge over an international boundary in order to foster and extend our tourist trade. I firmly believe in that. On that occasion I asked this question:	Are we going to lose
one million dollars' worth of assessment in the city of Niagara Falls? The hon. gentleman has answered that question in part tonight but rather carelessly, and there has been a good deal of carelessness in the presentation of this bill to the House of Commons. He neglected to tell us something important about the million dollars to which the Minister of Highways of Ontario made reference, and a million dollars is a lot of money in these days; it would pay for a great deal of relief in the county of Welland. The hon. gentleman did not tell us whether that million dollars which the Ontario minister intimated was going to be spent on land and buildings represented a million dollars of assessment in that city. There is no answer. I asked quite seriously for an answer to that question but there has been none; yet we are asked to pass this particular section tonight without that information. The hon. gentleman wants to have our vote in support of this. We .are anxious to vote for a toll free bridge as soon as possible, but these questions are not being answered.
The company, we are told, may construct, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river. Construct?-yes, in a new place, as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. APRIL 5, 1938
Niagara Falls Bridge
Spence) has said, a new place away from the old business centres. There might be some advantage in that regard in relation to the Niagara, St. Catharines & Toronto railway. In regard to the old lands now owned by the International Railway Company, what did the minister say in the committee with respect to their rights when asked whether there would be compensation? He said, "Yes, there will be some compensation." What did the solicitor for the International Railway Company say in committee as to the value of their assets now there? Half a million dollars. Is that another half a million to be added to the cost of this bridge?
I admit at once that there might be some value in this new overhead bridge over the river road. I admit that there might be some value in having twenty-four fanlike outlets on a four lane bridge as against eleven on the other bridge. But when you saddle this public ownership enterprise with a structure which is going to cost the province of Ontario and the state of New York $4,000,000, whereas a bridge of the same capacity can be built for $1,250,000, there will not be sufficient revenue to take care of the amortization of the expensive structure, so that the result will be that no one within the sound of my voice will see the day when it has earned sufficient to permit of making traffic across the Niagara river free from tolls.
I ask hon. members to follow me for a minute while I state as briefly as I can how the picture appears to me. I apologize to my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), whose mathematics I found it difficult to follow the other evening. On either bridge the maintenance would be $95,000 a year. Then there is depreciation. Some hon. members seem to have an idea that depreciation is unnecessary; t-hat it is a reserve or profit built up for the benefit of the owner. But in any project depreciation is essential, and in my judgment two per cent is a fair and modest rate. I see the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), who probably knows more about this subject than any other man in this house; will he deny that if the railways of Canada in days gone by had seen to it that in their bookkeeping not only their rolling stock but structures of all kinds had carried a fair depreciation charge, had it been only one or two per cent over all,' and had the units written off when destroyed, that other great public ownership enterprise, the Canadian National Railways, would have been in a far better financial position to-day than it is? There is a glaring example of What happens when depreciation is ignored.
At two per cent it would take fifty years, not forty, to retire the bridge. Two per cent on $4,000,000 is $80,000 a year, while on $1,500,000 it is $30,000 a year.
But there is something else, about which perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) knows more than anyone else, and that is the earning power of money. It is all very well for the province of Ontario to be behind this project; nevertheless if they invest $2,000,000 in a $4,000,000 bridge, the people of Ontario have to pay interest on that $2,000,000. It is true they can get the money at a little lower rate than a private company, but the difference between the cost of the two structures has its bearing. On a $4,000,000 structure interest at four per cent would amount to $160,000 a year; on a structure costing $1,500,000 it would be only $60,000 a year at the same rate. Money works for wages, and the wages have to be paid whether it is money that is earning it or human beings, and it will ever be thus.
Summing up the situation, what have we? On the one hand a $4,000,000 structure with two per cent depreciation, $95,000 maintenance charges and four per cent interest, or total annual charges of $335,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And what depreciation charges on the land?


Joseph Henry Harris: I was careful to say that the depreciation on the land should be at times appreciation, but my hon. friend knows that it is not so now. The loss will result from the reduction in taxable assessment. The Niagara Park Commission taking over this land will not pay taxes to the municipality; the acreage now covered with buildings will become vacant land for parking space and what not, so the money therein represented must be retired.
The earning capacity of that bridge is shown in the figures given to the committee, which the hon. member for Davenport gave the other evening. They were as follows:
1928		$325,149
1929		 352,434
1930		 322,376
1931		 282,126
1932		 204,591
1933		 192,585
1934		 221,025
1935		 235,896
1936		 275,297
1937		 221,039
Or an average, for the ten years, of $273,251. With an overhead cost of $335,000, how will it ever be possible for the bridge to become toll free, so that one can get the tourist traffic into this country without charge?
Niagara Falls Bridge

There is not a snowball's chance. We ought to take advantage of the proposition of the International Railway Company, and let public ownership work in conjunction with them on a project which will become toll free in a very few years.


Mr. MOORE:: Has the hon. member a substitute measure to offer?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, and one which is going to meet with the approval of the premier of Ontario, who according to the press wants speed. He wants the bridge built as quickly as possible so that the tourists will flow into the province across that bridge and spend their money there. My proposal is: Let this railway company, which now has a right of way there, which has half a million dollars in buildings and fixtures there now, which has plans well advanced to have its bridge in operation at least a year or two in advance of the other, come to the rescue and save the people of Ontario from the necessity of investing $2,000,000 in the bridge proposed to be built under this bill; let this company put up its own money; but tie the company up to a proposition that the bridge must become toll free within a short time, and the premier of Ontario will have a four-lane structure which will serve the tourist traffic one or two years sooner than the structure proposed in this bill. But, no, they want to adhere to their particular scheme; why, I do not know:	Whether there is an Ethiopian,
I do not know. But they know that while we sit here, the legislature of New York state has gone home, perhaps for a year, until next fall anyway, and has thrown their bill overboard. We have that on the evidence given in this committee. Yet section 8 of the bill provides that:
. . . the company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge nor exercise any of the power's hereunder, until an act of congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States of America has been passed authorizing or approving such bridge of the said river. . . .
Our hands are tied. There is nothing this committee can do, according to the very terms of the bill, until legislation is obtained on the United States side. I do not see how it is possible to meet the request of Mr. Hepburn. When he appeals to hon. members from Ontario, I imagine he is also appealing to me. I answer that appeal by saying: Get your legislation in accordance with section 8 which says that you must have authority from the state of New York.
Progress reported.



ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Power that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons and to make provision for the printing and publication of the Dominion Elections Act and instructions issued thereunder, the printing of voters' lists and other election documents, including forms and ballot papers, and to provide for the salaries or other remuneration of certain officers and employees.
Charles Edward Bothwell: Before the house rose at six o'clock, I was quoting from Horwill on proportional representation. I have another quotation or two I should like to place before the house in connection with proportional representation and the alternative vote.
Munro, in The Governments of Europe, says this, with reference to Germany:
The May election of 1924 left the German political situation in a state of very unstable equilibrium. The extremists were too strong to let the middle groups control. On the other hand, they were not willing to help maintain a coalition, except at a price which the social democrats were unwilling to pay. It soon became apparent, therefore, that another appeal to the country must take place, and in December, 1924, a new election was held. The result of this election did not help matters much, for although the extreme right and the extreme left both lost somewhat, the latter especially, it was not possible to form a middle coalition which could be certain of a majority in the Reichstag. Between 1919 and the early part of 1925 Germany had no fewer than eleven ministries.
In 1908 the British government appointed a royal commission to consider the question of proportional representation. I believe paragraph 105 of their report might be interesting:
The exaggeration of majorities is as a rule no evil. Excessive majorities, of course, occur, but they bring their own correction against tyranny in increased independence; and they are at least preferable to insufficient majorities. The advocates of the transferable vote remind us that the object of a representative body is to represent; but the object of representative government is not only to represent but to govern. The greatest evil that can befall a country is a weak executive; and if a strong one can only be obtained at a cost of mathematical accuracy the price should be willingly paid.
That is a part of the findings of the royal commission appointed in Great Britain in 1908 to consider this whole question of

Elections and Franchise
proportional representation and the transferable vote. That commission rejected it, in so far as Great Britain was concerned.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr, Perley) referred to the elections in Saskatchewan. I should like to draw his attention to the results of elections in Alberta, when they had the alternative vote, and proportional representation in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. In 1926, in the Alberta elections-excluding Calgary and Edmonton- the United Farmers Association polled 68,921 votes, and obtained forty-two seats. The Liberals polled 36,693 votes and obtained five seats. The Conservatives polled 26,197 votes and got no seats. Labour polled 5,183 votes and got three seats. The Liberal-Progressives, polling 252 votes, got no seats.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in an election where there were more than two candidates in most constituencies.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Nevertheless the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was endeavouring, by this method, to get proper representation. The result in Alberta was just as I have given it to the house. It does not give representation in accordance with the votes polled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that the vote after they had been distributed, or before?


Charles Edward Bothwell: The final vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; but we are distributing it. Those figures have no value, then.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I would imagine that the endeavour of the proponents of the alternative vote is to see that the people are represented. We find, taking the first of the parties named, that with 68,921 votes they returned forty-two members. Another party with 36,693 votes returned five members.
Coming to another election in Alberta, held in 1930, we find that the United Farmers of Alberta polled 70,957 votes and obtained thirty-four seats. The Liberals polled 34,187 votes-nearly half-and obtained eight seats. The Independents, with 23,832 votes, got three seats; the Conservatives, with 7,481 votes, got no seats, and Labour, with 6,156 votes, got two seats. It was impossible for the cona-mittee which had to deal with these matters to come to the conclusion that proportional representation or the alternative vote was going to solve the difficulties which seemed to confront the people who were agitating for this particular system of voting. As a result, the committee, for the reasons-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member was going to give us the definition of the alternative vote, as the committee dealt with it.
I wanted to see which definition the committee adopted. Would he give us that, if it is not inconveniencing him. I did get the definition he was good enough to give with respect to proportional representation; but I am now dealing with the question of the alternative vote, of which he promised to give a definition, as it was accepted by the committee.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The definition of the alternative vote accepted in the committee was one given by Hoag and Hallett, and was as follows:
The alternative vote has been devised to make it certain that in single-member constituencies no candidate can secure election unless he has behind him the support, if not of the majority of voters in the constituency, at least of a greater number than under the present system elects a member where there are more than two candidates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member read that before, I just wished to be sure.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Would it not be better to make a division into rural and city electoral divisions? The alternative vote would not give the same results.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I gave the results of the alternative vote outside Calgary and Edmonton, where proportional representation was put into effect. After a consideration of whait I have just quoted, the committee came to the conclusion that proportional representation was not desired in Canada. It was demonstrated to us that we should have from a five to a seven member constituency. The conclusions, to be found at page 194 of the evidence, are as follows:
(a)	Even a three member constituency throughout Canada, at any rate outside of the big cities, would be much too large.
(b)	Cost of the campaign would be too great. Printing and publications, etc., hire of halls, length of time required to campaign throughout the constituency.
(e) Difficulty of candidates becoming known would be almost insuperable, there would be lack of the personal touch between the member and his constituents.
(d)	The elected member being one of three or five or seven in a constituency could not feel that he had a definite mandate as he does under existing circumstances.
(e)	While it is regrettable that there should be exaggerated majorities representation, it may be said, I think with truth, that errors in representation have a habit of balancing themselves.
An illustration is given on the same page of what happened in the elections in Great Britain. Further reasons were presented to the committee to show that neither system nor a combination of the two would give true representation. Alberta was used as an
Elections and Franchise

illustration, and I think the house will agree that a combination of the two systems certainly has not given true representation in that particular instance. The history of proportional representation in Europe has disclosed that it leads to a multiplicity of parties and groups, with no single party having a mandate to control. In my personal opinion, the use of second choices is really a lottery.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member has given the reasons why the committee opposed proportional representation, but those reasons would not apply to the alternative vote in a single member constituency. What reasons were given by the committee for opposing that?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I can only say that we analysed the votes in the different elections in Alberta and found that the use of the alternative vote in the rural constituencies and proportional representation in the two cities did not give true representation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Or in Australia.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The hon. member for Davenport says, " Or in Australia."


John Ritchie MacNicol: Or in any state in
Australia.


Charles Edward Bothwell: An analysis of the votes showed that true representation was not obtained under either system, and there is the additional danger of creating a multiplicity of parties and groups. I had intended to deal with compulsory registration and compulsory voting, but as my time has expired-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I appreciate the courtesy of the house in permitting me to say a few words on this question. There seems to be a disposition among many hon. members to put compulsory voting into effect. The committee of which I had the honour to be the chairman dealt with compulsory voting in the first place, separate and apart from compulsory registration, but we finally came to the conclusion that compulsory voting could not satisfactorily be put into effect without compulsory registration. The committee then wound up its deliberations by considering compulsory voting and compulsory registration together. We had before us the results of the attempt that was made in 1934. I believe that every member of the committee was well disposed in the first instance to the idea of compulsory voting; but after analysing the figures and taking into consideration the fact that Canada would

be in a different position from that of Australia, the committee was doubtful whether any benefits would be derived from either compulsory voting or compulsory registration.
Prior to compulsory voting being put into effect in Australia, only some fifty per cent of the electors exercised their franchise. After compulsory voting, this percentage rose to as high as 95-17 per cent. The hon. member for Davenport has referred to the fact that there were a number of informal or rejected ballots, the percentage running up to eleven point something per cent. I believe the percentage of rejected ballots in the last election was almost five per cent. In the 1935 election in Canada we polled seventy-five per cent of the vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not quite.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The actual percentage
was 74-17. Prince Edward polled eighty-one per cent; Saskatchewan, seventy-seven per cent and so on, the average for all Canada being as I have stated. When we consider that the rejected ballots in Australia have run as high as eleven per cent the situation in Canada does not appear to be too serious.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except that forty-six per cent of the votes cast for Liberals brought them in over 170 seats.


Charles Edward Bothwell: That has to do with
the other question we were talking about, the type of representation that we should have.


Ernest Lapointe: With
proportional representation we might have had more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The committee looked into the matter. I had an opportunity of serving on that committee in 1934, and we thought at that time we were drafting an act which might be beneficial to Canada. When the committee got down to making the final report, there was a small committee of which I was not a member, but I have no doubt that every member of that small committee believed they were drafting a system of registration which would be in the best interests of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say for the information of the hon. member that before that bill was introduced we spoke about it to the then leader of the opposition and he was in favour of a closed list, as I was, and that legislation was for the purpose of trying to secure for this country a closed list.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Of course, if we have compulsory registration and compulsory vot-

Elections and Franchise
ing, necessarily we shall have a closed list; but it might be possible to make an exception in connection with certain individuals who have been left off, and how they can be vouched for.
I have here an analysis of the costs of an election under the system that was put into effect in 1934, and I shall take just a few constituencies at random.
In Glengarry, the 1934 registration, the 1935 revision, and the election of 1935 cost $5,763.40; in the 1930 election in the same constituency the cost was $3,521.01.
In Halifax, Nova Scotia, the cost under the 1934 act was $28,570.17; in 1930, $20,949.78.
In Lisgar, Manitoba, the cost under the 1934 act was, S7.651.32; in 1930, $3,774.25.
In Red Deer, Alberta, the cost under the 1934 act was, $13,399.01; in 1930, $8,554.36.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member must remember that was establishing the first list.


Charles Edward Bothwell: That is quite true; but as far as the committee was concerned, they requested an analysis of the figures dealing with elections held from time to time with annual revisions under the 1934 act, and the figures I am giving are the results of that analysis.
In that same constituency of Glengarry, the total cost of the election in 1930 was $3,521.01. If we take the 1934 act, which provides for registration and annual revision, with the life of parliament four years, the cost, if the lists were printed annually would be $6,498.40; if the lists were printed only in the year of the election, the cost would be $6,398.12; and if the lists were not printed at all, the cost would be $5,905.32, as against $3,521.01 in the 1930 election.
In Halifax, with the life of parliament four years, the cost would be, with the lists printed annually $24,155; with the lists printed only in the year of the election, $23,915.92; and with the lists not printed at all, $21,018.68.
In Halifax, Nova Scotia, with the life of parliament five years, and the lists printed annually, the cost would be $27,404.65; with the lists printed only in the year of the election, $27,673.77; and with the lists not printed at all, $27,149.46; as against $20,949.78 under the 1930 act.
I could go on down the list and give other constituencies of which we made a study. Eor instance, let us take Brandon. In the 1930 election the total cost was $5,155, whereas with a parliament of fivfe years under the 1934 act and the lists not printed, the cost would be $8,333.56. In Red Deer, Alberta, the cost was $8,554.36, as against $14,734.18; in Lisgar, Manitoba, $3,774.25, as against $9,157.90.
Since the committee sat, it has come to my attention that in the constituency of Ottawa West, which was enumerated on October 15, 1934, there were in the constituency-I have not the exact figures-somewhere between 55,000 and 57,000 voters. In anticipation of the annual revision in June, 1935, a canvass was made of that constituency with the result that from one organization alone there were 15,000 applications made for revision, deletions and corrections, and on the revision in 1935 there were 3,000 additional names put on. On October 15, 1935, it is reported that in spite of the close attention given to the lists in Ottawa West there were 2,500 names left off the lists. I am informed that in St. James, Montreal, constituency, where they have weekly tenancies, the situation would be very much worse. As a matter of fact, a closed list made under the system that was put into effect in 1934 would be out of date inside a month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No harm would be done because, if it was only a month, no one would be entitled to be registered.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The committee considered that, not being able to get correct lists, the additional cost was out of all proportion to the results which could be obtained.
Some reasons that led to the findings of the committee, which, as the minister said this afternoon, were not unanimous so far as compulsory registration and compulsory voting are concerned-some reasons that appealed to me as being grounds for rejection were, first, the consideration that the percentage of votes polled in Canada in the last election was 74-17 per cent, and in many ridings the vote ran between 85 and 90 per cent.
In Australia, prior to putting into effect compulsory voting, only 59-35 per cent of the vote was polled. Second, the number of rejected ballots in Australia is some indication that an intelligent vote is not cast under compulsory voting.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it not possible that the eleven per cent of rejected ballots in Australia may have been a protest vote against compulsory voting?


Charles Edward Bothwell: That may be; but it is remarkable that in Australia there is anywhere between almost five per cent and eleven per cent of rejected ballots, whereas in Canada in the 1935 election we had only -61 per cent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Because in the one place there is compulsory voting and in the other place there is not.

Elections and Franchise


Charles Edward Bothwell: Well, if compulsory
voting leads to a vote that is not counted, it is hardly worth while going to the expense of putting compulsory voting into effect.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. gentleman said [DOT]61 per cent-less than one per cent?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This afternoon I said, one per cent.


Charles Edward Bothwell: That is the evidence given before the committee by the chief electoral officer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were these Australian figures of the election of last year?


Charles Edward Bothwell: No; in the election of last year it was, I think, 4-5 per cent; I am not just sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Less than five per cent?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Less than five per cent. That is the reason why I referred to the fact that it ranged from almost five per cent up to eleven per cent. The hon. member for Davenport mentioned that owing to climatic conditions in Canada we would be limited to certain months for having elections.
Fourth, the cost of compulsory registration and compulsory voting seems to be out of all proportion to the results to be attained.
Fifth, the vote of those who are not sufficiently well informed or interested to exercise the franchise must be of little value in determining the thought of the people of this country as a whole.
It was for these reasons that the committee ouvf fit to reject both compulsory registration and compulsory voting.


David Spence: Just a few words in connection with this resolution. I do not believe in anything of a compulsory nature; I never supported it when I was in the city council, nor have I done so in this house, because I am satisfied that unless you have seventy-five per cent of the people behind you, you cannot enforce anything.
As far as proportional representation and the single transferable vote are concerned, I suggest that we forget about them altogether. Many of these new things are not true, and we should not become too radical and introduce too many new things.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) upon his pleasant presentation of his resolution and his efforts to stop corruption in elections. Things have been becoming so horrible during the last couple of years that I do not

know where we shall end. What we need is an honest administration of the elections act. I believe that the house to-day is in harmony with that feeling, and I congratulate hon. members upon a general desire to get away from corrupt practices in elections. In the last Ontario election we had more corruption in Toronto than we have ever had before in our lives.


An hon. MEMBER:: Federal or provincial?


David Spence: Not the federal election; the provincial election.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Parkdale?


David Spence: I shall not mention my own riding, because there never has been any corruption there; .there never was any necessity for it. Toronto has been clean so far as both Liberals and Conservatives are concerned. Until a short time ago we never had anything in the nature of corruption, chiefly because Toronto was strictly Tory; the Conservatives did not need to resort to corruption, and the Liberals were too scared to introduce it, so they did not do so. The consequence was that we had no trouble of that kind until the last election.


An hon. MEMBER:: What happened?


David Spence: May I say that I never saw anything like it before. I drove around the city all day-


An hon. MEMBER:: It seemed to do the trick.


David Spence: No; they did not do the trick; but they did very well; they did more than they had any right to do. They managed through all sorts of trickery to win a seat or two, because Liberals in Toronto realized that they had some strength and wanted to show it. Through the system of enumeration we have to-day, the names of thousands of people who did not live in Toronto at all were put on the voters' lists. Their names were given as those of persons living in big rooming houses and boarding houses. For instance, an enumerator might come to my house and take a list, from my wife or the nurse or somebody, of those who are in the house, and the enumerator would go away satisfied that those people actually lived there. I know of one house in my riding where only three people live, but on election day thirteen people from that place were on the voters' list and voted.


An hon. MEMBER:: For you?
Mr .SPENCE: No, not for me. They were the wrong kind. But in two other ridings in

Elections and Franchise
Toronto where the Liberals were determined to win, what happened was terrible. Men were imported; I am speaking of the local election; this has nothing to do with federal affairs, because we have never had any corruption in federal affairs in Toronto either from Liberal or Conservative sources, and I gave the reason a minute ago.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member will have to be on the watch the next time.


David Spence: Yes. A number of people landed in town that morning from Montreal. I can assure hon. members that I am telling the exact truth, because I saw these people, and I saw five of them arrested in the middle of the day. They were put in gaol, and let out after the polls were closed. One party who was working for the Liberals in Toronto and looking after the advance poll stole a considerable number of ballots and wanted to sell them the next day to a friend of his; he wanted to meet the other fellow, and I do not believe anybody bought them. He was brought up in court, and Magistrate R. J. Brown discharged him because, so the magistrate said, his act was not a criminal offence and they could do nothing about it. It should be a criminal offence to do what that man did, that is, steal ballots out of an advance poll, take them to his friend the next day and try to sell them. That morning a number of boys came in from Montreal. Probably they were the bunch that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) told us came from Boston on some occasion to vote against him. They may have been brought from Boston to Montreal and sent on to Toronto.


Ernest Lapointe: They were not French speaking.


David Spence: We do not want corruption from Montreal. If Montreal wants to be corrupt in its elections, at any rate we in Toronto wish to keep clean, and we shall endeavour to see that the next election is cleanly conducted, no matter who wins. Perhaps I should not have told this story, but it is really a shame that such things should happen in this country at the present time. The public are just as blameworthy as the candidates. There are ridings that you can buy and ridings that you cannot buy. I am told that in some rural districts farmers who go to vote, now insist on getting paid for the time they lose in going to the poll. It is hard to imagine that sort of thing; it would not have happened twenty years ago. It is because the farmers are hard up
and need a little assistance. They do not ask five dollars for their vote, but they want to be paid for the time they are away from their farms. Something must be done; some teeth must be put in the law so that the country may be run properly and decently.
Somebody has suggested.-and I think it is worth acting upon-that the minister might agree, while of course giving the Liberal party the best of the deal in connection with election appointments, to give the Conservative party the next best; that is all we can expect at the present time. The suggestion is, I believe, that the Liberal party would appoint the returning officers and allow the opposition, whoever they might be, to appoint the poll clerks. I believe that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) mentioned this; I heard it confidentially and should like to be assured that there is something in it, because it would be no more than a fair arrangement, and I would insist, when our party came into power, that they honoured the agreement. It would help to reduce the cost of elections. It would avoid the necessity of putting scrutineers in the polling booths if there were a Liberal acting as returning officer and a Conservative or the representative of another party acting as poll clerk. In that case it would not be necessary for any of the parties to pay scrutineers in that polling subdivision. If the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation happened to be the official opposition, the right to appoint the poll clerk would be theirs. I consider this a fair proposition, and I hope the minister will give it some consideration. I believe that in 1930 the minister appointed a Liberal enumerator and a Conservative enumerator; they went together from door to door, and they played the game fairly well. We had no cause for criticism. I aim not in favour of the enumeration being done very long before an election, because that causes the candidates no end- of difficulty. People move from pillar to post and one cannot keep track of them.
In conclusion, I urge that every party be given a fair show. Give the party in opposition a show, no matter whether it be Social Credit or Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or the Conservative party. Whatever the opposition party may be, give it the right to appoint a poll clerk and allow the government to appoint the returning officer.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I have only a few words to say. I would not have risen but for the fact that the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell)
Elections and Franchise

did not, in nay opinion, make his position very plain in regard to proportional representation and the transferable vote. To my mind he seemed to consider that proportional representation and the alternative vote were one and the same thing and that they brought about the same results. Of course, any one who has studied the matter knows that they are quite different things and have quite different purposes. The purpose of the alternative vote is to ensure in single member constituencies that the member elected has a majority of the votes cast in that constituency. The purpose of proportional representation is to give political groups, according to their numerical strength in a constituency in which there is more than one seat, representation according to their number. And proportional representation does that very thing, while the alternative vote accomplishes the purpose which it is supposed to serve.
In Alberta, in the examples given by the hon. member for Swift Current, the alternative vote was used in the country districts and proportional representation in Calgary and Edmonton. If one examines the results one will find that they were exactly those intended by the two systems of voting. In the 1935 elections in Alberta, in the country areas the representation of various parties was as follows: The Social Credit party received 123,869 votes and got fifty seats; the Liberals, 47,050 votes and one seat; the United Farmers of Alberta, 30,603 votes and no seats; the Conservatives, 8,642 votes and no seats; Labour, 2,074 votes and no seats; others, 7,804 votes and no seats. It is quite clear that in those constituencies in which Social Credit members were elected, they received the najority of the votes cast in the constituency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the whole point.


Angus MacInnis: Let us turn now to the results in Calgary and Edmonton. The votes polled in the two cities have been added together.	We find that in Calgary and
Edmonton the Social Credit party received 37,740 votes and obtained six seats; Liberals, '22,033 votes and four seats. The house can see clearly that the number of seats is proportionate to the vote. The Conservatives received 10,776 votes and got two seats; in other words, they got nearly half the number of votes received by the Liberals and they got exactly half the number of seats. Nothing could be fairer than that as a system of voting. The other groups evidently did not receive a sufficient number of votes to elect a candidate at all. Labour received 3,018, but got no seats; United Farmers, 2,092 votes and no seats; others, 2,800 votes and no seats.
(Mr. Maclnuis.]
I wish to give a true picture of this system of voting, so that before we either accept or reject proportional representation we shall at least know what it means and pass upon it on that basis. And the same holds good in regard to the alternative vote. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) points	out to me	very	properly that	thealternative vote wipes out minorities, or rather,	does not	give	representation	to
minorities, but it does assure representation to majorities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point.
Mr.	MacINNIS:	On	the other hand,proportional representation assures representation to minorities provided that they constitute	a certain definite	proportion of	the
electorate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I may tell my hon. friend that proportional representation has been abolished wherever it has been abolished for the reason that it does not always give in the house a vote in proportion to the supposed vote in the country.


Angus MacInnis: But that is not the result. I must inform my hon. friend. I have shown by the results in Alberta cities that it does give representation according to numerical strength.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It did not do so in Ulster.


Angus MacInnis: It does it everywhere; it cannot fail to do it. It is not a matter of juggling with votes; it is a mathematical process, and it works in the way I have indicated.
I am sorry that the committee last year did not bring in a recommendation for the adoption of proportional representation. This government, I believe, is pledged to electoral reform. I have before me an editorial that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 26, 1936, in which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is quoted. The reference is to a speech he delivered on September 29, 1932, in the Huron South by-election, and he is quoted as having said:
I believe, too, that the electoral law should be amended in a manner which will help to ensure as complete an expression of the will of the people and at as little cost as may be possible. In the promotion of these allimportant aims, the Liberal party has from time to time advocated the adoption of the alternative vote in single member constituencies and the adoption of proportional representation in double member constituencies. . . . These and other measures with which I have not time to deal at the moment would, I believe, be of far-reaching benefit. They are measures

Elections and Franchise
for which the Liberal party will continue to press and for which, until they are achieved, I would ask the cooperation of all who wish to see them a permanent feature of our electoral system.
That is a clear statement for electoral reform.
I do not believe that by giving minorities representation or an opportunity to have representation in parliament there is much danger of multiplying the number of political parties. A political party cannot exist unless it represents a social and economic need. Political parties have an economic basis. I believe that political parties which have a certain strength should have an opportunity of having a voice in the parliament of Canada. Most countries of Europe, for instance, the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, France have proportional representation; the system differs from one country to another, but most of them have proportional representation. Generally speaking, I believe the government in those countries is carried on as efficiently as it is in countries which have not proportional representation. There is no reason why such should not be the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall endeavour to compress my remarks into a very few sentences. The whole basis of our. representative institutions is bound up in this bill. When democracy was established, it is unnecessary to say that all the people used to meet together and the will of the majority prevailed. One well known writer said that the man who succeeded in inducing the will of the majority to prevail had rendered the greatest service to political institutions of any man in the world. When one thinks about that, one realizes the soundness of it. The problem before us is therefore a simple one: Shall we still cling to the rule of the majority governing, or shall we abrogate that rule and substitute for it rule by groups? That is the issue. Proportional representation involves the acceptance of the second principle; the alternative vote implies the acceptance of the first.
Let us analyse the problem for a moment. In a constituency there were cast 6,150 votes. Six members were to be elected. Dividing 6,150 by six gives 1,025. Adding one to that makes 1.026, which is the quota; any man who polls 1,026 out of 6,150 votes is elected. In other words, any group which has 1,026 votes and marks them all No. 1 will have its candidate elected. That is proportional representation. That is not government by the will of a majority. It is the negation of our understanding of representative institutions. For
that reason I have set my face steadily against the adoption of proportional representation in this country.
There is a second reason quite as serious; that is, that the grouping of constituencies becomes almost impossible, for the reasons given by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell), which I adopt and shall not repeat.
We come now to the question of the alternative vote. I heard a minister say in this house in 1926 that this was the policy of the Liberal party. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) so declared, with certain restrictions. The statements made tonight with respect to the province of Alberta by the hon. member for Swift Current gave, I am sure inadvertently, an entirely erroneous impression. I sent for the Parliamentary Guide for 1931 in order that I might look at the results of the 1930 election there, and found, as I expected, that in that election, unlike the election of 1926, there had been in very few instances more than two candidates. Where there are only two candidates obviously the alternative does not apply. But in some cities they had to have more than one count. For instance, in the constituency of Clover Bar, Rudolph Hennig, running for the United Farmers of Alberta, had 1,338 votes; Christian Hein, independent, had 866 votes, and S. T. Bigelow, Conservative, had 692 votes. It will thus be observed that no one had a majority of the votes polled. A second count therefore became necessary, and the alternative chosen by the elector to his No. 1 vote was added, and brought about the return of Mr. Hennig by a majority vote. The purpose of the alternative vote is what they have clung to in France as being an essential of their democracy, namely, that every man who sits in the chamber of deputies shall represent a majority of the electors.


Charles Avery Dunning: They hold a second election there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. If on the Sunday of the first vote being taken it is apparent that with three or more candidates in the field no one has a majority of the votes, in practice the low man drops out, or the low men drop out; another vote is held on the next Sunday, and elections continue to be held until there is a majority. That is the law: The rule of the majority, the acceptance of that old principle with respect to representative institutions. In the very early days there had to be unanimity on the part of the clan or the tribe in order that action might be taken, and the substitution of the rule of the majority did not come
Elections and Franchise

at once. It was not something that was discovered at the very threshold of the government of mankind.
When the rule of the majority is thus established, the question for us-and it is a simple one-is: Shall we accept a plan which gives representation to groups, or shall we cling to the theory that the majority must be represented in representative institutions? That is the whole issue. I am not going to express any opinion except to indicate that the hon. member for Swift Current overlooked the fact that in Alberta in the 1930 election there were, for the most part, two candidates; the question of majority was settled at once, and the alternative vote did not come into operation. But in several constituencies in which there were more than two candidates, a majority was not obtained by any, and in order that the rule of government by majority should prevail, the situation to which I have referred arose.
The hon. member for Swift Current directed attention to the fact that at the last general election in this country something slightly under seventy-five per cent of the votes were polled; of the votes thus polled forty-six and a fraction per cent were given to the Liberal candidates, and the Liberals have over 170 members out of 245 in this House of Commons. It is unnecessary to say that forty-six per cent of seventy-five per cent is a very different matter from forty-six per cent of all the electors. The fact is that the 170 Liberal members in this house represent something less than thirty-seven per cent of the electors on the rolls.


Thomas Reid: Undei the alternative vote
how is a voter prevented from plumping?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The provision with
respect to that is that the ballot is invalid unless it is marked for all the candidates. I have sometimes found that a little difficult in practice, but that is the provision. That is what we have here. As I say, forty-six per cent of seventy-five per cent represents about thirty-five per cent of the whole. I am not saying that by way of complaint. I am merely recording the fact as the minister did this afternoon, with respect to another phase of the matter.
How can we secure the continuance of our institutions in their strength, force and power unless by some means we conceive that more than thirty-five per cent of the electors of Canada are represented by 170 members out of 245? That is the question. I suggested the question of compulsory voting only because of what I had observed with respect to its operations in the great Commonwealth of Australia.

It is quite true, as the hon. member for Swift Current has said, that the preparation of lists costs money. But I wonder if we should pause very long to consider the expense of a few thousand dollars, if the result is to endeavour at least to save democracy itself. We will put away in some very doubtful undertaldng more money than would be involved in a question of printing the lists. I confess that the first list in this country cost more money than I expected it would. It must be remembered that we had no closed list prior to 1934. During the absence of the Prime Minister I mentioned the fact that before the bill was introduced I discussed the matter with him; I told him what my views were with respect to closed lists, and he said he believed that closed lists were desirable in any country. He said further that some provision should be made, if possible, whereby no one should be deprived of his vote. And certain arrangements were made to meet that difficulty.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe in closed lists, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. They cost too
much money, of course; but closed lists, after once they have been established, have usually been found satisfactory.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the trouble; they have not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Canada we did not give them sufficient trial. In Great Britain, where they have such a tremendous population. their lists work to entire satisfaction. Of course the answer is this: Their population is within a comparatively small area, and the people take an active interest in matters of revision. But think of how they do it, with revising barristers and care, regarding, as they should, the franchise as being the priceless possession of the individual.
I can recall looking up the first lists of this country. I wonder if there are any hon. members who recall the franchise act of Sir John A. Macdonald with respect to farmers and farmers' sons, and how the printing of the lists was done. Once that began to operate, after the first lists were prepared, the difficulty was not great. The Liberal party of 1896 believed we should have provincial lists.


Charles Gavan Power: They objected strenuously to revising barristers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite. As will be recalled, we adopted the revising barristers from the British system. They still have it. Then we had the provincial lists for some time; and that, as the house will remember I pointed out this afternoon is, with some

Elections and Franchise
slight modification, the acceptance of the United States plans. In that country there is no such thing as the double list in the sense in which we know it here. They use the state lists-or did-for their congressional elections. The hon. member may have been looking into that matter more recently than I have.


Charles Gavan Power: I think they are now largely made by municipal authorities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; and that list is used alike by the state and federal authorities. In Great Britain, as I said a moment ago, it is amazing how smoothly and easily the matter goes. It is not difficult to understand why this should be so. But it is so, and they revise their lists annually. At one time candidates helped to pay for them; I am not quite sure what the law is to-day. I believe they made some amendments recently, and I have not looked the matter up for the purpose of satisfying myself upon the point.
I have not made up my mind that a closed list is a failure in Canada. It was expensive and difficult in a new country, and where one has to establish, as we do here, the minimum period of residence within the boundaries of a constituency, the difficulty becomes even greater. Where there is, for instance, a shifting population, for example, as was pointed out, in one part of Montreal, where it is difficult to say that in some sections of that city residents will remain for as long as thirty days even, there will be very, very great difficulty indeed.
But I think we should in some way take steps that would ensure a more truthful reflection of the mind of the people than can come about by having 35 per cent of the electors qualified to vote expressing their will through 172 members out of 245. That, indeed, would be my reason in favour of proportional representation. It certainly is not a good reason why we should cling to the theory of majorities, when we have no such majority. I confess the problem is difficult. I have not any easy road to a solution of it to suggest to the house.
If we had a closed list; if we had compulsory voting-if we had these two things working in harmony, I am satisfied we would have at least 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the people of Canada voting. I was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current, who is usually so very fair; for he must have known, as we all do, the difficulty which came about, in the first instance, through compulsory voting in Australia. There were so many spoiled ballots.
But in the last general election on that great island continent it will be recalled that the rejected ballots were only a few over 4 per cent-less than 5 per cent. After all, when one remembers that they elect both senators and commoners by proportional representation, one can see the ease with which difficulties would arise, because the necessity for marking one's choice of every candidate is something which is sometimes easily forgotten, and the number of spoiled ballots increases accordingly.
When we first adopted this system in the city of Calgary I recall going down to the city hall for the purpose of looking into the matter, with the city clerk, and I found that in the first election a very large number of our people forgot to vote for more than, let us say. the five or six aldermen they wanted. They stopped at that, although there may have been ten candidates. The law is explicit with respect to proportional representation that you must express your choice for all candidates whose names appear on the ballots, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). If you fail to do that, you have not exercised your franchise, and your ballot is bad.
Having regard to that fact, I think it will be agreed that they have made tremendous progress in Australia, when in their last election only 4-27 per cent, or less than 5 per cent of the ballots were rejected. That is a great advance, when one stops to consider the number of ballots cast for both commoners and senators.
I should like to feel that we are making some progress in the matter. Certainly we are not making any, if we just leave it as it now stands; for, as the Prime Minister pointed out in the early part of this parliament, a very large number of members in the house are minority representatives. A very substantial number are the representatives of minorities; I forget the numbers he gave on that occasion, but I remember that he did give numbers. If hon. members will take the trouble to look into the matter, they will see that the number is affected more than they thought it would be. We do not represent the majority of the electors in the constituencies, and therefore do not constitute the representative institution that came down to us from the original establishment of the doctrine that the majority could speak for the tribe or for the clan or for the public meeting. From my reading of history it is plain that it was not the simplest thing in the world to get a body of men to agree that the majority should bind them all. The
Elections and Franchise

old warriors used to insist upon unanimity, and it was quite a while before they reached the point where they would agree to allow the majority to govern their actions. There was the same difficulty in connection with public meetings. Of course, all this is centuries old, but we are departing from the principle at this time. It gives point and substance to the observations made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, that if you are going to have minority representation in your house you should establish proportional representation which is the scientific method of giving effect to the right of minority representation.
There is no doubt about that in so far as we are concerned. The truth is that in Edmonton and Calgary there is a limit upon the number of men the old parties can elect. They cannot get beyond that, try as they will. The reason is obvious. If there are six to be elected, the electors must show their choices for all. Despite the most careful efforts that can be made, human nature being so different in Calgary and Edmonton from what it is in Ottawa or Toronto, there is always a lurking desire on the part of every candidate that his friends should mark "one" after his name, instead of scientifically adjusting their ballots so as to ensure a complete indication of their choice. The result is that there is a limit upon what can be done in the way of ensuring the return of one's particular friends. Of course, the establishment of group representation is brought about. That is obvious; the result cannot be otherwise. Each member of the group will put "one" after the name of the favourite of that group, and the result I have indicated follows.
I think this is a negation of democracy. It is certainly the exact opposite of the theory of representative institution, which is government by the majority. If we remain as we now are, we certainly are making no step forward to see that this institution called the Houses of Parliament is representative of the majority of the electors, which is the purpose we have in mind. I only hope that the committee will consider the matter carefully. Even although it is compulsory action, which the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) does not like, I think when he sits down and considers matters, he will realize that our life itself is a life of compulsion. On every side each must sacrifice something of his own personal liberty in order that all may enjoy some measure of it. Our laws are: Thou shalt not. So far as my memory serves me, the stone tablets had strong indications that "Thou shalt not" was the basis of the commandments upon which our laws are founded.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, although this matter seems to be one of academic interest, I must confess that I have not changed my mind in connection with the use of the alternative vote in single member constituencies. I favoured that system years ago; I even introduced a bill in the house and I am still in favour of that system, more particularly after the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). However, the matter seems to be of academic interest because a large majority of hon. members appear to be against the system and have so expressed their views in the committee which studied the matter last year.
As far as proportional representation is concerned, I cannot favour it because of the conditions that exist in this country. As has been stated, it would be impossible to join together four or five large constituencies such as we have in Canada in order to put into practice a system of proportional representation. But this would not be so in the case of the alternative vote in single member constituencies. I claim that a member elected under that system would more adequately represent the general opinion in the constituency. The electors who could not elect their first choice, at least would have somebody closer to their views. As the situation is to-day, we have members representing the minorities in the constituencies.
To illustrate the system as it is to-day, let me take one case in particular. In the last general election the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Wermenlinger) polled 5,602 votes and was elected. I am proud to have him in this house, even though the system is bad. There were eleven candidates in that constituency and the total vote polled was over 25,000. That is what can result under the system as it is to-day. If that happened in one constituency, it can happen in another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Depending upon the
number of candidates.


Ernest Lapointe: Depending upon the number of candidates. As the right hon. leader of the opposition has stated, that is not really rule by the majority.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister call what happened in the 1919 election in Australia rule by the majority? In that election 860,000 votes elected seventeen senators; 820,000 votes elected one senator, and 117,000 votes elected no senators. That was under alternative voting.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot see how that could happen.

Elections and Franchise


John Ritchie MacNicol: Those are the facts.


Ernest Lapointe: That mast be proportional representation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No; the alternative vote.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot see how it could happen under the alternative voting system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could not happen?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Does my right hon.
friend realize that the alternative vote is only part of the proportional representation system?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the opposite.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a separate thing. Proportional representation assures the representation of the minority, while the alternative vote makes sure that the majority of the constituents shall elect the member. This is the system that prevailed in most European countries until something happened recently. They have not yet accepted it in Great Britain, although a royal commission, I believe appointed by the Asquith government, reported in favour of both.


Richard Bedford Bennett: MacDonald and Asquith spoke against proportional representation.


Ernest Lapointe: But the Labour majority in the house before 1927 was in favour of the alternative vote. I am sorry that after they got into power they fell from grace and left the Liberals alone in their advocacy of proportional representation and the alternative vote. The responsibility of government seemed to have changed their views with respect to the system, and proportional representation and the alternative vote seem to have been forgotten altogether. While I have no hope that we shall adopt the system in Canada during this session, at least, I think it my duty to say that I have not changed my mind about it and I am still in favour of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Power thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 91, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, by leave of
the house I would ask that we revert to Government Notices of Motions in order that
I may move the resolution standing there in my name to set up a special committee. I did not move the resolution earlier in the day on account of certain negotiations going on between the whips with respect to the membership of the committee and because of certain changes that are being made in the language of the resolution.


Walter Edward Foster: By leave of the house.
The house having reverted to the order for Government Notices of Motions.




Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move:
That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Bothwell, Brunelle, Cahan, Clark (York-Sunbury), Dussault, Factor. Fair, Glen, Heaps, Jean, MacLean (Prince), MacNicol, McCuaig, McCulloch, McIntosh, McLean (Simcoe East), Mullins, Parent (Quebec West and South), Pelletier, Perley, Power, Purdy, Rickard, Robichaud, St-Pere, Stevens, Stewart, Stirling, Taylor (Norfolk), Turgeon, Turner, Wermen-linger and Wood, notwithstanding section one of standing order 65 in relation to the number of members thereof, be appointed to consider:
1.	A certain bill intituled "An Act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons," and to make such amendments thereto as it deems advisable;
2.	A certain bill intituled "An Act respecting Political Expenditures," and to make such amendments thereto as it deems advisable;
3.	Such other proposed legislation relating to elections as may be referred to it by this house;
4.	The method used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries;
5.	The evidence and report of the special committee appointed in the session of 1936 and reappointed in the session of 1937 to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and the Franchise Act, 1934;
With power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses and to report from time to time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I apprehend, Mr. Speaker,
that the provisions of the resolution dealing with redistribution do not foreshadow action but are rather for the purpose of ascertaining what have been the methods utilized in effecting redistributions in Canada and in other countries. Am I right in that assumption?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: In other countries and in
Canada, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Relief and Agricultural Distress


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 4, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance towards the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, and for such payments out of moneys appropriated by parliament as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: When the committee rose last evening, I had already covered a certain amount of the ground that I desired to cover. I had already mentioned that I did not consider that the government had done its full duty in waiting two and a half years before giving really serious consideration to some plan of action. I also suggested that it was unfortunate that the present session did not see agricultural distress separated entirely from unemployment as such and placed where it really belongs, namely, under the Department of Agriculture, and unemployment otherwise left to the Department of Labour. I also suggested to the minister that he had allowed himself to be carried away on a flood-tide of verbosity and had given utterance to words which conveyed little or no meaning but were merely pleasant and satisfactory to listen to, words which gave no ray of hope to the unfortunate people who are waiting for something to alleviate their present distress. I believe I also suggested that the method pursued by the present government of allowing commissions to be appointed to do work which properly belongs to a government, is not only costly but gives rise to long delays. Further, I pointed out that hon. members have not been given sufficient time properly to study the proposals brought in by the employment commission.
In referring to statements made by the minister over a period of more than three hours, I was reminded of a similar discourse of shorter duration which he made in the city of Pembroke during the course of the by-election last year. He suggested that a certain member of this house, speaking the previous evening, had given an address which, the minister declared, contained more inaccuracies and misrepresentations than he had encountered, in any speech in years. When I read that statement I regretted that the minister's lack of experience had given him a false idea of facts. I want to assure him that when I deal with facts and figures I get them from reliable sources; I do not try to 
make figures represent what actually they do not represent. I know the minister will recognize this sheet, and will realize that if there were any inaccuracies in the speech made in Pembroke by a member of this house, they came direct from the Department of Labour and from nowhere else.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Was that the whole of the speech of my hon. friend-the sheet of paper he has there?


William Allen Walsh: It contained a very considerable amount of information, as the minister will readily recognize, and the officials of the department will recognize that it took them a considerable length of time to prepare. To show how accurate the minister is, he immediately followed his remark with -this statement:
Where it had been suggested unemployment was increasing, the fact was that 60,000 wage earners had obtained jobs in the last 12 months.
Half-truths are sometimes worse to catch up with than statements which could be otherwise characterized. The minister switches from one phase of the subject directly to another phase of the subject, and then continues :
While Conservative leader R. B. Bennett would criticize in his speech here next Saturday-
He was anticipating the visit of the former Prime Minister.
-the cost of the employment commission, this cost had not-[DOT]
And then he intrudes the little words "to date."
-to date, been more than one-third the cost of the late price spreads commission, Mr. Rogers said.
That is according to the report in this paper. It is a statement made to lead the people to believe that the cost of the employment commission was quite small as compared with the cost of the price spreads commission; but it was made before he had included his estimate of $275,000 to cover their work for the fiscal year upon which at that time we were about to enter. I refer to statements of that kind merely to show that misrepresentations are not confined to one political party. Personally I resent a suggestion that I have deliberately misquoted facts and figures in order to mislead the electorate of Pembroke or of any other part of Canada.
In the same speech the minister seemed to glory particularly in the fact that the courts of Canada and Great Britain had turned down the social legislation of the late Conservative government. He took pride in the fact. He

Relief and Agricultural Distress
pointed out to the people of Pembroke and, through them, to the people of Canada that that legislation had been rejected by the courts, as the Liberals had anticipated, and he was inclined to be boastful about the fact, I should have imagined that he would regret that social legislation instituted by a previous government for the good of the Canadian people had been treated in that way. But he expresses no regrets.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, but what else do I express, if my hon. friend wishes to state the situation correctly?


William Allen Walsh: He suggests here that:
Instead of advancing social security in this country Mr. Bennett retarded it-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite.


William Allen Walsh: -by arbitrary appropriation of provincial jurisdiction.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is there an expression of satisfaction that the legislation was thrown out?


William Allen Walsh: I shall read on.
The position taken by the Liberal party has been completely upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada and the privy council.


Norman McLeod Rogers: True.


William Allen Walsh: All doubts have been removed by the Liberal party, so it will proceed with the working out of a co-operative program of constitutional means.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


William Allen Walsh: Surely.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does he really think it would have been to the advantage of this country to have had a program of social legislation actually placed in operation, an organization set up to deal with it, and then to have that legislation and the organization declared inoperative and beyond the competence of this parliament? Does he think this would really have contributed to social progress in this country?


William Allen Walsh: The point of view I always took in connection with that legislation was this, that if it had not been interfered with, if it had been put into effect, the chances are that there would not have been found anyone or any government in Canada to offer effective opposition to that legislation. Moreover, the courts would have been inclined, seeing that the acts were in force, to take an altogether different point of view.
I am convinced that when you take a stated case to the Supreme Court of Canada, you go there with a question mark opposite your legislation; and with that question mark staring the judges in the face they cannot do otherwise than carefully scrutinize the legislation and wonder why it is there. There must be some doubt in the minds of the authorities if they send it there. You go there with a question mark opposite your own legislation and there is a doubt; whereas if you put it into effect and have someone else direct attention to it, you at least stand on the ground of belief in what you have put into effect; you believe that it has some force in law. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion; I am not a jurist, simply a layman. I notice that the most competent authorities on the Liberal side laugh such an idea to scorn. Well, as I have said on different occasions, I am always happy to have the advice of lawyers when it is absolutely necessary; but where common sense is of more value than legal opinion, as it sometimes is, I would rather take the opinion of the lay mind.
The minister has quoted certain figures to show that unemployment has decreased. I do not doubt his figures as tabulated; but I want to point out to him that the distress in Canada is as great to-day as it was a year ago, as great as it was two years ago to-day. We have fewer people unemployed, but I can tell the minister that there is a large number of people in distress who are not on the unemployed list. They are being employed in factories for two or three days a week on a mere pittance, and for that reason their names no longer appear on the unemployed list. That gives rise to distress; that is a serious problem and one with which we should be concerned in this parliament. As I intimated last evening, however, I have very little hope that the problem will be seriously and courageously faced by those who are at present administering the affairs of the dominion. I am only hoping that some of my Liberal friends will take the opportunity to get into this debate and make a real effort on behalf of the people of Canada, instead of coming here to applaud others who are endeavouring to do something in the interests of their constituencies. If there were more thinking and less interfering with those who are trying to do some work, we might make more rapid progress even in this parliament directed by a Liberal ministry.


Mr. McCANN:: That is the school teacher.


William Allen Walsh: Probably it would be better if we had fewer doctors and more school
Relief and Agricultural Distress

teachers. I suggest that this government is fighting shy of responsibility. It is undermining our democratic institutions by appointing commissions to do the work that the elected representatives of the people were presumed to do. It is handing over the legitimate work, the responsibility of cabinet and of parliament, to commissions who are in no wise responsible to the people. This, in my opinion, is undermining our democratic institutions and is taking a direct blow at democracy, for which many have struggled in the past in order to bring it to its present form, which we enjoy as a privilege. The sooner we get back to the democratic, parliamentary form of government, the sooner will the people be satisfied that they are living in a country in which they can expect their problems to be courageously faced by the representatives whom they send here. We are tired in Canada of the commission form of government and of a government in office who are continuously shirking their responsibility to the people and shifting that responsibility on to commissions or into the courts, in this way hiding themselves and their inability to handle problems.
There is one more point that I wish to touch on in closing. The minister made a three and a half hour speech yesterday. I have read it carefully, and I want to ask him, when the bill is finally introduced and comes up for second reading, to take fifteen minutes to outline to the house the real and genuine policy of the present government in dealing with the question of unemployment. I suggest to him that he dismiss all unnecessary words, dismiss all these fine academic phrases and get down to real hard, concrete facts- 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. Let him do this so that the people of Canada will understand that the problem- is being satisfactorily dealt with; so that those who are unemployed, those who are partly employed, our young people who have not yet had an opportunity of finding employment, will all know that the parliament of Canada, led by even a Liberal ministry, is actually doing something in their interest and working out their ultimate salvation. I shall ask the minister to do that in just fifteen minutes. I shall ask him to give us an outline of the Liberal policy to show what they propose to do during the next fiscal year to meet this serious problem. The minister knows it is a serious problem; everyone knows it. I read in the press last week of 400,000 young people in the city of New York who had not yet been placed in industry or had not found work. The same condition prevails in our own country. What are we

doing to help these people? The responsibility rests upon this government. What are they doing to assist these people who are looking to them? I leave the question with the minister and look forward to a concrete statement, taking about fifteen minutes when the second reading of the bill comes up, so that I shall know what to tell my people, when I return to my constituency, as to what they may expect from the present government in the immediate future.


Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield):: The resolution before the house reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance towards the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, and for such payments out of moneys appropriated by parliament as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
This resolution and the bill that follows should, in my judgment, constitute one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before this present House of Commons, because it touches upon the lives and very livelihood of nearly one million people in the Dominion of Canada, in short, one out of eleven of its entire population.
This vital question, yet unsolved, has been a menace to the Canadian people for the past eight years, and according to reports for the past three months or so we are again heading back into the woods instead of in the opposite direction. Relief and unemployment figures are still cause for alarm. It is therefore possible that we may be hitting into another depression without coming out of the one which started in 1930.
There is at present right across the dominion a general feeling of unrest and insecurity, which seems to be growing, and I think we can attribute that feeling to the great number of people who have no work, who are on relief and have very little hope of getting a job. I have several suggestions to make, some of which I gave in this chamber last year. Hon. members will be interested to know that until now unemployment relief has cost this government alone nearly $300,000,000. This is exclusive of money spent by the provinces and the municipalities. Therefore, let us assume that we are starting all over again, having that enormous amount of money to spend. I suggest that, the government consider some of the following suggestions:
1.	We should complete the trans-Canada highway from one end of Canada to the other, hard-surface it and make connecting links with the United States and to all our national parks, as a dominion unemployment scheme.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
2.	We should see how many of our unemployed we could get to go on the land, in districts which have never been in the dried-out areas. My own constituency of Springfield is one such district, and there are many others. I have had many letters from people living in the cities who have bad some experience on farms, who would be willing to go back to the land if they got proper assistance.
3.	Why should we not, with the abundance of surplus electricity given to us by providence, supply all the rural homes with the simple convenience of electricity? In my judgment, that is one of the reasons why the people of to-day, especially the young people, are so desirous of leaving the farms, and are found walking the streets of our cities. They have not any conveniences whatsoever to encourage them to remain on the farms.,
4.	We should do something to encourage industries, such as the sugar beet industry and canning factories, which would help not only the farmers and the labour market, but the consumers, who should be the first consideration of this dominion. I suggest that we study New Zealand's example, which at this time is establishing an iron and steel industry which will employ 1,500 men steadily, and I am informed that the money for this enterprise, some $25,000,000, is being advanced by a national state bank without cost to the taxpayers. We should also start a national slum clearance campaign, and also look to the opportunities afforded in the various mining developments. All these works would become assets of the Dominion of Canada, and revenue bearing as well.
Then I suggest to the Minister of Labour that this government should give serious consideration to the proposal that the employable unemployed should be a dominion government responsibility. Prepare the way now to commence on an all-Canada front and place these men on works such as I have suggested. If they failed to take advantage of opportunities afforded them for employment they would then have to seek other work themselves.
Coming back to the trans-Canada highway, with connecting links with the United States and various national parks, I believe it would bring thousands of tourists from across the line and, through the gasoline tax, etc., thousands of dollars into the treasuries of the provincial governments, particularly those in the west, which are almost bankrupt. Merchants, hotels, tourist parks, garages and other lines of business would similarly benefit. We must keep in mind that the tourist industry is the third largest industry in the dominion, and we should do everything to encourage it and
at the same time help to eliminate the terrible unemployment that exists. Also the trans-Canada highway would increase the value of lands in the areas through which ft passes. This is not to be overlooked.
Dealing with the extension of electrical service to districts which have not that service, I would point out that at this time the government of Manitoba has made wonderful progress in this direction and shows a surplus this year. I would ask this government, if approached by the Manitoba government, to lend their assistance in helping the Manitoba hydro in financing the seventeen extensions which they propose to build this year, and which will give employment as well. Some of those seventeen towns are in my own riding, where nearly all the electricity is generated for the province; I refer to such towns as East Selkirk, Lockport, Gonor, Narol, Tyndall and Garson.
This resolution is so important to the welfare of the people of our dominion that I believe the people generally care not whether they are relieved from misery and suffering by an unbalanced budget or monetary reform, if necessary, or any other method, as long as they are given opportunity to work and earn a decent livelihood. May I impress upon our worthy Minister of Finance not to be in haste about balancing the budget until the million people to whom I have referred are first taken care of.
With respect to the disunity that is so prevalent at the moment, I know of no other way that would help as much to hold the nine provinces together in a spirit of good will as the completion of the trans-Canada highway, so that the thousands of people of the east who now go to the United States and elsewhere will go west, and the people of the west will visit the east. In that way, through the exchange of thought, the feeling of friction between the east and the west will disappear and we shall have a stronger united Canada. The cost should be a secondary consideration. I have noticed time and time again in Winnipeg how few Ontario cars we see, hardly any from Quebec, and I do not remember seeing any at all from the maritime provinces. Such conditions are bound to affect our country. The trans-Canada highway should be a magnet to draw the tourist trade of the North American continent, and if made so the tourist business would double in no time.
May I say to the Prime Minister and to the committee that it is about time this supreme House of Commons should go rapidly forward in instituting an unemployment insurance scheme, and that this dominion should have the final authority in all such matters
Privilege-M r. Lacroix


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 6, 1938