FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 164) for the relief of Edith May Gilmore.-Mr. J. D. Reid.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the
First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a question. I notice in the press this morning a statement that the volunteers of Canada are not to take part in the tercentenary celebration in Quebec next July. I would ask if this is true ; and, if the volunteers are not to take part in the tercentenary, I desire to ask why this decision has been reached after their interest has been aroused in the matter, and, in pa any cases, they have gone to a great deal of trouble in preparing ? Is it owing to the inability of the department to transport them, or what is the cause ?


Rt.   H@: I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) the information he asks for. This is purely a departmental matter, and I shall have to inquire concerning it of my colleague the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden).



GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to lay on the table certain plans relating to the Georgian Bay Ship Canal as follows :-
Plate 4-Map of river, mile 0 to 33.
Plate 5-Map of river, mile 33 to 66.
Plate 25-Daily dise.ha.rge of the Ottawa river at Besserer's grove for 1846, 1876, 1881, 1887, 1890, 1904, 1905 and 1906.
Plate 26-Daily discharge of the Ottawa river at head of Montreal island, Besserer's grove, Gower point and Deux Rivieres.
Plate 28-Daily discharge of Amiable du Fond river and daily fluctuation of reserve lakes, summit supply.
Plate 29-Curves relating to summit water supply investigation.
Plate 36-Diagrams showing movements of boats through the Poe lock and approaches, St. Mary's Falls canal.
I trust, very soou, to have the remainder of these plans and the final report of the survey.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What sales or leases of water-power privileges have been made by the Department of the Interior in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan since 1900?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	February 15,	1905.-Baumbacb and
Meier were granted 17 69 second feet from Ross creek on the northwest 4 of 24-10-3 -4 to operate a mill at Irvine, Sask.
July 3. 1905.-Blindman River Electric Power Company were authorized to divert *>50 second feet of Blindman river near its confluence with the Red Deer river, for power purposes.

November 8, 1907.-Blindman River Electric Power Company were authorized to raise the level of Gull lake IS inches for. storage purposes in connection with the power plant at the confluence of the Blind-man and Red Deer rivers.
June 19, 1907.-Midi. Sostrop was authorized to use enough water from the Medicine river to operate a mill upon section 31 -10-3-5.
July 20, 1900.-The Canadian Milling Company were granted 2D second feet from the St. Mary river on northeast \ of 14-3-25 -4 for the operation of a mill.
April 23, 1908.-Mr. O. T. Johannson was authorized to use the waters of Fallen Timber creek for power purposes on the southwest J of section 3-32-5-west of 5th meridian.


SNAGS IN RIVER ST. JOHN-PAYMENT OF MR. THOMAS LAFFERTY.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	Has one Thomas Lafferty, of Kings county, New Brunswick, received payment for services performed for the government in connection with the work of removing snags from the River St. John during last year?
2.	If so, what as the amount received and the rate of pay per day?
3.	Who is the owner of the tug boat which was employed in the work?
4.	Was the said boat hired by the day? If so, what was the rate of pay, and how many days employed?
5.	If the work was done by the day, why was it not put up to tender?


Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works)) :
1.	Yes, as labourer.
2.	(a) $14 ; (b) $1.75 per day.
3.	George R. Vincent.
4.	(a) Yes ; (b) 78 days at $15 per day.
5.	It was thought that the work would be more satisfactorily performed by day's labour.


CANSO COLD STORAGE PLANT.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What is the total cost of construction of the cold storage plant at Canso?
2.	What has been paid as subsidy or otherwise by the government on account of this plant?
3.	What remains yet to be paid under the existing contract?
4.	What has been the total cost to the government of carrying on the Scotch curing experiments for herring each year since its inception ?


Hon. L. F. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	$07,828.
2.	One-half the cost of construction of plant un to maximum payment of $30,000.


Mr. OLIVER.: Bonus	1905	$1,031.23"	1900	
1,959.34"	1907	082.113.	Nothing.4.	1904-5 (including purchasedrifter)	$20,891.041905-0	
15.440.001900-7	
10,831.001907-8	
10,628.17


MR. J. E. CLOUTIER.
Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	Between the 1st of May, 1906, and the 31st of March, 1907, what amounts were paid by the Department of Public Works each month to J. E. Cloutier, of 'the town of Chicoutimi, or elsewhere, in the county of Chicoutimi ?
2.	What amounts have been paid each month since April 1, 1907, to date to the same party?
3.	What was the nature of the services for which these payments were made?
4.	Where are they set forth in the Auditor General's Report for 1905-6 and 1906-7?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$240, including one month which accrued previous to 1st May, 1906, but paid in this term.
2.	$20 for each month up to 30th April, 1908.
3.	Rent of office for resident engineer at: Chicoutimi.
4.	Auditor General's Report,
1905-	6, page V-216.. . .$ 60 00 Auditor General's Report,
1906-	7, page V-165.. .. 180 00
Not yet reported	 200 00


$500 00 SAGUENAY DREDGING-PURCHASE OF COAL.
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	What quantity of coal was purchased last season for the use of the Public Works Department in connection with the Saguenay dredging?
2.	From whom was this coal purchased, and at what price?
3.	Where was delivery of this coal made?
4.	If at Quebec, what did it cost to bring the coal to Chicoutimi?
5.	Were any offers received to supply steam coal delivered at Chicoutimi on wharf or barge? If so, what was the price quoted?
6.	What was the net cost of the coal actu-allv purchased, including price at Quebec and haulage from Quebec to Chicoutimi?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister Of Public Works) :: 1.	1,700 tons.
2.	(a) Canadian Import Company of Quebec ; (b) $4.50 per ton.
3.	Delivery was made from time to time at Quebec when needed.
4.	Coal was towed by government tug and barges at an estimated cost of about 50 cents per ton.

5.	Yes, $4.85 per ton, but, in addition to tins, it would, if this offer had been accepted, have been necessary to add cost of providing storage facilities at Chicoutimi. Further the coal offered was not of the quality required.
C. About $5.


SAGUENAY DREDGING-TUG ' STORM KING.'
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	Is the tug ' Storm King ' in the employ of the Public Works Department in connection with the Saguenay dredging?
2.	If so, what services were rendered by the said tug during the season 1907?
3.	Is a memorandum of the earnings of the said tug required and furnished to the department?
4.	What were the total earnings for the season of 1906-7, and what was the nature of the services for which charges were made?
5.	Does the said tug at times tow coal from Quebec to the Saguenay? If so, what charge per ton is made for such tug service ?
6.	What amount was credited to the said tug for towing coal last season?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Was employed entirely under the supervision of resident engineer at Chicoutimi doing government work.
3.	Resident engineer is required to furnish returns.
4.	5 and 0. From General Construction Company. $120 for services, towing one of the comnanys' vessels irom 2nd to 4tli October, 1907.
Tug frequently tows departmental coal from Quebec, tows dredges when necessary and is used on works of inspection or survey.


ONE CENT DROP LETTER. .
Mr. SINCLAIR asked :: Has an estimate been made of the amount that the postal revenue will be lessened by the proposal to give a one cent rate to drop letters in cities? If so, how much?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: The department does not anticipate that the postal revenue will be lessened by the change proposed, but lias on the contrary reason to believe that the new arrangement will result in increased postal revenue.


HOMESTEADING SECTION 18.
Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	In respect to the northwest quarter of section 18, township 53, range 4, west of the 5th meridian, by whom and at what time was it homesteaded?
2.	What extensions have been allowed in regard to the performances of homestead duties, and for what reasons?
3.	What other applications have been made fcr this homestead?
4.	Does the party in whose names the homestead now stands reside on the property ?
If not, where has he resided within the past three years?	-


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	The following entries were granted for this laud : E. A. Bellamy, 2nd June, 1905, cancelled on the 12tli of February, 1907 ; Thomas H. Mason, 9th of March, 1907, cancelled on the 2nd of May, 1907 ; Daniel Brox, 8th of May, 1907.
2.	On the 23rd of May, 1906, cancellation proceedings against the entry of E. A. Bellamy were held over until the 1st of July, 1906, as the homestead inspector reported improvements recently made, and the homesteader stated that he was earning money to go into residence.
On the 25th of March, 1908, cancellation proceedings against the entry of D. Brox were held over until the 15th of April, 1908, for the reason that the homesteader claimed that the residence condition only remained unfulfilled, and that he wanted time to make arrangements for his office.
3.	The head office file shows the following
applications for this land :	17th of January, 1907, Thomas H. Mason. 27th of January, 190S, William Craig. 1st of February, 1908, Joseph Burns.
4.	The present homesteader, D. Brox, does not reside on the land. He is postmaster at Spruce Grove, where he has apparently lived for the past seven years.


WHARF AT GRAND RIVER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Were tenders received for the building of a wharf on the south side of Grand river? If so, what are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender ?
2.	What amount of money has been expended on said wharf up to May, 1908?
3.	At whose recommendation was said work undertaken?
4.	Were any petitions received asking for the wharf to be built at this point? If 60, how many names are on the petition?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Yes, at McPherson's Cove, (b) For construction of wharf, Thomas Campbell, $8,999 ; for extension, F. S. Macdonald, $4,289 ; W. W. Jenkins, $4,440 ; J. F. Morrison, $4,484 ; M. McDonald and J. L. McPherson, $4,923 ; W. L. Poole and G. A. Thompson, $5,497 ; Thomas Campbell, $5,990 ; D. W. B. Reid and Lewis Archibald, $6,440.
2.	$10,996.56.
3.	At the request of Mr. J. J. Hughes, M.P., a report as to the necessity for this accommodation was secured from the resident engineer.
4.	There are no petitions on file in the department.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY EXTENSION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Was a petition asking for the extension of the Prince Edward Island railway to Dundas and Avondale received by the government in 1906? If so, what action does the government intend taking in this matter?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: The department has no record of any petition being received asking for an extension of the Prince Edward Island Railway, to Dundas and Avondale.


STEAMSHIP SERVICE, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND AND NOVA SCOTIA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Why was the steamship service between Bridgetown, Annandale, Georgetown and Souris, Prince Edward Island, and Pictou and Sidney, Nova Scotia, discontinued?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to re-establish this service? If not, why not?
Rt.   H@: The department has no record in recent years of a service touching at all the points mentioned. There is a service at present from Pictou touching at Georgetown and Souris; there is another service from Pictou touching at Murray Harbour, Georgetown and Montague; there is another service from Sydney touching at Souris en route to Montreal.
SECTION 32.	,
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Has the report ordered in reference to the northeast section 32, township 36, range 16, west of the 2nd meridian, yet been made and received ? If so, when will such report be laid on the table of the House?


Hon FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The report referred to, which is dated (March 23. 1908. was received, and laid on the table of the House on the 21st of April, 1908. as supplementary to return No. 98 (Department of the Interior).


LIGHTKEEPER AT GANANOQUE.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Who has charge of the lights and buoys immediately east and west of Gananoque in the St. Lawrence river, including Burnt island and Fiddler's Elbow?
2.	When was he appointed and what salary does he receive?
3.	Where does he reside at present, in Canada or the United States?
4.	Has he attended to the work himself or does he farm it out to others?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: [DOT]
1. Mrs. Manly Cross, widow of the late keeper.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: 2.	Appointed by order in council 2nd of January, 190S. at $550 per annum.
3.	The lightkeeper's post office address is Gananoque, Ontario.
4.	Mrs. Cross reported on 22nd of January, 1908, that her son will do the work.


QUEBEC TERCENTENARY.
Samuel Hughes: A short time ago I asked a question of the government with reference to the militia going to the tercentenary celebration at Quebec this summer, and I notice a statement in the papers to-day that they are not going. I desire to ask the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) what are the facts. If they are not going, why are they not going? Is it due to the inability of the department to handle the troops, or what is the pause of their not going ?


Hon.   S@: It is not correct to say that the troops are not going to the tercentenary. It is a fact, however, that the annual camps of instruction will be held as usual throughout the Dominion this year, instead of being held at one common point at or near the city of Quebec, as was proposed. The annual drill of the city regiments will also take place as usual this year. The reason of the change in the programme, which programme I announced briefly to the House three or four weeks ago, is chiefly due to the difficulty of transportation. It will be understood, I am sure, that one of the principal things had in mind in connection with this tercentenary celebration is to bring together the largest number possible of people to Quebec to witness the ceremonies. Some time ago the chairman of the commission called my attention to the fact that the transportation lines, the railways and steamboats, must be left free as far as possible to bring the people to Quebec and take them home again, and he thought it proper to ask the Militia Department to agree not to move any troops on a certain number of days before the celebration began and a certain number of days afterwards. It will be readily understood that such an arrangement would hamper the railway transportation lines very much. An earnest effort was made to see whether the difficulty could be overcome, but it was found it could only be partially overcome. It was therefore thought better that the camps should be held at the usual places of holding camps. As to the statement that has been made that the headquarters of the militia were unable to cope with the mobilization of 25,000 or 30,000 troops at a central point like Quebec, the story is absolutely without foundation, and is entirely absurd. The Militia Department is quite able to mobilize 40,000 troops at a

central point like Quebec, within a few days, if not within a few hours, if the necessity arose. But at a time when tens and hundreds of thousands of people from all over the northern part of this continent will be looking towards Quebec, and have got to be taken there over the railways and steamboat lines, every one will agree that a serious problem is presented ; and owing to the fact that the companies cannot give the necessary accommodation such as we think the militia should have, this part of the programme has been given up. As to what will be done to bring troops to Quebec to take part in the celebration, I am not prepared at this moment to make any announcement. But the Militia Department will be prepared to co-operate with the commission in every way in its power.


Mr. FOSTER.: That is finally final, is it?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Yes.


Mr. TALBOT.: Might I be permitted to ask the Minister of Militia if it is the intention of the department to allow the rural corps to go into camp as usual ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, I intended to say that.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-MR.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the government respecting the opportunities which Mr. Justice Cassels will have to pursue the inquiry that he commenced a short time ago ; having regard to the fact that he considers his judicial duties to be his first concern-and I quite approve of his attitude in that respect-having regard also to the near approach of the summer vacation, when is it expected that the inquiry can be resumed for any considerable period, and what opportunity will there be between the present date and the first day of January next for proceeding with the inquiry in an effective way ? The government should also take into consideration, in replying to the question, the fact that Mr. Justice Cassels has already announced, as I understand, that the investigation will be protracted because he proposes to go into the question somewhat exhaustively. I would like to know what the idea of the government is as to when the investigation will be effectively proceeded with and completed ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I could not give any information at this moment to my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden). Probably the department will have to communicate with counsel and with Mr. Justice Cassels himself as to what his intention is in this respect. My hon. friend says that he wants to know w'hat opportunity there will be to 267
resume the inquiry between this and the first of January. I would have hoped that the inquiry would have been completed long before the first of January.


Robert Laird Borden: I thoroughly agree with that, but I understood from some quoted statement of Mr. Justice Cassels in the public press, that there was a considerable amount of work of a judicial character awaiting his attention to which he would properly give precedence.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will have the matter looked into.


QUEBEC TERCENTENARY.
Samuel Hughes: I have heard it remarked that the city corps are to be allowed their annual drill as usual in the fall and spring of the year and are to be paid therefor and that if permitted they are willing to go to Quebec provided their transport and allowances are made good. If that is true what is to be done with the rural corps? Are the rural corps not to be permitted to go to Quebec and, if any of the rural corps decide to take advantage of the same proposition, will they also have their transport and allowance given to them?


Frederick William Borden: Nothing has been settled, but it is a fact that the city regiments, or some of them, or their commanding officers for them, have offered to give the time to go to Quebec, that is six days, or whatever it may be, and also do their full annual training as usual. That is twelve days. That is to say, assuming that it would take six days of their time to go to Quebec, they are willing to give eighteen days drill for twelve days pay. But nothing has been settled in regard to this matter.


Samuel Hughes: I presume the same privilege will be extended to the rural corps?


Frederick William Borden: We have not extended it to any one yet.


INSURANCE BILL.
George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if lie has come to any conclusion in reference to the early introduction of the Insurance Bill.


Mr. FIELDING.: Yes ; ' Introduction ' is hardly the word that my hon. friend wishes tp use because the Bill is before the Committee on Banking and Commerce. We are considering and preparing some amendments w'hich we will be able to offer to the committee. It is our full intention to press the measure before the Banking and Commerce Committee at an early day.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Aylesworth for the second reading of Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act and the proposed amendment of Mr. W. J. Roche thereto.
Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald).: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid La'urier) rose in this House yesterday to make his speech upon this particular piece of legislation, known as Bill (No. 115), but better known as the Ayles-worth Bill, I was in hopes that he would have had the courage of his convictions and that he would state to this House and the country that he was prepared to withdraw the contentious part of the Bill and allow the business of the House to go on. The right hon. gentleman spoke at some length. I listened to each sentence of his speech but he was prepared to withdraw not even one contentious word, not even one contentious clause of this Bill. I listened to him expecting him to refer to clause No. 1 which deals with the province of Manitoba, the unorganized districts of Ontario and Quebec and the province of British Columbia, but not one word did he utter as regards withdrawing this particular clause. I listened that I might hear him say that he was prepared to withdraw clause No. 17 which refers to the secret ballot, but he failed to mention clause No. 17. Now, Sir, the right hon. gentleman thought he had scored heavily upon the opposition when he said: I am prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Marquette, and when he said that he was prepared, in so far as overlapping portions of the various constituencies in Manitoba were concerned, to refer the question to the judges of the province. I say that the right hon. gentleman did not concede anything there. He gave us nothing but what we enjoy at the present time in the province of Manitoba, fixed by law and on the statute-books of that province. Therefore, the right hon. gentleman has not conceded anything. He has not been so fair as he would try to lead hon. members of this House and the people of this country to believe and I cannot understand for a moment how it has gone broadcast throughout our country in the press that the right hon. gentleman has conceded all the wishes of Manitoba. He has not conceded a single thing. Why. I ask, why has the right hon. gentleman singled out the little province of Manitoba? Why is he so anxious to get a slap at the province of Manitoba? Why is he so anxious to insult the intelligence of the people of Manitoba? The right hon. gentleman has refused to allow the province of Manitoba one stick of timber, one acre of land, one ounce of mineral, one fish that floats in the waters of that province and now he Mr. FIELDING
comes forward and puts his grasping hands upon the franchise of the people and tries to take it from them. I say that we will not tolerate that for one moment. Where did the right hon. gentleman get his information? By whom has he been prompted? He has been prompted by the Liberal contingent from the province of Manitoba led by the ex-premier of that province. He consults them. He accepts everything they say, and there is not one word of truth in their statements. I am surprised that the right hon. gentleman should not have listened to the arguments that have been made on this side of the House, arguments which are backed up by facts and backed up by law; but he accepts the statements, and they are only statements, of hon. gentlemen in the Liberal contingent from the province of Manitoba.
Now, Sir, I intend, for a few moments to refer to these hon. gentlemen. I shall endeavour to take up their arguments one by one. I do not for a moment say I am going to attempt to answer them because they have been answered. They were answered in nearly every case before they were made and it is only a waste of time to undertake to answer these hon. gentlemen. But, first, I shall refer to the hon. gentleman who spoke in this House last night. I refer to the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Burrows). Who is this member for Dauphin ? He is a gentleman who sits over there and he has a monopoly of the timber of the western country. He sits in his seat, not by the will of the people, but through the manipulation of his brother-in-law, the ex-Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) who has, by his ingenuity, succeeded in setting back his election and allowing that hon. member for Dauphin to take his seat by acclamation.
Now, Sir, I say to the hon. gentleman : come out, fight fair, come out from behind the large spruce trees, come out I say and let the people of this country tell you whether you shall represent them any longer in this House. And if the hon. member does come out in the open I will venture to say he will not come back to this House if he has to fight as others have to fight in the coming election. The hon. gentleman was very careful to read from his Bible, the AVinnipeg ' Free Press,' and that was about the whole of his speech ; that-was all he had to say. He was very careful to read affidavits one after another and they were affidavits which did not do any credit to the hon. gentleman or his party behind him. Amongst others he read a letter which was written by Mr. Hastings, of Manitoba, and that letter is a fair letter, it is a loyal letter, it is a patriotic letter. But, the outside leader of the Liberal party in the province of Manitoba, Mr. Brown, wrote a letter which he had inserted in the different papers throughout the province arid when I

read that letter I want to ask the members of this House if those who voted for Mr. Brown in the last provincial election did their duty when they voted for any such man. He was writ ins with regard to the flag policy of Premier Roblin and he wrote this letter to the newspapers of Manitoba :
In regard to the flag can you not get interviews with school trustees in your district as to what they think of the teachers being compelled to hoist the flag and take it down with the thermometer at 25 and 40 below?
Is there anything patriotic or loyal about that? Then he wrote to the newspaper editors :
Comment yourself editorially on the subject . and if you do you can send a special marked copy to the 'Free Press' at once so that we may copy your views.
Now in connection with this I will take the liberty to recite two or three verses which were written by a late member of the press gallery-methinks I see him here today-and there is nothing I can say to you that will represent the feeling and sentiment of the people of Manitoba better than the verses I am going to recite. That gentleman wrote the following beautiful words:
Give me the Grand Old Union Jack Baptized in blood and tears;
The flag that o'er a nation free Has waved a thousand years.
More modern flags; with stars and bars As beautiful may be;
But the flag that's waved a thousand years Is good enough for me.
Now, these are the words I want specially to commend to the Prime Minister.
Then may it wave o'er land and sea Through time's eternal space;
Equality and liberty There find abiding place.
That verse represents the sentiment of the people of Manitoba : Equality and liberty. That is all we ask, that is what we are fighting for, that is what we expect to get. But I have a doubt as to whether we shall bfe able to get it from the right hon. gentleman when we take into consideration his past record and dealings with the province of Manitoba. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the day is not far distant, the day will soon come, it will come at the next elections when the people have a chance to express their wishes at the polls and they will make the Prime Minister of Canada dance. He will dance as he never danced before, and the people of the country will waltz him from that side of the House and put him in the opposition benches where he always belonged. So much for the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Burrows).


Mr. BENNETT.: Take another one of them.


William D. Staples: The next hon. gentleman I wish to call your attention to is the hon.
member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway). He sat for twelve long years as Prime Minister of the province of Manitoba.


Mr. FOWLER.: Where is he to-day ?


William D. Staples: I do not know just where he is to-day. A few days ago the hon. gentleman (Air. Greenway) made a speech in this House and he made sweeping statements like all the rest of his speeches. He defied any one to take the lists of the province of Manitoba and compile a federal list out of them. Well, it is the simplest thing in the world to do that. The only trouble that arose was about the overlapping of the voters in the polling subdivisions and all that is necessary to do is to leave the assignment of the voters In their propier divisions to the judges of the land. Yesterday the Prime Minister told us he was willing to do that and we thank him heartily for it, and I say that any man who makes the bold statement that it is impossible to compile the federal lists from the provincial lists is stating what is not true. The hon. gentleman (Air. Greenway) went on to say that the addresses of the different voters in Alanitoba are not given on the lists. I am prepared to admit that originally when the lists were compiled by that judicial board which hon. gentlemen opposite think was so perfectly fair and just, in a great many cases the post office address was left out, but the section, township and range were given in almost every case and it was therefore quite easy to find the voters. The hon. member (Mr. Greenway) also said that qualified electors had to go hundreds of miles to get on the list and he said the member for Selkirk would endorse that statement. Well, my colleagues and myself have gone over the constituency of Selkirk and we have taken the last census map of the province of Alanitoba, and we have taken every polling subdivision in that constituency where a registration clerk is required by law to sit in the near future, and we have failed to find where a man would have to go fifty miles, much less one hundred miles to get on the list. Therefore I say that the member for Lisgar was wide of the mark when he said voters would have to go one hundred miles to get on the list. There is not a word of truth in it. He also found fault with the shortness of the time that elapses between the conclusion of the registration sitting and the court of revision ; but the province of Alanitoba is at the present time having new proclamations issued to extend the time so as to suit the fancy and meet the whims of hon. gentlemen opposite.
The hon. gentleman also said that the government of Alanitoba had deliberately torn froip the list of voters certain names. It has been said before, and I repeat it, that there was never such a thing done that was contrary to law. He also made the state-

ment that the Tories of Manitoba had undertaken to make some voters. Well, Sir, I want to say again that there is not a word of truth in that statement. The names that were put on the list were put on at the request of the Liberals of that particular polling subdivision. Now, who is this member for Lisgar? Is he the man?-yes, he is the man that went up and down this country for twelve years shouting: ' Hands off the province of Manitoba; equal justice to all, special privileges to none.' These were his war cries. Where is he to-day? He is the man who said to the government of the day: ' Give us our swamp lands, give us our school lands, give us our national schools.' 1 wonder where he is on that question today. He is the man who in those days stumped not only the province of Manitoba, but also the province of Ontario, trying to raise religious prejudices? Yes, he is the man; but where did we find him when the autonomy legislation was on? I watched him in his seat the only time he was in the House while that debate was going on, and I rather pitied him; he twirled his thumbs, stroked his whiskers, dusted his coat, and looked very uncomfortable, because his conscience was pricking him. On another occasion he made some remarks with regard to some provincial matter, and what did we find? When the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) was replying to him, and making things very hot for him, we found the hon. gentleman stealing back to one seat after another until he got close to the back door, and there he tumbled out, notwithstanding the euphonious strains of the hon. member for Simcoe singing, 'Tommy, dear Tommy, don't go.' He is the man who in those days said: ' Give us the provincial lists for federal purposes.' Where is he to-day? Is he shouting, 1 give us provincial lists for federal purposes?' No; he wants to insult the people of the province of Manitoba. And now, Sir, I appeal to the exPrime Minister of Manitoba, I appeal to the hon. members of this House, to give us the assistance we are deserving of at this present time. All we ask for the province of Manitoba is equal rights, equal justice. No special privileges are we asking. I say, as the hon. gentleman said on that occasion, hands off the province of Manitoba.
The next man I come to of this Liberal contingent from the province of Manitoba is the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford). It seems to be the delight of that hon. gentleman to question the veracity of the Hon. Robert Rogers and the veracity of the hon. the Prime Minister of Manitoba. It is his whole delight to get up in this House and talk of the maladministration of the government of Manitoba. I am surprised at the hon.


William D. Staples: gentleman; he is the last man who should rise in this House and question the veracity and the honesty of the Prime Minister of the province of Manitoba. It is nothing more than cowardice on his part.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
iMr. SPEAKER. That is an unparliamentary expression, and should be withdrawn.


William D. Staples: Well, I will say unfair, Mr. Speaker-lack of courage. I was saying that he is the last man who should reflect on the veracity or the honesty of the Prime Minister of Manitoba. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that if it were not for the mercy, the great grace, of the Prime Minister of the province of Manitoba, the hon. gentleman would by no means be sitting where he is to-day. '
The next man I come to is the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), and I purpose passing him over with very brief mention. I must say that he is not in quite the same category as the other hon. gentlemen that I have mentioned or the ones I purpose to refer to. But, Sir, even this gentleman has a record. He was speaker of the local legislature. He filled that position very gracefully, with great ability and with great credit to himself; but he has another record. He is the man who, when the Autonomy Bills were before this House, gathered up his little bag and struck out for the province of Manitoba, and went to the constituency of Mountain, hung his map on the wall, and extended the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. Quite a man after all; a little in advance of even the Prime Minister of this country. We have not yet got our boundaries extended.
The next hon. gentleman I come to is the member for the city of Winnipeg, the man who has the great honour of representing that great western city, the metropolis of the west, the Chicago of Canada. I would naturally expect, Mr. Speaker, a man who holds that honourable position to be a big man, a broad man, a fair man, a man who would not stoop as he stooped to reading the affidavits which he read in this House. But, Sir, he read some of them only; he did not read them all. I want the hou. gentleman now to read the rest of them. He read only four. He read the affidavits of Rudneski, Szymanski and Cichoski; but, Sir, he neglected to read those of Gdoski, Dumenski or Mosquito- we will leave it there. He failed to tell the whole story on that occasion. He did not tell us that the affidavits which he held in his hand cost the Liberal organizer of the province of Manitoba $25-$25 for four? No, $25 for eight; and there, Mr. Speaker, is the original cheque. There is the original document.

Some lion. MEMBERS. Read it.


William D. Staples: I want, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to read this cheque. It reads thus:
Winnipeg, Man., March 30, 1907.
The Merchants' Bank of Canada, pay Theo. Rudneski, or order, the sum of twenty-five dollars. Eight men's time, affidavits.
(Sgd.) GEORGE WALTON.
Who is Geo. Walton? He is the Liberal organizer of the province of Manitoba. He holds a seat in the local legislature of that province. The cheque is unarked, but has not been paid. It is charged up to the debit of Geo. Walton, Liberal organizer of the province of Manitoba. Here is the original document- something that proves the case. It is ail in the same handwriting, and I challenge the right hon. the First Minister or even the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) to repudiate it.
The next man I come to is the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), the ex-Minister of the Interior-a very interesting man. He will be still more interesting within the next few moments-the father of the legislation we have now before us; the man responsible for this proposed legislation; the man who in 1903 tried to foist upon the people of Manitoba similar legislation; the man who drafted a similar Bill in 1903. The right hon. gentleman has denied that there was such a Bill drafted. I ask him now if there was not a Bill of that kind drafted in 1903. He denied it yesterday and the day previous. I ask him now whether there was not such a Bill drafted and printed?


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman is entitled to an answer from me. If such.a Bill was drafted, it never was to uny knowledge.


William D. Staples: I accept the right hon. gentleman's denial, as it is my duty to do, but now it becomes my painful duty to show the right hon. gentleman that there was such a Bill printed and that it was printed down here in the Printing Bureau of this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William D. Staples: Will the right hon. gentleman deny that?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot deny or affirm it. I say that if anything of the kind was done, it was not to my knowledge.


An hon. MEMBER.: You were not intended to know.


William D. Staples: We have had some hard fights in this House to obtain possession of original documents. We have had to debate for hours and days and weeks to try and get into the different departments
of the government and get hold of original documents. But I did not have such a fight in order to get this, and I have it. Had it been in one of the departments, I venture to say I would not have it, because the first man who would throw himself against the door, backed by a subservient majority in his refusal to let us see the original documents, would be the Prime Minister. Not so In this case. We have the document here. There it is, conceived in iniquity, born in sin and submitted, I am told, to the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Justice of that day, killed by that Minister of Justice, buried by him, the Hon. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, now Chief Justice of Canada. But resurrected, Sir, by a minister of injustice, incorporated in the Bill we have now before us, designed for the same purpose-the purpose of gagging the will of the people of Manitoba.


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: I rise to a point of order. Seeing that the hon. gentleman has produced an original document, a certain cheque, I ask that it be laid on the table of the House.


William D. Staples: I shall deal with that later. I do not know that I shall either lay the Bill on the table or yet the cheque, but the right hon. gentleman told us yesterday that his memory was quite as good, quite as bright as ever. I am glad to know it. If that is the case, as I read this document, surely he will remember some of the words or the construction of some of the clauses or perhaps the entire Bill.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Has that document not to be laid on the table?


Mr. SPEAKER.: The rule as to the production of documents is limited to the case of a minister quoting from or referring to a public document and does not apply in this case.


William D. Staples: Now, Sir, as I read, I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman will remember soime of the language.


Wilfrid Laurier: In my turn,
I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman says no doubt I will remember. I state that to my knowledge this document never was presented to me.


William D. Staples: I am trying to refresh the memory of the right hon. gentleman. If after I have read the document he says he does not remember it, there will not be-the least doubt in my mind that it was not presented to him, and I shall certainly accept his word. This is the Bill-Blank number, with 1903 at the top, and it reads thus :
An A at further to amend the Franchise Act, 1898, and the Dominion Election Act,. lfiOlf, as respects the province of Manitoba.

His 'Majesty, by and with the advice and [DOT]consent of the Senate and House of Commons *of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	This Act may be cited as the Manitoba Supplementary Voters' Lists Act, 1903.
2.	In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
(a)	The expressions ' Dominion election,' 'election' and 'provincial election,' respectively, have the same meanings as they have in the Franchise Aot, 1898;
(b)	The expression ' province ' and its derivatives respectively mean and refer to the province of Manitoba;
(c)	The expression ' electoral district' means any place or territorial area in the province which is entitled to return a member to the House of Commons;
(d)	The expression ' registration district' means a registration district constituted under the laws of the province for the purposes of the provincial registration upon which were based the voters' lists designated by the Franchise Act, 1898, and amendments thereto, for use at the election about to be held.
3.	Section 13 of chapter 1G of the statutes of 1901 is repealed, and it as hereby enacted that section 9 of the Franchise Aot, 1898, as amended, shall not apply to the province of Manitoba, and that as regards the said province the lorovisions of this Act shall be taken to be substituted therefor.
i. For the purposes of any Dominion election about to be held in the province, voters' lists shall be prepared and revised, in manner hereinafter provided supplementary to those so designated as aforesaid for use at such election.
5.	The provisions of paragraph (e) of section 19 of chapter 52 of the Revised Statutes of Manitoba, 1902, and any provisions of the provincial law directlv or indirectly imposing an educational qualification for registration as an elector, shall not apply to or he regarded in the preparation of such supplementary lists, nor shall any provision of the provincial law requiring an applicant for registration who claims to be a British subject by naturalization to produce his certificate of naturalization.
6.	Every person who possesses the qualifications prescribed by the law of the province for registration as an elector, as the same are modified bv the provisions of the next preceding section, and bv the provisions of the Franchise Act, 1898, and amendments thereto, and whose name is not on the voters' lists designated as aforesaid for use at the election about to be held, shall be entitled to be registered as an elector for the purposes of such supplementary lists, whether or not such person possessed the said qualifications at the time when the said voters' lists were made or revised, and whether or not he then applied for registration.
7.	Whenever it becomes necessary under this Act to prepare and revise supplementary voters' lists in one or more electoral districts, the Governor in Council may by proclamation appoint for each of such electoral districts a fit and proper person, who shall be a judge of a county court, or a barrister of not less than three years' standing, to be the revising officer for such electoral district, and he shall, by such proclamation, fix the date for the closing by the revising officer in


William D. Staples: each electoral district of the registration for such supplementary lists.
8.	Immediately after receiving official notice of his appointment, the revising officer shall take an oath of office before a judge Of the Court of King's Bench, or of a county court, or before a justice of the peace, in form A in the schedule to this Act, which oath he shall forthwith thereafter cause to be, filed with the clerk of the Crown in chancery.
9.	The revising officer shall thereupon open an office at some con venient jrlace in the electoral district for which he is appointed, and shall, until the closing of the registration for such supplementary lists, keep such office open every day, Sundays excepted, between the hours of nine and twelve o'clock in the forenoon, and one and four o'clock in the afternoon, and shall during those hours by himself or a substitute 'be present at such office to receive applications for such registration and to transact other (business pertaining to his office as (revising officer.
10.	The revising officer shall, immediately after taking the said oath, insert in a newspaper published (in the city of Winnipeg, and also in one or more newspapers published in the electoral district, or iif there is no newspaper published in the district then in some newspaper which circulates therein, a notice in form B in the schedule to this Act, and he shall continue the publication of such notice in every issue of each of such newspapers up to and including the day fixed for the closing of registration.
11.	The revising officer shall at the same time send to every postmaster in the electoral district, by mail, registered, a similar notice, to be posted up for the information of the public.
12.	The revising officer shall receive applications in form C or form D in the schedule to this Act, or to the like effect, up to midnight of the day fixed for closing the registration for such supplementary lists.
13.	Each application shall contain the name of only one person applying, or on whose behalf application is made, to be placed* on such lists.
11. Such applications shall be sworn to or affirmed either by the person for whom registration is sought, or by some other person on his behalf, such other person being an elector of the electoral district, before a mayor, reeve, justice of the peace, commissioner for taking affidavits, county court clerk, registrar or notary public, or before the revising officer.
15.	The revising officer shall enter the name, residence, post office address, and occupation or profession of each person by or on behalf of whom an application conforming to the provisions of the three next preceding sections has been received bv him, and whose name does not appear in the list so designated ais aforesaid, on a preliminary list for the proper registration district according to the alleged qualifications of such person, the names being entered in alphabetical order.
16.	Where part only of a registration district lies within the electoral district, a separate preliminary list shall be prepared for such part.
17.	Every person before whom it is provided that an oath or affirmation under this Aot

mav be token, shall, upon request, administer such oath or affirmation gratuitously.
18.	Any person who has attained the iuii age of twenty-one years and is a British sub-iect by birth or naturalization on or before the day on which the preliminary lists are finally revised, .shall be entitled to be registered' as an elector, if otherwise qualified.
Revision of lists.
19.	Forthwith after the closing of registration the revising officer shall fix a day and hour, and a place within the electoral district, for the revision of the preliminary lists, such day being not less than two weeks alter such closing, and he shall give public notice of the time and place so fixed in the manner prescribed by sections 10 and 11 of this Act with respect 'to the notice therein mentioned.
20.	Such notice may he in form E, in the schedule to this Act, and shall state that the preliminary lists may be inspected during office hours at the office of the revising officer;
21 The revising officer may if deemed advisable on account of distance or otherwise, fix separate times and places for different portions of the electoral district for the le-vision of the preliminary lists in which case the notices published by him shall specify the registration districts and parts thereof, the lists for which shall be revised at such times and places respectively. [DOT]
22.	At the time and place specified m the notice the revising officer shall hold a court for the revision of the said preliminary hsts, and for the purposes of such revision he shall have all the powers which were vested in the judge or other person presiding at a court for the revision of lists of electors under the Act, chapter 49 of the Revised Statutes of Manitoba, 1891, and the amendments thereto hereinafter mentioned.
23.	It shall not he necessary to notify the revising officer that it is intended to apply to have names struck off the list, but it shall be sufficient if it be proved in court to the satisfaction of the revising officer that a summons or order in form F in the schedule to this Act has been served upon any person whose name is objected to, at least forty-eight hours before the time fixed for holding the court, and upon such proof the revising officer shall proceed to hear and dispose ol the application whether or not the person whose name is objected to is present.
(2) Such summons or order -may be served either personally or by leaving a copy thereof with some grown person at the residence as shown upon the preliminary list of the pei-son objected to.
Division of registration districts.
24.	The revising officer may divide any registration district which is found upon the completion of the supplementary list thereof to contain more than three hundred electors, or any registration district where, in his opinion, on account of sparseness of settlement or for any other reason, the convenience of the electors requires it, into two or more polling divisions, and in every such case he shall prepare a separate list for each of such polling divisions, dividing -the list designated as aforesaid for use at the election about to be held, as well as the supplementary list for the registration district, according to the residences of the electors whose names appear thereon, as such residences are stated in such lists respectively, and shall certify the lists so prepared by him as correct and as having been prepared by him pursuant to this section; and for the -purposes of the election about to be held, such polling divisions shall be regarded as duly constituted and the list ,so prepared and certified shall be regard-
U31	

,

his name appeared upon the voters' lists ami8niated<.l)Ii the franchise Act, 1898, and amendments thereto, for use at said election.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all the affidavits and toims of declaration in connection with this BUI, are here. There are a great many of them, but I do not think it is necessary for me to read them, as I am taking up more time of the House than I really should. But I want to say in conclusion, that we have reason to thank Heaven that when this Bill was drafted there was in this government a .Minister of Justice who would not allow such an iniquitous, such a nefarious, cruel fraudulent act to be placed upon the statute book of Canada. And to-day, I am sorry to say we have a minister of injustice, as I claim he has been properly termed____


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order. I think the lion member will see that it is hardly proper to apply such a term to a member of the Mouse.
STAPLES. The reason I use it is that it lias been used before.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It should not have been used before, and if I had noticed it at the time I should have insisted on its withdrawal. I think the hon. member should not repeat the term and should withdraw it now.


William D. Staples: Certainly, I withdraw it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Since the hon. gentleman has refreshed my memory let me say this to him. He is aware that all Bills which are introduced by the government are first brought before council and discussed. Some are approved and some aie not approved. When they are not approved, they are not brought down ; if they are approved, they are brought down. I have this to say to my hon. friend, that I have no recollection that this Bill was submitted to council, or to myself. I will inquire from my colleagues. If it was brought before council, it was not adopted. But so far as I remember it never was brought be-foie council, and I do not think it was submitted to myself, either.


William D. Staples: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to see the Bill ?


William D. Staples: Yes, but I want you to return it to me.


Wilfrid Laurier: tainly.
Most cer-


William D. Staples: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more material that I might use. During the debate a few nights ago I interjected a remark across the floor of the House that I could give the names, and could prove that some 20 or 30 men actu-


Wilfrid Laurier: The House is witness that I return the Bill to the hon. gentleman.


William D. Staples: I thought the right hon. gentleman was going to say that he recognized the Bill wffieu he got it in his hands. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I have fur-tliei material, and that I am prepared to piove the statements I made regarding the thin red line, that fraud was committed oy Mr. Leach, the late organizer for the province of Manitoba. But as I will have an opportunity of speaking on an amendment to this Bill which will undoubtedly come up,
I will reserve those remarks and speak on the amendment. But in conclusion I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that we, the citizens of the province of Manitoba, cannot understand how it is that the right hon. gentleman is so anxious to get a slap at that little province. Why, Sir, it seems to be hjfs delight to refuse the province of Manitoba a foot of its land, a stick of its timber, and as I said before, a fish that floats in the waters of that province. Why he refuses to extend the boundaries of Manitoba we cannot understand. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. gentleman. I appeal especially to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), the ex-Premier of Manitoba, and the contingent of Liberal members from that province which lie leads in this House, to take the stand he took in by gone days and to say. hands off the province of Manitoba, equal rights, equal justice to all. I say that is what the citizens of Manitoba expect from the hon. member for Lisgar, that is what the province of Manitoba expects from every other member who sits on the government side of the House. True, numerically, on this side of the House the members from the province of Manitoba are

weak, but physically they are strong and, lor my part, I purpose to stay here and fight this Bill so long as 1 have an opportunity before I allow the right hon. gentleman to foist upon the people of the province of Manitoba any such iniquitous provisions as are laid down in certain clauses of Bill No. 115. We, on this side of the House, fall behind our leader in the remarks which he has uttered, we are prepared to stand by him, and, I know he is prepared to stand by us, therefore, all I ask for the little province of Manitoba is that she shall have justice, British fair play, that she shall not be discriminated against, that she shall be placed upon the same plane as her sister provinces, that she shall ba given the same status in confederation as all the other provinces in this Dominion and if these things are granted we will be perfectly satisfied.


Mr.  F. B.@: CARVEL I, (Carleton, N.B.). Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we have all enjoyed the very amusing speech made by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) this afternoon, but I do not believe it is worth taking up very much of the time of the House to follow him in any detail. He has travelled from confederation down to the present time and has tried to present the real or imaginary wrongs which he thinks Manitoba has suffered at the hands, not of this government, but at the hands of his own party. When he talks about lands, when he talks about mines, when he talks about the area and boundaries of the province of Manitoba and when he talks about the fish that float in the waters this government had nothing to do with these things, but the things of wrhich he complains were done when his owTn friends were in power. But there is one thing which the hon. gentleman has referred to which, in my mind, is very pertinent. He spent nearly half of his time, in fact, I think more than half, in trying to prove to this House and the country that an attempt was made by the government in 1903 to correct the wrongs, at least the alleged wrongs, which existed in the province of Manitoba at that time and which certain members on this side of the House contend exist at the present time. He has delved into the archives of some of the public departments at Ottawa and has produced an original document which he has placed upon the pages of ' Hansard ' and which he says is a Bill which was prepared for the purpose of providing for a special revision of the voters' lists in Manitoba in 1903. He tried to fasten this upon the knowledge of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who has denied that he knows anything about it, and I do not think that there is any hon. member of this House, or any person in Canada, no matter what his politics may be, but who will agree that the Prime Minister is telling the truth when he says that he has no
recollection of it. The important question is not whether the right hon. Prime Minister knew about this Bill, but the important fact is that in 1903 a condition of affairs existed that justified some person in attempting to pass legislation which would remedy that condition of affairs. To my mind that was the important question in 1903, and it is the important question in 1908. There has certainly been an agitation going on in the province of Manitoba for the last six years. That agitation has culminated in the introduction of the Bill which we are now discussing, and for a short time I wish to discuss the Bill as I view it, giving, to some extent, the reasons why I think it is necessary to introduce this Bill and the reasons why this Bill should become law. The arguments which have been addressed to this House by hon. members from the province of Manitoba, and I think nearly every hon. member from that province has taken part in this discussion, seem to show that there is existing to-day a state of affairs in regard to the voters' lists which does not exist in any other province in Canada, and which, if it did exist in the eastern portion of Canada, would lead almost to a riot. Imagine for a moment a man in the province of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Ontario being compelled to travel 00 miles to have his name put on the voters' list. Some hon. gentlemen from the province of Manitoba have stated that men are compelled to travel 100 miles to get their names on the voters' list. What would be said in the eastern provinces if people were subjected to an indignity and an iuconvenience of that kind ? As was stated by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) last evening, one of the great difficulties which people who take any interest in the preparation of the voters' lists have to contend with is the apathy of a great many voters in looking after the revision of the list and seeing that their nannes are placed upon it. If people in eastern Canada had to travel five miles to get their names put on the voters' list, in a good many cases there would be lots of names lacking from these lists. They would not go at all, as an hon. member says. But that is a matter that I will discuss a little later on. Before the present government came into power in the province of Manitoba there was an election law which our friends, then in opposition, now in control of the government, claimed to be unfair. I am not going to argue whether that law was fair or not. I am only mentioning it to show that there has been difficulty in the province of Manitoba for many years over the franchise. The cardinal features of that law, however, were that the government appointed registration clerks and that these registration clerks sat continuously at certain places in the province, or their offices were open continuously for four

weeks. During that time they would receive applications to add to or strike names from the lists. Then an interval of six weeks must elapse between that and the revision courts, and during that time these preliminary lists were posted in' public places in the constituency, in the post office, in the court house and in other public offices. Municipal officers, members of parliament and defeated candidates, both federal and provincial, received a copy of these lists and they had six weeks within which to file their protests and to have the lists cleaned up by revision. Our friends, then in opposition in the province of Manitoba, stated that when they came into power they would change that law and would pass a law which would work out more to the advantage of the people and which would be an improvement upon the law existing at that time. They came into power, I think, in 1890, and in the year 1902 they passed a franchise law which has been admitted by members on this side of the House to be fair, and which I must say appears to be fair. I am not going to give all the particulars of it, but the underlying principle of the law of 1902 was that a registration board, I think it was called, consisting of the county court judges, appointed the registration clerks and then they also assigned to themselves certain districts in which they sat as revising officers. But, Sir, here is where we commence to see the fine hand of the jiolitician in Manitoba, because, while the board had the right to appoint the registration clerks, the government, by order in council, took upon themselves the right to say when, where, for how long and under what conditions these registration clerks should sit. I am bound to say that in the year 1903 there seemed to be a goodly number of places at which people could apply to have their names added to the list. I am not going to weary the House by reading extracts. I have a list prepared by my hon. friend the member for Dauphin which gives the number of days, the number of places aud the registration clerks in each constituency in Manitoba from the year 1903 to 1908. Just here I want to point out a few inconsistencies and a few of the reasons why my hon. friends claim that the law was unfair. In the constituency of Arthur there were in 1903 nine places at which people could register their names before the clerks and in 1903 that number was reduced to one, and the registration clerk sat only on one day. The trouble, as I understand it, is not in the law of 1902, but in the administration of the law, and I think I might go as far as to say that there is not very much fault with the law of 1904. The fault is with the administration, tinder the Manitoba franchise law of 1902, which is said to be fair, and which would look to me to be fair from reading it, acts were done and things happened which would Mr. CARVELL
not be tolerated for a moment in eastern Canada. Even under that Act of 1902, which appears to be fair, things happened and conditions existed in 1903 in Manitoba, by the manipulation of the politicians there, which made that election one of the most unfair that has ever taken ulace in the political history of Canada. Proof after proof has been given by hon. members on this side of the House that hundreds of people applied at these registration booths and were unable to get access when the supposed legal hour for closing expired and were deprived of their franchise. Again, by the Act of 1902 all foreigners who had not been in the country for seven years and who could not read the Manitoba Act in one of a number of languages were disfranchised, with the result that many Galicians were not put on the voters' list.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: If the hon. gentleman means what he says : that unless a man could talk in one language he was disfranchised, that is not in accordance with the facts.


Mr. CARVELL.: If the hon. gentleman will listen to what I say he will not need to interrupt me. I did not say they had to speak in one language. I said a number of languages. I think it was five.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then you are all the more wrong.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman knows I am not wrong for he knows that by the legislation of 1902 unless a foreigner could speak in one of four or five languages he could not exercise the franchise.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: You are getting right now, but that is not what you said first.
iMr. CARVEDL. I wish only to state the facts. I will give a few more instances of how this beautiful law worked out in 1903 and I am basing my statements on evidence that has been furnished by members of this House, and if only one-half of that evidence is right it affords the best justification in this world for this parliament interfering. At Balsam Lake on the eastern shores of Lake Winnipeg in the county of Selkirk one of these registration clerks held his court-he was one of those supposedly fair registration clerks appointed by the county court judges-and he wrote back to his friends that nobody applied but some Grits, and you bet I did'nt put their names on the list. It is stated that twenty-eight men were refused registration in this way at Balsam Lake, and it is admitted by gentlemen opposite that seven who were qualified voters were refused admission to the voters' lists, and such was the scandal that at the next session of the legislature the Conservative government passed an Act to specially enfranchise these seven men. Think of the like of that happening in

eastern Canada. Again, at a place called Lac du Bonnet, which was a small district some thirty or forty miles from the registration place, the people could not leave their homes to come to the court, and the revising officer stated that if these people could not come to him he would be fair and go to them, and he went to them but he arrived on a date after the date fixed in the proclamation. He accepted the application of these men and placed thirty-eight of tjhem on the list, and no one denies that every man of them was entitled to be a duly qualified elector under the law of Manitoba. But when the election came in 1903 these thirty-eight men were denied the franchise simply because the revising officer had tried to carry out what ought to be the spirit of the law. There has been an attempt made by gentlemen opposite to show that the county court judge gave a different certificate for this registration from that which he gave in other cases, but that only shows the iniquity of the law which would prevent these men going on the list simply because the judge happened to make a different kind of certificate from the usual certificate. The fault is in the law; it is in the people who are adminstering the law in Manitoba, and the whole process by'which names are kept off the list or put on the list in that province is in need of being remedied. It is such things as that we complain about, and that is the reason why this legislation is introduced. Another instance, right in the city of Winnipeg a revising officer named Bonner closed his court while hundreds of people were waiting to be registered, and so great was the outcry raised by the Liberals and by the press and by fair-minded men generally, that the matter was taken to the courts on a writ of mandamus to compel this officer to open his court and give the people a chance to register, and in the Supreme Court of Manitoba in Regina verses Bonner (Volume 14. page 407) it was held unanimously by that court that the revising officer should* have continued his court open and that he had the same right as a county court judge had to adjourn the sitting from day to day until the sitting was finished. On that branch of the case the court of appeal held that this mau was wrong.


Mr. LENNOX.: And the law right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and I will say just now that because the law was right, at the next session of the Manitoba legislature the government took precious good pains to fix the law so that it would not be right again. Such was the agitation in Manitoba about this affair that this Bonner even applied for an order of contempt of .court in regard to what the newspapers were saying about him and the judges rightly held he was not entitled to any such protection. The case was dismissed without costs. In
all these matters, while the court had to held that Bonner was wrong, they gave no costs to anybody. But the contemptible part of it, one of the things that makes it necessary for this parliament to intervene, was the* fact that this man was allowed, with the connivance of the authorities of the government of Manitoba, between the time the application was made for the mandamus and the time fixed for the hearing, to return his papers, and thus give up all power to hold any revision; and consequently there was nothing to be gained by the court ordering the mandamus to issue. That is only a sample of the way the Conservative party manipulated things in Manitoba.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Will tlie hon. gentleman kindly say to the House who appointed Mr. Bonner revising officer?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I understand, by the law of 1902 it was the county court judges. I am admitting that that law appears on its face to be fair ; but by the orders in council which the Manitoba government passed, when it came to be worked out, it was most unfair. These are a few of the things that happened in 1903. The agitation in the province became so great that the legislature at the next session had to try to pass legislation to meet some of these cases. I am going to show what they did. They practically repealed the law providing for the registration of voters. All the sections, I think, from 22 to 99 were repealed, and new sections enacted in lieu thereof ; and while I am not going to say that this is absolutely a new law, I am going to say that it is new in principle. Very many new principles were introduced into the Act which made it even worse than it was before. The cardinal change was in regard to the appointment of registration clerks. Trior to this amendment the registration clerks were appointed by the county court judges ; but by the legislation of 1904 that power was taken away from the county court judges and was placed in the hands of the Governor in Council, so that the registration clerks in Manitoba to-day are the appointees, the loyal supporters, in many cases the active workers, of the Manitoba government. The government also took to themselves the right to say when and where registration clerks were to sit, how many there should be in a constituency, how long they should sit and the dates and times they should sit. And remember, these registration clerks were not in the position of county court judges, and therefore, when the government prescribed that they should sit at certain places till five o'clock, when five o'clock came their jurisdiction was gone. I want to be fair to the hon. member for Marquette, who first brought up this matter. When he was delivering his speech, and I must say that it was an able speech from his standpoint, he pointed with a good

deal of pride to the fact that by a certain section of this law the registration clerks could sit after the clock struck the hour in certain cases ; and I submit that the hon. gentleman tried to leave the Impression on the House that notwithstanding that the time had been fixed by the order in council for the closing of the registration office, yet the registration clerk had the right to go on and finish up the business. If that was the intention of the hon. gentleman it was most unfair. That was the impression made on my mind, and I am satisfied that it was the impression made on the mind of the Prime Minister, because immediately afterwards he referred to it; but when you come to analyze the clause of the Act with regard to that, you find that it was only the persons present at the time the clock struck the hour for closing the registration office who had a right to have their grievances heard. The section with regard to that is section 26, subsection a, Which I will read, so that there may be no misunderstanding about it :
The registration clerk shall receive all applications of electors for registration, the striking off names of electors from the list, and for the correction of names on the list, who are present for that purpose at the time fixed for the conclusion of the registration sittings, notwithstanding that such applications are, in point of fact, received by the registration clerk after the hour of closing the registration sittings aforesaid.
My hon. friend said : here is the evidence that no man is going to be shut out from having his name put on the list. But my hon. friend took good care, when quoting the law of the province of Manitoba, not to quote section 48, subsection d, and I am going to read it for the benefit of my hon. friend. It says :
The following persons shall be entitled to bo present at sittings of the registration clerks for the purposes of this Act: ,
(d) Any person desirous of being present as a spectator; provided that no more than twelve persons, other than the persons before mentioned and officers in attendance, shall be entitled to be present at the same time.
When the legislature of Manitoba found that injustice had been done and that public sentiment had been created to such an extent that they had to do something to amend this law, pretending to be fair they provided that the registration clerk should have jurisdiction to go on and take the applications of all present at the time of the closing of the court, but they put in that rider that there could be only twelve persons in the room at that time. I ask hon. gentlemen again, if they call this British fair play.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They need not necessarily stop at five o'clock. Twelve could go on after five o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Twelve could go on, but suppose there were one hundred 7 Mr. CARVELL.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, That has not occurred.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It occurred in Winnipeg, and it occurred all over the country. I will come down to 1905 and show what occurred. I am going to refer to the press reports that appeared in Manitoba at the time these things happened, and I presume that there must have beeu foundation for these reports or they would not have been published. Here is the heading of a Winnipeg paper, I presume the ' Free Press,' of June 2, 1905 :
Hundreds of electors deprived of their votes. The one-day, one-place registration worked out as expected-citizens had to stand in line for hours to register. In South Winnipeg the law was ignored in interests of fair play. Hundreds unable to get access to booths- lively scenes-indignation at St. Boniface-registration elsewhere.
Then it goes on to give other particulars under these headlines. It was estimated that hundreds of people were prevented having their names put on the lists simply because the time limit fixed by that government was not sufficient for the work to be done. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite try to make the country believe that no one was deprived of the right of having his name registered on the list. A resolution was read here the other day, which I need not read again, from the labour council, in which the labour council claimed that hundreds of people were unfairly dealt with and were prevented having their names put on the list, and that council asked in strong terms for an amendment to the law. That was in 1905, and it shows how unjustly this law has worked out by order in council. In 1903-1904 there was a fairly good chance to put names on the lists, but in 1905 there was only one registration place in every county in Manitoba. Think of it-and that for only one day or a portion of one day.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does the hon. gentleman say that there should have been just as many days for registration in 1905 as there was in 1903 7


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Most certainly. The very iniquity of the law is now being voiced by the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not suppose I am allowed to explain why there should not be, but I ask the question whether there was the same need for as many days of registration in 1905 as there was in 1903. Everybody knows there was not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am surprised that my' hon. friend has the nerve to ask that question. What is the difference between an election list in 1903 and one in 1904 or 1905 7 Does my hon. friend not know that there is liable to be a by-election any day, that a man is liable to die and the consti-

tuency lie represents liable to become vacant ? That interruption only shows the perverted minds of the Tories of Manitoba. I want to tell my hon. friend how we do these things in the east. We have there a revision every year-an honest, full and complete revision. 1 would like my hon. friend to come down there and say to the municipal authorities in any district: Oh, there is not going to be an election this year, and therefore there is no reason to revise the lists.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is not my reason at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the only inference any reasonable man can draw from my hon. friend's utterance. Because there was not an election in 1905, he says there was no necessity for a complete revision.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is not my reason. Give me one minute only and I will explain.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You may ask any question you have a mind to.


An hon. MEMBER.: Never mind him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It only shows what a perverted idea the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has regarding the preparation of the voters' lists. His idea is that the voters' lists exist by and for the Tory party only, and should be prepared only when the Tory party wants to use them, and the ordinary elector or the ordinary man who happens to be a candidate has no right whatever. And it is because of this perverted idea that this parliament is asked to interfere and remedy this condition and so arrange that every man will have a fair show to be put on the lists. There is another reason which I may give and which my hon. friend need not accept, but it is the reason why this unfair advantage was taken, why there was only a chance given on one day at one place in a whole county for the putting on or striking names off the lists. And that reason was that the election of every Liberal except one was protested, and if those election trials went on, in all probability they would be settled in 1905, and by-elections would have to be held, and the Tory party did not want any chance given to have names put on the voters' list.


William James Roche: Were not also the elections of six Conservative members protested, and how therefore could there be any discrimination ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The whole object of the Manitoba Act was discrimination. Its whole object was to give the Conservatives an unfair advantage over the Liberals. This seems to be what my hon. friends opposite have at heart.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: You have not been posted right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will take the responsibility of whatever I say, and you need not blame it on my friends in Manitoba.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: They had to stuff the lists if they wanted to keep in office.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is another thing which my hon. friend from Souris dilated on yesterday, and he thought he had found a panacea which could be applied to any disease in the electoral body of Manitoba. When the right hon. the First Minister was speaking, my hon. friend could not contain himself and he asked the right hon. gentleman to read section 61. My right hon'. friend did read section 61, and it would have been well for the hon. member for Souris if he had, taken some advice from his legal friends before making that request. He had in his mind that this section 61 gives the county court judges power to enlarge the time in which to do any act regarding the preparation of the lists or the carrying on of elections in Manitoba. That evidently was his idea because that is the substance of what he said. Well, sections 22 to 51 inclusive deal with the registration clerks alone. Then from section 51 down to section 70, they deal with the revising officers, and let me point out that the revising officers are not necessarily county court judges. By a proclamation issued every year in the month of May, the government of Manitoba creates the county court judges a court of revision, but this court of revision has the power to appoint barristers of not less than three years standing to act in the place of the judges and carry on the business of registration, and they are called registration officers, and while they are sitting as such, they have the same powers as county court judges. But my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) will not claim that a man sitting as a revising officer is a member of the board of registration. I do not think the hon. member for Souris will claim that a revising barrister is a member of the board of registration, and it is only the board of registration which has the power to extend the time. Let us get down to a concrete example. The revising officer is holding his court, and according to the order in council that court ceases to exist at six o'clock. When six o'clock comes, has he the power, under section 61, to extend the time ? Not by any means. Has he the power to extend anything? No. Let me tell you what section 61 means. It means that after the Governor in Council have provided that a court will sit, say in Souris, for one day, from one to six in the afternoon, if the Board of Revisers think that time is not sufficient, they will have, before the revision takes place, the right to ex-

tend the time. If they think that sufficient time is not given between the close of the registration clerks' court and its opening, then they have the right to extend the time for their sittings. And I assert again that they have no power whatever over the registration clerks, they have no power whatever sitting as independent judges or revising officers to extend the time.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I never said they had.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) implied that. He read this


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I said the revising officers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish my hon. friend would possess his soul in patience until I am through, and then he ^vill have his opportunity-


William Pugsley: He admits that you are right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course, he admits that I am right. And he knows that the only logical effect of his arguments and his quotations was that something else-


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I rise to a point of order. I never admitted that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) was right, and I never said that this applied to the registration clerks.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The point is not well taken, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. gentleman admits that this is the only logical conclusion of what he did say.
Now, I think I have pretty well exploded the hon. gentleman's theory concerning section 61. Let us see now some further effects of this law of 1904. When the hon. member for Marquette was speaking, to show that there was no injustice in thisj case, that the law had been devised to meet every emergncy and


William James Roche: If the hon. gentle- | man (Mr. Carvell) would allow me, before he leaves the point with which he was dealing, I would like to refer him to the speech of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurler) on this point wherein he speaks of section 42. First the right hon. gentleman quoted the section as follows:
In case, by reason of interruptions or other emergency a sitting of the registration clerk is not commenced on the proper day, or is interrupted after being commenced and before the closing thereof, the registration clerk shall resume the, registration on the following day and so on from day to day within the hours hereinbefore limited, until the registration sittings have been opened and kept open without interruption, and with free access to persons desiring to be registered, for the full number of days provided in the proclamation to be issued under the provisions of this Act. The times limited for the registration of elec-Mr. CARVFLL.
tors shall be directory only, and any mistake or miscarriage in respect thereto shall not invalidate the list of electors of any electoral division.
After quoting this, the right hon. gentleman proceeded :
This seems to be perfectly fair, I have nothing to say against it. On the contrary I would altogether commend it. It provides that if the registration clerk, within the time allotted to him by the proclamation of the lieutenant governor, has not sufficient time to hear all the applications or to erase names or to do all the work he is commanded to do, he can extend the time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The quotation of my hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) only shows the danger of laymen undertaking to interpret law. My hon. friend knows the English language well enough to know that that only provides that, in case something has happened by which the five hours, or whatever it may be, allotted by the Governor in Council has been interrupted, and the clerk has not been able to sit, he may sit the next day for the number of hours provided. The Prime Minister admitted that that was fair, and it is fair, as far as it goes. But my hon. friend knows- or, if he does not know, let him ask his leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) or any of the legal gentlemen on that side of the House -that I am right in my construction of the section and that it only means that if an interruption happens it is not to prevent the people having the five or six-or sometimes only two-hours granted by the munificence of this order in council, and that they may not be cheated of any portion of it. That is all it means. But the registration clerk cannot and will not extend the hour, and the hon. gentleman cannot find the section in the Manitoba law which says that the clerk can extend the time, or which allows him to do anything after the clock strikes except to take the applications of the twelve men who may be present at the booth to add their names to the list.
Now, I was going on, when my hon. friend from Marquette interrupted me, to refer to another provision which he referred to with great pride. He could not find the citation at first, though he said he knew that the provision was in the law; but his friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) looked it up and handed it to him. He quoted it in order to show the fairness of the law with regard to revising courts. The provision referred to will be found in section 65. subsection 11, and my hon. friend from Marquette read it with a great deal of pride and thought it settled the whole question. I think I can show him it does not settle as much as he thinks it does. It says :
The revising officer shall also receive and deal with the applications of all persons to be registered as electors who shall be present at

the time fixed for the closing of the court of revision, notwithstanding that the hour so fixed shall have elapsed.
Now, Sir, that provision gives the revising officer the right to hear the applications of men who are present at the time the clock strikes. What for? To have their names added to the list, but not to strike names from the list. And, as if this were not explicit enough, in the same section, by subsection 9, this government of Manitoba has provided that :
No complaints or appeals shall he heard by a revising officer to strike names off the list of electors, unless -applications therefor have) been \filed with the registration clerk asl hereinbefore by this Act provided.^
I stated a little while ago to an hon. gentleman on this side that I would show that the legislature of Manitoba, by their Act of 1904, not only did not extend the privileges granted under the previous law, but actually curtailed them, that if it corrected vices which existed in 1903, it actually made it harder for people to get a fair revision than it had been before. Now, the corn-paint from Manitoba members on this side of the House, as I understand it, is not so much of the impossibility of having names added to the list as of the impossibility of cleaning up the list: and my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), I think, gave the best illustration that has been given in this House of the unfairness of this feature of the law. I have not the citation here, but I can come within a hundred of his figures, and that is near enough when you talk of taking names off the list by the thousand. The hon. gentleman, in attempting to show the unfairness of the Greenway law, said that in the revision early in 18S9 or 1900, if I remember well, something like 2,500 names were struck off the list in the city of Winnipeg alone.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I rise to a question of privilege. The time to which I referred was before this government came into power at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will take the hon. gentleman's word for that. But he said that they had succeeded in striking off 2,500 names, and this he cited as evidence of the injustice of the Greenway Act. Then came a remarkable admission. He went on to say that, in 1903, there were ten or fifteen names struck off; the next year ten or fifteen names struck off. And for this whole time up to the present he was only able to show that less than a hundred had been taken off the list. What greater condemnation do you want of this law and the manner of its administration than this statement of the hon. member for Souris? The whole burden of the cry of the representatives of Manitoba is that they cannot get names struck off the list. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) stated that in his division the only way they could get the list cleaned up was by agreement between the parties. So, let us see where we stand: You have a registration clerk, sitting we will say in the centre of a constituency which may be forty miles square-as distances run out there I think they would easily be as large as that. I am asking my hon. friends from the east to consider that situation of affairs. You have a man sitting there, we will say, in the centre of a district forty miles square. He says, I will sit here for two, or three, or four or five hours, if you will; come now with your applications. Consider that under those circumstances the whole county is being compelled to come to that one point. He says: Come on now with your applications to have the names struck off the list. You have a list of 400 or 500 names who do not belong there, and you have possibly two hours, in any case not more than five hours, to do all this work.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Would it take more than five minutes at the most to. file the applications.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But you have to take evidence, you have to see that these people have the right to come there. You have to take evidence in order to get the names on the list.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman misunderstands me. I understand his complaint to be that you could not get the names off. Why, it would not take more than a minute or two to file a hundred applications.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not the question of time, it is the fact that a man has to travel 30 or 40 miles in order to get there.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is there no party organization by which anybody on behalf of the party can put in a hundred names all at once ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the merits of the case have got to be tried. I am speaking of adding on names, and every man going there himself, unless he is sick.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, I thought he was speaking of the trouble of striking off names.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am speaking of both. I am showing the unfairness of asking people to go 30 or 40 miles to get their names on. and I am also showing that unless they do go there and are present during those two hours, and unless they happen to be one of the 12 lucky men who are inside the registration booth at the time the clock strikes the hour, then they have no chance to file an application to remove names from the list. And if they do not get the chance, then I say that under this beautiful law which the hon. gentleman wants to perpetuate, the revising officer has no jurisdiction

to receive applications afterwards in his court to strike a name off the list in Manitoba to-day, so I am informed. It has been stated here by bon. members, and is not denied by the opposition, that there are thousands of names on the lists which have no right to be there.
Now 1 will not dwell any longer upon this specific instance of unfairness in the law, excepting to show what has taken place at the revision which is going on at tlie present time. Now there was an investigation before a committee of this House, I think in 1906, where evidence was given by both parties as to the condition of affairs in Manitoba at that time. It was known by the Conservative party in Manitoba two months ago that this Bill was going to be introduced and brought up for discussion. Now they are wily politicians, and the moment they found that their acts were going to be brought under the limelight and criticised by the people of Canada, the moment they found that remedial legislation was going to be enacted, then they become virtuous, and then hon. gentlemen opposite from that province stand up and say, see how virtuous we are to-day, look what we are doing to-day, why, we are giving you 6, 10, 12, 14 registration districts in each constituency, we are giving you two days in most cases for revision courts when you had only one before; we are giving you everything you ought to have, and everytmng that a reasonable man could ask. Also their leading Tory paper comes out with a challenge that they will give $25 to any man who fails to get his name on the list and complies with all the provisions of the Manitoba law. Well, why did they not make that challenge five years ago? The trouble was that the poor fellow could get no chance to comply with provisions of the law.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We have made the challenge retroactive.


Mr.   OARYELL@: Well, I have not seen that part of the challenge, I have seen the challenge which says they will give $25 to any man who fails in this revision to get his name on the list. Now I want to show what they have done in the division represented by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford), in their management or mismanagement of this application. We find that it is an Impossibility to appeal against names added or proposed to be struck off, in at least I think two districts in his constituency. We have shown that by the law there must be at least five days eiapse between the close of the registration court and the opening of the revision court. I think there must be one or two days for handing in the lists to the revising officer, and the revising officer must give at least three days notice to a person against whose name there is an appeal. Their orders in council show that there are only three days Mr. CARVELL.
between the last day for the sitting of the registration court and the revision court. Now I ask how is it possible to appea 1 against a name added, or to appeal against striking a name off the list, under those circumstances. Oh, they say, that is a mistake, and that is the reason why this law should be erased from the statute-book. Well, Sir, I say that if you have a law in Manitoba by which it is possible for a mistake like that to be made then you have abundant evidence that it is right and just for this parliament to intervene in order to cure the evil, so far as we are concerned, and to provide a law that will be fair, just and equitable to all parties concerned.
Now I want to discuss the thin red line matter, because if I do not they will say that we are afraid of that. There has been a good deal of discussion in the province of Manitoba and in the newspaper press of Canada over this thin red line. 1 think probably outside of Manitoba there has been more discussion over the red line than there has been over the unfairness and iniquity of the law itself. We find that When the returning officers received the lists in 1904 for the Dominion elections, in a number of cases there was an overlapping of constituencies, that is to say, a portion of a local constituency would be included in a federal constituency. In the constituency of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie, we are told there are parts of seven local constituencies included, and there is not any entire local constituency Included in the federal constituency. That is true to some extent in all the constituencies in Manitoba. My hon. friends opposite now do not deny the right of the returning officer to arrange these lists so that the proper persons may vote in their proper places. They admit that now, because they are compelled to admit it. The other evening the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said .that in the prosecutions which followed the elections of 1904, there was no fraud, and no protest against fraud. You will find his remarks on page 8585 of 1 Hansard,' but I will not trouble the House with reading them. He stated that there were no informations against returning officers for correcting overlapping lists, but for internal redistribution, I think I am giving the substance of his statement.
Now, Sir, I am sorry that neither my hon. friend from North Toronto nor any other member of this House has placed upon ' Hansard ' the exact informations which were laid against these people. I admit that we people who are not on the ground are all discussing this question somewhat in the dark as far as that question is concerned, but I simply want to ask this question and I shall be glad if some hon. gentleman will answer it : If the informations were laid solely on account of fraud in redistributing internal constituencies why were these informations dropped ? If these

returning officers committed a fraud Upon the public I do not think there Is enough magnanimity and brotherly love in the Conservative party in Manitoba to drop such a beautiful chance of wreaking vengeance upon their opponents. If there was anything in these charges, if the thing was not a farce, why did they not go on with the prosecutions'? They have the sheriffs in their control, they have the juries in their control, they have all the machinery of the province of Manitoba, why did they not go on with the informations ? The only reason that has been given so far is that which has been given by the hon. member for Marquette who says :	Oh, well, politics
will creep in and you cannot get convictions. Of all the flimsy excuses I ever heard for dropping charges as iniquitous as this and charges involving such serious consequences this is certainly the flimsiest.
I never heard such a flimsy excuse in my life put forward by a great political party to explain the action that it took upon that occasion. Any man from the east is forced to the conclusion that it was done for political effect. He is forced to the conclusion that these officers were arrested on election day in order to influence the election on that particular occasion and that when these arrests did not influence the election and did not defeat the Liberal candidates, the object for which they were brought about was gone. No offence against the law had been committed and all these gentlemen could do was to drag the cases on for two years from court to court until finally they were brought up against a stone wall and when Mr. Leach demanded that there should be a prosecution the atorney general of the province of Manitoba took the only course open to him, went to court and publicly entered a nolle prosequi in all cases.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: And then they distributed a few thousand dollars among their legal friends in Winnipeg.


Mr. CARVE  LL@: That was only an incident.


Mr. HENDERSON.: That was all right, was it not ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They have a right to do that and if ever hon. gentlemen opposite are in power they will distribute a few thousand dollars among their legal friends as well. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was eloquent last night over the omissions from this iniquitous Act. He said that it was an outrage upon the rights of the people to allow constituencies to remain vacant beyond a reasonable time after the vacancies occurred. I know that because they did wrong it is no justification for doing wrong now, and I do not think that there has been wrong done, but I simply want to point to the inconsistency of this hon. gentleman. If there is an hon.
gentleman in this House who is capable of being absolutely inconsistent it is the hon. member for North Toronto and the more inconsistent he is the more I admire the nerve of that hon. gentleman. That hon. gentleman can stand up and put forth a proposition which would cause any other man to be laughed down, hut because of his record of inconsistency and because we know what he will do, he is allowed to go on and make these statements without protest. Did he, when he was a member of the Conservative government, ever protest against allowing a constituency to remain vacant for more than a fortnight ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Answer that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did he ever allow a government official to go around the country for the benefit of the Conservative party and take part in elections ? Does he remember that when he was running an election in the province of New Brunswick in 1896 that they would send for another thousand shingles, shingles meaning passes on the Intercolonial Railway, in order to bring Tory votes to the polls ? Does he remember that ?


George Eulas Foster: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman has a most convenient memory. I do admire his nerve every time he speaks. The first time I heard the hon. gentleman speak was when I was not more than ten years of age. I heard him addressing a temperance meeting and I thought it was the most magnificent speech that had ever been delivered up to that time.


George Eulas Foster: Did it have any effect on you ?	,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It made nne believe at that time there was only one great man in the world and that was George E. Foster. But I have been completely undeceived on many occasions since then. I have been deceived by this hon. gentleman's inconsistencies and when I hear this hon. gentleman standing up and finding fault with the Liberal party because they have allowed constituencies to remain open six months, when I hear him condemning them for allowing their officials to take part in elections and when I hear him charging this government with trying to bribe the constituencies with public works I am forced to exclaim : O, consistency, thou art a jewel. If you take the record of the hon. gentleman and the party which he practically leads and consider what they did for the eighteen years during which they were in power no man can do anything but admire the hon. gentleman when he can stand up and berate this government because they have not provided for certain things in this Bill. The hon. gentleman also waxed eloquent over the abolition of the secrecy of the bal-


lot.- There is no man in this House who will stand for the secrecy of the ballot more than I will and, in so far as the province which I represent and with which the hon. member for North Toronto is well acquainted is concerned, there has never been a protest from either Liberal or Conservative against the secrecy of the ballot. I think wTe can at least claim that in that respect matters have been straight and square on both sides. I would be the last person to vote for any measure that would in any way interfere with the secrecy of the ballot. But, the hon. gentleman knows, I have no doubt, that the object of this legislation is not to do what he says it will do. He knows that in the last general election in Wentworth the deputy returning officer at one of the polling subdivisions placed the numbers* on the ballot instead of his initials, he knows that the result was to disfranchise the electors in that polling subdivision and he knows that the final result was that the election was voided and that a new election had to take place. He knows that there are irregularities in a great many constituencies throughout the Dominion of Canada. He knows that in one of the constituencies in the province of Ontario some years ago a returning officer placed certain marks on the ballots and the ballots were refused. He knows these things have happened in the past, he knows they are liable to happen again and he knows that the sole object of this clause is to provide that in cases of that kind, in the absence of fraud, the men who have gone to the polls shall not be disfranchised and the party for whom the votes are east shall not be penalized unless there has been some fraud in the matter. My hon. friend must know that.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I know that. Will my hon. friend (Mr. Carvel!) out of courtesy, allow me to say one word ? I am just revising my speech and in the colloquoy which took place last night X had the wrong constituency in my mind. I was referring to Provenclier in reference to the member who was sitting here and who. I said would not sit here except through the action of Mr. Leach and the returning officer. Not being thoroughly acquainted personally with the topography of the country I was misled in that way. I do not mean to sav and I did not mean to say last night that'the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) sat here for that reason. It was the member for JToveneher to whom I referred. What I should have said, to be perfectly correct, is that the hon. member for Selkirk sat here with a greater majority than he otherwise would have had had it not been for Duggan's action.


Mr. PATERSON.: Is there anything else you want to correct ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


George Eulas Foster: When I come to it I will correct it.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I do not think there is anything on the record or in Duggan's evidence which will justify the statement the hon. member has made, that I am sitting here with a larger majority than I otherwise would have. I would like to tell the hon. gentleman that although the fourteen names were left off the list they voted and their ballots were put in an envelope, and the voters did not lose their vote. I acknowledge that they were left off for some reason or other which we have not been able to find out, but they voted and my majority was not any larger through any action of Mr. Duggan.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On two occasions in his speech last night the hon. member (Mr. Foster) chastised members on this side of the House because they had not made their complaints about the unfairness of the management of this election law, before the legislature of Manitoba. I am not familiar with all that has taken place in the legislature of Manitoba but statements have been made here pro and con as to what was said by Mr. Mickle when the Bill was introduced in the legislature and with that I will not deal now. I want to refer to one matter which was laid before the legislature of Manitoba within the last two months and I will show the kind of satisfaction that any Liberal member gets in that legislature when he tries to complain against the electoral law. At a revision held some time in 1906 or 1907, at a place called Macinac. application was made for the removal of six names from the list, and three were Liberals and there were Conservatives. Two Liberals had removed out of the country for a number of years and two Conservatives left the country after they did. Then there were two other men, McLaren and Thibeau who had been station agents in that locality and McLaren had left three years before the revision and was succeeded by Thibeau who left the country about three months prior to the holding of the court. McLaren was a Conservative and Thibeau was a Liberal. Under the law of Manitoba all six of these men should have had their names removed, from the lists, and it was understood by Mr. Campbell a member of the legislature who was present that the names were to be removed. But when the list was sent to Winnipeg and issued from the office of the King's Printer we found that the three Liberals were removed from the list and the three Conservatives allowed to remain on. During the last session of the local. legislature Mr. Campbell from his place in the House referred to the matter and the attorney general and the Prime Minister of Manitoba became very indignant and Mr. Campbell was asked to with-

draw his statement. He stated that if the papers were brought down and if it was found that Judge Ryan had not removed these names from the list and that Judge Ryan had done what the printed lists showed, then he would withdraw his statement. The discussion was published in the Winnipeg papers the next day and on the second day after, Mr. Campbell rose in his place on a question of privilege to discuss what the newspapers had said about his withdrawing his statement. But the moment he rose the premier raised a point of order on the ground that he was referring to a previous debate. The Speaker of course ruled with the premier and the attorney general and Mr. Campbell was refused permission to speak on the question of privilege. He then moved the adjournment of the House and at the same time he moved that all original applications to add to and strike from the lists be brought down, and he said : If you will bring down these papers I will show you whether the statement made by me was correct or not. And, Sir, can you believe that the Conservative majority in the legislature absolutely refused to bring down the papers although under the Act they were legally, or ought to be legally within the custody and control of the deputy provincial secretary. They did not deny and they could not deny that the papers were there, but by brute force they refused to bring the papers down and give Mr. Campbell a chance to justify his statement. They took the flimsy excuse that Mr. Campbell's action amounted to a charge against Judge Ryan. It is wonderful what those gentlemen will do when they want to protect themselves over the heads of others. They *were very anxious to protect the judicial reputation of Judge Ryan, but they were a great deal more anxious to protect the unlawful acts of their own officials in leaving the Conservatives on the list and taking off the Liberals Had it not been for that the Manitoba government would be only too glad to bring down the original papers and transfer the charges from themselves to Judge Ryan.


William James Roche: Does the hon. gentleman make that charge ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I state the facts as I have them here and I say these are the facts.


William James Roche: You do not state all the facts


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I say it is another evidence of the impossibility of the Liberals in the Manitoba legislature getting justice from the Conservative majority. I say it is another evidence of the necessity of this legislation, and it is another evidence that in one hundred and one ways the will of the people of Manitoba is burked by the resort to every conceivable trick known to the trade, it shows the futility of the Liberals 2084
going to the legislature of Manitoba to" have any grievance redressed.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is ignorant of the fact that the attorney general produced the original list that was revised by Judge Ryan which showed that Mr. Campbell was entirely wrong and Mr. Campbell apologized.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will not apologize. I will state that two nights before, the attorney general brought down a detached sheet and handed it round among the members but he did not produce the original document except that one sheet which he passed round among his friends, and my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) knows it.


William James Roche: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is quite wrong in saying that the Attorney General did not pass around the correct document and that I know it. I say quite the contrary, that I know that the Attorney General produced the original voters' list signed by Judge Ryan.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman is right, why do they not bring down the original, and let the Liberals see it. I notice that when I get on to some thing pretty vicious, my hon. friend always gets on his feet. Now, I have only this further to say, that I have no hesitation in voting for this Bill as it stands, though it does not go as far as I would like to see it go. I would like to see the principle of personal application entirely eliminated from every election law in the Dominion of Canada, except perhaps in cities and towns. I want to ask my hon. friends from the east what they would think of asking that a farmer's son who has just come of age should be compelled to travel even five miles to a registration court to get his name put on the list ? He would not do it. Compare this cumbersome system which the Conservative government of Manitoba have worked off on that province, *with the simple system that prevails in any of the provinces of eastern Canada. For instance, in the province of New Brunswick, the two county councillors for a parish, which means the same thing as a township in other provinces, and one member appointed by the government meet on or before the 10th of September, and they take any means of information they have-the voters' list of the year before^ the oath of any one who comes before them, or their own knowledge-and they make up a preliminary voters' list, and post that for something like six weeks in three of the most conspicuous places in the locality. Then they give notice that between the 20th and the 25th of October they will meet at a certain place to complete the list. They meet, and if anyone wants to have a name struck off or put on, he gives notice to that effect. But this is never done; I do not believe there have

been ten notices of this kind in ten years. 'They or other persons probably know every man in the parish, and if there is a naime that should be on the list, they put it on, and if any man has moved away, they remove his name. Compare this simple, honest, inexpensive system with the system which the people of Manitoba are compelled to live under. I say again that I would like to see a commission of judges appointed to revise this list and eradicate from it as far as possible the principle of personal application. Surely in the rural portions of Manitoba the people themselves must know who are entitled to go on the list without compelling every labouring man or farmer's son to travel ten or fifteen or twenty miles to get his name put on the list. However, I am only offering this as a suggestion, and I hope the government will take it into consideration.
On the general principle of the Bill, the instances of unfairness which I have given are enough to convince me at least, they have convinced the government, and I believe they have convinced the opposition, of the necessity of a fair revision ani some change in the present law. When the great Conservative party, which the hon. member for North Toronto told us last night was a party with a history, and that is true, and a party with a policy, and a party with a future, stand up in this House and say that by physical force they will stop the Supplies unless the government withdraw a Bill which is so fair that they offer to leave it to the county court judges to work it out, then I think this great party are carrying out their task with a vengeance. When they come to think the matter over, surely they do not want to be placed on record as refusing the fair and honourable offer made by the permier yesterday afternoon. If they take the responsibility of holding up Supplies and bringing upon this country all the consequences that that course will entail, that is for them to decide ; but if they take that course, I do not think the Liberals of the Dominion of Canada will have very much cause to complain.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to follow the hon. gentleman into the many details which have occupied his attention while he has been endeavouring this afternoon to instruct the people of Manitoba as to the proper way in which to prepare their voters' lists. It is apparent that the hon. gentleman has come to the conclusion, very much to his own satisfaction at least, that the people of that province and their representatives in the legislature are not capable of framing laws under which the voters' lists shall be prepared for the provincial elections. The hon. gentleman seems to forget that under the policy deliberately adopted in 1885, by the party of which he is a member, and put into


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: practice by that party in 1898, to the people of each province in Canada has been delegated the power to deal with the franchise, not only so far as provincial elections are concerned, but so far also as federal elections are concerned. He seems to forget also that not only by the terms of his leader's speeches in 1885 and 1898, but also by the exact terms of the resolution moved by his leader in 1885, to the provinces of Canada was to be confided the duty, and has been confided the duty, of preparing the voters' lists upon which members of this House are selected. Having regard to these facts, he sees fit this afternoon, in a speech full of sound and fury, if nothing else, to inform the people of Manitoba of the ignorance and ineptitude of their legislator's, and to instruct them how the lists of that province should in his opinion be prepared. May I suggest to the members of this House that the speech which has just been delivered, shows the absolute absurdity of the government's proposal from the very first; because here we have 215 or 216 men, or as many of them as chose to be present for the purpose of hearing the hon. gentleman, listening to a long and somewhat rambling discussion which if proper at all, would have been proper in the legislature of Manitoba and not in the parliament of Canada. Is it to be pretended, under the principles which have been laid down by the Prime Minister of Canada, both since his advent to power and while in opposition, that the parliament of Canada is the proper tribunal to settle the franchise and to prepare the voters' list for the province of Manitoba ? Why, every word, every motion, uttered or proposed by the right hon. gentleman, both in opposition and since his advent to power gives an absolute denial to the whole trend of the argument of the hon. member for Carleton.
The hon. gentleman dilated upon events that have occurred in Manitoba, by which, as he asserts, some persons who were entitled to be upon the list are not found there, and some persons whose names should be omitted from the list appear there. Let me point out to him and every hon. gentleman in this House that under any system, whether it is a system of registration or based upon municipal assessment, injustices of that kind are bound to occur. Let me point out that frauds are bound to occur under any possible system. Why, the hon. gentleman, in his discussion of the preparation of the voters' lists in the province of New Brunswick, did not see fit to mention-undoubtedly for reasons very satisfactory to himself-the stuffing of the Rothesay ballot lists to the extent of 400 names. I have a complete history of that most outrageous swindle under my hand.
I shall not trouble the House with it today, but I venture to think that before

the discussion is concluded we shall have occasion to refer to it more in detail. It is sufficient to say that a list which should have contained* only ninety names, was found, when forwarded to the proper officers, to have had 400 names added to it; and from that day to this, although the matter was brought up in the legislature of New Brunswick and the government urged to take action by Mr. Hazen, the leader of the opposition and his supporters, no attempt whatever has been made to discover and prosecute the guilty parties and they have gone unpunished, to the infinite satisfaction no doubt of my hon. friend from Carleton.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. gentleman not admit that the legislature took action the next session by striking those names from the list and providing by legislation against the possibility of such a thing happening again?


William James Roche: Yet the hon. gentleman complains against the Manitoba government for having done the same.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Because you did not remedy the wrong complained of.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman says it was remedied at the next session of the legislature. I understood that proceedings were taken, in the first place, in the courts, and that those proceedings had resulted in striking the names off the lists. I am under the impression that application was made to the Supreme Court of New Brunswick to have the 400 names struck off which had been added by fraud to those lists. I am under the impression that a motion was presented in the legislature of New Brunswick calling upon the Attorney General of that province, now a member of this government (Mr. Pugsley), to take action by way of investigation and have the guilty men punished, but nothing was done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is begging the question.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not.


George William Fowler: I want to remind the leader of the opposition as well as my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) that the government of the day. of which the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) was then Attorney General, instructed counsel to appear on behalf of that local government in the case which was tried before the court, in order to uphold this stuffing of the lists.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman is begging the question.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the hon. gentleman was sensitive about frauds. He is apparently sensitive about alleged frauds in Manitoba, but absolute]- callous to
frauds in his own province. Let me read to him, for his information, the language of the Chief Justice of the province of New Brunswick with regard to that particular incident. The Chief Justice said of the crime;	.
For its enormity it is unparalleled in the history of this country and I should think that the law officers of the Crown, if there are any law officers of the Crown, ought to take some steps to bring the guilty parties to justice. These allegations are made, and it appears they are true, and I say then that some person has been guilty of forgery and perjury-some person has been guilty of an awful crime, the guilty persons are somewhere and ought to be punished. The proper list was given to Mr. Gilland and by some means it was altered and I think 400 names were added-it seems to me that it ought to be probed to the bottom and that the Crown officers ought to use what diligence is in their powrer to discover the offenders and if discovered they ought to be brought to justice.
Judge Landry said:-I think it is a very-brazen attempt to commit a most serious violation of the law, and includes forgery, perjury and theft.
At the session of the legislature immediately following Mr. Hazen moved :
That in the opinion of this House steps ought to be taken at once to discover, convict and punish the criminals.
Does my hon. friend from Carleton think that was a proper motion? Does he think it was one which should have commended itself to the government and legislature of New Brunswick?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will my hon. friend be kind enough to answer me one question ? Will he not admit that at the next session of the legislature, the non-residents voters' lists were absolutely abolished and consequently this non-resident list was abolished, and there are no such lists in New Brunswick to-day except at St. John?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not dispute what the hon. gentleman says if he asserts it. I was not dealing with that particular phase of the subject. I was dealing with the failure of himself and his political friends in New Brunswick to take any steps whatever to discover the perpetrators of this crime and bring them to punishment. I invite an expression of the opinion of the hon. gentleman upon the merits of Mr. Hazen's motion, but I am bound to say that, with unusual modesty, he does not see fit to vouchsafe an opinion to the House. Let me point out what action was taken by his political friends in New Brunswick. The motion of Mr. Hazen was amended by a majority vote and the amendment declared that the House * expresses full confidence in the Attorney General and does not express any opinion as to what steps he should take.' Well, the Attorney General took no steps, and the



men who perpetrated the fraud have gone unpunished from that day to this. I want to illustrate that particular instance for the benefit of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. Before the right hon. gentleman entered this House a moment ago, I declared and I declare again, that the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) illustrates the absurdity of the position of the government in this matter. In that speech the hon. gentleman sought to convince 215 or 216 members of this House, gathered from all parts of Canada, that he knows best the proper method of making up the voters' lists for the province of Manitoba. We have the declaration of the right hon. gentleman himself, we have his motion in 1885 declaring that the people of the province of Manitoba are the proper judges of that, yet we have a long speech from the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) in which he seeks to instruct the people of Manitoba how they should make up their voters' lists. Apparently he knows far better than they how to meet these difficulties of time and place and method, and what steps are necessary, so far as the provincial voters' lists are concerned, to be taken by the provincial legislature. He wishes to convince this House that he knows more about these matters than the local legislature can possibly know. In saying that, I am not departing at all from the attitude we took in 1898, but I shall come to that a little later on. What I seek now to impress on the House is that when you once recognize and	assert this
principle, affirmed by the party now in power, that to the legislature of each province shall be confided the duty of preparing its own voters' lists as well as regulating its own franchise, it is utter folly for any man to go into the details of time and place and method and seek to convince the two hundred and sixteen members of this House that the forty or forty-five members from Manitoba are so absolutely ignorant of their local requirements that they should be instructed by us as to what is the best and most convenient method of dealing with this matter for that province.
Now, I will not follow my hon. friend into the details into which he wandered this afternoon. I want to come for a moment to some of the observations of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier). That right hon. gentleman referred to the question of granting Supply. He laid Stress upon the attitude of his party in 1885. But I did not observe that the incidents of 1896 were clearly present to his recollection. Perhaps, if he had been reminded of these, he would have been inclined to qualify a little the language which he used as to the attitude of the opposition in this regard. My hon. friend from North Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Toronto (Mr. Foster) was Finance Minister in 1896, and he has refreshed his memory by reference to the record. That hon. gentleman declares that in that year, the opposition in this country deliberately left Canada without one single dollar of provision for the public service after the 30th of June-there is no doubt about that. My Jion. friend from North Toronto pleaded ,for two months' Supply in order that the public service might not suffer. And what was the answer ? Men on the opposition side of the House, sitting behind the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) then leader of the opposition, shook their fists in his face and declared that he should not have one dollar to carry on the public service. So, if we are to go back to precedent, while it id well to refer to the precedent of 1885, we should not altogether forget that of 1896 as well.
Now, the right hon. gentleman seems to think that he has not been treated with absolute fairness in the quotations from his speeches of 1885 made by my hon. friend fiom Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) and .myself. I do not know of any word in the right hon. gentleman's speeches which qualifies the express declaration of his motion, in 1885. That motion was as follows:	.
In the opinion of this House it is preferable to continue the plan which has been adopted ever since confederation of utilizing for the elections to this House the provincial franchise and- voters' lists.
That is absolutely plain, distinct and unqualified. The right hon. gentleman did lay especial stress upon certain words which yvere not quoted by my hon. friend from Prince Edward or by me, and they were not quoted because it did nt seem to us that in the circumstances brought to the attention of the House there was the slightest occasion for quoting them. But, as the right hon. gentleman has laid stress on these words, I will read them :
But if the day comes when a fraud is committed against this parliament, when legislation of a hostile character is brought forward in the legislature, then it will be always open to this parliament to resume its own powers and to enact a franchise law of its own.
If these words are regarded by the Prime Minister as important, they merit a moment's attention. In the first place, the declaration is that this parliament may intervene when a fraud is committed against this parliament, when legislation of a hostile character is brought forward in the legislature. Where is the fraud in the legislation of Manitoba? Has any hon. gentleman on the other side-1ms the right hon. gentleman himself ?-been able to point it out? of what fraud was he speaking? Was he speaking of a fraud against one political party or the other, or of fraud against the electorate as a whole ? So far as any pretence of one or the other under the legisla-

tion of Manitoba is concerned, there is not the slightest foundation for saying that such a condition exists. If there is any inconvenience, if, as a necessary result of the legislation of the province of Manitoba, some names may be left off the lists which should be thereon, or some names may be included in the list which should not be included, I say that the legislation of Manitoba possesses that characteristic in common with the legislation of every other province in Canada touching the preparation of the voters' lists; and I will give my right hon. friend some illustrations from the province of Nova Scotia in that regard before I sit down. Then, the right hon. gentleman, in the concluding part of the sentence which has just been quoted, says that ' It will always be open for this parliament to resume its own powers and to enact a franchise law of its own.' I do not understand that the right hon. gentleman intended by that-though he may have a contrary impression-that the parliament of Canada was to have a franchise law of its own for one particular province or two provinces and was to confide to the legislatures of all the other provinces power to regulate their own franchise and prepare their own voters' lists.
Now, let us look a moment at the situation in the legislature of Manitoba. I have pointed out that, when the fraud to which I have alluded was committed in the province of New Brunswick, the leader of the opposition in the legislature, then Mr. Hazen, brought up the matter at once and asked that proper action should be taken by the government to bring to punishment the men who had been guilty of the crime. Does the hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell), does the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), suggest to the House that the Liberal members of the legislature of Mantioba are so absolutely devoid of intelligence, of courage, that they will not or dare not bring to the attention of the legislature of that province any defects which exist in the electoral law? Is that the meaning of the argument? Up to the present time, I have not heard any hon. gentleman state to the House any case in the legislature of Manitoba where any amendments (has been brought forward and that amendment has been refused. Of what use is the party system in the province of Manitoba if the Lioeral members of the legislature are not prepared to come forward and put upon record their opinions of this law so far as they regard it as defective and unjust and to ask that that injustice and those defects should be remedied? In the province of Nova Scotia, if my memory serves me correctly, we have, on more than one occasion, asked the government of the day, asked the legislature of the province, that the present appeal to the partisan sheriffs of the province should be done away with and that
an appeal may be allowed to the county court judges in that province. And I say that the Conservatives of Nova Scotia today would acclaim, would hail with delight, any proposal to put in force in the province of Nova Scotia a measure so absolutely fair and reasonable as that which has been discussed so much in this House and which is to-day the law of the province of Manitoba. I have been surprised that so little fault could be found with this legislation of Manitoba. We know that the laws enacted by this parliament, even after most careful revision of two branches of the legislature, are over and over again found defective. We know that the government comes down every year with amendments. And this law, enacted by the legislature of Manitoba, under a Conservative administration has been subject to so little criticism that I say here that I believe there is not in the Dominion of Canada a single province which can show legislation more satisfactory, more fair and more effective than that which we have been discussing.
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) refers to municipal lists, and he fixes his faith on municipal lists. Let me point out to him that there may be partisan officers who create lists under a municipal system. Let me point out to the right hon. gentleman that partisan officers appointed by a municipal council are not one whit more acceptable to the people than are partisan officers appointed by any provincial government. In the province of Manitoba registration clerks are appointed, as I understand by the government of the province. They discharge their duty when they examine the applications brought to them, and if they find that these applications are in accordance with the law, they then put the names upon the list. In the province of Manitoba the realjight must take place before the county judge, who is a judicial officer, whereas in the province of Nova Scotia it must take place before the sheriff, an officer appointed by the local government of the province. Let me read to the right hon. gentleman a criticism which I have in my hand, and which I asked for a few days ago from a Conservative in the province of Nova Scotia, a gentleman who has had a good deal to do with fighting voters' lists in that province. This by no means exhausts the information I have as to the injustice and errors that have taken place in the province of Nova Scotia, over and over again, under the municipal system for which the Prime Minister claims so much merit:
By one of the provisions of the Nova Scotia Franchise Act, any male British subject of the full age of twenty-one years is entitled to have his name registered as a voter it assessed for $150 of real estate. A father can also qualifv one son for each $150 that he may be assessed for, over and above the $150 required to qualify himself.

This provision carried into effect by Liberal officials has bedevilled the whole system of assessment in the province. Liberals are assessed for a qualifying amount whether owners or not and Conservatives where at all possible are assessed just' below the aualifving amount.	J b
Such eases as the following are very com, JS. Port Gsorge, Anna*polis county, VV lllet Oliver bought a property and paid $17 tor it. The next year it was assessed for $150.
The object, of course, a very obvious one, is to give a vote to this gentleman, who is I understand a good Liberal.
Last year a son of Oliver came of age with out any qualifications as a voter unless his father could qualify him. Although Oliver's pioperty had not changed at all in value, his assessment went up to $300. George Foster of the same place has for two or three years been assessed for $300. This qualified him and his son tor registration. 'Last year another son became of age and the father's assessment was immediately raised to $150.
s property qualifications cannot quality the son unless that son resides with him tor at least eight months in the year. To overcome this the sons of Liberal fathers residing in the States are assessed as joint owners with their fathers. They can accord-mgiy be registered although married and with families in the United States and without the slightest qualification here. Last election there were almost two hundred of such voters brought home to Annapolis county to vote for the Liberal candidate. They will ndt be back again until next election.
The Act places the revision of the lists in the hands of officers unacquainted with the construing of statutes and usually the most partisan men in the locality. Three revisers are appointed for each revisal section and are paid usually about $6 a piece. These men are supposed to administer a law which is full of ambiguities and is pre-eminently adapted to be interpreted in one way or another as party exigencies may demand, and there is nothing in the law to afford protection against the most glaring discrimination. In a section where there happen to be a Conservative assessors the assessment roll is not considered conclusive evidence of the qualification for registration, but revisers hold that they can go back of the Act and inquire into the value of the property assessed. Where the assessing happens to be done by Liberal assessors the assessed values are taken to be conclusive.
Each year on the 20th of Jannarv a preliminary voters' list is prepared and posted by the revisers. This is made up from last year's voters' list, the assessment roll and application to be registered. In preparing this the revisers are given a great deal of discretionary power as they are empowered to drop from the old list any name they think no longer qualified.
A most wide discretion is given to the assessors in that regard, and one of which full advantage is taken not unfrequently in Nova Scotia.
This means that the name of every Conservative for which there is the slightest excuse Mr. R. L. BORDEN
is dropped. If the Conservative whose name is thus dropped happens to .notice the omission in time he may be able to prove himself on again at the revision court on the fifth of March, but as names are often dropped of the most eligible persons who are taken altogether off their guard, the omission often goes unnoticed, on the other hand names of Liberals when once registered are almost impossible to get removed.
I gave some illustrations the other day. In the city of Halifax, at the last general election there wTere dozens of men whose names had been dropped from the list. I cannot recall them all. but I remember two of them. Mr. John Y. Payzant, president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, a very large property owner in Halifax and Dartmouth, found his name absent from the list when the elections came on. George S. Campbell, one of the most prominent merchants In Halifax, a!so found that he had no vote in that election. Those are the only names I remember, but many others came to me and were intensely indignant to find that, although their names had been on the voters' lists for many years before that election, they were disfranchised, and there was absolutely no remedy.
From the decision of the partisan and biased revisers there is no appeal except to that of equally biased and partisan sheriffs. With one or two exceptions these men are appointed to their positions merely upon the ground of some party service and their former occupations was not such as to qualify them to interpret such an Act.
I do not desire to be understood as reflecting upon all the sheriffs of Nova Scotia. On the contrary, I may mention Mr. Donald Archibald, sheriff of the county of Halifax. Although a strong Liberal, and a Liberal candidate on many occasions, and a member of the legislature, he is as fair a man as there is in the Dominion of Canada. I have perfect confidence in his justice and in his integrity in every way. Unfortunately there are sheriffs in the province of Nova Scotia of whom that can by no means be said. There are sheriffs in the province of Nova Scotia who are regarded and I believe justly regarded, as absolutely part of the Liberal organization, of the Liberal machine, for the particular county In which they are appointed.
The most of them refuse to give tbeir decision during the bolding of tbeir court for the reason that jthey would be then supposed to support their decision with argument. A notable case of this kind is sheriff Edwin Gates of Annapolis.
Arthur Carter of Deep Brook was last year assessed for over $500 but the revisers refused to register his name and an appeal was made to the sheriff. The assessment roll was pro-dued to the sheriff who admitted that the name should be registered, but when the final list was filed with the county clerk the name was not on. Robert Craig applied to be registered at Miidleton on income qualification. The revisers nut him on although the law [DOT] requires an income voter to register where he

resides and Craig did not reside in this district. This was admitted before the sheriff and the name was decided to be dropped but it, appeared on the final list.
I would like to mention in this connection that to such an extent has this evil gone in the county of Annapolis in particular, that men in that county, one man at least,, brought an action a few years ago against the revising officer for intentionally omitting his name from the 1st. and he got judgment for $200 and costs against the revising officer. Nevertheless he was disfranchised.
At Torbrook Mines in the same county fifteen miners made personal applications accompanied by affidavits showing qualification and were registered by the revisers. An appeal was made to the sheriff to have them struck off and in the absence of a tittle of proof the sheriff dropped these names.
At a trial of a reviser for failing to put into the sheriff original papers on an appeal, sheriff Gates admitted in September 1906, that he added the name of Millidge Best to the voters' list in polling district No. 1, notwithstanding that the name was ruled off by the advisers and no appeal was taken from the revisers' decision.
He gave as his excuse that he had received a letter from some one stating that Best was qualified.
That is the character of the judicial revision of the lists imposed upon the Conservatives of Nova Scotia. I would ask the right hon. gentleman in all fairness whether in view of all these illustrations he does not think that his attention should be centered to some extent upon Nova Scotia and that it should not be wholly devoted to the province of Manitoba where a Conservative governrnet happens to be in power.
Very frequently names are found on the final lists which were never before the revisers court or the sheriff on appeal. It is impossible to tell who does this padding, W'hether it is the sheriff or the clerk in whose custody the lists are placed. In either event there is no punishment provided for the culprit who does it.
I have already said, under any system there will be injustice even without any intent to defraud, or at least that which you might call injustice. Men will not make their applications in time or some default of that kind will occur. My hon. friend from Carleton spoke of men whose names were not upon the lists in Manitoba, but he did not tell us what diligence these men had used to get their names upon the lists. It is impossible to make any statute which will provide against the negligence of voters or the inaction of the party to which they may happen to belong. So long as you find a statute which is clear and plain and ordinary reasonable upon its face, it does not seem to me there is any justification for interfering simply because a particular political party happens to be in power at the time being in any province.
My right hon. friend was pretty frank about his motive for interfering in this case and I would direct the attention of the House to his argument at page 8572 unrevised ' Hansard ' where he said :
But, Sir, I ask my hon. friends if they will not admit that although the legislation which to-day exists in Manitoba and the manner in which it is administered may be satisfactory to the Tories it is not satisfactory to the Grits, and that is the reason why we have introduced this legislation.
Well, that is a pretty plain and frank statement on the part of the Prime Minister, but after ail what does it amount to? It amounts to this: The Liberal party moved a resolution in this House in 1885 that the principle of observance of the provincial voters' lists should be followed ; in 1898 they came into power and they put that principle into operation by placing the Dominion Franchise Act upon the statute-books. and then in 1908 they come to us not to make a new Franchise Act, not to revert to that policy which they condemned when in opposition and when in power as well, but to declare to this parliament that because under the legislation of Manitoba, under the administration of the government selected by the people of that province, the voters' lists are not satisfactory to the Liberal party, therefore this parliament of Canada shall legislate. To what result Will that lead us in this country? When the Conservative party comes into power, assuming that the present system of provincial lists is adhered to, what would be expected of them? Are they to adopt the same principle ? With respect to the province of Quebec or the province of Nova Scotia if the government of these provinces should be Liberal, are the Conservatives in power at Ottawa to come to this parliament and say :	We will leave British Columbia
alone, we will leave Ontario alone, we will leave Manitoba alone because our friends are in power there but we will go into Quebec and Nova Scotia and make voters' lists of our own in those provinces. Is that the principle which my right hon. friend proposes in all seriousness as a principle which should be carried out by either political party in this country ? It does not seem to me it would make for good government. So long as you adopt this principle of provincial voters' lists, who are the best judges in respect of time and place and convenience and method in any province. Can the 215 members of this House judge better for the province of Manitoba, or of British Columbia, than can the people of these provinces by their representatives in the legislatures. If they can, why is it that the 215 members of this House cannot judge better for the province of Quebec and the province of Nova Scotia than can their legislatures.

I once more confess that I am utterly unable to discover any real considerations of public policy which could justify the government in proceeding with the first clause of this Bill. You must deal with the franchise either on one principle or the other. It was open to the rigtht hon. gentleman in 1898, and it is open to him still to adopt a Dominion non-partisan franchise and to give the preparation and final revision of the voters' lists all over Canada to the judges and to persons appointed by the judges in order that there might be no suspicion of partisan interference. That would be a perfectly intelligible principle for the hon. gentleman to proceed upon ; it is one which I could understand and I think appreciate, or it was open to him to adopt the principle which the right hon. gentleman did adopt in 1898 by giving to each province in Canada the full right to determine the franchise and prepare the voters' lists not only for the election of members to the provincial legislature, but for the election of members to this House as well. There are the two systems, and the latter system has been adopted by the government. Then comes the question which has been raised by the right hon. gentleman as to what shall be our duty when any complaint is made from any province that the voters' lists are not fair. Well, Mr. Speaker, assuming that you do not depart from the right hon. gentleman's words reiterated over and over again in 1898, no matter what takes place this is a question for the people of each province. And in any case if you depart from that system, you could only depart from it in a reasonable way and by means of a reasonable inquiry. Therefore I say it would be absolutely unheard of discrimination, invidious, impolitic, unjustifiable to attempt to do this without the fullest possible investigation and inquiry by this House into the systems of every province in Canada. Why should the system of Manitoba be inquired into and their voters' lists superseded simply because the Liberal party is in a minority in the legislature there; why should you refrain from inquiring into the evils that I have brought to the attention of the House in the province of Nova Scotia? I do not doubt that if you examine the systems prevailing in the province of Ontario, or of Quebec, or of New Brunswick for that matter, you would find that just as serious errors and as many injustices have taken place under their systems as are alleged to have taken place "in the province of Manitoba. The principle is a vicious one which says that because the Liberal party is in power in certain other provinces but in a minority in Manitoba, therefore the power of this parliament shall be directed against Manitoba and not against Nova Scotia and Quebec.	'


Robert Laird Borden: There is no statesmanship in that, there is no good sense in that, there is nothing in it which will commend itself to the judgment of the people of this country. If the right hon. gentleman and his followers desired any investigation into the laws of the various provinces, or into the administration of those laws with respect to the preparation of voters' lists, why did they not bring down this Bill on the first day of this session, have that inquiry made and let us determine whether any unfairness or injustice prevails by reason of the laws of Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario or any other province which requires correction by the people of this country through their parliament ? Statements have been bandied about frbm the other side of the House and controverted on this side of the House, and you say that you shall lay hands on the province of British Columbia and the province of Manitoba simply because the Liberal representatives of these two provinces are complaining that they want different lists, that they want lists prepared by their own partisans. This Bill, when it was first brought down, was so absolutely absurd that I am astonished that the Prime Minister should have ever lent his name to its introduction. What was the proposition? The proposition was that because the voters' lists in Manitoba and British Columbia were prepared under the administration of persons appointed by the Conservative governments of those provinces, with recourse, in every case, to judges of the county court as the ultimate authority to decide upon the addition or subtraction of any name, therefore you put all that to one side as being partisan and unfair and you appoint your own partisans, without any express or effective reason that there should be the slightest appeal to any judicial authority. A proposition of that kind needs only to be stated to be laughed out of any House of Commons or out of any legislature in the country. If there is any good reason why these lists in Manitoba should be dealt with by this parliament, let us have an inquiry and an investigation and I am prepared to stay here to make it if the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House (are prepared to do so. It was the duty of the government to have had it made long ago. But let us not, in the language of the Prime Minister, seek to impose new lists upon the province of Manitoba simply for the reason that the right hon. gentleman's friends in Manitoba come to him and complain that these lists are not satisfactory. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but there iis another observation that I would like to make, .and it is one which deserves to be emphasized. You are proposing to do this in Manitoba and British Columbia without the slightest question as to the fairness of the lists having been raised in the legislature of either province. Are the Liberal

members of the legislature of Manitoba, or the Liberal members of the legislature of British Columbia so absolutely devoid of intelligence, common sense and courage that they do not bring to the attention of the Jegislature and the people of those provinces these alleged defects which have been proclaimed before this House. What is the [DOT]meaning of it ? If this government concluded that there was in the complaint of jts partisans in Manitoba-I have not heard any complaint by its partisans in the province of British Columbia-any ground for the amendment of the law, or for reform in the administration of the law, why did not this government, having once adopted the system of provincial voters' lists, make representations on that subject to the governments of British Columbia and Manitoba ? Has there been one word, one syllable, directed to either government, to the /government of British Columbia or to the government of Manitoba, pointing out these complaints, asking them for their reply before parliament should proceed to interfere .with the voters' lists of these provinces V One would have thought that that would have been the reasonable and proper course for the hon. gentleman to take before he sought to introduce this Bill.
With regard to the right hon. gentleman's proposals made in this House last night, I frankly confess that I am not fully able to understand perfectly just exactly what the Prime Minister did intend to suggest. I have no doubt that he will make me acquainted with his intentions; in fact he has promised to do so. But, at the present time I understand that the Prime Minister proposes that the allocation of voters in a polling division cut in two by the boundary of a federal division shall be made, not as it is now by the returning officer within any riding, but by a county court judge. There has been no difficulty, outside of Manitoba, in doing that. There would be no difficulty in Manitoba in doing that provided the returning officers discharged their duties honestly and impartially and with a full sense of their responsibility. But, inasmuch as we have had some experience in Manitoba pointing to the conclusion that this is not always the case, we are quite prepared to accept the hon. gentleman's proposition which we regard as a desirable one from that standpoint, so that there may be no suspicion by one party or the other as to the manner in which these voters are allocated.
But, beyond that whether the right hon. gentleman intends to adhere absolutely to the terms of this Bill or not, I do not know. I think he said that he was not wedded to its terms, but that is a very general expression indeed and I confess that I have not been able so to seize myself of the hon. gentleman's intentions in regard to the Bill as to understand that he is willing to make
any considerable departure from its terms. We think, on this side of the House, subject to what I have already said, that the first section of the Bill ought to be, withdrawn altogether. We do not consider it fair that twro provinces which have reasonable laws upon their statute-books for the preparation of the voters' lists, should be singled out merely for the reason that some persons w7ithin those provinces have made complaints to this government as to the alleged unfair operation of those laws. I do not think that you should propose to amend laws for such reasons or in that way.
We believe further, that you should certainly withdraw or completely modify the provisions of section 17. I am disposed to believe, from what the Prime Minister said in that regard, that it is not his desire or intention to interfere with the secrecy of the ballot. I firmly believe that he is impressed as much as I am with the necessity of preserving that as a vital principle of our election law. The right hon. gentleman has pointed out, and his Minister of Justice has also pointed out, that cases may occur where men are disfranchised through inadvertent marks or through marks made by design upon one ballot or upon a number of ballots. It has been pointed out that all the votes at a particular poll might be thrown out simply because a mark has been placed inadvertently upon the ballots. Even if there were no other remedy than that which the right hon. gentleman suggests.
I would not be disposed to concur in the provisions of section 17, because I would regard it as infinitely preferable that we should have a new election now and then, wherever that did occur, than that we should place on the statute-book of this country an amendment w'hich would have the effect of absolutely destroying the vital principle of our election law. I was rather surprised, on looking pretty carefully over the election Act some days ago for this purpose, to discover that among the sections providing for punishment there seems to be no particular section aimed at the returning officer who shall make any marks on the ballots before he p'aces them in the box. There is a general provision under which I think he would be included, but there is no special and distinct provision relating to that offence by a returning officer.* I would be inclined to suggest, instead of the proposed legislation, that the instructions to every deputy returning officer should be made so absolutely plain and distinct that he could not fail to understand their important meaning, and that a special provision should be placed upon the statute-book for the punishment of any deputy returning officer who should fail to comply with those instructions. I would not be inclined to limit the punishment to the man who did it intentionally ; I would hold that the man who did it even

by inadvertence and negligence should be subject to some measure of punishment, leaving it in every case to the discretion of the judge to dismiss him with a nominal fine or a reprimand. If you would put a provision of that kind on the statute-book, I think you would find it more in the interest of the country than that which is proposed by the government.
Lastly, I would invite the attention of the Prime Minister to the question of absolutely simultaneous elections in this country. We have this for the most part, but there are some cases of deferred elections in the pro-ince of British Columbia and in the province of Manitoba, and there may be one or two in the province of Quebec. I do not profess to speak for the province of Quebec on that point, but bow to the superior knowledge of my friends from that province. But I have made pretty careful inquiry with regard to all the provinces except the province of Quebec, and I am thoroughly satisfied that there is no need whatever of postponing any election except the election in the Yukon. I concede at once that that election would have to be postponed. In the province of British Columbia the provincial elections are held all on the same day. That was the case in the last provincial election, and I am assured from a great many sources in that province that there is absolutely no need whatever for postponement.
The Prime Minister has appealed to me in a portion of his speech for fair and reasonable consideration of this Bill. I may say to him in all sincerity that I have endeavoured to give it a fair and reasonable consideration, and I think that I have done so ; but I cannot bring myself to that condition of mind which would justify me in concurring in the imposition upon the province of Manitoba or upon the province of British Columbia of such an invidious and unjustifiable discrimination as that which I find to be contained in the first clause of this Bill.
Mr. GALLIHER moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and debate adjourned.

Mr. A. MARTIN (Prince Edward Island).: I wish to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister, as the ministers who have control of this service are not in their places, a paragraph in one of our papers which says that the Anglo-American cable from Prince Edward Island to the mainland was broken on Saturday. As the right hon. gentleman knows, this is a service w\hich is under the control of the Dominion government. This is an old cable which has been in use for thirty years, and we have often called the attention of the government to the necessity Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
of laying a second cable. The province is now without telegraphic communication, and I would like to know what the government propose to do in the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that we have any jurisdiction over a matter of this kind. If my hon. friend has any suggestion to offer, we would be glad to help him if we have the power.


Alexander Martin: The suggestion I made some time ago was that we should have a second cable. When the cable was broken over a year ago, I called the attention of the government to this necessity. Now it is broken again, and the whole province has to depend only on the steamers for communication with the mainland. I am merely calling the attention of the government to the matter, and I hope thev will act with despatch in regard to it.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, May 14, 1908.