KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called-
Mr. EDWARDS:: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) if his attention has been called to an item which appears in Saturday's Free Press, and which is also referred to in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, in regard to the release of one Thomas Riley from Kingston Penitentiary. It is reported in both articles that there were two Rileys in that institution and that the one who was sentenced about a year ago to fifteen years for manslaughter was by mistake released for the other Riley. If this is true it certainly reflects very strongly on the administration or management of that institution. I would ask the minister if his attention has been called to this fact.


Mr. DOHERTY:: My attention was
brought to the fact. What happened was this: an application was made on behalf of Thomas Riley, convicted of manslaughter in April, 1913, and sentenced to seven years. After consideration of the case a recommendation was made and was acted upon by His Royal Highness the Governor General approving an order for the release of this man, whose offence was, as I have stated, with all the circumstances on the face of it. Unfortunately there was in the same penitentiary another Thomas Riley who had been sentenced likewise for manslaughter in April,

1914, and. who had been sentenced to"fifteen years. I should say that the one difference between the two men, and this is where the very unfortunate error occurred, was that the man who had been sentenced to fifteen years had a middle initial in his name; his name was Thomas M. Riley. When the. order went from the Secretary of State's Department to the warden it contained no information in regard to the individual, but described him as Thomas M. Riley. Thomas M. Riley was, upon that order, discharged, although the recommendation approved by His Royal Highness was for the discharge of the other man. The "M" got slipped into the papers because of a report that was on the files on the question of the deportability of the fifteen-year man. The incident is, of course, most regrettable. What it makes most clear is that in the communication of these orders more care should be taken to give not only the man's name, but every circumstance surrounding him so as to make a mistake of identity impossible. I 'do not know that it is going to help things to direct public attention to it, but I may inform the House that steps are being taken to re-arrest and return to the penitentiary the man for whose discharge no order of His Royal Highness was issued and who, through this unfortunate combination of circumstances, in effect escaped from the penitentiary. We have initiated steps to remedy the mistake that occurred.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Are you going to ask for extradition?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have given instructions that the matter be taken up from that point of view.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I presume the minister is going to let out the right man?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is not at all an unnatural presumption. [DOT] Most assuredly there is a proper order for the discharge of that man, and the proper action would be to discharge him. The mere fact that the message unfortunately did not convey the correct information should not prejudice the man whose discharge was ordered.



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order of the Day being called:
Wilfrid Laurier: There was a report laid on the table of the House two or three days ago of an investigation conducted by Mr. Ferguson, who, it appears,

has been entrusted by the Government to make an investigation into certain matters under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. The report is very voluminous. When I commenced to read it I found that there was no reference to the powers of Mr. Ferguson o Tthe nature of the duties which were assigned to him. The Order in Council which appointed him has not been brought down. Will the Government have it brought down immediately? [DOT]


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: When was the document laid on the table of the House?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER- A couple of days ago.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. S. F. GLASS (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a matter of privilege. I am sorry that the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is not in his seat this morning, because I desire to direct the attention of the House to some remarks he is reported to have made on Saturday last in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. There is an article in the London Advertiser of vester-day headed, " Appeal for Blood-suckers," and containing the report of a speech delivered by the hon. member for West Lamb-ton. Speaking at a Liberal convention held in the city of London last Saturday, to nominate a candidate for the Dominion House, he said:
Then along- comes the Finance Minister, White, a very practical farmer is Mr. White, having come direct from an office in Toronto, and he says to you farmers: " Pay a little more, have a little more patriotism and a little more production and pay more blood money in order that the suckers may be kept going."
Then of this 5 per cent. The Tories have been shouting " Royalty." They always have. They have the only Simon pure brand of loyalty concealed about them. The Grits are disloyal. They want annexation. They are not British subjects.
The Tories did not oppose reciprocity on economic grounds-they couldn't,

so they came to you farmers and said that while reciprocity would give you bigger markets and better prices you should not vote for it because if it carried it would weaken the bonds of the Empire and Canada would become annexed to the United States.
They waved the flag. They called themselves the paragon of loyalty and called on Ontario to look at them. Ontario did look and it must have been through a magnifying glass for we were left with a shattered 13. However, I have no fault to find. It was foolish but every man's destiny is his own. Ontario was afraid of the bugbear of loyalty.

How loyal are the Tories of to-day?
What do the Conservatives say? Do they show consistency? Their arguments of loyalty don't go. The arguments that they are Tories from the ground up are aocepted. They called on the British-born not to support the Liberal party because it was disloyal and would not support the British Empire. What will the British-born do now?
Last week I heard your present representative, S. F. Glass, endeavouring to justify the seven and a half per cent increase. He said: " If it wasn't for this row would we satisfy the manufacturers?" (Laughter.) In that one short sentence the whole trend of the policy of the Tories is shown. It is " fatten up the manufacturers and don't worry about the farmer. He will come."
If my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) were in the House now, I should like to ask him if he has been correctly reported; and judging from the construction of the sentences, I rather believe he has not. But I do want to say that every word in that statement, from beginning to end, both in its sentiment and its construction, is absolutely false, and Hansard will show that I was not properly quoted. The object no doubt was to prejudice me before the farmers who were present. I take this opportunity, if the hon. gentleman is reported correctly, to say that the statements he made are absolutely false and without a tittle of foundation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With reference to the
practice which seems to be somewhat prevalent of late, of reading newspaper articles in the House as a question of privilege, I wish to say that it is not a question of privilege, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be properly regarded as privilege. All the same, it is the right of an hon. member to refer to such statements and to contradict them.



WAR SUPPLIES.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. PUGSLEY:: In the absence of the
hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), and at his request, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he has yet obtained the consent which he said was necessary before bringing down certain correspondence which took place between the manufacturers and this Government in regard to the mode in which orders for war supplies were given.


Robert Laird Borden: I communicated with the gentleman who wrote me the letter, but I have not yet received a reply.



PURCHASES FOR THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
William Pugsley: 
Major General HUGHES:: The hon.
gentleman asks me a question concerning the Department of Militia, and I am in the happy position of being able to answer him. There is not a word of truth in that article, so far as the Department of Militia is concerned. So far as the Government is concerned, the Prime Minister is the proper gentleman to ask.


Robert Laird Borden: The statements in the article are absolutely without foundation, so far as I am aware. On the contrary, I know that within the past four or five days the British Government have asked the Canadian Government to act in respect of the procuring of a large amount of supplies in Canada for the War Office.



INQUIRY FOR A RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I again call the attention of the Secretary of State to the order

I moved for some time ago, which principally concerns the Department of Railways. The Minister of Railways tells me he sent his return to the Secretary of State. I trust the return will be brought down, because we have evidently only a few days of the session left.


Mr. CODERRE:: What is the return about?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is only one return of mine, and it is easily found if it is there at all. It is about certain correspondence between Mr. Douglas, provincial member for the county of Cape Breton and the departments of the Government.


Mr. COCHRANE:: I may tell my hon.
friend that I had no correspondence with the gentleman in question.



SOLDIERS' VOTING BILL.

[Stage Direction]
The House again went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair, on Bill No. Ill, to enable Canadians on active military service during the present war to exercise their electoral franchise.-Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice).
Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill has been reprinted so as to have inserted certain amendments and alterations, some as the result of discussion in committee, and some as the result of further consideration on our part. Yesterday there was distributed a reprint in which there were a number of clerical errors, and in which there was inserted a section which I might describe as a tentative section looking to give effect to a suggestion which emanated from the right hon. leader of the Opposition. This section was inserted by mistake, because I did not inltend to have it inserted in the Bill until after I had had an opportunity of submitting it to the right hon. gentleman. I do not want to suggest that I am not willing to carry out the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman if we can agree upon the best form in which to carry it out; but, by reason of the errors requiring to be corrected and the insertion of this section, I have caused a correct reprint to be made, and I will have copies of the Bill as reprinted handed around. It is substantially the same as the reprint issued yesterday, with the exception that the section to which I have referred is omitted, the other alterations being merely verbal corrections. I understand that we have dealt with the first two sections; but, if it is desired to take them up again, I have no objection.


William Pugsley: Is the first section the same as the first section in the original Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no alteration in the first section.


William Pugsley: What about the second section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no alteration
in the second section. The committee will notice that a heading has been inserted between the first section and the second section. This is the distinction between the portions of the Bill which deal with volunteers outside of Canada and the portions of the Bill which deal with volunteers in Canada. The dispositions with regard to the latter begin with section 4.


Mr. NESBITT:: There are certain changes in the first section.


Charles Joseph Doherty: To what effect?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Certain words have been dropped out.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no change in
the section as it passed the committee on Saturday, although there is a change in the section as originally drafted.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is a change in the printing.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman has not indicated in what the change consists.


Mr. MURPHY:: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the first section in the reprint is the same as the first section in the original Bill ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but there is no change in it as it passed the committee on Saturday last.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That may be true, but I am speaking about the Bill as first printed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The first section in the Bill as originally introduced was amended in the committee on Saturday last, and the first section as now printed is the section as it passed the committee iin accordance with the amendments made.
On section 1-soldiers entitled to vote:


Mr. MARCIL:: Has the minister made a distinction between the volunteers and the regulars?


Charles Joseph Doherty: According to the first section the word " volunteer " covers any person serving in the military forces of Canada at the present moment.


Mr. VERVILLE:: Is schedule A, which describes the manner in which the soldier is to vote, applicable to section 1 of the Bill? Schedule A corresponds with section 2, but section 1 does not say anything as to how volunteers in Canada are to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are dealing now with volunteers outside of Canada, and we shall deal in due [DOT] course with volunteers in Canada. The form A of ballot is exactly the form of ballot used in every election in Canada. To put it beyond doubt that the ballot as printed reproduces the actual ballot, I will, if the committee will consent, instead of the printing in the Bill, put upon the official copy one of the actual ballots.
I want to make it quite clear that the soldiers of both classes are to use exactly the ballot that is used in Canada, save that a soldier voting outside of Canada, instead of having a ballot on which the names of the candidates are, will have a ballot the spaces of which will be filled in the manner provided in schedule A. There is no difference in the form itself; the difference between the ballot actually used under the Dominion Elections Act and this ballot consists in the fact-and the difference exists only with regard to overseas votes-that instead of names of candidates being printed in the white spaces, the words found upon the form are to be printed. In every other respect the ballot is absolutely the ballot used under the Dominion Elections Act.


William Pugsley: I think the statement which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has made, that his mind has been moving towards acting upon the suggestion made by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition with regard to adopting some provision which will make the Bill more satisfactory to all parties and perhaps throw around d-t safeguards which it is recognized ought to be thrown around the taking of the ballots of absent electors, is certainly calculated to make one believe that it will be .possible for us all to agree upon a measure having that end in view. It is a little embarrassing, because my hon. friend has had the Bill reprinted with a clause looking to the appointment of scrutineers or commissioners, and another printed leaving that out. It is difficult to discuss the provisions of a new Bill-for this is practically a new Bill-across the floor of the House without having had time to study it. I would suggest, in view of these new provisions and of the suggestion the hon. gentleman has made, that it might be well to appoint a small committee,
representing both sides, to go into thi3 matter. I think that the idea of scrutineers and commissioners is a good one; it provides safeguards which are acceptable. I should think, .however, that the powers of the commissioners should go somewhat further than the amendment provides, and that they should have in a large measure the control of the taking of the vote. If the . Minister of Justice and the right hon. leader of the Opposition could get together, probably a Bill could be framed that would be acceptable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to the clause to which the hon. member refers, I have already explained that it was a little premature to print it, for I understood that it was drawn as a tentative clause. I had a few words in consultation with the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) about it, and it seemed to me it did not quite meet his views, and was not, perhaps, as practical as I would like to see it. I had not expected that it would appear in the reprinted Bill; and, inasmuch as there were other clerical errors, I had these corrected also and the Bill reprinted in that form.
I am in hopes that, with discussion, we may be able to draft a clause that will be satisfactory and that will give effect to his suggestion as I understood it.
As to the suggestion that the Bill should be dealt with by a small committee, I think that might be a proper course. But I am in hopes also that there are a large number of the provisions in the Bill on which we can agree in Committee of the Whole. In that way we can greatly limit the scope of the deference made to the special committee. Perhaps, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) would accept this modification of his suggestion, we might act upon it. We might go through the Bill, allowing to stand for reference to a special committee such clauses as require more careful consideration.


Mr. OLIVER:: If clause 1 is still open for discussion, I wish to reiterate my objection to the proviso. First, I would urge the same reason I gave before-that this makes a double qualification and, owing to the amendment the hon. gentleman has made this proviso is unnecessary to give a fair and reasonable opportunity to vote. Another reason against this is that the hon. gentleman has made a third qualification. I submit that that is mixing it up too much. I quite approve of the third qualification; but when he has the first qualification, that

of the place of enlistment, and also the third, that of voting within the electoral district where the man belongs, there is no need, I submit, for this proviso. I do not wish to make a motion to strike it out, but simply to put myself on record.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-distribution of ballot papers:


Frank Oliver: I observe that the ballots are to be sent to the commander of the forces in Bermuda, and later on it is provided that the commander of the forces in Bermuda is to control the handling of the ballots. I thought it was understood that the commander of the forces was not to have the handling of the ballots, but that under a later section it was provided that the balloting should be done under the paymaster. Is it not in order to make the same provision in regard to Bermuda as in regard to the other forces?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, the paymaster of the Canadian expeditionary forces is in England so that we could not very well bring the Bermuda forces under the general provisions under which the ballots would emanate from the chief paymaster. And, as regards Bermuda, after all, we have only to deal with one regiment of 982 men. It would be a very extraordinary system to send these ballots to the paymaster and all the more so because he does not pay these men, as I understand if. He is chief paymaster of the Canadian expeditionary forces, but I understand that the men in Bermuda do not form a part of these forces. They are doing garrison duty there, having been detached for that purpose. If it is thought that the commanding officer is a particularly objectionable man to do this duty, I suppose we could say that the paymaster of that one particular regiment should distribute the ballots. The hon. member will understand that the only thing the commanding officer has to do with these ballots is to distribute them to the officers commanding companies; that is the beginning and end of his work; the rest is done by the officers commanding companies and the volunteers to whom they distribute the ballots. The commanding officer is the mere instrument of handing out the ballots to the officers who are to take the votes.


Mr. GERMAN:: I do not see that it
makes any difference whether the ballots are sent to the commanding officer or to the paymaster. The objection that I have, and the objection that I believe the people will have, is that under this legislation 
there will be an indiscriminate circulation of ballot papers by the commanding officer or paymaster among the officers commanding squadrons, companies and batteries, and that the soldiers will vote higgledy-piggledy, if I may use the expression, without any guarantee that the votes shall he properly recorded. There will be no supervision; it will be done simply as the commanding officer may wish to have it done, if he has strong political convictions and desires to have the votes recorded in favour of the party in which he may have an active interest. Is a man commanding a company, because he is in uniform, going to conduct the casting of these ballots more properly than a man <at home, who is not in uniform? There is no supervision over his conduct; he may do exactly what he likes. As I stated in the few remarks that I made on the second reading of this Bill, when the ballots are returned to a close constituency and it is found that the vote of the soldiers changes the result in that constituency, ill-feeling will be engendered. It is because of this probability that I am strongly opposed to this Bill. There is no safeguard; we simply say that because a man is wearing the King's uniform he will be more honest than he would be if be were at home. In elections at home all precautions are taken; we have scrutineers; we have agents; every safeguard surrounds the casting of the vote before a deputy returning officer, who is just as honest as if he were in uniform. I see no reason why similar safeguards should not surround the voting of the soldiers. It is proposed, however, to place the matter in the hands of men who are in a position to suit themselves as to their actions, without the restrictions of any safeguards whatever.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister taken
into consideration the advisability of placing the ballot within the affidavit itself, so that there shall be only one document?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We cannot very well have the ballot and the affidavit in one document, but as it is now proposed, the affidavit will be endorsed upon the envelope which contains the ballot.


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as the first clause of section 2 is concerned, I have no objection. The ballots are simply sent to the High Commissioner in London, and to the commander of the forces in Bermuda.
I presume that the provisions of the law as it exists to-day will be observed, so far as they can be observed, under this Bill, and that there is a disposition to that effect.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a provision
that this Bill is to be read as one with the Dominion Elections Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: ballots. It seems to m'e that this would-be a very much better method than that provided in the Bill, which allows the ballots to be sent out broadcast to the different paymasters, to be delivered in turn to the commanders of squadrons, companies and batteries. The regulations should provide that the ballots must always be in the charge of the commissioners or their deputies, whom they might
12 noon, appoint from time to time.
This seems to me a very much better provision. At all events, I throw out the suggestion for the consideration of my hon. friend.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At first glance I should be very apprehensive that the constitution of a civilian body of this kind might be looked upon as an invasion of the field of the military authorities. The plan as outlined in the Bill has proceeded upon the assumption that w-e were keeping ourselves within our own scope, although I think some hon. gentlemen said that we were going, too far in the invasion of the field that ought to be reserved exclusively to the military authorities. Generally speaking, this Bill is to provide for a clear recognition by law of the right of the soldiers to vote, and to provide a method by which that right may be exercised. In the carrying out of that plan we do not propose to send to the military forces any officers of our law such as has been suggested by the hon. gentleman, but to provide the men who are there already in their military capacity with the means by which they themselves can provide the machinery for voting. Now to constitute a commission which will name a large number of officers -and they might select them from the military men, I suppose; I do not know precisely how they would proceed about it-seems to me at the first glance to involve the introduction into the army there of some civilian body which is going to carry on operations. The members of that civilian body, being non-military men, will in no way be under the control, as military men, of the authorities there. I am just pointing this out as what occurred to me at first glance, but I am not saying that it is necessarily impossible to act upon the suggestion of my hon. friend. It might be possible to reduce the number of hands that these ballots will have to pass through. It occurs to me that if provision is made for the ballots being sent at the outset to the chief paymaster instead of to the secretary of the High Commissioner, we would at all vents avoid one transmission. If that were adopted, we would have just these two transmissions: the ballots would be in the possession of the chief paymaster, and would be passed by him to the regimental paymasters, and from them to the company officers. Of course the ballots should be kept carefully and not be distributed indiscriminately. It is not proposed to make any indiscriminate distribution; the ballot is to get to the man who is going to use it only after he has taken the necessary affidavit. The thing that is going to pass through these people's hands is a blank ballot. Now, any person can get printed any number of these blank ballots, so I do not quite see what is the serious danger in having some of these blank ballots in the hands of the officers. Why, I have here half a dozen blank ballots myself.


William Pugsley: Before they went out
would you not have them certified to and given an official character?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I take it, they will acquire their official character by the affidavits on the envelopes in which the ballots will be sent to the Clerk of the -Crown in Chancery.


William Pugsley: Are you not going to
make some provision to prevent the indiscriminate printing of ballots? Will there not be something to identify the ballots as offiicial when sent to the secretary of the High Commissioner?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In distributing these
ballots we shall have all the provisions that are made with regard to the distribution of other ballots. I have half a dozen ballots here, and there is nothing to prevent me from going to a printing office and getting them absolutely reproduced. These ballots become official and acquire a value which makes it necessary to preserve them when once they have been used in connection with an election. I do not quite see that there is a tremendous danger in putting them in the hands of the paymasters, when somebody who is not a paymaster at all can go and get any number printed. Of course, he would have to have them printed on the paper prescribed by the statute.
Mr. PU-GSLEY: They might be stamped by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery before they left his office.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That might be done, but it seems to me that the natural effect of that is to give them an official character,

which makes it dangerous if anybody gets possession of them.


Charles Murphy: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is all we get by giving them out with a stamp on them. We make it a dangerous thing, but if the ballot be a ballot pure and simple, its value begins only when it has attached to it that which makes a vote out of it. Its value begins therefore when it has been voted upon and when it is encased in the envelope with the necessary affidavits taken before the proper officer. I quite agree with hon. gentlemen who have spoken. But let us take the other suggestion. Commissioners, we will say, are going to have charge of these ballots. The commissioners will distribute them to I do not know how many scrutineers and deputies. I cannot help but think that there is a greater danger in such a system as that. It has been argued that a man with his uniform on is no better than a man with his uniform off. If it is better to have scrutineers than that the ballots should go through the hands of an officer it is not because they go through the hands of men who do not wear a uniform. I think we may assume that a uniformed man and a man without a uniform are on a footing of equality in that respect.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The scrutineers are a check on each other; it does not matter whether they are honest or dishonest.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are not discussing what is going to happen when they go to take the vote; we are discussing the comparative safety of ballots going through the hands of people. They have to go through somebody's hands. What is the advantage of these somebodies not being soldiers? There is the disadvantage of introducing a large civilian element in this matter. What did seem to me as the result of the suggestion of my right hon. friend and as the result of the brief conference I had with him, as being a reasonable and useful thing, was that we should appoint a commission whose business it would be to be representative of the respective parties and who will be placed in a position where they could, each as representative of a party, secure in connection with the giving of this vote to each of the parties respectively the protection that h-secured under the system here to each of the candidates by the provision which entitles the candidates to have a representative in each of the polling booths. Instead of providing for six commissioners as suggested, and which on reflection I think is an entirely unwieldy and unworkable number, if we provide for the appointment 'of two commissioners, one on the nomination of the Prime Minister and one on the nomination of -the leader of the Opposition, and give them all the powers that are given to scrutineers with the further power of appointing agents who would be entitled to exercise the powers of the commissioners themselves, then we will create a system whereby each of the parties is enabled to secure to itself in connection with the vote the very same protection that the law provides in connection with our voting here by allowing each of the candidates to have a representative who may be present ait the different operations that are provided for here and perform the same functions that scrutineers would perform here. Something on this line would seem to me to be as far as we could go and after all it creates a situation where a military officer who is the returning officer will perform his operations in the presence of the representative of each of the parties. One cannot make imperative requirements any more than imperative requirements are made under the law -here. Under the law here there is no absolute requirement that the scrutineer shall be present. On the contrary, there is an express provision that the absence of the scrutineer shall not affect the validity of anything. All the law does is to recognize the right of each candidate to provide some one to act as his representative, but the law does not insist upon the presence of that man as being essential to the validity of that which is done. Why need we go farther than the law here goes with the result of providing very cumbersome machinery and creating the possibility of very considerable delay in the taking of the votes?


Mr. TURRIFF:: Would it be provided in the Bill that there shall be a fixed day or hour for taking the vote in any particular Tegiment, so that the scrutineers may be on hand at the proper time and so that there will be no possibility of the vote being taken before or after a certain time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the Bill does not make such provision, and I do not think it could do so without creating a situation which will make the taking of the vote impossible or make it imply some encroach-



COMMuNS

[Stage Direction]
ment upon the performance of military duty. As I understand the provision of the Bill with reference to the taking of the votes, they will be taken as they can conveniently be taken. T:hfe officer commanding the company-and that officer will only have a comparatively small number of ballots, only as many ballots as there are men in the company-shall, under the Act, furnish a ballot to any volunteer who presents himself before him, asks for a ballot for the purpose of voting and makes the affidavit that is required. Thereupon the soldier may mark- his ballot, but under the system I have been trying to outline I fancy that in all probability-I do not see how it could work otherwise-these agents that the commissioners would name would be men or officers in the different companies, and, being brother officers and soldiers, I can hardly believe that thte officer who was going to take the votes would be endeavouring to run away from ohe scrutineers or that there would be any attempt on his part to prevent them from exercising the powers conferred upon them. After all, I think they would all get on in the perfectly amicable way in which scrutineers representing different candidates in a polling booth in this country get on together. I think we would be able to take each other's word about arranging one thing and another, and I think we would be justified in doing that in the case of military men. ft seems to me that a scheme of that kind might be worked out. I would be glad to act on the suggestion of the hon. member to refer some of these matters to a small committee. However, there are other sections of the Bill which we might go on with in Committee of the Whole.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the minister is going to have any portion of this Bill discussed by a small committee it would save a great deal of time if he would let the whole Bill go to that committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Even after such a committee has performed its duties there are other clauses in the Bill which would have to 'be taken up by the Committee of the Whole, and we might as well discuss them now. We can reserve for a special committee such matters as this committee thinks call for further consideration.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Is there anything in the Bill to deal with a situation such as this: suppose a shell comes along and destroys a number of these ballots after they have .been marked, is there any
	I
machinery jn the Bill to have the ballots marked again by those who had previously marked them? That is a perfect possibility. The soldiers enjoy their leisure in the trenches in reading their letters and writing their letters, with shells flying over their heads all the time, and I suppose the minister has imagination enough to conceive that the place where the soldiers .are enjoying such leisure as men at war have, is a place where a poll might be taken. If you do not take the ballot in such a place, you would have to take the soldiers outside the firing line for the purpose of your election at the front. If a poll were taken there and a hunch of the ballots were marked and a shell destroyed the whole hunch, has the minister any arrangement for dealing with that situation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. No more is there
any arrangement provided by law under the Election Act, for what is to happen if the polling-booth should be struck by lightning and all of the marked ballots destroyed, which is a thing that may happen. I am striving to contend with the practical difficulties which surround the taking of this vote, hut I really cannot undertake to overcome the forces of nature in order to prevent all of the tilings that might happen by reason of the conditions under which this vote is going to be taken. It is a soldiers' vote and it will be taken under war conditions, and just as the soldier himself has to take the risk of what may happen, I am afraid that the soldiers' ballots will have to take the risk of what may happen to them.


Michael Clark: Does the Minister of Justice not think that if he were to have a general election in Canada on a day when lightning were likely to be as frequent as shells are on the battle-field, that he would postpone the election from that particular day? I am almost certain he would, especially if he was going to be the returning officer.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the Government will not accept the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) to have a commission, of course we can go on with the Bill, but if the Government leaves that point undecided, there is no use going on to consider the section, because the idea embodied in the amendment of the hon. member is that the commission should make regulations subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. The Minister of Justice sees no inconvenience in having ballots distributed promiscuously, but

the law as it exists takes precaution against the promiscuous distribution of ballots, and for very good reasons. These restrictions as to the distribution of ballots were inserted in the law, because if an agent wanted to bribe an elector he would give him a ballot previously marked to deposit in the box and get the voter to bring back the original ballot, so as to ensure that the person bribed would deliver the goods. The suggestion of my hon. friend provides that regulations shall be made by this commission. Are we to have a counterfoil on these ballots? Are we to have a poll-book as in the ordinary elections? The Minister of Justice wants to make a commissioned officer the returning officer.
In all probability the officer, if he is an English officer, will be very much embarrassed as to what his duties are. He will have no conception of them; the work will be something very new to him and he will be a very poor returning officer I am sure; but if we have scrutineers on either side, he then can be instructed as to his duties. If, however, my hon. friend were to agree to the suggestion made by my hon. friend from St. John that we should have a special committee appointed, it would certainly obviate a number of difficulties, and we would have more satisfactory legislation than we would otherwise have.


Robert Laird Borden: The suggestion has often been made by hon. gentlemen opposite that it is proposed to distribute ballots promiscuously. I have not heard of any such intention, nor do I find it in the provisions of -the Bill. In the ordinary course, the ballots go to the deputy returning officer who is bound to keep them in his possession until he hands them out one by one to the voters who desire to record their votes. In the present case it is proposed to use the military organization for the same purpose, and ballots are to be delivered to the commanding officer of each unit, the smallest unit being selected; that is to say, companies, squadrons and batteries. The commanding officer of any particular company, squadron or battery, does not distribute the ballots indiscriminately; what he does is to hand a ballot to any soldier who comes before him and makes an affidavit showing that under the provisions of this Bill he is qualified to vote. Apart from that the commanding officer has no authority whatever to deliver a ballot to any person at all, just as the deputy returning officer has no authority to deliver a ballot except to a voter whose name is upon the list and
who comes into the polling booth and demands the right to exercise his franchise, so that there is no promiscuous distribution of the ballots under the provisions of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is simply to use, , as necessarily one must use, the military organization for the purpose of giving the soldiers at the front or in Great Britain the right to Tecord their votes. In framing the Bill, the committee were inspired with the belief, which I think might very well be supported by hon. members on both sides of the House, that we could not anticipate that men serving their country at the front under conditions which have been described by the hon. member for Red DeeT (Mr. Clark) could have their minds taken up with the desire to commit a fraud in the exercise of the franchise under the provisions of this Bill. It is perfectly obvious that if the men at the front are to have the right to exercise the franchise, one must give to the officers who are commanding them and to the men themselves some credit for reasonable honesty and for a desire to carry out the provisions of this Bill as they are intended to be carried out. If we start with the premise that every officer or man at the front is filled with and animated by a desire to commit a fraud in the exercise of his franchise, of course very wide precautions will be necessary; but after all, whatever precautions you take, either in this Bill or in any other Bill concerning the exercise of the franchise, the legitimate carrying out of its provisions depends in the last analysis upon the men selected to carry them out. You may legislate from to-day until the 31st day of December and in the end, whatever provisions you enact and whatever safeguards you provide, the result will depend upon the honesty and the integrity of the men carrying out the provisions of any legislative measure, and I defy this House or any other House to make legislative provisions with regard to the exercise of the franchise which cannot be defeated by dishonest men. Therefore, the whole question seems, in my judgment, to depend upon whether we may with reasonable confidence rely upon the commanders of the units to discharge the duties imposed upon them by this Bill in an honest way and without any desire to commit a fraud.
If we are entitled to have that confidence in them, then it seems to me that the Bill contains reasonably sufficient safeguards; if we are not entitled to have that confidence in them, then I believe that no safeguards that we can insert will in the last analysis prevent fraud from being committed. I have not the slightest idea as to the political

opinions of the officers of the various units and I do not know who they are. They were not selected by reason of their political opinions, and I have every confidence that whether they are of one political party or of the other, (they will, under the conditions which have been described be disposed to discharge this duty in an honest and patriotic way.


Wilfrid Laurier: The fact that we insist upon taking such precautions as regards military life as are taken in civil life does not imply that there is any discrimination against the members of the army any more than there is discrimination against men in civil life. No one has answered the objection put forward by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that a uniform does not make a man honest. Whether a man wears a uniform or not, it is human nature all the same, so that we are certainly doing nothing extraordinary in asking that the same precautions which are taken in civil life should be taken as regards military life. Does any one contend that in military life less precaution should be taken than in civil life? Military life is no better than civil life and civil life is no better than military life; human nature is the same in both cases. I am glad to hear from my right hon. friend that there is to be no promiscuous distribution of ballots, and that the volunteer can have the ballot only when he comes and asks for it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He asks for it when
he makes the affidavit.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose my right hon. friend has in mind subsection 3 of section 2, part of which reads as follows:
And such officers shall give each volunteer under their respective commands making the affidavit in form B before such officer, a ballot paper.


William Pugsley: This is a change from the original Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a new provision and it satisfies me. It is a new precaution which has been inserted, showing that the suggestion we have made is not frivolous but serious. All that we can ask under this Bill is that the same precautions should be taken as if the soldiers were voting in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: We are perfectly willing to take any precautions except to the extent of making the Bill unwork-

able. The difference between the right hon. gentleman and myself is this:	The basis
upon which this Bill was reported by the committee is that under the exceptional conditions in which the soldiers are to exercise their franchise, we must have regard to military considerations, and that the best that we can do is to utilize the military organization for the purpose of giving these men the right to vote. If we superimpose upon that a proposal which will create an organization for the purpose of supervising the exercise by these men of their franchise, of such a character that it cannot be properly worked out under the military regulations which govern at the front, we might as well pass no legislation at all. Subject to that consideration, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is disposed, as I am, to establish every possible safeguard. But I think that is a matter which might very well be considered in the informal committee that has been alluded to. In the meantime, the Minister of Justice thought, and I myself think, that we might make some progress with the provisions of the Bill.


Charles Murphy: It would be as impossible for my right hon. friend to prove that all men into whose hands these ballots would fall are honest as it would be unreasonable for any person on this side of the House to argue that all the men into whose hands they may fall are dishonest. That is not the purpose of this discussion. Under the Elections Act as it stands, the Minister of Justice knows perfectly well the principle is to limit the circulation of ballots to as few persons as possible. For that reason, when an election is held in Canada under this Act the ballots are first of all placed in the custody of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. This also is proposed to be done under the Bill now before the committee. When they leave the custody of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery they go to certain designated officers, the returning officers for the several constituencies in Canada. All these officers are under the jurisdiction of the law of Canada and subject to well-understood penalties if they fail to carry out their duties. Here you begin to have a departure under this proposed Act. These men in Canada distribute the ballots to certain deputy returning officers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They have to go into
the hands of printers in every constituency in the Dominion.


Charles Murphy: I am assuming this is
to be done by those who are recognized under our Act as persons responsible for the custody and proper distribution of ballots when the election is held in Canada. Now, the difference between this and the method proposed in the Bill is very marked. The ballots go to other hands and ultimately fall into the custody of people who cannot be designated and are absolutely unknown. This discussion thus far has proceeded on the assumption that all the officers into whose hands these ballots will go are Canadians. I do not so understand the matter. From the discussion which took place the other day, and from the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), possibly repeated by some other gentlemen, I understand that the Canadian troops are dispersed through many regiments and may be under the command of British officers-I mean officers from England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales. They may be under the command of Australian, New Zealand or other officers for aught I know. I venture to say that these officers, if they come from any other country than Canada would be very apt to decline to be bothered with carrying out the details of an election in the face of the tremendous task in which they are engaged. I think that if a request of this kind were made of these officers they would say they were there for carrying on the business of war for the Empire and not for the purpose of carrying on the business of elections for the people of Canada. These seem to me, at any rate, to be practical objections to what has been proposed. Dealing more particularly with the subsection to which the right hon. leader of the Opposition called attention, 1 would suggest that if that subsection is to be proceeded with, the distribution of the ballots should be entrusted to the several regimental paymasters, and that they should not be further distributed after coming to the hands of these officers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In this country, no doubt, we try to take care of the ballots. Before I go into that, I concede-it was conceded from the outset-that if the view be taken that the soldier cannot vote unless we can have identically and absolutely the precautions taken under the Dominion Elections Act, of course, we shall have to drop the Bill. But it seemed to us that something must be conceded in order to make it possible for the soldier to vote, and it is just because we cannot have him vote
under all the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act that it is necessary to pass this Bill. Let us contrast how the ballots are handled in this country with the way they are going to be handled under this Bill. The ballots here are in the hands of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and from him they go to the returning officers all over the country. Then they go into the hands of printers in every constituency in this Dominion. When they come back from the printers they go into the hands of deputy-returning officers, of whom there would be in each constituency, on the average, I suppose, fifty or sixty. Now, contrast this with what will happen under this Bill. From the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery these ballots will go to the chief paymaster and from him to the several regimental paymasters. That will not be more men than, I doubt that it will be as many as,, there are returning officers in Canada. From these the ballots go to the company or battery commanders, each of whom, as I understand it, commands approximately 250 men. But we here have a returning officer for an average of between 200 and 300 voites. So that, proportionately to the number of voters, we are not exceeding the number of deputy-returning officers in the handling of these ballots. This means that these ballots will go through fewer hands than we are willing that they should go through in dealing with a similar number of voters in Canada. It is conceivable, of course, that some of these people may not be honest; it is conceivable-and I am afraid that we have had evidence of it -that all the men who handle ballots in Canada are not trustworthy under all circumstances. They are human, as has been said, and we have to take them as they are. The question comes back to this: Is it of sufficient importance that we should secure to the soldiers the right to vote to justify our modifying our law in some respects and foregoing to some extent the protection that we seek in the holding of an election in time of peace at home. It does seem to me that it is worth while to make some sacrifice. However we do want to reduce that sacrifice so long as the Act can be made workable. So far, I think, I have accepted every suggestion that has been made-certainly every one that seemed to me at all practicable-looking to greater security. The last one that has been made, it seems to me, cannot be given effect to and at the same time give effect to the soldier's right to vote.

I do not think that the Bill is in any sense open to the reproach that it provides for a more promiscuous scattering of ballots than takes place under the Dominion Elections Act. Indeed, I think that neither under the Dominion Elections Act nor under this Bill can it be said that there is or will be any promiscuous distribution of ballots. The soldier does not get a ballot until he takes the affidavit. While I am willing to give credit to other hon. gentlemen for a number of suggestions which they have made, I must say that that particular improvement is the result of my own consideration of how it might work if you handed the ballot out otherwise than to the man who is going to vote. When he gets the ballot, he does not go away with it; he then and there marks his ballot and returns it. The provision is that the officer must be in such a position that he can see that the voter marks the ballot which he receives, and returns it; so that I think we have done what is humanly possible to be done in that regard. As I say, I am quite willing to consider further whether we can so arrange that it may be possible to provide people who shall have authority to be present,'wherever it is practicable for them to be present, to keep an eye on the carrying out of these provisions.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend will know, from his experience as the able and courteous chairman of the committee which drafted this Bill, how much faster progress can be made when discussing matters informally in committee than can possibly be made in a committee such as this, even taking it for granted that there is a general desire to make headway. In connection with the observations which my hon. friend has just made, this distinction should be pointed out: for any irregularity which may be committed in Canada, a remedy is provided by law, but for any irregularity which may be committed elsewhere, there is no remedy. Irregularities, I believe, occur through ignorance or carelessness just as frequently, possibly, as they do through deliberate intent. Did I understand my hon. friend to say that all the ballots, before being sent away, should bear the stamp of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Inasmuch as the Bill which we are now passing is to be read as one with the Dominion Elections Act, such provisions as now exist with regard to what shall be stamped on the ballots will apply to the operation of this proposed legislation.
I take it, therefore, that the ballot mentioned in this Bill is the ballot described in

the Dominion Elections Act. As to the suggestion that this could be better dealt with in a small committee, I have already said that I think subsection 4 ought to stand to be dealt with by the sub-committee. If that meets with the view of the committee, I suggest that subsection 4 be allowed ,to stand for that purpose, and that we proceed to the consideration of other clauses which will not, I think, not give rise to any questions necessitating such action.


Mr. H. H. McLEAN:: I think that the suggestion that a small committee be appointed is a good one. I think the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice should be acted upon, namely, that the opinions of hon. gentlemen be taken down so that the committee will have the benefit of their views with regard to these different sections. I understood the Minister of Justice to say that section 4 only should be referred to a committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is as far as we
have gone. If there are any suggestions with regard to matters contained in previous sections, I should be glad to hear them.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I think that in sections 2 and 3 there are some matters that may require consideration by such a committee. We have arrived at the position where both parties are practically united on the principle of this Bill; both parties are united in their support of giving the soldiers an opportunity to vote. We now come to consider the method by which that shall be done, and it seems to me that the machinery whereby the soldiers will be given an opportunity to vote should be made as direct and as simple as possible. Surely it ought not to be difficult to give these men an opportunity to register their votes before proper officers. We cannot apply to their voting the whole election machinery used in civil life, but we can rely on the assumption that officers commanding these regiments, companies and units will honestly carry out the duties imposed upon them. Officers who are in command of a certain number of men and who have other officers under them, realizing the necessity of their possessing the respect and confidence of the men over whom they have control, would surely do nothing which would cause the men to lose that confidence in them. It seems to me to be proper that the ballots should be given to the chief paymaster, because he has direct communication with every officer and with all men in the expeditionary force. I think

it is advisable that a change be made in the section whereby it will be provided that the officer taking the ballots shall make a list of the men who have voted, such list to be returned in the envelope with the ballots. It would be very easy for the officer, as the soldier votes, to put down his name and the number opposite his name, and to put that number on the envelope containing the soldier's affidavit. The ballot, of course, will be in a separate envelope. I would point out also that this section says that the ballots shall be delivered by the paymaster to the officers commanding squadrons, companies, and batteries, who shall deliver them to the soldiers under their command. Sometimes, in the absence of the commanding officer, the next senior officer takes command, and I suggest that in order to cover this point, it might be provided that the ballot be delivered by the paymaster to the officer commanding, or, in his absence, to the senior officer in charge.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it is section 3 that provides that, if for any reason the officer charged with such duty is unable to perform it, it shall be performed by the officer next below him in rank.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I had not noticed that.
I see that it is provided that the paymasters shall deliver the ballot papers to the officers commanding squadrons, companies and .batteries. Now, the medical officers are neither a battery, a company nor a squadron; and to cover them I think we ought to insert the words "and units" after "companies and batteries." If we provided that the ballots should be distributed also by the officers commanding medical units, we should cover the men in our hospitals, which are in charge of officers with the honorary rank of colonel. I think we ought to make the officers commanding absolutely responsible for having these ballots sent forward, marked and collected.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Hugh Havelock McLean: There are one or
two more suggestions that I would like to call to the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice. Looking over paragraph 3 of section 2 I find there is a very good provision made in regard to the channel that may be used in forwarding the ballots. It is provided that the paymasters' department 156
shall distribute the ballots. It seems to me that the same channel should be used in collecting the ballots from the officers commanding the different units in different places so that there will be no delay in having these packages collected and returned. Another point is that there ought to be a limit to the time at which the polling is to take place. Before recess I pointed out that an officer commanding a company might have 220 men under him, that an officer commanding a battery might have 240 men under him, that these officers are therefore very busy men, especially when on active service and very important duties devolve upon them. It is quite right that the ballots should be sent to the commanding officer but he should have authority to authorize or employ other officers under him to carry out the duties prescribed in the Act. There are always one or two officers in the orderly room who might be available for doing this particular work and he might appoint the assistant adjutant, or some other officer under his command, to carry out these duties. It is going to take a long time to receive 220 affidavits and it is imposible for the commanding officer to do it himself. It should be provided that in the event of the officer commanding not being able to act himself the next senior -should act. It would be better to authorize the commanding officer to appoint some other officer to carry out this duty if necessary. In the ordinary way, when an officer commanding is required to do so and so it does not mean that he himself, personally, does it. I have no doubt that in this discussion efforts are being made by hon. members to make the Bill perfect, and I think we should be able to provide machinery direct and simple in character to carry out the wishes of the House. In regard to the suggestion made by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that it might be advisable to have a commission of two, one representing the Government and one representing the Opposition, I would not go so far as my hon. friend because I would not like this commission to interfere with the disposition of the ballots through the channel which has been decided upon, that of the paymaster. I could see the advisability of having a commission whose duty it is to see that the work is carried out properly, that is to have general supervision over it. Explanations and information might be required by the officers charged with this duty, and it would be necessary for them to write to some one. Whom would they



write to? If they were a little slow in taking in their instructions they would not know whom to apply to. A commissioner on the spot could give all the necessary directions.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestions made by my hon. friend are worthy of very careful consideration. I understand that the hon. member first points out that if we distribute these ballots to the officers commanding squadrons, companies and batteries, that might leave unprovided for some other bodies that would not come within the description. Of course we want to cover everybody as far as we possibly can do it.
I have had some consultation with my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence as to what might be added to meet that desire and he thinks we would reach everybody if we added to the words " squadrons, companies and batteries," the words, " or of any line of communication or administrative unit." I understand that would cover hospitals and men engaged otherwise. I also understand that the word " unit " might extend to a much larger body of men than a company or squadron. What we had in mind was to endeavour to reach the officer who would have a reasonable number of people under his command. If that addition would meet the view of my hon. friend I would 'be quite happy to amend the Bill to that extent. As to the officer keeping a list, no doubt it would make the matter more perfect, but I think we ought to bear in mind the conditions that will exist when this vote is being taken and we have to be a little on our guard not to impose so many detailed operations on the officer as to make it impossible for him to carry out the directions. The advantages of a list no doubt are considerable, but on the other hand when all the votes of the company are to be deposited in a bag or other receptacle and forwarded, bearing on the outside the affidavit of the man who gives the vote, it will be a very simple procedure. We have provided that these envelopes shall be returned to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and he has to keep a record of them. Whether there would be* sufficient gained from that list to compensate for the additional duty imposed on the officer appears to me to be perhaps open to question.
As to the return of the ballots through the same channel as that through which they are sent, a good deal of consideration has been given to that idea. The consideration that led us to the conclusion that it would

be better that they should be posted direct after the voting by the officer who took them was that it is objectionable that the ballots should pass through too many hands, and whatever force there might be in the objection when you are dealing with an unmarked ballot becomes greater when you are dealing with a ballot that has been actually marked. It seemed to us that it would be wiher that the ballots should pass as directly as possible from the officer who took the vote to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Ultimately they will have to get into the post office, and it did seem to us that the earlier they got into the post office the better. In reference to what the hon. member has said as to the officers commanding these companies, squadrons and batteries, appointing others to do the work, you see there again that you are increasing the number of people who are going to handle these ballots. After all, at home we give to one deputy returning officer complete control of the voting of between 200 and 300 voters, and all the operations, as far as possible, have to take place between eight in the morning and five in the afternoon.
On the other hand, under the system provided, the votes may be taken at the time that is most convenient, and the Bill does not propose, nor do I think it desirable or possible, to fix that this shall be done on a particular day or at a particular time. It ought to be reasonably possible for the officers to take the vote of those who desire to vote. I have with my colleagues given the best consideration possible to the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John and my view is confirmed that an endeavour to create machinery such as he suggested would in all probability, result in making the plan unworkable. I feel impelled to say that I do not find it possible to accept that suggestion. If something in the nature of what I endeavoured to outline, namely, the making of it possible for scrutineers to be authorized to be present, I would be disposed to acquiesce in the wisdom of letting that be considered by a small committee, such as has been suggested.


William Manley German: Suppose a number of
these ballots have been marked and received in due course by the returning officer, and it is evident that those who have made affidavits are not on the voters' list for a particular district, nor were they residents of that locality at the time they enlisted, will these votes be counted, and would the defeated candidate have to resort to a protest and recount in order to strike them out?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I take it that such
ballots would be in the same position as any other ballots that have been cast at an election, and I do not see that we can make a provision whereby the returning officer could adjudge whether the affidavits upon which these men had been allowed to vote were true or false. An analogous situation would arise if at the counting of the ballots in an ordinary election it were established that fifty men had voted who were not qualified. In an election held at home there would be no right in the returning officer to strike these names off, and I do not see that we could provide here for a system under which with regard to the absent soldier a trial could he had then and there and a determination reached as to_whether he told the truth in the affidavit he made. After all, what would occur in this case is what would occur in an ordinary election held at home.


William Manley German: In the ordinary case, a
man's name is on the list or he could not vote; but I venture to say that there will not be 20,000 men, out of the 100,000 men on active service, whose names will be on any voters' list. You can have the man in Canada arrested for perjury at once, but under the provisions of this Bill a man may make any affidavit he likes and he is immune of the- law.


Air. W. H. BENNETT:: These men enlisted in September or October, and at that time the courts were proceeding to revise the lists for 1914. I can well recollect that at many places the objection was raised that the men were not there at the time, and the judge very properly said that the men were at home when the application was made and that the fact that they went to Valeartier only temporarily disarranged their residence, so that he allowed their names on the list. The hon. gentleman is very wide of the mark when he says that not 20,000 out of the 100,000 soldiers would he found on the lists of last year.


Frank Oliver: I want to protest against
the statement of the minister that there was some suggestion on our side that the commanding officer at Bermuda was not a person to be trusted. That is not the question before us. The question is: Is he the proper person to be charged with this responsibility? In the following section, my hon. friend, in dealing with the votes in other parts of the world, says that he is not the proper person, and I see no reason why the com-1561
manding officer at Bermuda should have a responsibility laid upon him that is not to be laid upon commanding officers elsewhere. My hon. friend says that the chief paymaster cannot be as conveniently employed for Bermuda as he can for the European situation. It is not necessary that the chief paymaster shall be employed; there is a paymaster for the forces at Bermuda, I presume, and if my hon. friend will make the paymaster at Bermuda the recipient of the ballots, he will have the section in that particular on all fours with the other proviso.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see that it makes the slightest difference, if there is a regimental paymaster at Bermuda, whether the ballot goes to the commanding officer or to the paymaster. So far as we are concerned, the matter is not worth while discussing.


Frank Oliver: Let me disagree, then, with the right hon. the Prime Minister, because I think the matter is worth while discussing.


Robert Laird Borden: I said, "So far as we are concerned." I was not speaking for the hon. member.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If my hon. friend wants to be quite certain that at all times there will be a paymaster at Bermuda, I can, of course, delay the Bill in order to ascertain this point. The hon. gentleman seems to think that it is important whether the commanding officer or the paymaster receives the ballots. Ifithatisthe case, I will try to find out whether or not there is a paymaster at Bermuda; but there will always he a commanding officer-that is the one advantage that we have. I am not in a position to say with any certainty that there will always be a paymaster actually available. The commanding officer is a general term; no matter if the man who generally commands is absent, there will always be a man commanding, and we have a certainty that we shall have an official person who will always be available.
That is the only reason for the difference. In the other case, r.-e reason why wa fell upon the paymaster wras that by taking the general paymaster for the entire force, wa got a man who had a regular system of communication with the entire expedi- . tionary force. It was not because he happened to be paymaster that he seemed to be desirable; it was simply because he was the man who had the entire organization ready to carry out the work. This argument would not apply to the paymas-

ter at Bermuda who would be purely a regimental paymaster, just like any other officer of the regiment.


Frank Oliver: There were reasons put, forward by the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean) why the commanding officer should not be used. These reasons apply just as much to the men in Bermuda as they do to any other place, and I am only suggesting that; the section be amended to make the terms correspond in effect with the like provisions elsewhere in the Legislation. As to whether the matter is important or not, it has been suggested that there are less than 1,000 men in Bermuda, and if those 1,000 men are entitled to vote in the province of Nova Scotia, I do not think I need impress upon the House that those are enough votes, if properly directed, to change the electoral complexion of that province. I have seen tremendous issues decided by a less number of votes than that; I have seen elections carried by the vote of the deputy returning officer, and important issues resulting from that condition. It is not for this House to consider lightly the question whether votes shall be properly counted or not; for be it remembered that this is not a question of the right of the men to cast their votes-no one disputes their right-but whether those votes are going to be cast under proper conditions and with the guarantee that, having been cast under proper conditions, they shall be properly counted. It is desirable that the individual citizen shall have the right to vote whether he is a soldier or not, but it is essential to the welfare of the state that the result of the voting shall be the fair expression of the mind of the people according to the well-understood and well-defined rules laid down and worked upon before and during the election. The proposal of this Bill is that a certain separate condition shall be established that there shall be votes cast under different conditions from those under whicn the rest of the votes shall be cast. A new feature is projected into our elections, and the minister says: You must not accuse us of improper motives in connection with the projection of this new system of voting and of counting votes. We have to take things as we find them and if it is possible to switch the whole of the elections in Canada by the manipulation of the votes cast by the men overseas,-and I maintain it is- then I maintain further that this Government has no right nor claim to be released

from the suspicion that it has within its ranks the men who will be willing to do that. For the sake of the credit of the Government let us have such provisions in this Bill as shall remove the Government from suspicion. If the minister cannot provide such provisions then he has no right to ask that this Parliament shall place in the hands of himself and his colleagues the power of counting tneir opponents in or out of office as they please to manipulate those votes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have said all that 1
can usefully say with regard to the line of argument in which the hon. member sees proper to persist. Therefore I trust he will not think me discourteous if I do not say anything further.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 
Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken as to the personnel of these men in Bermuda. This regiment is recruited in part from the permanent force in Halifax, but it is also recruited, in considerable part, if I am not mistaken, from Vale artier camp.


Mr. LANCASTER:: Several there are from Ontario.


William John Macdonald: That does not affect the principle.


Robert Laird Borden: It would interfere to this extent: If you undertook to establish polls you would have to establish the polls for many different constituencies. I think about 400 of these men are from a force assembled at Valcartier and gathered from all over the Dominion. Therefore the conditions do not seem to be such as to make it practicable for the vote to be taken in the ordinary way.


William John Macdonald: The answer of my right hon. friend does not furnish any reason why my suggestion should not 'be carried out under clause 5 of the Bill. If the men in Bermuda were in large degree recruited from Valcartier, the regiment would still be in the same position as one mobilized anywhere in Canada. There is no reason why the system applied to volunteers here in Canada should not be worked in the case of volunteers in Bermuda.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It might possibly be
worked out in Bermuda, but it does involve some anomalies arising out of our issuing a writ to an officer to go beyond the limits of Canada to perform the duties *f a returning officer. We should have no more authority over his proceedings outside of Canada than we have over those
of these other officers concerned. If it be true-j do nolt discuss it-that we cannot punish the people for offences committed in France, we cannot deal more effectually with those who have committed offences in Bermuda. When we came to the actual making of distnetions under this Bill, we found a natural line of difference running between that class of soldiers who are within Canada and that class of soldiers who are outside of Canada. That indicates one system for one class and a different system for the other. Those in Bermuda may be under different conditions from those in other places outside of Canada in relation to this Bill, but they are more like the soldiers outside of Canada than like the soldiers inside Canada. It is to be remembered that all our soldiers outside of Canada are not, and will not be at the time of an election should one be held, in the field of active hostilities. We have soldiers in England for long periods at a time, and it may happen that many will be in England at the time of an election, should one take place. If this system can be adopted for soldiers generally outside of Canada, I fail to see what advantage there would be in distinguishing between those who happen to be in Bermuda or in England and those who happen to be in countries nearer to or actually within the scene, of war. We must draw the line somewhere, and it seems to me we have drawn it at the proper place. Further than that, the practical difficulties of carrying out Canadian law in Bermuda with regard to the prepartion of ballots and so on, it se<_ms to me, would be considerable, and we might get ourselves into complications that would be hardly desirable and run risks otherwise unnecessary for the sake of making a separate arrangement with regard to one regiment of soldierk amongst all those outside of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Another consideration I mentioned a moment ago. The regiment at Bermuda is anxious to go to the front, and may go to the front. It is not improbable that they may be sent before an election is held, if it should be held. Therefore, we might have a force in Bermuda made up of men gathered from all over Canada, in which case the observations of my hon friend from Pictou would not apply.


William Pugsley: The Bill provides that the ballots shall be separate from the affidavits. I think it is worthy of considers

tion whether the affidavit and the ballot should not form one document-one .paper. Let the ballot paper be quite large, and the blank form of affidavit be printed on the back. In that way we should be sure that the ballot paper marked by the voter himself was the one accompanying the affidavit.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then, how are you go-iiig to preserve the secrecy of the ballot if we act on the hon. gentleman's suggestion, the man's name will appear in the affidavit on the back of the ballot?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knows
that a distinct law, different entirely from the law that governs the taking of the vote' in Canada is being provided. It is very important I think that there should be no switching of the ballot, no separation of the ballot from the affidavit of the man who has marked the ballot. The hon. gentleman has stated that we must trust those who have charge of the ballots. I am inclined to think that the commanding officers will not like to be bothered very much in connection with the taking of these votes, and that they will be very glad to avail themselves of the services of any Canadian commissioned officers who may be present to assist in the taking of this vote. If you have the ballot entirely apart from the affidavit, there is nothing in the world to prevent anybody who may be so minded from marking a ballot in a different way from that in which the soldier marked his, and substituting it for the one which the soldier actually marked. It does seem to me that wTe ought to provide a safeguard against that. If we are going to give the soldiers the right to vote in this peculiar way, we want to be assured, not merely that the soldier shall make an affidavit and mark his ballot, but that the ballot which he does mark will eventually find its way into the box of the returning officer. My hon. friend says that it is our duty to allow those who have gone to the front the right to exercise their franchise. But we owe a duty also to the people of this country, and it is that the expression of their will, as shown by the ballots which they cast, shall not be defeated by the use of ballots which were not marked by the soldiers. These fraudulent ballots, although not marked by the soldiers, will be counted when they reach the box of the returning officer. If you provide that the affidavit shall be on the back of the ballot, you add another safeguard against the switching of ballots and the substitution of fraudulent ballots for genuine ones. It does seem to

me that that would be a proper provision to make. My hon. friend says that we ought not to be suspicious, because if men are honest they will not do the thing which we suspect may possibly be done. We do know, however, from our past experience in connection with elections in Canada, that men who in their ordinary business relations are regarded as men of honour and integrity, do things in connection with the carrying on of elections which they would not do in connection with their own business. There are many Canadian politicians at the front, and officers will be just as good politicians at the front as they were at home. I venture to say that there have been no more active partisans in Canada than very many of the officers who are now serving in the Canadian expeditionary force. They are none the worse for that, but we should remove as far as possible any opportunities for wrong-doing in connection with the marking of the ballots. By this section it is provided that the soldier makes the affidavit and puts his ballot in an envelope, on the back of which the affidavit is endorced. He hands that to the officer; the officer then takes charge of it, and the moment the soldier puts his ballot in the envelope and hands it to the officer, any control which he had over it is gone, and there is nothing to prevent the marking another ballot in a different way from that in which the soldier marked his, and the substitution of it for th -*>
V,allot so bona fide marked by the soldier. 1 suggest to my hon. friend that the possibility of that condition arising ought not to be permitted. I regret very much that the minister has not seen fit to accept the suggestion for the appointment of an independent and non-partisan commission to take charge of the whole operation of the voting of the soldiers, and to make regulations which might be found necessary from time to time. These regulations would only become operative when approved by the Governor in Council. I feel quite sure that if that method were adopted it would prove satisfactory, and that the people would be assured that the ballots counted represented the true expression of the opinion of our boys at the front. The amendment which I suggested provided that one commissioner should be appointed upon the nomination of the Prime Minister, the other upon the nomination of the leader of the Opposition. The Governor in Council would act upon those nominations, and if either of these gentlemen should decline to nominate, the Governor in

Council might make the appointments. In order to prevent any difficulty that might arise by reason of differences of opinion, my amendment suggested that the persons named should nominate a third commissioner, and that if they should not agree upon a third commissioner within the short period of ten days, that third commissioner should be appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not know whether or not I suggested it in my amendment, but I would have them sworn properly to discharge their duties, so that we would have an independent, sworn tribunal to make regulations, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. They could appoint their deputies, scrutineers and assistants, and I believe that the scheme would be worked out in a satisfactory manner, and would result in all persons who desired to vote and who were entitled to do so being given a fair and reasonable opportunity to cast their ballots. The minister makes the suggestion that in some way this would seem like intruding officials into the military system of the Empire. Surely that would be no greater intrusion than the passing of an act which maKes it the duty of the commanding officer to take charge of and distribute these ballots to the voters; to take the affidavits of the voters; to see that the ballots are marked and put into envelopes and that the envelopes are then sent in a package to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. If one is open to that objection, the other is open to the same objection. It seems to me, therefore, that the argument which my hon. friend makes against the commission on that ground is untenable. But there is another amendment which I think might very well be adopted in connection either with the mode of procedure suggested by my amendment, or with the method suggested by the Bill, and that is, that before taking proceedings under the Statute the consent of the Secretary for War should be obtained. I think that as a matter of courtesy and to ensure the harmonious working out of the details of the Bill that would be a most desirable provision to insert. I can see no possible objection to such a provision, and I think it would be much better to do that than for this Parliament to impose certain duties upon British or Canadian officers, whoever it may be-and now they are all members of the British Army, and under control of the British War Office. The Secretary for War would then know that
in the opinion of this Parliament it was considered desirable to give the Canadians who are fighting at the front the opportunity of exercising their franchise, but that at the same time this Parliament recognized that these soldiers and officers were all now a part of the British Army and under the control of the British War Office, and that before taking proceedings which might by any possibility interfere with the morale or the discipline of the army the Bill should be submitted to him, and his approval obtained. So far as the Secretary for War is concerned, that would remove every possiDle objection against the procedure which is provided for in the Bill, or against that which is proposed in my amendment. I am sure that upon consideration the Minister of Justice will consider it desirable to make an amendment of that kind, whether he adopts the provision contained in my proposed amendment or not.
Just one word as to the certificates. I see that my hon. friend has left certificate C in the same form in which it was when the Bill was before us on a previous occasion. I suppose that is because he is providing that the affidavit shall be on the back of the envelope, by which the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery will be able to tell to what electoral district the voter is alleged to belong. But that eliminates altogether any inquiry by the person making the affidavit as to whether the man is really a resident and entitled to vote as he alleges. The only thing the officer has to certify to is the name of the man, and the rank and name of the corps in which ne is serving. He is not compelled to make an inquiry-	'


Charles Joseph Doherty: Has the hon. gentleman read the whole affidavit?


William Pugsley: I am not sure that 1 have. By reason of the kaleidoscopic changes that have been made in the Bill from time to time, almost from
4	p.m. hour to hour, it is impossible for one to be absolutely sure that he has read every line of it. To what does my hon. friend refer?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certificate C provides that the officer shall certify that " according to the best information at my disposal I believe that the statements made in the affidavits are true;" and one of the statements in the affidavit is the statement as to the man's place of residence and his qualifications. The 'objection taken the

other day was that the affidavit was not put on the hack of the envelope, and I was quite willing to recognize the force of that. This certificate has not been changed in the kaleidoscopic changes that have taken place in this Bill, as the hon. member says. This is just as it was. It is -simply completed by the fact that the affidavit is on the outside. As to the changes that have been made in- the Bill, they have been made because, as I said at the outset, I wanted to avail myself of every suggestion that it was possible to meet; and it does not strike me as the most courteous way of recognizing one's efforts in that direction to have these mere or less sneering references to the fact that this Bill has been changed, especially as it has been- changed only by virtue of an earnest desire to meet every suggestion that could from any point of view be looked upon as reasonable.


William Pugsley: I do not think I was sneering at the efforts of my hon. friend. I was simply stating facts. By the changes he has made my hon. friend admits that the Bill when first brought down was very objectionable indeed. My hon. friend yesterday afternoon had a B-ill distributed which contained certain changes. I looked that over. Then this morning another printed Bill was distributed, eliminating the changes that -had been made in the previous printed Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: One change.


William Pugsley: And a most important one. Therefore, I think I am fairly correct iin describing as kaleidoscopic the many changes that have taken place in so short a time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I accept the explanation.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend claims great credit for showing a sincere desire to meet our views. Is it not rather that he is showing a desire to get a perfect Bill? Certainly he should not be willing to have a bad Bill simply for fear he might meet our views. All that we are trying to do is to make suggestions for remedying the striking defects in the Bill as originally presented to the House. Some of us believe that the whole thing is wrong. But I believe that the majority of us on this side of the House, probably all of us, would like to see the Bill go through if it were possible to give the soldiers votes in any reasonable manner. Speaking for myself, I am anxious to have the Bill go through provided the proper safeguards can be thrown around the
[Mi-. Doherty.]
voting; but we should remember that it is proposed to give votes to men whose only qualification is that they shall have resided thirty days in this country. In the case of ordinary elections most of the provinces require the voter to have resided in this country for -a period of at least twelve months. We should be careful to see that the expressed will of the people of Canada who are compelled to vote under the present law, and subject to all the safeguards which surround the voting, is not defeated by bogus ballots which may be put in, or by ballots marked by people at the front who have no right to vote. Unless proper safeguards are provided, the ballots which come back may not be the genuine ballots of the soldiers who marked them, and consequently would not express the real view of the soldiers at the front.
I think my hon. friend has met my objection as to the form of the certificate; although it does seem to me that to make that certificate oi any value it ought to be expressly provided in the statute that it shall be the duty of the person taking the affidavit to make inquiry and satisfy himself that the statements contained in the affidavit are true. But the statute seems to be entirely silent as to that, and considering all that the officers at the front are required to do, one can very well understand that they might easily sign the certificate without realizing that they were expected to satisfy themselves as to the truth or otherwise of the statements made in the affidavit.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The minister stated that a soldier had to ask for the ballot. I find in line 7 of para. 2 of sec. 2 that the commanding officer

shall provide with a ballot paper and envelope each volunteer under respective commands entitled to vote and who makes the affidavit in form B before such officer.
There is nothing in that to say that the soldier shall have to ask for a ballot to entitle him to vote. I confess that after listening to this debate for a day or two I cannot see what objection the Government would have to the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). All we ask is that this vote be absolutely fair as between the two parties. I see no reason why the Government should refuse to make it fair. It struck me that if there were two commissioners appointed, who might have these officers as their subs, or whatever you might call them, and whose duty it

would be to see that the vote was properly and systematically carried out, it would be possible to take a fair vote. One of these commissioners could be appointed by each party, and that would do away with the ill-feeling and protests that are bound to arise under this Bill. It is all right to talk about the officers being perfectly honest.
It is all right to say that to-day, but if tomorrow it does not suit my hon. friends opposite they will say the opposite.


William Humphrey Bennett: What do you say?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As far as I am concerned, the officers are reasonably honest, just the Same as the rest of us, but no more so and no less so. When it comes to election time we know that there are a great many people who, while they will not do business in a dishonest way, will at least smile and pass along something that they call smart at election time. I believe that things sho'dd be done in elections just as they are in business-absolutely straight, no matter where it is or when it is. In this case the minister thinks we are a little suspicious *n this side of the House I am not naturally suspicious, but I confess that I do not like to have voting done for me under the direct control of a strong partisan, even if he is an officer, on the opposite side of politics. I have no doubt that my hon. friends on the other side of the House will make the same objection exactly to a strong partisan who might be on my side of polities. It will work both ways. Why refuse to put the Bill in as good a shape as possible by providing for the appointment of two or three men whose business it will be, if you are going to worry the soldiers about voting, to see that this voting is properly done. That applies more especially, in my judgment to the Bermuda soldiers. The Bermuda soldiers are no more on active service than the soldiers in Ontario. They are simply garrison soldiers and there is no difficulty in sending a commissioner there to see that the voting is properly carried out. There is nothing I can possibly see to hinder that being done in reference to the Bermuda soldiers; nor is there any difficulty in reference to the soldiers at the front. If the War Office will allow you to have these men vote at all they will allow you to send commissioners there to see that the vote is properly taken. They may not allow it at all. I do not know anything about the rules of the War Office. It seems to me ridiculous for you to ask men, who are over
there fighting for the Empire, to bother their heads about voting. That is the last thing I would dream of if I were in their places. But if you are bound to have it done why not have it properly systematized and looked after in order that it may be fair to all parties? The soldier would be the last man to suggest that he should be allowed to vote in such a way that when the votes come back to this country there will be nothing but protests and lawsuits over the voting and that is what this Bill means if it is allowed to go through in its present form. Why not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John? It is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. There may be suspicions on the other side of the House as to my hon. friend's suggestion but I do not see in what way they are justified. We are asking for no party advantage whereas the Bill gives my hon. friends opposite a very great party advantage. Personally, I see no reason why the men in Canada should not be allowed to go back to their homes to vote if they are within a reasonable distance. The minister has arranged-and I think it is very much better than it was before-that the voting shall be carried out under proper supervision at the places where these men are at present drilling. In Ontario the distance is not so far and the expense of carriage is not so great that the men should not be permitted to go to their respective homes to vote. With reference to men from the West, the voting can be done as the minister proposes in the Bill. Why not adopt, for those in Bermuda and in Europe the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John and also why not adopt what my hon. friend suggested this morning- that there should be a small committee of three from the other side of the House and two from our side to put this Bill into such a shape that we can all agree upon it and let us get it passed if we are going to pass it. The 'minister says that we should go over the Bill and pick out the clauses that we disagree about, and that a small committee can be appointed to consider them. That only wastes time, because the basis of the Bill is the whole thing, and the basis is as to how these men are going to be allowed to vote both in Europe and here. Once that is arrived at the other clauses would not cause much trouble to the House. If my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is in earnest in desiring to go on with the Bill why does he not accept the proposition of my hon. friend from St. John and offer

to have a commission appointed that will arrange the details and see that the vote is carried out properly and, in the meantime, appoint a small committee of the House to get the thing worked down to the best form and all agree on it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to the last
observation of my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I have endeavoured to explain the reasons why I do not think the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John is acceptable or feasible. They may or may not carry conviction to the mind of the hon. gentleman, but, of course, they will be no stronger if I repeat them. In regard to his reference to a small committee, I have intimated my willingness, not to I'efer to a small committee that suggestion, but that the matter be referred to a small committee if something "on the line of the plan which I endeavoured to outline this morning be acceptable. I understood from the response of the hon. member for St. John that it was not acceptable; so I do not quite see what is to be gained by going to a committee with a suggestion, which, from our point of view, is not acceptable, and when the principle which I would be disposed to carry out is not acceptable from the point of view of the hon. member for St. John.


William John Macdonald: Is clause 4, which provides for the appointment of scrutineers, to be considered as part of the Bill we are now considering?-


Charles Joseph Doherty: That clause was drafted for the purpose of submitting it to the leader of the Opposition, with a view of seeing how far it carried out what I understood to be a suggestion made by him, and contrary to what I contemplated it was included in the reprinted Bill. As an alternative to that clause, the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) was put forward, and for reasons that seemed to me and to my colleagues to be sufficient we did not feel that we could accept that suggestion. On the other hand the suggestion I outlined this morning which was in some respects in line with that clause, does not appear to be acceptable to my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) and to other hon. gentlemen opposite, and, therefore, it does not seem useful that we should appoint a small committee to consider two suggestions in regard to each of which part of the committee would go in, having arrived at a conclusion that it

would not accept the suggestion of the other part.


William John Macdonald: Is the minister open to consider a proposal by which a clause should be inserted in the Bill which would guarantee supervision of the voting in some way by representatives of both political parties?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there is any reason to suppose that would be satisfactory, I would be very glad to consider it.	It
might be possible that there should be appointed two commissioners, one representing each political party, who would have the power of scrutineers, with the further power of delegating this power to such persons as they might select, and that the persons so selected should be entitled to be present at any voting and to perform the duties that might be performed by the representative of a candidate if the vote were taken at home. Of course, there would have to be a provision that the absence of these scrutineers would not nullify the proceedings; it would be for the parties to use their own diligence to provide scrutineers.


William John Macdonald: Provided sufficient
notice were given?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would be the business of these commissioners to keep^ themselves informed. I do not think it would be possible to impose on the officers who might be called on to take the vote the obligation to notify the scrutineer every time.


Charles Marcil: A day might be fixed for the taking of the vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would consider that
absolutely impracticable.


William Manley German: How could you have the scrutineer present?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not asking to have the scrutineers, but I think tliere might be some advantage in providing scrutineers, and if that would meet the view of hon. gentlemen opposite in any degree, I would be glad to accept it. If it is considered not desirable to have anything at all because you cannot get as perfect a system of scrutineers as you could get in Canada at an election, then I cannot conceive of a system which would be as perfect as the system we have here.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why not let the commis-sioneers take the vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We may have 50,000
men-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You will not vote them
all one day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have given my reasons why I do not think it possible that the commissioners could take the vote, and I do not see the usefulness of my discussing that matter over and over again. When you get into the position when an officer commanding 250 men or thereabouts is in the position of a returning officer, and you afford to the representatives of the party an opportunity to select a scrutineer from among these 250 men, and you provide that these two men would be legally entitled to be present when'voting is going on, I think you will have gone as far as you can. It will be for the diligence of these scrutineers and for the good faith and camaraderie which we must count upon to exist among officers and men in the same company, to so arrange matters that so far as convenient it would be possible for these men to be present when the votes are being taken. I am not here to press that upon hon. gentlemen opposite, but it has been suggested that there is lack of supervision under the provisions of this Bill, and if a proposition along these lines would be considered to be an improvement from the point of view of supervision, I would be glad to co-operate in putting it into shape.


William Pugsley: Would the minister be
willing to provide that it shall be the duties of the officers, in whose presence the ballots are to be marked, to notify as far as possible these commissioners or scrutineers, so that they should have an opportunity of being present? Otherwise it would be simply a farce to apply what was intended to be a safeguard, and then have the voting done and the ballots returned without the scrutineer knowing when the voting took place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My feeling with regard
to the officers whom we are asking to do this work is that we are not imposing this work upon them. They need not do it if they do not want to do it, and I quite realize that we cannot force them to do it. Under the circumstances I am not disposed to ask them to do anything more than is necessary because we have to count upon their goodwill in this matter in a very large measure. The very things that make it difficult for the scrutineer to be present at each of the polls make it equally difficult for the officeT to give notice. Is it not fairer that the
scrutineer, who is the representative of a party, should do the running around in order to find out when it is necessary to be present, than that you should impose upon the officer the obligation of keeping track of the scrutineer to see that he is present? Do we in this country say:	Mr. Deputy
Returning Officer, if the scrutineer chooses to go out and be absent, you will send for him before you take a vote? In this country the right of a candidate is the simple right to have a representative, although of course he knows when the polls are going to be held, and the candidate, if he chooses, will send the scrutineer to the polling booth and take chances on his diligence and attention. If for instance my scrutineer is taken suddenly ill on the morning of the election, the law does not ask the deputy returning officer to stop until he gets my scrutineer to the polling booth.


William Pugsley: The scrutineer knows
the day and the hour of the election.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, he knows the day and the hour of the election. I do not know how often it is necessary for me to argue that conditions at the front are not going to be identical with conditions in Canada. It is a surprise to me that hon. gentlemen should find it necessary to point out so frequently things that are perfectly obvious, such as that things are going to be different at the front, when we all know that. What I am willing to do, so far as it depends upon me to do it, is to accept any proposal or suggestion foT making it possible for the parties at their own diligence to supervise the voting, and it does not seem to me to be so difficult a thing as it seems to be considered by some hon. gentlemen. What strikes me is that after the scrutineer is appointed, hon. gentlemen do not think that he ought to make some diligence. He is there as the representative of a party; he is given full power to watch and go around and see when votes are to be taken and inquire; but hon. gentlemen seem to think that nothing is up to him; but that we must go to the officer, who is acting purely because this law asks him to enable people to vote, and impose on him, because we make scrutineers possible, the necessity of his running after the scrutineers. For my part, in pointing out the sort of suggestion that I am prepared to accept, I think I have gone as far in reason as I can go in the direction of endeavouring to secure fairness, and I do not think it is possible for me to go further without creating a situation where you are going so to embarrass this voting

as to make it practically impossible to have the voting carried on.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am quite prepared to give my hon. friend credit that he is willing to go as far as he can, but he has given a very severe blew to the Bill. He realizes himself that we have no control and no power ever the men who are entrusted with the carrying out of this legislation. In this country we cannot compel a man to become a returning officer or a deputy returning officer; but when a man accepts the position, we can compel him to do what the law says that he shall do. My hon. friend takes the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John that we should have scrutineers, but he realizes himself that scrutineers will be of no avail and can do no good for the purposes we have in view, if they are not notified as to the day on which the polling is to take place. The minister says: I am powerless; I cannot prescribe any duty to the officer to whom I am entrusting the polling. That shows exactly the weak point in this Bill, and that is why the minister should have accepted the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John to create a commission with power to take the vote. Here we are putting upon the statute book a Bill which, when it becomes law, simply gives a pious recommendation to the commanding officers that they should do right; but if they do not choose to act, we have no power over them.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend the minister is making a general proposition, in regard to the voting which is to take place outside of Canada, which is not based on an accurate knowledge of conditions in the places in which the voting is to take place. There is no reason in the world why the men who vote in Bermuda should not vote on a certain stated day under regular conditions, with scrutineers and parties notified, because they are under peace conditions; they are not doing anything in Bermuda except mounting guard, and their votes could be taken without the slightest difficulty.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The same as in Ontario.


William John Macdonald: Yes, and the same as at Halifax. The same thing applies to the men at Shorncliffe and the other places in England. The men there are drilling; they go through the regular routine of preparation every day, and by proper arrangement all the men in England could vote on one particular date. When you come to the men on the continent, I quite agree

with the hon. Minister of Justice that you get into an unknown land, because no one can tell what is going to happen, and our control over the officers who are to take the ballot becomes entirely chimerical. The Minister of Justice, however, having gone so far in stating his position, must recognize the absolute necessity and the fairness of the representations of both parties as to the actual casting of the ballots in Bermuda or in England; otherwise his proposition is of no value at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not making a
proposition; my proposition is the Bill as it stands.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend
knows that it is quite apparent to the House that the general proposition which he has submitted to us to enable soldiers in Bermuda or in England to vote in this peculiar way is most anomalous, and that there is no reason why some solution of the problem should not be submitted. My hon. friend is willing to have a discussion on his Bill as a basis, but he does not want to discuss the proposition put forward by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) of having a commission to undertake the carrying out of the vote at the different places. Being desirous of having satisfactory legislation enacted as regards this matter, I would point out in all sincerity that my hon. friend is failing to recognize the conditions existing in Bermuda, which I pointed out when the right hon. the Prime Minister was here, because there is no doubt that in Bermuda you can take the vote just as it is provided in subsection 5 to take the vote of volunteers in Canada. The difficulty and uncertainty to which my hon. friend refers as arising as to the colonel or commanding officer taking the vote, need not arise in Bermuda. Why should not we have scrutineers and other persons to carry on the election properly? And the same in England. If he is candid -and I believe he is-and wishes to find some solution to tois problem, why not take the suggestion he himself has made of providing reasonable scrutineering of the votes in these two countries? When you come to dealing with conditions at the front, we are left unguided by military authority. I think the Minister of Militia should have been in the House to discuss this Bill. He has seen active service, and can tell us how far this will be likely to work out properly. I do not know much about military matters, but I think there are many military informalities in this

Bill, and that it will not work out. When you cross the Channel you come to an unknown land so far as the affairs under this Bill are concerned. What will or will not take place there, neither the Minister of Justice nor anybody in the Government, nor any one in this House, knows anything, nor can he predicate anything of the conditions there. But, before you cross the Channel, while you are still in England, there is no reason why the vote should not be taken under reasonable scrutineering. As to the hon. gentleman's remarks about this matter as a proper subject of discussion, I think he should be willing to extend the basis of discussion, and not seek to confine us within the narrow limits he has indicated. I am satisfied that he cannot make a reasonable answer to the distinction I draw between these soldiers who are not, and those who are, in the field of active hostilities.


Charles Marcil: There is nothing to
prevent an election meeting being held in Bermuda and the electors informed-or misinformed-as to the issues involved in the election. They could hear any member of the Cabinet who wished to address them. They are nearer to Ottawa than are the electors of Vancouver. You go from here to New York overnight, and twenty-four hours after that you are in Bermuda. When you get there you find conditions absolutely identical with those under which it is proposed soldiers shall vote in Canada. But the unfortunate part of this whole matter is that the people of Canada have no assurance that the vote will be taken in France and Belgium. The Prime Minister has told us that the War Office is the centre of our whole operations, and of everything being done in consultation with the War Office. But if we had assurance that the vote woulu be taken in Belgium and France we would have more satisfaction in discussing the Bill. We are discussing a Bill that may never be acted upon, and that, I think, is lowering to the dignity of the Parliament of Canada. When we enact laws we should be in a position to know that they will not become a dead letter but will be respected and carried out. We order the officers in France and Belgium to take this vote. But they are officers of the British army and not under our control; if the rules of the army prevent it, the vote will not be taken. This will not redound to the credit of Parliament and of the people of Canada. This is one very weak point in the Bill. Another is that no assurance is given us that the vote that
we receive here will be the vote cast by the soldier. I have no doubt that, taken on the whole, the Canadian boys in the army will cast an honest vote guided by the best information which the circumstances allow them to receive. But we have no assurance that the vote so cast will get here. With these grave objections to the Bill, I think this whole discussion is to be regretted. It is another cause of dissension between the two parties that hitherto have been united on all that is necessary to help the Empire in this crisis. We have voted all the money asked for, and have done everything in our power to strengthen the Government's hands. And now, in the dying hours of the session, when we are about to depart for our homes, we are called upon to enact a law here which may be a dead letter and which bears the suspicion of partisanship and may sow the .seeds of partisan dissension in the ranks over there. For all these reasons, I hope the minister will reconsider his decision and will accept the proposal of the'leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for St. John city, so that we may have the satisfaction of knowing on the night of the general election should it take place-for the Prime Minister told us a few moments ago that we may or may not have an election during the war-that the vote given by the boys at the front is the free expression of those entitled to* vote. By accepting	this	suggestion,	the hon.gentleman	will	close	this	chapterin our history	with	an	agreementon both	sides of the	House,
which, I earnestly believe, will be satisfactory to the Canadian people and to the boys who represent us at the front.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Minister of Justice seemed to think that I was asking questions that had been answered this morning. I was present this morning, but in my place in the House I do not hear the hon. minister when he is talking in his ordinary tone of voice. I did not hear this matter explained this morning. I desire to make this statement in case he should think that I was trying to badger him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may possibly be alone on this side, but I desire to express myself as being opposed to this Bill in its entirety. I am already on record in that way. I do not make excuses, but declare myself whole-heartedly opposed to this measure. My first reason for this opposition is that this Bill is for a purpose which

cannot be carried out. The minister would have saved himself a great deal of trouble, and would have saved this House and this country a great deal of unnecessary confusion had he said to the zealous partisan, whoever he may be, who proposed this Bill, that the measure could not be allowed to pass. He should have told that partisan that the soldiers of this country have no right to demand or expect any greater rights or privileges than the soldiers of the King in the Mother Country, and that whatever provisions or conditions govern the soldiers of the King in the Mother Country and at the front, the like conditions and provisions should govern the soldiers of the Dominion who cast in their lot with them. Speaking for those who agree with me, I say that we are satisfied with the advancement of the Mother Country so far as civil privileges are concerned. Our most advanced legislation in this country is based on similar legislation in the old land, and when any person advocating this new theory comes to the minister and tells him that the intention is to go further than the old land has gone in such a matter as this, he should say:	The officers and soldiers of His
Majesty in the old country have no vote while the ivar is on and they are at the front, and therefore our men should not expect to have votes. One W'ould almost have thought that these considerations would have resulted in the killing of this idea before it got into the shape of a Bill. I can only speak of conditions as they exist in the province from which I come. In Nova Scotia no man may cast a ballot unless his name is duly entered upon the list, after having gone through the regular processes outlined by statute of the local legislature. The franchise is established by the law of the province of Nova Scotia, and that franchise is accepted by the Federal Parliament. This Bill, however, provides an entirely new franchise. It extends the franchise in Nova Scotia beyond the limits which have circumscribed its operations in that province. We have no manhood suffrage in Nova Scotia; every man who gets his name on the list must have certain property or income qualifications. These considerations are, however, thrown to the four winds of heaven by this proposed legislation, and the name of any person who can make the declaration that he was 30 days in Nova Scotia before he enlisted is put on the list. Although we do not know who he is, wrhere he came from or anything 
about his antecedents, he is given at once the same voice in the government of the province of Nova Scotia as the bast citizen in the province. This is a striking departure from the practices to which we are accustomed in Nova Scotia, and it is a departure which should not be undertaken without asking the people of Nova Scotia something about it.
As I read this Bill, the votes are to be placed in one bag, without any special arrangement; the votes for the man in British Columbia are put in the same bag as the votes for the man in Nova Scotia, and no system is provided by which they shall be separated. There is no certainty that the votes will reach their proper destinations, and when they do come to be counted in any particular district, the names are not on any list and no objection can be taken to the ballots. There is no assurance of fair play or justice, so far as I can see. The minister places great confidence in the officers of the militia; out of the honesty of his own heart and mind, I suppose, he thinks that they will be incapable of doing anything dishonest in connection with the recording of these votes. Having had political experience with some of these officers, I think that I would not be doing the minister justice if I did not say something about those experiences. I had occasion less than three months ago to go to an officer, a well-to-do man, whose name it is not necessary that I should mention-a man who would impress the minister, if he saw him, as being a gentleman in whose hands he could safely place the disposition of the ballots. I had occasion to say to him: " Colonel, there is a man in your ranks whom I want as a witness in the Supreme Court in the province of Nova Scotia. I have served a subpoena upon him and paid him his conduct money; I want you to let him go to the court when the day arrives, in order that he may give his evidence." If this man had been desirous of doing the right thing, he would have said: " I see no reason why the man to whom you refer should not be allowed to go to the courthouse and give his evidence." Without hesitation, however, he said:	" No, I will
not allow him to go and give evidence." I had to accept his decision, but I got an order from an officer higher up, at Halifax, directing that the man in question should be sent to the court under an escort. The Minister of Justice; would naturally think that the colonel would instantly have complied with this order-but nothing of the kind. He put

the soldier in the hands of a squad of partisans, stole him out of the country to Newfoundland, and kept him there for ten days. The sitting of the court lasted eleven days, and it so happened that the man, thinking that the court was over, came back on the tenth day. He put himself in hiding, but we sent the sheriff after him, brought him into the court-house and heard his testimony. That is my experience with officers in whom the Minister of Justice has such great confidence. This incident occurred during the progress of the war, when, if there is any honour on the part of these officers, it should be manifested. An officer who is capable of stealing a witness away and keeping him out of the country until he thinks that there is no further chance of his testimony being obtained would not hesitate for a moment to change a ballot or to do something which would prevent the ballot from getting to its proper destination. These are reasons which have influenced me to a great extent in opposing the proposal to put the fate of myself and my party friends in the hands of officers of that kind. The officials are at present on the other side of the water in connection with military matters. Since they left this country some of them have been disqualified yin the Supreme Court of the province of Nova Scotia; they have been proved guilty of fraud and corruption. They are at the front to-day, and if the services of any. men are required for the purposes of an election, these are the very men who will be picked up, because they have had experience in elections when they were at home. The minister, will, therefore, pardon men from Nova Scotia if they do not care to have their political destinies placed in the hands of such men, or that such vast and extensive powers should be vested in such men by Parliament.


William Manley German: This section deals with the affidavit which the voter has to make. The affidavit may be made out in one of two ways. The first form is:
That, within the six months immediately preceding the date when I was enlisted... in the military forces of Canada the last place in which I was resident.
was so and so. And then he has to say that he is not qualified to vote in any other electoral district. I should like to call the minister's attention to the fact that a large number of these volunteers will not know whether they are qualified or not. Except in the western provinces, a man has to be on the voters' lists to be qualified, and 1
am sure that very few of these volunteers will know whether they are on the voters' list or not. The alternative form is
That immediately before I was enlisted .. . in the military forces of Canada I was qualified to be a voter at
such and such a place. Suppose that a voter chooses the second form and swears that he is qualified to vote at a certain place, and that when the affidavit comes back it is found that his name is not on the voters' list, would that vote count?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I have already answered that question. It would appear to me that that is a man who has succeeded in polling his vote by swearing to a false oath. I take it that he would be in the same position as a voter in Alberta who falsely swears that he is a qualified man, and whose vote is taken. I do not see how we could do otherwise than accept such a vote as my ihon. friend refers to subject, however, to the parties having the same remedies that they have in regard to a vote in this country which has been polled upon the strength of a false oath. They would not have any remedy, as I understand it, by way of prosecution for perjury.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I should like to call the minister's attention to an objection that I made this morning. The more I think of it the more impossible I think it will be for the commanding officer to carry out the duties that are imposed upon him by this Bill. A commanding officer has 220 men under him


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is there a commissioned officer who has a smaller unit under his command than a company or a battery or a squadron?


Hugh Havelock McLean: There is indeed. A
company is now divided into platoons under lieutenants, and these platoons are divided into sections under the command of sergeants. Our present company 5 p.m. consists of only 48 men, and is commanded by a captain, three lieutenants and four sergeants. The war service unit is much larger. The platoon now is quite as large as the ordinary company in Canada. Under this Bill the commanding officer has to fake these affidavits, and certify that the document was written in his presence and that he believes the statements made in the affidavit are true. When all these preliminaries have been gone through the commanding officer gives the

soldier a ballot, and, after it has been marked, puts it away in a box. I say that it would not be _ possible for a commanding officer to go through all these preliminaries and take 200 odd votes in a day. For instance, a commanding officer on active service may be under operation orders and be ordered to take his company and put out skirmishers or advance guards or to occupy a certain position. He may be away three or four days or perhaps a week with that particular section. On the other hand, he may have what is called a field officers' day, that is, he has regimental duties to perform in connection with his regiment. This takes him completely away from his company. So it seems to me that it would be impossible for these commanding officers to do this work and their military duties as well. Then there is a provision that if the commanding officer is unable to do the duties imposed by this Bill, the next senior officer shall do what is required. But the next senior officer may be away. It is quite possible that in the Princess Patricias and other regiments, even in the regular service, companies may be commanded by non-commissioned officers during a big engagement. I want the minister to understand that I am not making any criticism except what I consider fair and honest criticism. I should like this Bill to pass if I thought the machinery was effective and workable. I would just ask the minister to consult either with the Minister of Militia or with General Gwatkin, who is the first military member of the Militia Council, and has had a great deal of experence on active service, and take their advice as to whether this is practicable. I should like to see authority given to the commanding officer to appoint any officer he sees fit in case he himself is unable to perform the duties imposed by this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not quite grasp that it would be an improvement. As I understand it, if the designated officer' cannot act, the officer next in rank would act; and if the section does nflt make that perfectly clear we could modify it so that if the commanding officer is prevented from carrying out the work it may be done, not necessarily by the man next in rank, but by any man between the company commander and the junior lieutenant.
But I shall be glad to make that perfectly clear. The difficulty I apprehend is overcome when we provide that if the the officer commanding cannot do it the next in rank available shall do it.


Hugh Havelock McLean: The words are not clear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will be glad to make them clear. In order to avoid a difficulty which has been raised it is necessary that we shall cut down the number of men handling these ballots to the smallest number. The hon. gentleman heard the objection that was made this morning on the ground of the number of men that was going to handle these ballots. It is desirable to keep these numbers down as low as we can. While it might be true that if the whole 250 men came to vote on the same day it might be difficult for the captain, or major commanding the company, to take the oaths of all at the same time, we are not fixing the day and we are not limiting the hour. Provided that these ballots are taken in time to get back here for the polling day the officers and men voting can suit their own convenience as to the marking of the ballots and under these conditions I would have hoped that it would have been possible for the votes of a company to be taken by the commanding officer, or failing him, by some other officer who would take his place. I do not like the suggestion of his naming somebody. I think it desirable to have it so operated that it will never be a matter of personal choice in determining what officer shall act. It would seem to me to be the fairer way to let the performance of the function attach to the office held by the officer performing it and let it work out in that way so that there will not be a selected officer who might be a partisan of one party or the other. So long as we leave it to operate in such a manner that the officer takes over the duty simply by reason of his military rank it leaves the chances perfectly fair and equal to both parties as to what the partisanship may be, if there be any partisanship. I would rather see it designated as the officer commanding or the officer next in rank, without reference of the choice to the man who is not in a position to do the work himself. My hon. friend believes that a company is too large a unit for us to try to take the vote under one officer. I understand that a company is divided into-


Hugh Havelock McLean: Four platoons, each of them under a lieutenant.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That there are two parts and that these two parts are subdivided.


Hugh Havelock McLean: That is the present system in Canada. There are eight companies

in a regiment, but on active service we have only four companies. They are like double companies and each of these companies is divided into four platoons just like separate companies. They are almost as large as some of the ordinary regiments we have in camp. These platoons are again divided into sections under the command of a sergeant.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then if we depart from the commanding officer and go a step further we will have to multiply by four the number of officers that may be handling this matter and we will get it down to a situation where each officer who is handling it will only be concerned with 50 or 60 men. It would hardly be necessary to provide an officer for every 50 or 60 men to take these ballots. I would have hoped that it would have been possible to provide for a company through one officer and really
1	would think, in view of the fact that he does not have to do it all on the same day, (that we might trust to his carrying it through. However, I will think about it and if it is necessary I will be willing to go back to the section.


Hugh Havelock McLean: There must be some practical method of carrying this thing out on active service and it would be well for the minister to consult with the Minister of Militia, or with men who have had experience and who would be able to suggest a practical solution of the objections that have been made.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall do that before the Bill passes its final stage. In the meantime I beg to move that subsection
2	be amended by inserting in the sixth line, after the word "batteries," the words ''or of any line of communication or administrative unit." That is to meet an observation made by the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens this morning.


Hugh Havelock McLean: That will cover it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was pointed out by the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens this morning that "companies, batteries and squadrons" would not cover the army service corps and the medical corps and my hon. friend the Minister of Militia suggested these words.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg also to move that subsection 3 of clause 2 be amended in the eighth line by inserting after the word, "batteries," the words, "or of any line of communication or administrative unit."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William John Macdonald: Does the minister provide any form of affidavit to be subscribed to by the officer who takes the vote?


Mr DOHERTY:: There is no provision in the Bill requiring an officer to be sworn. It occurred to us that we could not prosecute for perjury committed over there, and we have to rely on the moral security. If you swear the officer who takes the vote then somebody would have to administer the oath to him, and you would have to swear that official, too, and finally, unless we got all these men swearing each other we would have to get back to some official on whose certificate we could rely, that the man was sworn. I would be disposed to believe that we can rely on the officer discharging this duty faithfully without exacting from him the additional moral security, because that is all it would be, of his taking the oath. I am not disposed to resist the suggestion, if it is insisted upon, that we should provide a method to swear the officer; but then, of course, we will have to swear the man who swears the officer, and so on, until we get back to some one who is authorized to administer the oath under our own law.


William John Macdonald: There is no reason why the officer in Bermuda or in England should not take an oath before some functionary, and we can provide in this Bill to that end. With every sincere desire to see a workable Act, I wish the minister would see his way clear to provide for the different conditions which exist in Bermuda and England from those which exist where the fight is going on. All a man has to do in Bermuda is to walk down the street on that beautiful island on a sunny day, drop into the office of a notary public, and subscribe to the affidavit.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would the idea the hon. gentleman has in mind be met if we inserted a provision requiring the officers to be =worn before any person authorized to take oaths in the country in which the officer is?


William John Macdonald: It ought to be made imperative in Great Britain and Bermuda.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to an amendment, if the hon. member desires it, to provide that the officer shall be sworn before an official competent to take oaths in Bermuda or Great Britain.


William John Macdonald: I think my suggestion is a reasonable one. I.want to say a word now about another matter, and not in any critical sense. We have heard a great deal



to-day about trusting the officers, but yesterday all day we listened to hon. gentlemen on the other side justify their report in regard to the shoes which were furnished to our soldiers, by basing all their speeches on the contention that the report of 75 or 100 regimental boards throughout this country were not worth the paper they were written on, because, forsooth, these men who were sworn to defend their King and country were going about and holding these boards for the mere purpose of getting new boots for the soldiers. It is ratheT a sudden change in doctrine for hon. gentlemen opposite to come down to-day and tell us that we should trust these officers. Certainly I am prepared to trust them the same as I would trust any other decent citizen of this country, with proper limitations; but we have to make laws here for all classes. I regard the military * officers as honourable men, and I regret that hon. gentlemen opposite did not so regard them yesterday. If the minister will only go a little further and give us a sane amendment to this law, so as to provide for a sane system of voting in Great Britain and in Bermuda, he will be carrying out to a legitimate conclusion my proposition to which he has given assent.


William Pugsley: It does seem to me that when we are discussing what duties shall be imposed upon military officers, we should have the Minister of Militia present to give us his opinion as to which is the most satisfactory way to have the voting -conducted. We are proposing to exact from officers of the British army certain duties of a civil character which may materially interfere with the performance of their military duties, and surely there is no man who ought to know better than the Minister of Militia and his advisers the best mode to adopt in these circumstances. The committee would like to have the opinion of the Minister of Militia on what is a technical military matter, and in respect to which the Minister of Justice would not be supposed to know.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understood the technical question involved was, how many men had to be dealt with in a company and in a platoon, and I am satisfied to take the information which the hon. member for Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean) has given us on that point. I understand that in a company are included four platoons, and that therefore we -should consider the desirability of going to the officer who commands a platoon -thereby multiplying by four the number of officers. Between the major who commands a company and the officer who commands

a platoon, there is no officer who commands any other section of -a company. I had an impression that in a company there were officers under the commanding officer, each of whom commanded half of the company.


Hugh Havelock McLean: There is the major, then the captain, -and then the four lieutenants each in command of a platoon, which is divided into two sections each under the command of a sergeant. The minister is quite right in regard -to the formation of our regiments in Canada, which are divided into eight companies, but the new British system divides the regiment into double companies, and instead of a captain, there is a major in command.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have said to the hon. member for Queens and Sunbury that before this Bill goes through its final stages, I will consult with the military authorities, with General Gwatk-in in particular, and I shall be very glad to come back to this House and impart the information I received, and if it leads to any action being thought desirable, I shall be glad to take it.
With regard to the amendment that the hon. member for Pietou desires, I have tried to put- it into suitable words. It would apparently properly come at the end of subsection 4, and this is what I understand ought to be -added:
The officer receiving affidavits and taking votes under the above provisions shall in the United Kingdom and in Bermuda be sworn faithfully to perform his duties before an official authorized to administer oaths under the laws of the country where the said duties are performed.
Does that meet with the idea of the hon. member?


William John Macdonald: There are notaries
public in both England and Bermuda.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the notary public is an authorized officer he would come under this.


William John Macdonald: It would be better to put:
Before a notary public or some other official authorized to administer oaths.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Even in England or in Bermuda we are creating a situation where, if by any accident it should happen that officers cannot find this qualified officer, all our machinery will fall to the ground. Will the hon. member consider giving in the alternative the right of the officer being sworn, because we are dealing with a company officer, before the commanding officer?	*


William John Macdonald: If the duty is done by a subordinate, the commanding officer could administer the oath.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are dealing with company officers, so that there will always be above them a higher officer. I beg to move that subsection 4 be amended by adding thereto the words:
The officer receiving affidavits and taking votes under the above provisions shall in the United Kingdom and in Bermuda be sworn faithfully to perform his duties before the regimental commanding officer, a notary public or any official authorized to administer oaths under the iaws of the country where the said duties are performed.


William Manley German: What right has the regimental officer to administer an oath?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The right given by this Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: But we have no such power. What power have we to confer upon soldiers who are in England or in France the right to administer oaths?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I have already pointed out, we shall get from this only the moral sanction of the oath. It may be more amusing to hear the statement more frequently, but that is the fact which I concede. As for myself, I have already expressed the view that I entertain upon that subject. I was willing to believe that without the oath we might have trusted the officer.


William Manley German: Might you not just as well do away with the oath altogether, because you are binding the conscience of no one by any oath that you are prescribing in this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not understand how the lion. member appreciates conscience, but I think that the average man, if he takes an oath, binds his conscience just as much if he takes it before a non-qualified man, if he takes it in Bermuda or in England or in France, as he does when he takes it in Canada before the most solemnly constituted officer that can be conceived of. I would have been satisfied with my confidence in the officer's honour; but, to meet the objection, I am willing to go further and give the guarantee of the officer's conscience, and I should think that at least we may feel satisfied in resting on the officer's conscientious respect for the oath by which he binds himself upon all that is most sacred to all of us.


William Manley German: As far as I am concerned, I believe it is as binding on a man's 157i
conscience to tell the truth whether he takes an oath or makes a statement. But the hon. gentleman has brought into this Bill what he says is an oath, which is not an oath in the accepted meaning of the term. A man's statement should be just as binding though it were made under this so-called oath before this officer who is appointed to administer it.


William John Macdonald: The proposition the
minister is good enough to accept was made by myself in regard to the officers who take the votes in Great Britain and Bermuda. In so far as this amendment provides that the oath should be taken before a notary public or other authorized individual, there is no doubt that in such a case perjury could be assigned. But the minister has added a clause which gives the commanding officer the right to administer the oath. To that alone, I think my hon. friend could take exception, though I think that something might be said in regard to the right of the commanding officer of a regiment in England or in Bermuda to administer the oath with the duties assigned to him under the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They administer oaths in other respects.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BUREAU:: On a former occasion I
called the attention of the minister to the words " I vote for the Government," " I vote for the Opposition," and " I vote for the independent candidate." Has the minister made up his mind to change these words from " Government " to " Conservative," and " Opposition " to " Liberal?" On a former occasion the hon. gentleman said that he used the terms given here because they were the terms recognized by law. But " independent candidate " is not recognized by law; yet that does not say that a man could not cast a good vote for the independent candidate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a general principle that words are to be read in law according to their ordinary significance. I think " independent " is well understood. I said that " Government " and " Opposition " are recognized by lan a">d will not be misunderstood. But if you make it " Liberal " or " Conservative " I do not know how you are going to find either as a matter oi fact or as a matter of law an exact definition. For this reason, which I pointed out on previous occasions, I think it better to keep the terms we have.


Jacques Bureau: There is not a man who is going to cast his vote but knows what is meant by Conservative party and Liberal party." If he does not know it, he is not fit to vote. I do not see why " Government" and " Opposition " should be used in our ballot; it has never been done in our elections, and it is not a fair way to put it. Under this Bill, questions relating to the parties are referred to the discussion of the leaders of the party. I think we should use in this law words that are intelligible and will allow the soldier to give an intelligent vote. As to the independent candidate, I think that should be left blank. The candidate who does not belong to either of the great parties may be a Labour candidate, a Socialist candidate, or a Nationalist candidate, for all I know.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But a fourth alternative is allowed under which the soldier may vote for the individual. The independent candidate I would understand to be the one who presents himself as independent as between the Government and the Opposition, whether he counts himself a socialist or gives himself some other title.


Jacques Bureau: Suppose there were two Conservative candidates. I suppose the interpretation given to the word " Government " would be in favour of the candidate who was chosen by the convention. And the same with the Liberal candidate. But suppose that the Conservative candidate who has not been chosen by the convention has a majority of votes of those who heard him and saw him, but when these soldiers' votes come in, the votes of men who have not seen and heard, they give the majority to the other candidate. In that case, surely these votes should be eliminated and let the election go to the man who was the choice of the people.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Subsection 7 deals with that.


Jacques Bureau: That provides that the leaders shall elect. I say that is unfair.


William Pugsley: I would call the attention of the minister to the case of the two constituencies in Halifax city and county, and St. John city and county. The voter in either of those constituencies would be entitled to two papers and entitled to vote for both a Government and Opposition candidate. I do not doubt that many hundred voted that way in the last election. In Halifax there must have been many who voted both for the Prime Minister and for

my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). Has any provision been made for that point?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not see how we
can find a method, so long as the men have not sufficient information to justify their picking out any special candidate. While the soldiers may not have official information as to who the candidates are, it is probable that in respect of many constituencies the soldier will know, just as all of us know, who are going to be the candidates. The soldier who has that information will be able to avail himself of the opportunity afforded him to vote for a particular person. Under the provisions of the general act a man is entitled to vote for as many people as there are candidates to be elected, and if a gentleman voting -in the constituency of Halifax should vote for two persons upon that ballot, if they prove to be candidates his votes would be counted. But the person who has absolutely no knowledge of who the candidates are, and is unable with absolute certainty to vote for them by name, has the right to vote for the Government or for the Opposition.


Mr PUGSLEY:: How about giving him
two ballots, and permitting him to split his vote, if he wishes to do so?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is this difficulty; if you hand the man two ballots and he does take his chance on voting for a particular person, we may get two votes for  he same man. I think that the persons who would wish to vote for one candidate on one side and one on the other are not very numerous.


Charles Marcil: If a voter votes for a
particular person who does not happen to be a candidate, is the vote lost?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The vote is lost. I do
not think we can avoid that; it is the general provision of the law.


Frank Oliver: I want to have as thoroughly established as possible whether or not the Government has any authority over the officer, whoever he may be, who will handle the ballots in Eurorv-'. in England or in Bermuda.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All these paymasters are our own officers. What we were discussing the other day was the question as to whether we can convict a man in this country for a criminal offence committed outside of this country. The right hon. leader of the Opposition expressed the
APRIL 13, 191 &
opinion that we could not, and I am not prepared to dispute that opinion. Our officers, going into the Imperial army, are officers of the Imperial army for the time being, but when they return to this country, as we hope they will, they will return as officers of our miliary organization. I am not prepared to say what remedy may exist for any misconduct on their part during their absence. I am willing to assume that we shall have no recourse under the criminal law for infractions that they may commit under this particular Act. I do not want to say, however, that we have absolutely no authority that may be exercisable sooner or later by reason of the position which they will have occupied.


Frank Oliver: I want to find out exactly what the measure of our authority is. The exercise of that right on the part of the soldier, that we are taking some trouble here to give, depends on the conduct of the officer who is to act as returning officer. I think it has already been stated-I only want to have it absolutely defined-that that officer acts, or does not act, as he sees fit, and we have no remedy.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that we can by any means within our power give ourselves a method of compelling a man in England to do something. We are empowering these officers to do these things. I do not want to go further than this: I am willing to concede that we cannot deal with these men under the criminal law in respect to things that they may do outside of this country. These men are, of course, in a peculiar position, and it is not very easy absolutely to define what our powers may or may not be in the direction of increasing their obligations. While they are, for the purposes of military operations, under the control of the Imperial authorities, they are still our officers, and are paid by us. I am not prepared to concede that, so long as we limit ourselves to things that have no concern in actual military operations, our law is not effective to create obligations with regard to them, nor am I prepared to-day to undertake positively to affirm that it is. While I am not asking the committee to pass this Bill upon Ithe expectation of its being carried out by our creating legal obligation, I think we can safely rest assured that when the Parliament of Canada empowers these officers to do these things-and, so empowering them, in effect requests them-in the great bulk of cases the officers will be willing to carry out what they are empowered to do, to put themselves to such pains as may be involved in doing the things that are prescribed here in order to enable the soldiers to register their votes.


Frank Oliver: It is an absolute fact that it is entirely optional with the paymasters whether they act or not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can make no further
declaration than I have made.


Frank Oliver: From what the minister
has said I am bound to conclude that that is the fact. We are passing this law ostensibly to give the soldiers the right to vote, but we are not providing the means which will ensure their having that right. I will admit that it is because we cannot.


William Pugsley: We can by appointing
a commission.


Frank Oliver: But as this Act stands
we cannot do it. Therefore, let us be honest and say that we are holding out to the soldier a prospect which after all depends not upon our legislation, but upon the officers in charge.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We can create an obligation just as strong, just as powerful, just as binding upon those gentlemen as any obligation we can create upon a commission appointed by statute. There is absolutely no possible distinction in that regard. I have said that I was not conceding that we have not the power to create legal obligations upon these officers over there. I have conceded, without doing any more than conceding it, that we cannot punish the men for a criminal offence committed outside of this country. I have further stated that it was not in reliance upon our imposing a legal obligation on the officers that we proposed this measure, but that we did believe that they, being empowered to do this, and Parliament putting before them the desire of the people of Canada, would carry it out. I have not affirmed that these are absolutely legal obligations, nor have I conceded that they are not. I do not think it is useful to discuss that now. But I am quite prepared to say that the obligation is just as incumbent upon them as would be the obligation that we, by a statute, would seek to impose upon a commission to perform duties outside o* Canada.


William Pugsley: I beg .to differ from the minister, and differ entirely. In the present Bill the minister is proposing to invest certain functions in gentlemen over whom this Government and this Parliament have

absolutely no control. These officers are a part of the British army and under the absolute control of the British War Office, and they have no right to do a single thing outside of the performance of their military duties except with the consent of the War Office or of the officers who are in command of the forces at the front; and no one knows that better than, my hon. friend. But suppose that a commission such as was proposed in my amendment was appointed by the Governor in Council. Those commissioners accept the office, they accept the responsibility, and they accept the remuneration which goes with the performance of their duties. Surely that is a different case from imposing obligations upon gentlemen in England or France or Belgium or Bermuda over whom this Parliament has no authority whatever. The moment those commissioners accept the office they become the'officials of this Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But how will they carry out their duties except through these same people?


William Pugsley: With the consent of these people.
Mr. DOHERTY; And so does our Act.


Mr PUGSLEY:: No, this Act imposes the duty upon these people in England or France to perform the obligations. On the other hand the commissioners would go to England, France or Belgium as the appointees of this Government, and they could be sworn in in Canada to discharge their duties. They would perform their duties with the consent of the British authorities. That is an entirely different case. In the case of a .commission you have a proper tribunal, a tribunal appointed by this Government, accepting office under this Government, and undertaking the duties of the position under this Government. In performing their duties on the other side they would be doing it with the consent of the British authorities and of the officers who are acting under the War Office. Under a commission you have a properly constituted body, but in the other case you are professing to impose duties on persons over whom you have not a shadow of jurisdiction.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, before recess I was speaking of the great advantage [Mx-. Pugsley.]
there would be in appointing a commission, as proposed in my amendment, over the proposition of imposing upon the officers -of the British army duties and obligations which they might or might not be willing to discharge. I am satisfied that the proposition of a commission is a very desirable one, and if the minister will nox accept it I beg to give notice that when this Bill comes to its third reading I will move this amendment, and also to strike out the sections which will be unnecessary if the amendment is adopted. The minister stated when the Bill first came before the House that one of the strong justifications for the Government in taking up the measure was that New Zealand had already provided similar legislation, but a careful examination of the New Zealand Bill shows that they did not presume to do any such thing as is sought to be done by this Bill. They did not presume to cast upon the officers of the British army the duty of seeing the ballots marked, taking affidavits and certifying to papers which were to be sent back to that country, but they provided that, in the case of soldiers who were on duty in New Zealand preparing to g-o to the war, they should be allowed to vote by marking their ballots before they left, and that if a general election came on, their ballots could be counted. They also provided that, in the case of soldiers who had left New Zealand as members of any expeditionary force before the passing of the Act, they should be allowed to vote in the manner prescribed, and they provided that electoral officers should be appointed out of New Zealand for the purpose of taking their votes. Section, 8 of the New Zealand Act reads as follows:
Electoral officers may be appointed out of New Zealand for the purpose of enabling any person to record his vote under this Act who is a member of any expeditionary force sent out of New Zealand before the passing of this Act.
This is exactly the same provision which is made by my amendment, with this exception, that this amendment contains a greater safeguard for non-partisanship because it provides that the electoral officers, which the commissioners would be, should be appointed upon the nomination of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition respectively. Otherwise it is the same. I* seems a strange thing, that modelling this legislation, as the Government pnetend to do, upon the legislation of New Zealand, they should adopt the course of imposing obligations upon the officers of

the British army which the Government and Parliament of New Zealand evidently thought was impracticable and unreasonable, and as (to the undertaking of which -obligations the Government has not the slightest information. The Minister of Justice has frankly informed us that he really *does not know whether the officers of the British army will perform the obligations. It seems a very extraordinary thing to pass this legislation, which may be for that reason alone an absolutely dead letter. The Government could easily provide the machinery, by the appointment of a commission, the members of which would be non-partisan electoral officers, and who could, with the aid of the regulations which they might make, see that the provisions of the Act would be fairly and honestly carried out and that all the soldiers desirous of voting would have a reasonable opportunity of doing so, and who would also see, and that is a most important thing, that the ballots which would be marked by the soldie-s entitled to vote would be returned to Canada and would actually be deposited. On the contrary, this Bill proposes to impose obligations on British officers which this Parliament has no right to impose. There is in the Bill a lamentable absence of ' those safeguards which one would suppose the Government would have had in mind in asking Parliament to assent to the Bill.


Frank Oliver: I wish to draw the minister's attention to the condition which results from the fact that, I think, we have agreed upon, that the officer who acts as a returning officer does so at his own option. He acts or he does not act, as he pleases. The purpose of the Bill is to give the soldier an opportunity of casting his ballot. That opportunity depends on the whim of the officer appointed; there is no obligation on him to take action and, as the minister put it, there is before him only an expression of the desire of the Parliament of Canada that he should act. Beyond that there is no authority or compulsion or obligation upon him. If I remember rightly, in considering the Bill at its earlier stage, the minister took occasion to say that a certain provision, which it was difficult to give effect to, w'as inserted so that there would not be a dislocation of the voting power of the country. We are making provision for the voting of the overseas contingents. We are assuming to make provision for the full number of the members of that contingent
to exercise their franchise. Ostensibly we are doing that. On the face of the Act we are doing that. We are placing this matter absolutely in the hands, under the control and at the option of the men whom we may name for certain positions which they are under no obligation either legal or moral to fill. It is only reasonable to believe that under these circumstances some soldiers will have the opportunity of voting and some will not. We . have no means of guidance as to what proportion of these will have an opportunity and what proportion will not. Surely, therefore, of necessity, under the conditions laid down in the Bill, there will be just as great a disarrangement of the volting power of the country as there would have been under the terms that my hon. friend objected to at the earlier stage of the proceedings. If we cannot do better than that, if we cannot be reasonably sure that every volunteer is going to have the opportunity of casting his vote, let us not claim that we are doing something that we actually are not doing. It may be that we are showing good-will, it may he that our intentions are all right, but unless we can do what we profess to be doing, let us not claim that we are doing it.
Let us admit that we have undertaken to do something that in the nature of things it is not possible to do. I submit to the minister that when the operation of any law cannot reasonably or measurably be assured it is more than doubtful whether there should be such a law at all. By giving unequal opportunity to one portion of our volunteers to vote while in fact denying to others the same opportunity we are not increasing the share of control of the affairs of Canada by the * volunteers as we profess, but we are endangering the reasonable result of a fair expression of opinion by the people who are not on active service. This cannot be the purpose of the minister, but it is the actual fact. I feel I would not be doing my duty if I did not set that view before the minister for his best consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The officers have been
referred to, and no doubt correctly, as British officers, but in the great majority of cases, if not in all, the officers dealing with our soldiers will be Canadian officers.
It may be possible that some of them may decline to act, but the effect of the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite is that because of the unwillingness of some of the offioers to perform mis duty this law might become ineffective in some instances,

that therefore we should not pass the law at all. Does anybody conceive that more than a small minority (if there be any at all), of our officers having this power conferred upon them, will refuse to exercise it? There is already provision in the Bill that if any officer designated in this Act is prevented from discharging the duty it may be performed by the officer next in rank below him. I would understand that to mean that if the officer next in rank below him was prevented from doing it, then the next below him might act. When we come to that section I shall put in words which will make my interpretation of that absolutely clear. I think it is a very weak argument, that because in some instances this Act may fail of its operation for want of good-will on the part of some officer, we should abandon entirely the project of providing votes for our soldiers on active service. I do not think that our authority over the officers on active service would be in any way enhanced or increased by our naming a commission, which commission would themselves undertake to deal w;th that same class of officers; we cannot delegate greater powers to the commissioners than we ourselves have.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister transfer his mind to the case of an ordinary constituency and ask himself would he consider it fair that, there being set off certain polling divisions in that constituency, it was optional with those who might be selected as deputy returning officers whether a poll should be held or not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If that condition should exist, would the hon. gentleman suggest as a remedy that we should disfranchise the whole constituency and give no one an opportunity to vote?


Frank Oliver: I am not suggesting that. The minister must admit that such a condition would be unthinkable, looking toward a fair expression of the opinion of people in ordinary circumstances, and is it not absolutely just as unfair in securing a full expression of opinion by the soldiers? While the individual citizen has the right to have his vote recorded, the whole body of citizens has also a right in the election, and that right is that the election shall be so conducted that there shall be no disarrangement of the general body of the vote, and that there shall be a full, and fair, and as complete as possible an expression of opinion of all who are entitled to vote. If the minister, in granting the right

to the individual, must take away from the right to which the whole body of citizens is entitled, he surely should reconsider his position.
His suggestion that my view was that if we could not vote all the men, we should not vote any, is hardly a fair statement to make. Under the proposal of the hon. member for St. John, whereby commissioners who would be under ' the authority of this Parliament would be in bodily presence on the other side of the water, these commissioners would have an opportunity of selecting officers who would be willing to act and whose consent they would have before appointing them, and therefore, although there would not be compulsion, there would be assurance that the action would be taken that was necessary to enable the soldier to poll his vote. That is the difference between the proposal made by the hon. member for St. John and the proposal of the minister, which is simply to issue an order to certain men that they shall take certain action, when there is not a shred nor tittle of authority to compel them to take that action or to lay obligation on them for the taking of that action. The minister has laid considerable stress on the idea that because this Parliament says that an officer should act as returning officer, therefore he is in some way not compelled, but made to feel that he ought to take the action that Parliament desires him to take. I do not look upon the matter in that light at all. The officer as well as the soldier is on the other side of the water for a certain definite, specific purpose, in the carrying out of which discipline is one of the first necessities. As regards action by the officer acting as a returning officer or acting as political agent, or a scrutineer,-because if you are going to have a returning officer you should have scrutineers as well-the large majority of officers will say: this is an undue and improper interference with the important business that we are here to attend to; we do not think the Government or the Parliament of Canada was well advised in imposing this duty upon us, and we decline to act. I think that will be the proper view to be taken by officers on the other side, and I believe it is the view that will be taken by a large majority of them, at any rate by those who have a full appreciation of the duties that they are there to fulfill.


William Pugsley: I would not take up any further time on this subsection were it not


for the extraordinary statement made by the Minister of Justice that the Government would have no more control over the commissioners, who might be appointed under the amendment which I proposed, when they reached the other side than it would have over the officers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that is the statement I made. I stated that we would have no greater control in any event over the men on the othqr side because it was exercised through commissioners than we would have by exercising it directly. We cannot give the commissioners a greater power than we ourselves have.


William Pugsley: That is putting the case a little differently. When my hon. friend uses the word "men," does he mean the commissioners and their delegates?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The people that the commissioners may work through over there. We can have no more control over them, because we have named the commissioners, than we can exercise directly.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is
entirely wrong. Suppose, for instance, that the commissioners go to France or Belgium. Surely they go there under an agreement with this Government to act as electoral officers or commissioners. There is a contractual obligation into which they have entered with this Government to discharge certain duties, and that obligation they are bound in law to carry out. Suppose they want assistance, they appoint delegates to act for them; they make contracts with these people so to act and to discharge the duties which are required to be performed under the statute. Does not that create as against the people so appointed a contractual obligation? Surely it does; but as to those gentlemen who are officers in the British army, some of them are Canadian officers or were Canadian officers until they went under the control of the British War Office, and the moment they go under that control, this Government has no control over them whatever. On more than one occasion in the House that has been the statement made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Militia. I remember early in the session I asked the Minister of Militia if he had received any complaints from England as to the separation of the units of the troops which had gone from New Brunswick. He said that there had been some correspondence, but that this Government had no control over the men
whatever; that when they landed upon the shores of England, they were absolutely under the control of the British War Office; and that they then formed part of the British army. The same statement was made again' by the Prime Minister, when the case of Col. Struan Robertson came before us, that this Government must not interfere; that there must be no divided authority. Yet this Parliament is asked to impose' an obligation upon these officers who are under the control of the War Office to perform civil duties for this Government in connection with the holding of the elections of this Parliament. Surely the position of these officers, as far as this legislation is concerned, would be entirely different from that of the commissioners, who had undertaken with this Government for a consideration to perform the duties of electoral officers under this legislation, and it would also be entirely different from that of the delegates whom the commissioners might appoint and who would enter into a contract with them. Take the case of the Acting High Commissioner in London, who is outside of the territorial jurisdiction of this country, but who is under the control of this Government, because when he accepted the office of Acting High Commissioner, he became bound under his contract to perform the duties which pertain to the office which he is filling. The same is true as regards the agent of Canada in Paris, who is out of the territorial jurisdiction of this country, but who is under a contractual obligation to perform his duties as agent in Paris. It seems to me that the case is not arguable at all. These commissioners would, as I have said, be like the electoral officers who were appointed under a contract with the New Zealand	Government
that	for	a	certain	consideration
they would discharge their duties. But, as my hon. friend from Edmonton points out, this Government is asking the people to believe that it is making arrangements to enable the soldiers to cast their ballots. If they are not arranging to do that, then they are doing a great injustice to many of the boys at the front. Though this is what they profess, yet the minister himself admits frankly

he is compelled to admit-that there may be cases in which these officers will decline to act and by reason of that the votes of the soldiers under those officers may not be taken. Whether there will be a large number or a small number in that position the minister is unable to give us any idea. In answer

to the hon. member for Edmonton, the minister says: Suppose some returning officer should decline to act, should decline to hold a poll, shall we therefore disfranchise the people? Surely, that is not a parallel case. The returning officer is not relied upon to act unless he has agreed to act; he gets a certain compensation for acting; there is a contractual obligation upon him. And I am inclined to think it would be the law- I think it is undoubtedly clear-that if for any reason a poll is not held-the judges would declare the election void and another election would have to be held. Talk as the minister may, he is imposing upon these officers duties which he knows they cannot be required to perform, obligations which he cannot assure the House they will carry out, yet he is making profession that this Bill will enable the soldiers to exercise their right of franchise. He believes that there may be cases. I believe there will be many, many cases affecting thousands of our soldiers-in which they will not be given opportunity to exerciee their franchise, whereas, if ho took the simple course of following the example of New Zealand, and appointing electoral officers, letting them go to England, France and Bermuda, letting them make arrangements for delegates and assistants to carry out the provisions of the Act, he would be able to give reasonable assurance to the Canadian soldiers that they would all have an opportunity to cast their votes.


Alphonse Verville: I do not rise for the
purpose of discussing any of the articles of the present section. As the Minister of Justice knows, I spoke a few days ago about granting the right to vote to others than soldiers. Every member of the House knows that there is a certain class, a class of labour men especially, who are deprived by their occupation of the opportunity of cast their votes. I refer particularly to the railway men. A year ago, I believe, a letter was presented to the committee and an argument was made in favour of giving these men opportunity to use their franchise which was kindly received by the minister and by the members of the committee. This year a letter was sent and an argument presented which also was well received by the minister and the members of the committee. It seems to me that while we are spending so much time in finding a way to give votes to the soldiers we should add a section to this Bill which would cover the railway men. Of course, everybody will admit that il these men are [Mr. Pugsle'* 7
sent to work early in the morning of election day, it is impossible for them to cast their votes. They are not like nearly all other classes whose occupation enables them to remain near their homes and within easy reach of the polling places. These men must be ready to take out their trains on schedule time, and it is absolutely necessary for the business of the country that they should fulfil that duty. They might be required to take away a train load of soldiers or a train load of munitions of war. They would thus be actually assisting in the carrying on of the war, and yet would be prevented from voting, while the soldiers would have opportunity to vote. The railway men tell me, and I accept it on their authority, that forty per cent of these men are prevented from polling their votes. I have a subsection to propose, which, I think, will overcome this difficulty. I think it should come in after subsection 4, and it might, if the minister wishes, be numbered 4a. I submit it in the form of an amendment and shall be glad if the minister will say whether he is in favour of it or not. He may say that it is a question of establishing the machinery to enable these men to vote. We have talked so much about machinery that it seems to me we ought to be in a position to organize machinery of any kind, especially for a purpose like this, which is to take the votes of people who remain within the country and not as in the case of the soldiers, to take the votes of those who are outside of the country. I do not know that I am absolutely in order in moving this amendment now, but I submit it in the hope that I am in order:
Railway conductors, railway engineers and brakemen, and all other railway employees, who are detailed for train service, shall have the option to cast their vote on polling day in the regular manner provided by law, or on the day before polling day in the following manner, to wit:
The railway employee, at any time between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening, shall present himself to the deputy-returning officer of the polling subdivision in which he is or may be, inscribed, who, in the presence of two witnesses, shall administer to him all the oaths required by law and shall then give him a ballot paper. The railway employee may thereupon mark the ballot paper in the usual manner provided by law and the deputy-returning officer Shall then place the same in the envelope, upon the hack of which shall be endorsed a certificate in form " c," mutatis mutandis, which certificate shall be signed by the deputy-returning officer and witnesses, and shall securely close the envelope. The .envelope containing such ballot paper shall then be sent by the deputy-returning officer by post to the returning officer, who shall open the envelopes and count the ballots, and in-

elude them in his returns, in the manner provided by law.
This is submitted as embodying the best way,to enable these men to cast their votes. Of course, there are many different ways by which it could be done, and this is not exactly the way proposed to the minister and the committee. While these are absentee votes, yet they are the votes of men who are in a position to know exactly who are the candidates in their several divisions. The letters sent to the committee a couple of years ago were signed, by 0. Lawrence, legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 200 Elgin street, Ottawa W. L. Best, legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers, 576 McLeod street, Ottawa; and J. H. Hall, legislative representative of the O. of R. C., Car-leton Hotel, Ottawa. My hon. friend will observe that the three men who signed that letter had a certain amount of responsibility on their shoulders. One represented the railway conductors, another the firemen and another the engineers. This demand must have reached a good many members of the House; I am sure that any railway man with whom they talked on the subject must have spoken of the manner in which railway men are handicapped on polling day.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would remind the
hon. gentleman that the title of this Bill is; " An Act to enable Canadians on active military service during the present war to exercise their electoral franchise."


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. member is speaking to his amendment.


Alphonse Verville: Am I out of order, Mr. Chairman, in moving this amendment?


Albert Sévigny: The subsection actually under discussion is subsection 4. If the hon. gentleman is in order in offering an amendment, I do not think that this is the proper time to offer it, because subsection 4 deals with the manner in which the vote shall be registered by the soldiers.


Alphonse Verville: It seems to me that
the proper place to introduce such an amendment as I suggest is immediately between subsections 4 and 5.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. member for Maisonneuve is moving to add a section, 4a, to the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Personally I have no
desire to insist on any point of order; I
am quite willing to answer what tlm_ hon. gentleman has asked. We are dealing with subsection 4 of section 2, prescribing the details of how the soldiers shall register their votes under section 1 and the first subsection of section 2. The amendment which the hon. gentleman proposes is hardly an amendment to the method by which soldiers shall exercise the right of voting. If the hon. gentleman wants to introduce an other section, it ought to come at the end of section 2. However, perhaps that is not material. The hon. gentleman has pointed out, very correctly, that the railway men have pressed for a method by which they may exercise their franchise. He has also very correctly said that I have every sympathy with their endeavour to have a means provided by which they may vote. I may point out in the first place, however, that the remedy which they ask for differs totally and entirely from the method suggested by my hon. friend. I have had many communications on the subject; the matter was dealt with in the committee, and I feel confident that I make no mistake in saying that they made no suggestion oi this particular method of voting that is now asked for on their behalf by the hon. gentleman. If we should provide a method for them to vote, I certainly think that the method they asked for would be very much more effective than this. The committee went into this question in connection with the Dominion Elections Act generally, both last year and this year we gave it a good deal of consideration. The committee, as a whole, came to the conclusion that it was not a practicable method. I am not sure that if I had been alone on that committee I would not have felt it possible to have worked the matter out, but, as the hon. gentleman knows, when we came to deal with the Dominion Elections Act generally at this session, we did not, save as regards one or two separate and distinct things, endeavour to deal with that matter at all. If the hon. gentleman really wants to help the railway men and all other persons who are interested in a further recognition of the right of people who cannot present themselves at the polls during the polling hours to have their vote, it would seem to me that the wisest course to follow would be to aid us in putting forward this first measure for this particular class of men who are away from the country and who are prevented from voting, not because they are attending to their own work, but because they are attending directly to the work of the public. I am sure that railway

men-, would be the first to recognize the difference between the two classes of voters. One is the class of men who, in the exercise of their employment, find themselves prevented from voting. That is a case with which I have the very greatest sympathy, hut at the same time it is not an absolutely analagous case. The hon. member has witnessed in this House the strong feeling of antagonism that has been shown to the idea of trying to provide a method by which people can vote otherwise than with all the formalities in the way which are provided for the public generally. That feeling we have to overcome. We are having, as the hon. member witnessed, some little difficulty in overcoming it, even in this exceptional case of ithe soldiers. Does not the hon. gentleman think that he will do more to aid the cause of those who, for other reasons, seek to have another method of absentee voting adopted, if he will help this Bill to go through, and allow us to demonstrate, in the face of the apprehension and fears that have been expressed, that you can safely provide for absentee voting? I certainly would not favour the adoption of the method suggested by my hon. friend. It is a method that, so far as I know, the railway men have not asked for; it is one which makes it absolutely out of the question that candidates or their representatives should be notified or have any opportunity of being present, It is quite true that that may happen, out of absolute necessity, in the case with which we are dealing, but there is no absolute necessity for it in the case which the hon. member brings forward. The best way to help all persons interested in the recognition of the right of those who cannot present themselves at the polls to vote is to profit by this particular case, which presents a peculiar claim to the exercise of the right, and to allow the results of this proposed legislation to demonstrate the feasibility and practicability of providing for absentee voting. I am satisfied that the passing of this measure and its successful operation will be the most effective method of helping to meet the desire of the railway men.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that last year, when the committee was considering amendments to the Elections Act, the railway men applied to have their case considered; and this is a letter which I understand was addressed to my hon. friend as chairman of the Committee.
Ottawa, March 11, 1914. Hon. C. J. Doherty, Esq.,
Chairman and Member of Committee on the operation of the Election Act,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
On account of the peculiar nature of their work which necessitates them being away from their home terminal on election day, a large percentage of railway men in train service are disfranchised and we would request that your committee who are considering amendments to the Election Act, take into consideration the adoption of some plan whereby a much larger percentage of railway employees could avail themselves of the privilege that rightly belong to all good citizens, namely, that of using their franchise.
Therefore we desire to submit the following proposition for your earnest consideration: That at all railway centres or divisional points the polling be extended to two days by placing the ballot box in charge -of some responsible person who will be stationed at some convenient point the day prior to the day on which the election is to be held for the purpose of allowing those employees to vote who might be away from home on the regular election day. If there is more than one railway running into an electoral district with more than one terminal, have a separate ballot box for each terminal.
The only difference which exists between the amendment that has just been submitted to the House, and the suggestion contained in the letter addressed to my hon. friend last year, is that the latter suggested that the voting should take place at divisional points, whereas the amendment before the House suggests that the men should vote at their place of residence either on polling day or the day before. This point, however, is not material. If the Government is not disposed to consider the amendment, I would observe to my hon. friend that last year when he and the committee presented to the railway men the difficulties and objections which existed in connection with having a separate law for any class of the community, these reasons seemed satisfactory to the railway men, and they did not press their views further. But this year, when they found that the Government was making a separate law for one class of our fellow citizens, who, whatever may be the reason, will not be able to vote as the rest of the citizens will vote, the railway men naturally came to the conclusion that the same privileges should be allowed to them; and that is the reason for their demand. My hon. friend says:	Oh,
let us pass this law, and it will help the railway men in attaining their object. If it is reasonable to have special legislation for one class of the community what objection can there be to giving the same privi-

leges to another class, which for one reason or another, is also prevented from polling in the regular way? The soldier is at the front doing his duty, but the railway man is doing his duty also, and it is just as important to the community. It is true that he is earning his living in the discharge of that duty, but every citizen ;n the community is working for a living, and every one is performing his duty to the state. It seems to me that my hon. friend is well justified in presenting his amendment ; but if the Government will not accept if that is the end of it.


Albert Sévigny: I must remind the
committee that we are discussing clause 2 of the Bill. This amendment has been introduced as a new section to the Bill, to be known as 4a, and I therefore think it should be presented after we have studied section 4. If it is the desire of the House to discuss this amendment at this stage I have no objection, but I think it is out of order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not wish to question the ruling of the Chairman, neither do I wish to insist upon it, but I might just point out that it is perhaps not of material importance whether we discuss it on section 4 or on the present section, for we have already discussed it, to some extent.


Albert Sévigny: Suppose this amendment was adopted; where should I put it?


Wilfrid Laurier: After section
4.


Albert Sévigny: If it is the desire of
the committee to discuss the amendment now, I have no objection.


Frank Oliver: I thinK the proper time to discuss the amendment is after we dispose of section 3.


Alphonse Verville: As we were discussing
almost every clause of the Bill I thought it was perfectly in order to present my amendment; however, I am perfectly willing to withdraw it and present it at the proper time.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the minister will not accept it, that disposes of it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps it is not quite
fair to say that I do not accept the amendment, but I hardly think it comes within the scope of the Bill. As the matter has been taken up I should just like to say this, with the permission of the Chairman: The committee that reached the conclusion that it did with regard to the difficulties in the
way of providing this form of voting for the railway men dealt with this matter last year, and also considered if again this year, but not in connection with this measure. Hon. gentlemen will remember that the committee was originally constituted to consider the Dominion Elections Act and the Controverted Elections Act, and that later on this question of votes for. soldiers was specially referred to it. Now I cannot quite accept the view of the right hon. gentleman, that because we are making this measure in regard to the soldiers it alters the situation with regard to -the railway men. I have the advantage and pleasure of knowing a great many railway men, and perhaps the men who have shown the most active and intelligent interest in this movement to get votes, and I am satisfied that I shall have their endorsement when I say that they themselves will not pretend that their case, from the point of view of the cause that prevents their voting, is analagous to that ot the soldier. We thought-and I say_ it notwithstanding my very high respect' of the railway men of this country-that the soldier stood in a peculiar position as compared with every other class of 9 p.m. people who are staying at home; and we are trying to deal with that very special and peculiar position. For myself, I am as sincerely in favour of meeting the desire of the railway men in this regard as my hon. friend who has made this amendment, and I say that without any reflection on his (sincerity. But after what we heard pro and con in the committee, and in view of the manner in which the matter was viewed by the committee, and particularly when I think of the difficulties which we met in this House when we did come with a minor proposition, but which looked to a certain extent to facilitating the voting of the railway men-I refer to the proposition to open the polls at an earlier hour in the day-in the face of all those facts I cannot think that one can do better service to the railway men and others who desire that we should arrive at a system whereby a man who cannot actually present himself at the polls may vote, than by giving the system support and a fair trial in this special case, when the opportunity for bringing it into force is furnished by the very special and peculiar position of those on whose behalf it is asked. Under the circumstances I cannot feel otherwise than that the suggestion of this amendment cannot be looked upon as something that can be expected to be acted upon in conne tion with this Bill. I do not think

we should embarrass this measure, when we are ihaving such very great difficulty in having it assented to by this House, by introducing into it at this stage, and without notice of any kind, a proposal in regard to which opinions might be held on lines other than those which would naturally be expected to bear on a Bill such as that before the House.


Alphonse Verville: I hope the minister will believe that I had no intention other than to give the right of voting to railway men. I do not see why this would prevent the present Bill from passing. It has nothing to do with the passage of the measure. It has been stated time and again that the Government are not willing to pass class legislation. Do they characterize legislation of this kind affecting the interests of the railway men as class legislation? We are passing class legislation to-day. Of course, it is for the soldiers but it is class legislation to a large extent. It may be class legislation in the proper sense of the word. If you are going to give soldiers now at Montreal or Valcartieir votes you must pass class legislation for the purpose because there are soldiers at Valcartier who could go to Quebec and other cities and deposit their ballots in their own polling places. These railway men are not in a similar position. They may be away down at Riviere du Loup, and if they want to vote for any hon. gentleman opposite or for myself they cannot do so because they cannot return to their homes in time. If I had been in the House when the Bill to amend the Dominion Elections Agt came up I would have moved this same amendment. I have heard time and again in this House this argument about class legislation. I am sorry to say that whenever we bring a labour measure before the House it is said that it is class legislation. What is there that is not class legislation? Every private Bill is class legislation. Only public Bills are not class legislation, but private members of the House have no chance to put through a Bill during the session because the rules of the House are made to prevent public Bills, introduced by private members, from being passed. The rules are such that you cannot reach a public Bill on the Order Paper. I repeat that private Bills are class legislation, and to facilitate their passage certain days and hours are set apart for them. It is only the Government that can introduce a public Bill and ensure its passing. I know that members on the other side 
of the House, as well as on this side of the House, are not satisfied with the present [DOT]conditions because, while a public Bill may be introduced by a private member and placed on the Order Paper, it is wiped off at the end of the session. I claim that my amendment will <not prevent the present Bill from passing; far from it. It is just my intention to add to this Bill a certain clause which will enable these railway men to record their votes. It may be said that there are other voters who cannot reach their polling places on election day. It is always possible for men, in the majority of cases, to remain for two or three hours in the city where they reside in order to cast their votes. Commercial travellers can do that. With the railway men it is impossible. Fishermen can go out a little later in the morning or come back a little earlier in the evening, but a train must go on schedule time. The lives of the people are at stake, and there are other considerations which make it necessary that running schedules must be maintained. Let me repeat that it is not my intention to prevent the passing of this measure. I am. not-afraid of the measure. My only intention is to give these men a chance of casting their votes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not claim to be any more sincere than the hon. gentleman; so it is evident I did not question his sincerity. I am sorry to hear this legislation spoken of as class legislation. Our soldiers are citizen soldiers, and all classes of people are represented amongst them. I have reason to know that the railway men in particular are represented among our soldiers. They have merged themselves into this great body of men that should not be described as a class in any sense at all. It is composed of people gathered from all ranks and all occupations, and I am sorry to hear this legislation spoken of as class legislation.


Alphonse Verville: I only spoke of those who are in Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Those in Canada represent all classes. We can hardly speak of them as belonging to any particular class. I do not want to stand on any technical matter at this stage, when a point of order is raised. I am willing to say quite frankly what I think. This Bill was introduced for a specific purpose, and it required to be preceded by a resolution, which resolution could only be presented to this House after it had been communicated to His Royal

Highness the Governor General and had met with his 'approval. The resolution covered the providing of votes for soldiers. I do not think it would be competent for us to introduce into a Bill of that kind a further extension going beyond what the resolution covers.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that the Minister of Justice did reflect upon the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville).


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I seemed to do it I want amply and completely to withdraw any reflection. I did not intend to make any reflection.


William Pugsley: What I understood the minister to say was that the amendment was introduced for a purpose.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I immediately corrected that.


William Pugsley: What I would understand the minister to mean was that my hon. friend was not sincere in speaking and that he was seeking to introduce this amend-[DOT] ment for effect.
borne in mind that the only object of pressing this Bill in the dying hours of this session, and in the face of the many amendments which the Minister of Justice has himself made in it, with a view of removing its defects, is that the Government believes that there may possibly arise before another session of Parliament a psychological moment when they would hope with advantage to throw the country into the turmoil of a general election. Surely it is poor consolation to the railway men to say that the Government may spring an election on them after this Bill is passed, but that next session or the session after, or five years hence, or some time before another general election, the claims of the railway men may be taken up. Call this Bill what you like, it is a Bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act, and it is quite proper that an amendment along the lines suggested by the hon. member should be added to it; the title makes no difference, the title can be changed. My hon. friend (Mr. Verville) only wants provision made so that the railway men may vote at convenient places in Canada under the terms of the present Dominion Elections Act and under the present franchise, and he asks for no important changes at all. On the other hand, this Bill is seeking to make provision for marking ballots in foreign countries under circumstances where it seems impossible to surround the marking of the ballots with the safeguards which the people of Canada have always insisted are to be provided in the case of an election. The Minister of Justice said he was sorry to hear the hon. member refer ito some provisions in this Bill as class legislation. I do not understand there is any ignominy attached to the words "class legislation." All that means is, that you are enacting special legislation which will only apply to one particular class of our citizens, and does not this Bill do that? It provides among other things that so far as the soldiers on active service in Canada are concerned there shall be a special franchise for them; that the law requiring a residence of six months or twelve months as is the case in the different provinces shall not apply to the soldiers who are in Canada, but that a residence of thirty days gives them the right to vote. Surely that is legislation applying to a class of our people who have enlisted for active service. There is no insult in the use of the word "class;" all it means is that it applies to a particular


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just because I had used these words, and because it occurred to me that such a suggestion might come from somebody, I hastened to add that I did not mean to say that there was any such purpose on the part of the hon. gentleman. I hastened to correct myself by saying that there might possibly be a purpose, but I certainly added what I have said, and if I did not I want to do it now. 1 want to put it as clearly as I can that I did not intend to suggest anything that would lead any one to conclude that I did not attribute perfect sincerity to the hon, gentleman who moved the amendment.
Mr. PUGSLEY; I am very glad indeed to hear the minister making that explanation, because I think every member of the community will recognize that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) is at all times earnest, sincere and watchful over the interests of the working people. And, as delegations from the railway men have been before this Government on different occasions urging that better opportunities should be given them for casting their votes, 1 can very well understand that my hon. friend felt it his duty to avail himself of this opportunity to move the amendment. The Minister of Justice has told the hon. member that it would be better to let this Bill pass as it might help to forward the object he has in view, but it should be

portion of the community, and (that is all my hon. friend (Mr. Verville) said. If this Bill is to go through this session, I believe there would be no difficulty at all in having the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Maisonneuve added to it.
We are getting along fairly well with the Bill, and if the Minister of Justice can only come a little way towards us and agree to these reasonable amendments, which would make this Bill workable, and which would surround it with safeguards which would assure an honest vote being -taken, we could pass the Bill in a very short time. But if the Minister of Justice shows that he is magnificently stubborn, and that he cannot be made to budge once he makes up his mind, and will not try to improve the Bill unless we all agree to his suggestions, then, of course, it makes it more difficult to consider the measure. Although, of course, at the same time I do not suggest for a moment that the members on this side of the House will not help it along as well as we can.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I desire to express my deep sympathy with any practical effort towards securing for railway men an opportunity to exercise the franchise. We have no more intelligent class of voters in Canada than are the railway men, and I would be very glad to do anything I could to bring about a means whereby all railway men would have an opportunity to vote. I have lived for many years in a railway city, and I have regretted at every election to find that large numbers of our very best citizens are deprived of the opportunity of exercising the franchise. In my city we have for thirty years been trying to think out some practical means for securing to the railway men an opportunity .to vote, but we have never been able to hit upon a plan that did not seam to have so many objections to it that it was found to be impracticable. I quite admit that the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve would enable a larger percentage of the railway men to vote than is the case now when the election is confined to one day instead of two, but his proposition does not at all meet the situation.


Albert Sévigny: In my judgment, this discussion is out of order. This amendment is not within the scope of the title of the Bill, and the committee has no power to deal with it nor have a discussion on it on the question under discussion at the pre-

sent time. Therefore it is my duty, after having consulted my best advisers, to rule the amendment out of order at the present time.


William Pugsley: Only at the present
time? [DOT]
Will the minister state why the envelopes are to be sent by registered post by the-Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and not by registered post from abroad?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The- reason why we did not speak of registered post from abroad was that tha arrangement with regard to registration on the other side was of such a nature as might expose the ballots to very considerable delay.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Frank Oliver: If I might be permitted,
I want to say as regards subsection 4, that it is really a very loose way of handling the ballots that is suggested. The subsection says:
The envelopes containing the ballot paper shall then and there in the presence of the voter be placed in a bag or other suitable receptacle, which shall be carefully kept by tha said officer, and securely closed.
That is the time when the ballot should be placed in a sealed package, the package to be sealed in the presence of the voter and with a notation in some form as to who has voted, so that there will be a permanent record. There is just as great necessity for the ballot to be sealed from the hands of the original returning officer to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery as there is from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the returning officer in the constituency. I would very strongly urge that my suggestion be adopted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The reason why we usa the words "securely closed" instead of the word "sealed," is that it was pointed out to us that in many circumstances it might be difficult or practically impossible for the officer to produce sealing wax to seal up the parcel; after all, sealing is only one method of carefully closing this bag or receptacle, and we are making the requirement that it should be securely closed. If other words can be suggested to be added there that will impress more the necessity of secure closing than the words used, I shall be very glad to add them, but I would like to avoid the word "sealed" simply for the reason I have given. If in addition to "securely closed" we should say "fastened or bound together so that it cannot be opened without that being per-

ceived," or something of that kind, I shall be very glad to add it. I was under the impression that subsection 4 had been passed. I do not want, however, to object to the suggestion of the hon. member.


Frank Oliver: I am well aware of that, and I am quite willing to submit to the rule; but I am urging that this is the most important stage in the proceeding, and that there should be a more definite wording. Over and above the sealing of the package, which I still think should be done, the returning officer should make a list of the votes cast and put into the package, so that there will be a permanent record of the votes cast and of the number of the votes cast.


William John Macdonald: I do not think the attention of the minister has been called to the fact that there is no provision in section 2 whereby any soldier who may not be able to read or write will be able to cast his vote. There must be some men in that position, and section 2 is the section that provides the manner of voting.


William Manley German: The Dominion Elections Act provides for that.


William John Macdonald: Yes, but this is a Bill giving the instructions for the parties who are going to take the vote. Where you have a section like section 2 which deals with the whole voting under these exceptional circumstances, the expression of the method means the exclusion of the more general method contained in the Dominion Elections Act.
I would also like to point out that this section provides .for the volunteer who desires to vote:
In the presence of the said officer, but in such a manner as not to disclose to the officer how he is voting. I
I would like to know how this is possible. The Dominion Elections Act provides that a person who wants to mark his ballot shall go into a separate apartment away from the officer and scrutineers and make his mark there, and there is absolute secrecy. There cannot be absolute secrecy here. Fancy the situation in which a vote of this kind will be taken. You have the commanding officer of the company or squadron, as the case may be, in a tent at the front, and you have his table in the centre of .the tent. Where is the soldier going to go in that tent for the purpose of marking his ballot so that the officer cannot see what he is doing?
These two points seem to me to be entirely weak. If the wish is to preserve the secrecy of the ballot, you are trying to provide an impossibility, in view of the conditions under which the vote would be taken. In the second place, in my judgment, the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act would not apply to the illiterate voter, for all the directions are contained in the Bill, and this would not be covered without some express declaration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a clause in the Bill later on providing that this is to be read-


William John Macdonald: I know that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not wish to discuss that, but if there be any doubt about the applicability, I am prepared to have the Bill amended so as to expressly declare that section 166 of the Dominion Elections Act shall apply, that. being the section applying to those unable to write. Now, with regard to marking the ballot I believe that to require a separate compartment and so on for the marking of the ballot would be to require the impossible. But, for instance, I venture to say, that as the hon. gentleman sits there at his desk, it would be quite possible for him to mark a ballot in such a way that I, standing here, could see him mark it and yet I could not see for which candidate he marked it.


William John Macdonald: This is a very big chamber.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And fields are large.
I understand that the battle front in Europe extends for miles and miles. If necessary, some of that space could be utilized. I think it is not difficult so to arrange matters. so that one can be seen to mark a ballot without it being seen for whom he marks it. I am not now in a position to quote exact instances, but I may say that this is the method provided for in many systems of absentee voting. As to the "suggestion of the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean) that a list should be inclosed, I am not going to deny that there would be advantages in having a list made. But we have to remember that if we surround this with too much formality, we shall defeat the very purpose of the measure. After all, the making of the list and inserting it in the package, so far as I can see, would have only this advantage, that if somebody had voted and was entered as one of a certain number on the list and the corresponding ballot did noit turnup you would



know that the ballot had disappeared, which would be an indication that the par-pel had been tampered with. But this would hardly be conclusive, and you would hardly on that basis, reject all the ballots, for it might be that the failure to put the ballot in was the result of an oversight. When these ballots come to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery he is ordered by the next section to make a record. While there would be usefulness in the list, yet I do not think, in view of the conditions under which this law must he carried out, that we ought to impose more formalities than are absolutely necessary.
Referring to the observations of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), if we might be allowed to go back to subsection 4, I would like to have it amended in the sense he suggested. I move:
That subsection 4 be reconsidered, and that it be amended by adding, in line thirty-five, after the word " closed," the words " and fastened in such a manner as to make any tampering with the same evident. '


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is not the minister providing for a list?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I pointed out that the
advantage of having a list, in my opinion, would not counterbalance the disadvantage of the additional formality.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It would be a check on the officer himself. It would be no trouble for him to count the number of ballots.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
means to enter only the number, not the names?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Only the number of the
names or envelopes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to requiring him to enclose a statement of the number of ballots, in the parcel.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would be a certain check.
. Amendment agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Now, to provide for the statement of the number of envelopes, I move:
That the section be amended by adding, at the end of line thirty-four, after the word "receptacle,' the words, "in which the officer shall enclose a slip giving the number of envelopes contained in it."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William John Macdonald: If any special place is provided for the voting of the soldiers at the front, in all probability it will be a tent.

I am quite sure that you cannot work out the idea of secrecy in connection with the marking of the ballot if -the soldier has to mark it in the presence of an officer. Why should he mark it in the presence of an officer, if he knows how to read and write? I suggest that words " in the presence of the said officer " be struck out from the fourth Line of subsection 4.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No man gets a ballot until he makes an affidavit. We thought to secure that the man himself shall mark the ballot. If we allow him to go away from the presence of the officer to mark his ballot, we do not know who will mark that ballot. It is suggested to me by my colleague (Mr. Crothers) that after the word " officer " in line 26 of subsection 4, there be inserted the words " or any other person." I beg to move that subsection 4 be so amended.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Manley German: In every election there are independent candidates in many constituencies. The Government may have a candidate in a certain constituency, and the Opposition, feeling that they cannot carry the constituency, do not put up a candidate; accordingly, an independent candidate offers for election. On the other hand, in some constituency which is very strongly Liberal, the Government may not put up a candidate, and the result will be that there will be an Opposition candidate and an independent candidate. How will the votes be counted in such oases? If the soldiers vote for the Government, and there is no Government candidate, how will the votes he dealt with? One of the very many exceedingly objectionable features which I see in this Bill is that the voters at the front do not know who the candidates are.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Does the hon. member offer any suggestion to obviate that difficulty?


William Manley German: The first suggestion I
offer-and I think it is an exceedingly sensible suggestion-is that the Bill be dropped The second suggestion that I offer is that you do away altogether with the mention of the independent candidate. I 3imply wish to point out that the soldiers may vote for a Government candidate or an Opposition candidate, and there may be no Government candidate or no Opposition candidate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to the suggestion that we drop the Bill, of course I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman in that respect. If a man votes for the Government candidate

in a particular constituency and there is nobody supporting the Government, that man is in the same position as anybody who votes at home for a person who is hot a candidate-he loses his vote. The same thing applies, of course, if he votes for an Opposition candidate or an independent candidate, and there happens not to be any. Speaking personally, 1 have a strong feeling that the opportunity that is now afforded to the voter to say: I vote for John Smith-naming the candidate-will meet a great many cases. I believe that the knowledge will reach the other side in a great many instances as to who the candidates are or will be, and that this knowledge will enable the soldiers to take the chance in registering their votes, that a certain man is going to be a candidate. I think many ballots will come back containing ballots for particular candidates, and I think that in the bulk of cases it will turn out that the person named on the ballot is the real candidate. I am free to admit that there may be cases where a soldier says: I vote for the independent candidate, and there may turn out to be no independent candidate; also there may be cases where a man may vote for the Government or for the Opposition candidate -and there may be no such candidate. These will be exceptional cases, however; I confess that I cannot devise means to avoid that.


William Manley German: They may be exceptional, but they may not be so exceptional in this case as not to affect the whole result of the election. Sometimes majorities are very narrow.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: These cases were not exceptional in the province of Quebec during the last election. At that election there were fifty candidates whose platform was opposed to the policies of both the leader of the Government and of the Opposition. They most emphatically disowned any relationship with the present Prime Minister, and one sentence -that is well remembered in my province was, Borden is worse than Laurier.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That was awfully
abusive.


Ernest Lapointe: It was well known that most of these gentlemen were Conservatives, and it is well known now that their campaign fund was financed by the Conservative party. I have under my hand the programme of one of these gentlemen, Mr. L. P. Pelletier, now Judge Pelletier, who was 158J
the former Postmaster General in this Administration. This is what he said in his speech at Jeune Lorette in accepting the candidature. I am quoting from L'Eve-nement, the OTgan of the Conservative party, in its issue of August 30, 1911:
" En second lieu je suis candidat parce qu'a votre voix qui m'appelait s'est jointe la voix du chef nationalists de ce district, M. Arma-nd Lavergne."
" Je suis aussi candidat comme protestation cont-re la marine de guerre, et pour contribuer a remedier a cette loi scelerate."
I will try to translate that: Certainly I am a candidate because to your voice-the voice of the people-which is calling me, is united the voice of the Nationalist leader of this district, Mr. Armand Lavergne. I am also a candidate as a protest against the Naval Law, and to help in having that nefarious law repealed.
Surely the Minister of Justice will not say that Mr. Pelletier was an Independent; for, thirty days after he uttered these words, he was a member of this Administration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He might meet the description of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). He was clearly against the Government.


Ernest Lapointe: He was not an Independent at all, for he became a member of this Administration thirty days after. I should like to know what the returning officer would do in such a case.


Wilfrid Laurier: Put him on the bench.


Ernest Lapointe: Would he count the votes in favour of the Government?' Perhaps under one of the artful clauses of this Bill the right hon. Prime Minister would be the judge. Is that fair? I do not think so. The right hon. gentleman knows by experience what the independence of the so-called Nationalists amounts to. It would be deceiving the electors to call these men Independents. I am sure that at the last election it would have been very difficult to apply this system in my riding; it would have been very difficult to say to whom the vote should go.
I do not know whether there 10 p.m. will be any Nationalists next time, I do not think there are many of them left in the province of Quebec. I think provision should be made in the Bill to cover such a case as I have mentioned. Personally I do not see how this Bill can be worked out.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I appreciate the kindly anxiety of the hon. gentleman on behalf of the Nationalists, of whom he says there are no more. We are legislating for the present and the future, not for past conditions. In any event the only ballots that the leader of the Government or the leader of the Opposition can deal with are those that have been given either for the Government or for the Opposition. Their respective power is limited to saying who ought to get that vote, the Prime Minister dealing with votes marked for the Government, and the leader of the Opposition dealing with votes marked for the Opposition. The men who vote will make it quite clear that they want their vote to go to the greatest benefit for the Government or for the Opposition, and I think we .have provided a perfectly fair method of determining who that vote for the Government shall be applied to, or who that vote for the Opposition shall be applied to. As for 'the Independent candidate, in no case will the leader of the Government or the leader of the Opposition be entitled to claim votes given for Independent candidates. Either there will be a person to answer to that description or there will not. If there is such a person he will get the votes. If there is not, the vote will be void.
Mr. MARCH,: Suppose there are two independent candidates.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there are, I do not know how you are going to arrive at a determination as between them. But all [DOT]our past experience goes to show while -such a case is possible, it is very exceptional.


Charles Marcil: I think the hon. member for booth York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) -always runs as an independent candidate.
-Mr. DOHERTY: He will get the votes, then.


Charles Marcil: Suppose the votes are all marked either for the Government or for the Opposition. The hon. member for South York would not get any of the Government votes, as he would not be a Government candidate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Alphonse Verville: Suppose that a great number of ballots are marked Independent, and that there is no Independent candidate in that division. Those ballots would not 
be counted. Is that fair? We are so anxious to give the soldiers an opportunity to vote that we should certainly see that their votes are not lost. Again, a candidate may accept the fiscal policy of a certain party, but be against that party on other questions. Suppose that in his speeches he lets the people know where he stands, where would those ballots go? It is such a technical question that perhaps only a lawyer could decide it. Perhaps it would be better to divide the votes, seeing that the candidate favoured one part of the policy of his leader, but not another part. I suppose my hon. friend would say that those votes would be rejected. As we are so anxious to give votes to the soldiers, we should see that the votes are not thrown away. My hon. friend said that there will be Liberal candidates at the next election. I hope there will be quite a few of them. There may also be some Socialist candidates; I think there will. They might be elected but you could not be sure. It would be a good thing to have a few of them in this House. Will one mark "socialist" on his ballot if there is no socialist or candidate of an independent turn of mind? It has been the custom of many people in this country to mark "socialist" on their ballots and thus spoil their ballots because they want to acknowledge the fact that they -are for -socialism. The more we study this Bill the more we see its defects. I would be sorry to think -that any soldiers should lose their votes on thi-s account. Canadian soldiers have probably' learned more of socialism than they ever knew before. They are now in contact with eiem-ents which probably were not so familiar to them on this side and it may be that a great many of -these men will be willing to cast their votes for socialists. There are many socialists in Belgium, England, and France, they will be associating with those who hold these -ideas at the front and they also may come in contact with German prisoners who are -socialists. Therefore, there may be a very great change of opinion and I am afraid that a large number of votes will be spoiled in that way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that my position enables me to give any authoritative solution of the difficulty suggested. But I would take it that if you had in a constituency a Government candidate, an Opposition candidate and, say, a socialist candidate, and you had votes given for an independent candidate, I would understand that under these circumstances -the man who classified himself as a -socialist, or came

under some other designation would thereby announce himself neither as supporting the Government nor the Opposition, and would meet the description of an independent candidate. But it will not do . for me to deal with that. If that question arises the courts will have to determine it. We have provided for people as being for the Government, for the Opposition, or for neither one nor the other and I would be disposed to think that any man who adopted a designation such as the hon. gentleman suggests would be starting out on a line which would place him in the position of being neither for the Government nor the Opposition. That, to my mind, would meet the description of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. PROULX:: In 'the case of a deferred election both might be for the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The gentlemen will vote either for the Government or the Opposition. If they vote for the Opposition, and both of the candidates are for the Government, they will be in the position of having voted for no candidate if it turns out that that is the situation.


Mr. TURGEON:: I have always been opposed to electors being called upon to vote for anything but a personality. If they are asked to vote for the Government or the Opposition there is intimidation. When the officer confronts the voter and asks Rim if he votes for or against the Government it is certainly intimidation especially in the case of the soldier at the front. No one in this country values more highly the sacrifices which our soldiers are making than I do. I value so much the sacrifices of our soldiers and I would think they had so much to do in this terrible war, the results of which must certainly be disastrous to our children at the front, that I would not even attempt to bring in a bill to give franchise to the soldiers until the time when they had returned from the front bearing the laurels of victory. We all expect and hope that this terrible war will be ended favourably to the cause of the Allies before next September or October. It has been a very strenuous war but the most terrible part of it is to come because the Allies are bound to conquer, as they must conquer in the interest of humanity. I would like to ask any hon. members of this House why we should be rushing on an election during the most terrible part of this war. Lord Kitchener told us not , six weeks ago that the war would commence in May. It is about commencing now,
and the sacrifices that our armies have made during the last five or six months are nothing as compared with the sacrifices which they will be called upon to bear within the next six months. The only-encouragement that the soldier has in the trenches is that derived from the comradeship of the man who is beside him. He does not inquire whether he is a Liberal or Conservative, whether he is for the Government or for the Opposition, he knows that he will help to sustain his life and courage in the great struggle that is being waged in the cause of humanity. That is the situation, and unless we can draw up a Bill which will give the franchise in such a form as we all desire, such as will enable the soldier to cast an independent vote, we should not be too eager to expedite this measure. During the discussion this afternoon and this evening the Minister of Justice by his avowals has admitted the impossibility of framing a Bill which will meet all the requirements of the men at the front. I am for votes for the soldiers, but why not wait until another session? We have supplied the Government with all the money they need to carry on the war. We look for British examples. Next December the British Parliament will expire. Is the British Parliament busy to-day passing a Bill providing, votes for the soldiers at the front? It is contemplating the possibility of extending the life of Parliament in order that there may be no election during the war. We have eighteen months yet to go, and I am sure that in that eighteen months the war will be settled satisfactorily to the Allies, or it will never be settled. The discussion having demonstrated the impracticability of the-Bill which we have before us, let us consider it for another year and if the war is-, not settled by that time the Bill can be taken, up again and brought into operation at the-expiration of this Parliament, which will take place in November, 1916. I submit these considerations to the Minister of Justice and I appeal to his judgment.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has the Bill a provision to meet the case of a soldier who through the action of the enemy has lost th? use of his arms, or is invalided in some way so that he cannot sign the ballot paper?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That suggestion was
made by the hon. member for Pictou and I answered that section 166 of the Dominion Elections Act, which deals with persons who are physically unable to mark the

ballot paper, would be made to apply to this Act.


Charles Marcil: Will the words "I vote" on the ballot papers be in French and English?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will be very glad to
put them both in French and in English.


William Pugsley: I suppose some of the
affidavits should be in French?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We could have some
printed in French and some in English.


Charles Marcil: Does the ballot bear the
initials of the officer who takes the vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision
for that but if it is considered a precaution I have no objection to insert it. We were relying on the fact that the officer saw the man mark the actual ballot. In view of the circumstances under which this vote is to be taken I would like to avoid introducing any complication unless it is of manifest advantage.
What we did rely upon in that regard as to the identity of the ballot was the fact that the officer would see that the whole thing was done simultaneously, and that he was in a position to see the marking of the ballot. Then the ballot as it stands in the form provided in the Rill will have the counterfoil with the number on it which will remain on the stub as it is handed out, and it seems to me that that is sufficient identification that it is the same ballot, because the man does his voting without leaving the sight of the officer. I would like to avoid complicating the matter.


William Pugsley: There is no evidence that the same ballot will get back to Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would the initials of the returning officer be sufficient?


William Pugsley: I do not think the initials would be of much use being put on abroad, because if any one wanted to switch the ballot, he could do it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He could initial the envelope . as being closed.


Frank Oliver: There is a general provision that if a ballot has a special mark,, it loses its value. Under the circumstances in which the ballots are to be marked, there is a very great possibility that there may be marking that will tend to disclose identity, or that will not be in accordance with the ordinary usage.

It would be very undesirable if the very strict rule that is generally applied to the marking of ballots in their being counted were applied to the making of these ballots. Will that strict rule be applied under the provisions of this Bill to these ballots?
Mr. DOHERTY': That is the rule that provides that if a ballot is marked so that it can be identified, it loses its value?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I understand the [DOT] matter aright, in the application of this section, it becomes a question to be determined by the circumstances of each particular marking, whether a mark in a certain way is a mark by. which a man can be identified. While I have not had occasion very recently to look into the jurisprudence in connection with the subject, I do not think 1 am wrong in saying that the courts have adopted pretty generally the rule that you should lean in favour of the view that will give effect to the vote. I have no doubt that the courts in determining whether a mark, that may be claimed to be a marking that may serve to identify, should be so considered or not, will take into consideration the circumstances under which the ballot is marked. It would not be safe for us to wipe out the provision entirely; the safest course is to leave to the good judgment of the courts to bear in mind the circumstances in which the ballots are marked when determining whether the particular way in which tlie ballot is marked will lead to the identity of the voter.


Frank Oliver: These ballots will count as much as any other ballot, and sometimes an election turns on the marking of one or two ballots. Therefore you cannot give too great care to determining what shall and what shall not be counted.


William Pugsley: I have an amendment
which I would like to suggest to my hon. friend to come as subsection 11 of section 2 which we have been considering. Before reading the proposed amendment, I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact-and to emphasise it as strongly as possible-that Parliament is proposing to ask officers of the Imperial Army to perform certain duties under this legislation. These officers are all under the control of the British War Office, and of course their military duty is the paramount duty which they are called upon to perform. Therefore

I would suggest to the minister that it would be an act of courtesy; that it would lead to greater harmony in the discharge of their duties by the different officers and to better understanding with the War Office, and that it would be altogether exceedingly desirable that before we give effect to the provisions of this Bill seeking to impose these duties upon Imperial officers over whom this Government has no control, the Secretary of State for War should be consulted and his (approval of the Bill obtained. I throw out this suggestion which I think is worthy of favourable consideration, and it is altogether desirable that it should be added to the Bill. The amendment which I would suggest is:
That there be added as subsection 11 of section 2 the words:
No action shall be taken under the foregoing provisions of this section until the same have been submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State for War of the United Kingdom.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This suggestion, perhaps not precisely in this form but in substance, has been made at different .times throughout this debate. Fot myself, I think it so perfectly obvious that neither the Secretary of State for War on the other side nor any member of the Imperial Government, nor any authority whatsoever over there, would ever imagine -that we meant to force the operation of this law to the detriment of military operations or so as to interfere with anything that -the military authorities could consider necessary, that it would be absolutely out of place that we should put in this Bill -something that would suggest that we thought -that -they might think us endeavouring to do that. I am quite confident that they would never think so. That being so with regard to -this particular case, I think generally speaking, it is a highly objectionable proposition that this Parliament should legislate subject to the permission of -the Secretary of State for War or of any other minister of His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom. I would like to point out what I said in moving the second reading of -this Bill, that to my mind this-is purely a Bill recognizing the right to the fr-anchise of a certain class of Canadian subjects of the King and providing a method whereby they may exercise that franchise. It is absolutely without question that where availing themselves of that right will interfere in any way with -the par-amount duty of those Canadian subjects of the King as soldiers of the King, they themselves will not allow it to interfere, and that if they were disposed to do so, the military authorities can be absolutely trusted not to allow it to interfere. That is a matter which the military authorities are absolutely in a position to control; but for my part, and with all the respect that I entertain for the military authorities of the United Kingdom- and for His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom, I, as one member of the. Parliament of -Canada and as one representative of the people of Canada, certainly do not think that it would be the proper thing that we should legislate as to who in Canada should have the franchise and -who in Canada should be afforded the means Of exercising that right, and say in express terms that we subject our judgment upon that question either to the Secretary of State foT War or to His Majesty's Government as a whole of the United Kingdom.
I do think we owe that much recognition to the autonomy of this country, that much respect to this Parliament itself. So completely is it recognized that the power relating to the election of representatives of the people in this country belongs exclusively to the Parliament of Canada and to the courts that the Parliament of Canada constitutes, that His Majesty's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have consistently declined to entertain applications for leave to appeal in cases bearing upon elections to this House, laying down the doctrine that it was within Canada that matters pertaining to the election of members to the House of Commons of Canada should properly be decided. It therefore appears to me obviously unnecessary that we shorn,* go forward implying in any way to the Secretary of War that we have the faintest idea that our legislation can under any circumstances interfere with his military control of military operations. In the second place, I think it, in principle, undesirable in the strongest sense of that word, that we should in an Act dealing with the Canadian franchise, subject the action of this House to any approval or disapproval outside of this Parliament of Canada. Therefore, I must, for my part, decline to accept the suggested amendment. I may point out, if it is thought that in doing what we are doing here to-night we are overstepping the proper bounds within which the Parliment of Canada should keep itself, that there is in His Majesty a power of disallowance. But I do not think we can go forward with the implied admission that there is something in our legislation which could be objectionable. For my part, I see nothing to give rise to

any well-founded objection on the part of the Secretary of State for War or the Government of the United Kingdom, and I am not ready to go forward with the suggestion, which would be involved in our submitting the legislation to the approbation of this minister, that there is something objectionable in this Bill. An hon. gentleman said to me to-day, " Qui s'excuse, s'accuse". If we go with such excuses we imply that there is lurking in our minds the belief that we have tried to do something which might interfere with the legitimate authority of the Secretary of State for War. I have no consciousness of having done anything of that kind, and the legislation we are dealing with to-night seems to me so obviously and in a very special manner a matter to be dealt with exclusively by this Parliament that I cannot consent that legislation being subjected to the approval of any Minister of the Crown in the United Kingdom.


William Pugsley: The hon. minister has entirely misunderstood the amendment I have proposed. I was careful that it should have no reference whatever to section 1, which is the section which establishes the franchise and gives the vote to soldiers on active service, subject only to their having had a residence of thirty days in this country. As to that, I raise no question	by my	amendment. Butsection 2 provides the machinery by which the soldiers are to be permitted to exercise this right, and the minister proposes by the various subsections of this section to exact an obligation from, and impose a duty upon,	officers	of	the	ImperialGovernment, officers who are in the Imperial army. Without a "by your leave" or suggesting that we do him the courtesy to ask the consent of the Secretary for War, we will impose on these officers, who are abroad for military duty and in the interest of the Empire, and' under the absolute	control	of	the	ImperialGovernment,	the duty	of	carrying
out the provisions of this Act. And the minister says that, because I proposed that before exacting this obligation from these officers the Secretary of State for War shall be consulted and shall approve of it, I am in some way humiliating this Parliament, and suggesting that by possibility the Secretary of State for War may not approve of it. Surely the minister must be wrong. All I say by my amendment and my argument is that we are asking these British officers to do what we have no right to ask them to do. We are by statute imposing 
upon them an obligation which we have no earthly right to impose on them. We are saying by our proposed statute that, instead of appointing our own electoral officers and sending them abroad to give to our soldiers the right to exercise their franchise, we will impose this obligation upon an Imperial officer. Is it humiliating to this Parliament-Does it detract from the authority of this Parliament if we say that, before so imposing this obligation upon these Imperial officers, the Secretary of State for War shall be consulted and shall give his consent?-not to the whole Bill, not to that part which extends the franchise, but only to that part which imposes these obligations upon the officers of the Imperial service. Is it detracting from the dignity of this Parliament if I say that before doing that the Secretary for War shall be consulted and shall approve of it? My mind may be different from that of the minister, but to me it seems cheeky and absolutely indefensible for this Parliament to declare by law that this task shall be cast upon the Imperial officers who are at the front to do Imperial dirty, without asking the consent-of the Secretary of State for War under whom they are serving. I cannot but express extreme surprise that my hon. friend regards this amendment unfavourably. I can do nothing furtjier now, but I can say that when the Bill comes up for third reading, I shall have an opportunity of presenting my amendment again.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman's amendment is to the effect that this Bill shall not come into operation-


William Pugsley: No, only section 2.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Frank Oliver: I wish to correct the minister so far as my attitude was concerned. I do not recall that I was condemning him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I mean to say, condemning my course.


Frank Oliver: If I may be permitted, I do not even agree to that. All I wanted was to establish a fact as it existed, and then to draw certain conclusions from that fact. I do not wish to be understood as condemning either the minister or his course; all I wanted was . to know exactly what the course was, and what the consequences of it would be. At this moment I am not going to concern myself with the constitutional side of this question or the maintenance of the dignity of Parliament, but I am still concerned as to the probability of the volnteers overseas exercising the privilege or the right which it is proposed that they shall have an opportunity of exercising. It must be obvious that it is a matter of interest to us, if we are desirous of their
exercising the right that we place within their reach, to know whether the authorities that are supreme on that side of the water are willing that they should exercise that right. It is obvious, -too, that if the authorities there are not willing, the volunteers are certainly not going to be ahle to exercise it. On the other hand, if the authorities are willing, the exercise of the right by the soldiers then depends, as I have said, on the whim of the officers. I do not wish to criticise unduly, but I would have thought that it would have been wise for the Government to become informed as to what the view of the British military authorities is in regard to the -application of this provision. They -have not seen fit to do so, however; we axe passing the legislation, and there is no time to find out now. It seems to me that it is a fair proposition that a saving ol-ause 'shofild be inserted in the Bill such as has been suggested by the hon. member for the City of St. John.


William John Macdonald: The proposal made
by the hon .member for St. John city is so obviously proper and right that I cannot understand the position taken by the Minister of Justice in regard to it. What did we send these men across the ocean for? We sent them across the ocean to place them at the disposal of King George arid his Imperial officers, headed by the Secretary of State for War, to fight the battles of the Empire. That is their first duty; that is th-eir whole duty; that is that duty the fulfilment of which with credit to themselves will cause us to give ' them the glory of victory when they return. The moment they landed on the soil of Great Britain th^y ceased to be under the supervision of the Government of Canada, except in the -matter of receiving their pay. As to their disposition; as to where they shall go and what they shall do; as to how they shall perform th-eir duties- that is under the direction of Lord Kit-*chener, and no one else. The Secretary of State for War having control of their movements for the purpose of defending the Empire and of attacking the Germans, I agree with the hon. member for St. John that it is cheeky -and impertinent for us to attempt to interfere with his direction and authority by s-aying that his commanding officers and captains shall do this, that or the other thing on a particular day or days when he, perchance, may wish them to be doing -something else. I -think also that the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John that the Minister of Militia should have

been here during the discussion of this Bill is very apt. The Minister of Justice, erudite lawyer that he is, has no special acquaintance with military discipline, military law or military operations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was a soldier.


William John Macdonald: He is an honorary colonel, like myself.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am a real captain, unlike yourself.


William John Macdonald: The Minister of Justice will hardly claim that the situation just now with regard to military operations is such that any one on this side of the ocean is possessed of knowledge which would enable him to take any action interfering with the authority and direction of Lord Kitchener in the controlling of the movements of the men under his supervision. When in the committee I ventured to make a suggestion as to what should be done, my hon. friend took the ground at that time that you could not dictate to these men, that it was a matter entirely for the commanding officer to say whether he would do this or that. When some one suggested that the commanding officer should make out a list of the men who came before him to vote, my hon. friend took the ground that we ought not to impose on the officers in that way. All through the discussion my hon. friend recognized the fact that he had no control or authority over these men, and that he could not interfere with them. If that is so, who has the control of them? The Secretary of War, unquestionably. What is the use of us keeping this House sitting day after day in order to pass legation which will be inoperative, absolutely a dead letter, if Lord Kitchener, in view of the issues that are at stake, should take it into his head to say: I am not going to let my commanding officers waste a week or ten days running around picking up votes from the men who ought to be getting ready to fight the Germans. I think the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that we should say that this legislation is subject to the approval of the man who has control of the commanding officers, is but due recognition by the Canadian Parliament of the fact that our soldiers are under the control of Great Britain. There is no divided authority in this matter. A lot of confusion seems to exist in the public mind; some people think that the Canadian Government have got some kind of a string on our soldiers who have gone to the front. Why, every man that signed the muster roll agreed to serve [Mr. Macdonald.J.
the Empire for three years, and to give his services not to the Canadian Government but to King George, and to obey the Imperial authorities. This legislation practically amounts to saying to our soldiers: You shall not go out and fight; you and your commanding officers must give up your training in England for this war, and turn out for a week or ten days to see whether you cannot get in some votes. I say that any measure of this kind which did not contain in it the stipulation that the consent of Lord Kitchener should be obtained before it became operative would be not merely cheek and impertinence, but an insult to Lord Kitchener as well. That is the situation; and to talk of autonomy under these circumstances only shows that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have forgotten that there is a war going on; otherwise, they would never have proposed this legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman has been impressing upon us things that are so absolutely obvious that it would be absurd for us to make a provision in regard to them, as though we did not know that they were perfectly obvious. This law cannot interfere with the military authority of Lord Kitchener.


Charles Marcil: Because Kitchener will not allow it to interfere.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And it does not pretend to. We simply assume that Lord Kitchener gives us credit for common sense; and we further assume that Lord Kitchener, having at least as much knowledge with regard to military matters, well, perhaps not quite the degree of knowledge of my
11 p.m. distinguished friend and cohonorary colonel the hon. member for Pictou, will look upon this matter with common sense; and so we leave it in his hands with absolute confidence that he will see to it that if anything under this Act interferes with the performance of military duty it shall not be done.	-


William John Macdonald: Why do you not say
so?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because it is so entirely unnecessary to say so;,because the Act as it stands, without those words, is neither intended to interfere nor can it interfere with the authority of Lord Kitchener; and because I think it would be an unfortunate thing for us to intimate that we were passing legislation that would so interfere with his great work as to make it necessary for

us to first ask his leave. As I have said several times in the course of this discussion we are perfectly willing, if need be, that the Act should lie there a dead letter, rather than that there should be interference with the paramount duty of the soldier. Just let me point out the degree to which the hon. member for Pictou has found it necessary to read into this Bill things that are not in it. He tells this House that in this Bill there is said to the officers of Canada; "You shall not go out to fight; you shall take ten days for running around to pick up votes." When I propose a Bill of that kind I shall recognize that I am proposing something so utterly and entirely indefensible that I cannot conceive of any man being so cheeky and so impertinent as to do what the hon. gentleman suggests, namely, that we should present ourselves to Lord Kitchener and say: My dear Lord Kitchener, we are passing a law saying to your soldiers, you shall give up your fighting, you shall abandon your military duties and take a week or ten days off for the purpose of running around and picking up votes; and we have come, Lord Kitchener, to ask your leave to pass that law. Could anything be more offensive to Lord Kitchener than that anybody should suggest that he could possibly give leave for that kind of legislation? If I ever dreamed of proposing legislation of that kind I certainly should not like to be the gentleman delegated to ask Lord Kitchener's leave to give effect to it. This legislation proposes nothing of that kind. It is purely enabling legislation making it possible for the soldiers to vote, subject of course to the performance of their military duties; and I think it would be as offensive to our soldiers for us to suggest that they were willing to abandon their duties in order to pick up votes as it would be to suggest to Lord Kitchener that we thought it possible that he would give us leave to have legislation of that sort made operative. The moment the operation of this legislation runs counter to the performance of the military duties of the soldiers, automatically it ceases to have operation.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend is
arguing in a kind of a circle. He says that this legislation will be inoperative unless Lord Kitchener consents, and yet he says that this legislation is only for the purpose of enabling the soldiers to vote. Why, those soldiers can vote only if Lord Kitchener lets them. When we suggest a provision that the Bill shall not become operative unless
Lord Kitchener consents to it, my hon. friend argues that the autonomy of Canada is in peril. Now what sense is there in passing legislation for the purpose of enabling men who are on active service to vote, unless Lord Kitchener gives his consent to it? It is no use our fooling away time here passing legislation which is not to be operative.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Why do you do it?


William John Macdonald: The hon. gentleman
knows that the session came to a conclusion naturally a few days ago. The hon. gentleman knows that he never could draft a Bill to provide in any practical way for the soldiers on active service easting their votes. For what reason, in process of time, have we had this measure evolved ? My hon. friend does not meet this issue at all by saying what he does say in answer to the objection. It is held up to the country that they are proposing a method by which the soldiers can vote. Either the measure is a successful and practical one, and one under which the soldiers can vote, or it is not. My hon. friend says to-night that it is not a practical measure, that it is not one under which a man' can vote, that it is an enabling measure only if Lord Kitchener chooses to call a halt to operations so that under section 2 some of these men can vote. I would like to know what my hon. friend does say if he does not say that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I said that if it does
not interfere with the performance of any military duty nobody will interfere to prevent it taking effect. It does not interfere in any of its provisions with the performance of military duties.


William John Macdonald: It does interfere.
Every line of section 2 interferes with the performance of some duty by the commanding officers of the army whose business it is to fight the Germans. Otherwise all of this section 2 is nonsense. If this section does not mean that the commanding officers are going to take some time to do this work correctly, and if these officers are not to be diverted from their duty preparing for and taking this vote, I do not know what this measure means. It is an enabling measure, says my hon. friend; it is not compulsory. That means that if any one of these officers attached to the Canadian contingent chooses to say:	I do not want to
take the votes of my men and I am not going to do it, that you are not going to have the

votes of that branch of the service taken at all. Then there is this further consideration. General orders are issued either in England, Bermuda or France, providing that various duties shall be undertaken by the commanding officer. Except in times of extraordinary emergency these general orders are always issued a couple of days before the actual performance of the duty assigned to the officer, and it may be that an officer's time is fully taken up in pursuance of one of these general orders. Under the circumstances must he disregard the general orders and pay attention to an Act of the Canadian Parliament? Are these officers going to pay attention to the orders of General Alderson or are they going to pay attention to an Act of this Parliament? My hon. friend says that they will pay attention to the orders of General Alderson. The result is that this measure is of no use unless his superior officer, his commander, and the Secretary of State for War, definitely intimate to Gen-Alderson that it is his duty to see that sufficient time is allowed on various days for the taking of this vote. Unless this legislation is to be subject to the direction of General Kitchener it is mere waste paper. We are wasting time talking about it. The position of the Minister of Justice indicates that. That being so, is it not ordinary politeness to say to Lord Kitchener, the man to whom the whole Emipre looks, and who has the responsibility of seing us through this war: Having control over our troops at the front, is it possible for you to arrange for them to vote under the proper method? That being the fact, we should say so and it should be put in the Act .


Charles Marcil: I have every respect for the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), but I am sorry to see that the position he takes to-night is not one in keeping with the general attitude of the Government. From the very outbreak of the war we were told in all the declarations of the Prime Minister and of his colleagues that the Government, in connection with every move that was being taken, were in close consultation with the home Government.
It was stated that nothing was done unless the War Office was consulted. Yet the minister has declared to-night that the amendment proposed .by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) places us in a position of inferiority in such a way that it would make us subservient to the wishes of a minister in Great Britain in the exercise of what the hon. gentleman considers to be a free right of the Canadian Gov-
eminent-the granting of the franchise to whomsoever it pleases. It is a long time since Downing street rule has been battered out of Canada and there is no intention of reviving it, but at the present time every move in our war policy is subservient to the wishes of the Imperial Government. It could not be otherwise. The only way in which we can take an active part in this great war is by co-operating with the British authorities. Instead of passing a measure which would be accepted unanimously by the Canadian Parliament and the people, we find that we have only a measure which has been tattered and torn, which has been amended in every respect, and which is going out of this House in such a condition as to threaten it with falling into contempt because it cannot be enforced. A law which cannot be enforced, a law which is allowed to fall into contempt, is of no advantage to the public or to the people for whose benefit it was especially intended. I think the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from St. John is elementary and should be accepted by the Government. In order to make sure that the soldiers on the other side will really have a chance of casting their votes the Government should neglect no opportunity, they should do everything that is possible to be done to show their sincerity in the matter and to make it certain that this Act shall not become a dead letter. I regret that the minister has not accepted this amendment and I hope that before the Bill reaches the stage for its third reading better counsels will have prevailed, and that it will be accepted, if only in the interest of the soldiers themselves. The Government have assured us that they are very anxious that the Canadian soldiers shall have an opportunity of casting their votes but inasmuch as they have neglected to enter into communication with the War Office through the proper channels the right of our Canadian soldiers to exercise the franchise may be placed in jeopardy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to express my opinion of the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I am glad to know that the Minister of Justice is a convert to Canadian autonomy.


Charles Joseph Doherty: A convert?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Unfortunately his plea for Canadian autonomy does not work in with this proposed legislation. If the Canadian soldiers were acting under the Canadian Militia Act I would understand

the plea of my hon. friend, but we have given all (that away by allowing our volunteers to go beyond the boundaries of our country and serve in the Imperial army.
I am in favour of giving votes to our soldiers if we can provide proper machinery for them to exercise the franchise. The moment our .soldiers leave the shores of Canada, they are under British Army regulations. Their prime duty is to fight for the liberties of the British Empire, and the Canadian Government cannot impose any other duty on them without first obtaining the sanction of the British military authorities. Not only must we require the goodwill of Lord Kitchener to carry out the provisions of this Bill, but Lord Kitchener himself may have to consult the officers commanding the Canadian troops, and possibly also the French and Belgian generals with whose armies the Canadian soldiers may at the time be intermingled. It is quite possible that General Alderson or Sir John French may have to consult General Joffre and other French general, operating in northern France or in Belgium, where the Canadian, soldiers may be. The Minister of Justice shakes his head, but he has served with honour im the North-West rebellion and knows what military discipline is, for both officers and men. Will he tell me that when a regiment is in action any outside civil authority, no matter how high, can interfere with the direction of the commanding officer? The Minister of Justice will not deny that proposition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I certainly will not
deny it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then, the hon. gentleman should not hazard passing this legislation without having first obtained the sanction and goodwill of the British War Office. Should this Bill become law, it is quite possible that some officers will agree that the soldiers may vote, while others may be opposed to it, and may answer that having received no orders from the War Office they shall ndt allow their men to play politics when the fate of the Empire is at stake. I submit that it is not beneath our dignity to insert a provision in this Bill that it shall only come into operation after the British military authorities have given their consent to it. I may be all wrong, but it occurs to me that the proposed amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) is mo>st deserving of the approval of the committee. I repeat that I shall be proud to see our soldiers enabled to exercise their franchise, but the machinery provided for in this Bill is obscure, and it lends itself to serious
irregularities, I will not say corruption. Nevertheless, if the Government desires to pass it, they should at least take care, when this franchise is to be exercised in a foreign country, by our soldiers who are fighting under the direction of the British War Office, that the approval *of the British military authorities should be obtained.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to contra diet the description of affairs with regard to the operation of this legislation which the hon. gentleman has just made. 1 think his description is a conclusive de-nionstration of the entire absence of any necessity for the suggested amendment. Our soldiers are soldiers absolutely and undoubtedly, and I do not quite understand what the hon. gentleman's suggestion could do to produce a different situation as regards the carrying on of any war-like operations under the control of the British War Office authorities. It has not entered into my mind to conceive that this legislation of ours could in its operation under any conceivahle circumstances be allowed to interfere with the performance of their duties by our soldiers. If it does interfere, then if we go to Lord Kitchener to ask his leave to let it interfere, I have no doubt that it will be his duty to refuse that permission just as it will certainly be utterly cheeky and impertinent for us to ask for it to operate under conditions where it will interfere. On the other hand, under conditions where it will not interfere, which are the only conditions under which it can operate, I really cannot bring myself to see that Lord Kitchener is of such a disposition that we shall forfeit his good-will because simply we allow something to go on that in no way interferes with the performance of the military duties of our men. In other words, according to conditions, one thing will happen or the other. If the conditions are such that the carrying out of this voting will interfere with military duties, Lord Kitchener neither would nor should grant us permission, and we certainly should not go asking a permission which he neither would nor should grant. On the other hand, conditions may be such that all this will interfere in no way with military operations, and I for my part decline to assume that it will be considered necessary for us to go and ask leave, and objectionable if we do not ask leave, when we are simply allowing a law, having to do not with the performance of the soldier's duty but with the exercise of the citizen's right, to take its course and to operate with regard to our own citizens.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am sure the discussion that has taken place during the last two or three days on this subject must have satisfied the hon. Minister of Justice that it is very difficult to lay down conditions under which the vote of the Canadian soldiers can be taken at the front. The very fact that the Bill now before us is an altogether different Bill from the one introduced by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice some two or three days ago is proof of what I say, and the minister must surely see now that the longer it is discussed, the more difficulties arise in the way of carrying out this proposition. If that is the case, why not go back to the proper course? My hon. friend must be particularly anxious to have the soldiers vote when he is going to all this trouble and proposing a Bill that cannot be carried out in any reasonable manner. If my hon. friend and the Government, are so anxious to have the votes of the soldiers, why not do the decent, fair and honest thing, and say that there will be no election at the present time? Why not w'ait until the war is over and let the soldiers come back, and then all those who are entitled to vote will be allowed to vote? Would not that be better than putting forward a half-baked Bill such as the one we are now discussing which proposes ways and means of having the votes taken and sent back here, when neither the minister nor any one else knows how his proposition can be carried out? Why go on with a proposition of this kind when the whole trouble can be obviated by doing the proper thing? There is more than a year and a half for this Parliament to run; and if the war is not over in a year from now, although in all probability it will be, if my hon. friend still wants to give the soldiers votes, -we shall have a year to consider the matter. But now in the declining hours of the session to put forward a measure of this kind; to try to force it through to give votes to men who are in another country and who are out of our jurisdiction altogether, and then to try to do it without the authority of the one man who has charge of the whole matter and to object to ask the consent of that man, all this is something that I cannot understand. The minister a minute ago seemed to think it would be something unheard of for us to ask that Lord Kitchener should be consulted, or that we should make the Bill inoperative until he gave his consent. On the other hand he thinks it is all right for us to pass legislation instructing different men to 
carry on certain wrork when they cannot do anything at all without getting the consent of Lord Kitchener. The whole matter is too absurd for sane men to be arguing over it for two or three days, and to keep the House here in session on a matter of this kind, when tne work is all practically done. There are two or three ways- in which to get. over the difficulty. I have asked my hon. friend once or twice already w'ho has asked that the soldiers be given an opportunity of voting.


An hon. MEMBER:: Every one.


John Gillanders Turriff: I venture to say that
not a single organization in Canada nor any individual has asked that the soldiers be given an opportunity to vote. It is the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches wrho are anxious to get the votes-perhaps not so anxious to get the votes as to manipulate tnem. My hon. friend now must see the difficulties in the way, and he still refuses to make the Bill inoperative until Lord Kitchener gives his consent. Imagine Lord Kitchener consenting to an election being taken on a certain day, and on that day word comes for a general advance against the enemy.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just imagine asking
Lord Kitchener leave for a thing like that!


John Gillanders Turriff: That is exactly what my hon. friend will be asking under this Bill, that is, lor authority to take a vote at the front when he does not know at what moment after that authority is given orders may come for a general advance, with the result that the vote may be taken at one part of the front and not at another part. It is quite likely, as some hon. gentlemen have pointed out, that the officers commanding in certain cases will say: I am not here to make politics; I am not here to peddle around begging votes from this man or from that man; I am here to fight the battles of the Empire, and I will take no part in this whatever, therefore you will have some sections of the army voting and other sections not voting. Although I have been in this House for a good many years, I have never before seen such a crude piece of legislation introduced.
I would sincerely ask the Minister of Justice to withdraw this Bill. It is an impracticable proposition. If he wants to get the votes of the soldiers let him put off the elections until the war is over. If the war is not over next year we can easily get authority from the Imperial Parliament to extend this Parliament until the war is over.

Then, when the soldiers come back, every one who is entitled to vote will be able to cast that vote and cast it in the proper manner.


William Pugsley: I desire to say just one word in answer to the Minister of Justice. Impressed as he must necessarily be by the force of the argument that this Parliament has no -right to impose a duty on the officers of the Imperial army, he said that this measure imposed no duty, that it is merely an enabling law. Let us see the evidence. Subsection 3 of section 2 provides that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall notify the secretary of the High Commissioner by cable of a general election, -and the secretary shall thereupon send a sufficient number of ballot papers and envelopes to the chief paymaster of the Canadian expeditionary force, who shall forward the same to the several regimental paymasters who shall deliver the same to the officers commanding squadrons, companies and batteries. Now, let us -see the "enabling" part of it; "and such officers shall give each volunteer under their respective command making the affidavit in form (b) before such officer a ballot paper, and shall fold it in a certain manner and place it in the envelope. It is then provided (that the certificate in form (c) shall be signed by the officer who shall also securely close the envelope containing the ballot paper which shall then be sent by such officer by post to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.	,
If that is not imperative language, I fail to know how imperative language can be framed. That is not permissive; it is not an enabling clause but declaring what their duty shall be in connection with the taking of these votes. The Minister of Justice says that this has not the effect of imposing on these officers any duty which would interfere with their military duty. Who is to be the judge of that? This Parliament has said that these Canadian soldiers are to have a vote and that these Imperial officers shall give the opportunity to vote to every man who makes the affidavit before them. Does not that impose duties upon the officers that might interfere with the discharge of their military duties? If not, I fail to know how language could be employed to do so. We heard the suggestion that was made yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) or some other hon. gentleman on that side. From this side it was suggested that the Secretary for War might not permit
this. The hon. gentleman whom I am quoting said he could not imagine the Secretary of State for War taking such a stand, because it would create a deplorable and unfortunate situation. What did that mean? It meant that, this Parliament having declared that it should be the duty of these Imperial officers to allow a vote to be taken and make an affidavit and distribute the ballots, if Lord Kitchener should say that this should not be done it would create an unfortunate situation-that is it would create a conflict between the Secretary of State for War and this Parliament. That would indeed be unfortunate. But all that could be avoided if it were provided that these sections shall not be acted upon until submitted to the Secretary for War and approved by him. If the Secretary for War were consulted and thought that the voting could be carried out, it would create harmony, whereas in the present form it is likely to create friction and entire want of harmony. It seems to me that in taking the stand he has taken in regard to this amendment, the Minister of Justice is taking a position which cannot be justified and is likely to create friction and lead to great dissatisfaction.
Amendment (Mr. Pugsley) negatived.


William Pugsley: I give notice that I will move this amendment on the third reading of the Bill.


Frank Oliver: Where mention is made of the envelope, is it provided that the electoral district in which the voter is entitled to vote shall be marked on the envelope? That does not seem to be provided, but I think it should be


Charles Joseph Doherty: Provision is made that upon the affidavit endorsed on the back of the envelope, the elector, if he is qualified as having been a resident for thirty days shall set forth his place of residence in a certain precise manner. The first suggestion was that he -should state the name of the electoral district. But it was pointed out that many of these men, while knowing where they live, might not, especially in view of the comparatively new redistribution, know the correct designation of their electoral districts. The Clerk of ithe Crown in Chancery will be able to determine in which electoral district the soldier would vote, and he will forward the envelopes to the several districts. Those who are qualified as electors in a particular electoral district will set that forth, each that he was qualified to vote at a certain place in a cerzozu



UUIYLIVLUJNH

[Stage Direction]
tain province. In that, event, the Clerk' of the Crown in Chancery will determine what the electoral district is and forward the ballot accordingly. The hon. member will notice that there are two alternate " Para? graphs 1 " of the affidavit B provided to be made for these alternative methods of voting.
Frank Oliver: The first alternative makes the voter swear:
I am not qualified to vote in any other electoral district.
That would indicate that he swears that he was a voter in a certain electoral district.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He swears to a certain fact-that he resided for thirty days at a certain place. Under this law, that ballot would be sent to the electoral district in which that place is situated, unless the voter was at the time of his enlistment a qualified voter in some other district, and so he is asked to negative that statement.


Frank Oliver: I do not see anything in ihe form requiring the mention of an electoral district.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It says:	.
I v as qualified to be a voter at	in
Ihe province of	.
It does not say that he shall mention the name of the electoral district, but shall give the place where he was entitled to vote, which .will convey to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery information as to the electoral district.


Frank Oliver: I think where a man is entitled to claim that he is a voter, it would be only right that he should ndme the electoral district as well as the place of residence. I can see the possibility of difficulty under the section. If a man is a voter, he ought to know in what district he is a voter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That generally is true. This subject is one that was a good deal discussed in the committee-this form of affidavit. The first instance given was with regard to the city of Montreal. It was stated that both as regards the men who reside for thirty days, and as regards men who have been voters perhaps for years, in view of our redistribution there would be great danger of men misapprehending the electoral district in which their places, of residence had	been	situated, thoughquite aware	that	by virtue of
their residence they are qualified voters. My own constituency is now very largely made up of people who heretofore never 
were in the electoral division of St. Anne; people whose, knowledge on the subject, derived, perhaps, from years of being settled there, would be that they "were in the county of Jacques Cartier. I have reference at the moment to the city of Ver dun. A man in that situation might be expected to fall into error, but if the soldier swears that he was entitled to vote in the city of Verdun at the time he was enlisted, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery will have no difficulty, with the Redistribution Act in front of him, in determining where the vote belongs. What applies to my own constituency applies, I think, to all constituencies as at present constituted in the city of Montreal. The same thing would be true of the city of Toronto and the city of Edmonton, which, 1 understand, has been divided into two electoral districts. Persons who are not informed as to where the line runs between East Edmonton and West Edmonton, might be very much puzzled to know in which electoral district they were when they enlisted, but they would know that they had qualifications in the city of Edmonton and that they resided at some particular place in the city of Edmonton. In view of that situation, instead of requiring the de signation of the electoral district, we pro vided for a designation of the place at which the man had been accustomed to vote, from which the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery will have no difficulty in settling the question of the electoral district.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-officers who are candidates not to act:
Charles Joseph Doherty: Carrying out a promise I made to the hon. member for Sudbury and Queens this afternoon, I beg to move that this section be amended by adding to it the words "and failing him for any of the causes aforesaid, the next below him in rank, and so on." Further, in view of some suggestions that were made as to the possibility of the commanding officer declining to perform the duties prescribed under the Act, I think we should make section 3 apply in the case of the officer designated ot next in rank declining to perform the duty as well as in the case of the officer who is prevented from acting. To produce that result, I beg to move that the section be further amended by inserting in line 18, after the word "it" and before the-words "the duty," the words "or declines to perform it."


William John Macdonald: The first amendment proposed might produce a condition where the sergeant would be the responsible officer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question is whether it is better t-o leave it possible that the sergeant may sometimes perform this duty than to leave it possible that it shall not be performed :at all. If the Act operates as I hope it will operate, I do not think that a case of this kind will happen very often. If there should be ground for anticipating that the officers generally would refuse to do the duty assigned to them, then, of course, this position would come into general operation. If it is thought preferable, I would limit the operation of the section as amended so that the duty should not be performed by 'an officer who is subordinate to a commissioned officer. If we do that, however, we may create a condition where, merely for want of an officer, the mem may lose their votes. It seemed to me that we might with perfect safety, in the few cases where this would arise, allow the non-commissioned officer to do the work rather than cause the soldiers to lose their votes because of there being no officer to perform this duty.


William John Macdonald: One of the results of the provision might be that the officers would turn their work over to the sergeants.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Even if it be a violation of obligation on the part of the officers not to fulfil this duty, we cannot make them do a thing if they do not want to do it. The case which I had in anticipation was that of an officer who might happen to be a candidate in an election or who might be prevented from acting. The latter case, I think, will be more frequent than the case where he may decline to act. If he declines to perform the duty, we leave it to the next officer in rank. We start with the company officer, who has under him, before you get to the non-commissioned officer, five officers. I think we may fairly assume that some one of these six officers will be able and willing to perform the duty.


Frank Oliver: As a civilian, speaking
from what I have read, I suggest that the sergeants do all the work 'any way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not prepared to say anything about that. When I was in the army we used to find something to do.


William John Macdonald: I think this is another argument in support of the suggestion 159
that a superintendent of some kind should be appointed. Has the minister arrived at any solution of the difficulty that was suggested to-day in this respect?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I pointed out that, if it were considered that my suggestion would provide for what was desired, I was prepared to let it go to a small committee for consideration. That offer met no response, and at the present moment I do not think that we are prepared to re-open that consideration. The amendment suggested did not provide for persons who would have the receiving of the ballots.
It only looked to provide for representatives of the different parties to be present when the voting took place. It did not look to provide machinery for taking the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On sec. 4-issue of writ:
Mr. DOHERTY':	I might explain that
by a printer's error the words 12 m. " an election" have been printed
instead of " a general election."
Mr. OLIVER. What is the meaning of these references?
Charles Joseph Doherty: They refer to the sections of the Dominion Act prescribing the duties of returning officers and poll clerks. We are trying to make the duties of the returning officers and poll clerks at the camps in Canada approach as nearly as possible to the duties that have to be discharged by the ordinary returning officers and poll clerks at an election in Canada.


Frank Oliver: The section does not make clear that this returning officer is not the returning officer of an electoral district. If, as I understand, he is a returning officer specially appointed, I would suggest that words be used to convey that idea.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am quite willing to make that clear. It follows the wording of the Dominion Elections Act. As regards the issuing of the writ, the Dominion Elections Act says:
Every writ for an election shall be in form A and shall be dated and be returnable on such days as the Governor General determines, and shall be addressed and forwarded by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the person appointed by the Governor General, as hereinafter provided, and shall he transmitted to such person by mail, unless otherwise ordered by the Governor General.
And then 76 provides that:



The person to whom a writ for an election is so addressed shall he the returning officer at such election.
I took it ithat these definitions provided for the issue of the writ and for the holding of the poll at each military camp.


Frank Oliver: I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation although on reading the section it was riot quite clear. There are two regiments in barracks in the constituency of East Edmonton and there is a squadron of cavalry in the constituency of Strathcona within the limits of greater Edmonton, but in different constituencies and having no connection. The squadron of cavalry has no connection with the infantry regiment. Would each be considered a base which would be given to a returning officer or would one returning officer handle both establishments?


Charles Joseph Doherty: My impression would be, if these forces have no connection one with the other, that we would have to provide a separate returning officer for. each.


Alphonse Verville: What would be the result if a man is not on the list in the place that he chose to describe as his place of residence six months prior to the date of his enlistment? My hon. friend knows the position we are in in the cities of the province of Quebec. He knows that registration takes place in December. A man might not be on the list because he went before the list was made. Will a man who is in a position to swear that he lived within a certain polling subdivision for six months prior to the time of his enlistment have the right to vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the cities' system if the lists were prepared at the time they were enrolled, or if they were on an electoral list that was still in force-it may not have been a new one-they would be entitled under this Act to vote in that electoral district wherein they would have been qualified to vote if the election had taken place the day that they enrolled. If I understand the city system aright in Montreal, there is always a list in force. Their lists are revised every two years and one list remains in force until the next one is revised. In the case suggested the fact that the voter was on the list of two years previous if that were still in force or on the newly made list would entitle him to claim as having been a person qualified to vote in ithe district on the day he enlisted. If, on the other hand, he was not on that ex-

isting voters' list he would not be in a position to say at the time he was enrolled he was a qualified voter in the district, but he might claim, if that was the place where he had lived for thirty days, within the six months before enlistment, that he was entitled to vote in that district because of his thirty days prior residence.


Alphonse Verville: What list will be in
force in five or six weeks from now in Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I am not mistaken,
the electoral lists that were prepared in December were revised in January and are actually in force now.


Alphonse Verville: They were supposed to be in force on April 1.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know the
exact day, but I know there was a period of time which I think will now have elapsed. It will be in force for two years or until there is another revision.
On section 4, subsection 4-at expiration oi ten days returning officer to prepare lists of volunteers:


Frank Oliver: The question arises as to what are the terms of the revision of this list.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision for the revision of the list. What is arranged is that the returning officer shall make a list of the people who have given him notice. This is useful, because it informs him of who are the people who pretend to be voters in that district and it enables him to know the electoral districts he has to handle. The Act does not expressly provide for making it a final list in such a manner as to determine the right of the voter. A man who has arrived at camp after ten days have gone by, or who is precluded from sending his name should not be prevented from voting on polling day. I do not think it would be fair to make any list which the returning officer is able to provide an absolute settlement of a man's right to vote by reason of the existence of his name upon it, or the absence of his name from it. The provision requiring the prepartion of the list is really a measure of convenience, but there is no provision to make the presence of the man's name on the list essential to his right to exercise the franchise. The provision for the making of this list is for the purpose of facilitating and making more convenient the holding of a poll, but it is not provided that the list shall be treated as de-

termining whether or not a person has the right to vote.


Air.   AIACDONALD@: Can the returning officer refuse a man his vote after he has made the affidavit?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If nobody requires him to be sworn he will vote.


Air.   AIACDONALD@: Has the returning officer the right to strike his name off?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision by whiclh, he is entitled to strike the name off. We have to have qualification by affidavit, but I think it is fair not to make that affidavit sent in in writing to the returning officer conclusive in the event of a question being raised. For example, in a camp like Valeartier there might be a large number of voters from a certain constituency, and the candidates might find it desirable to send representatives, so that I do not think it would be fair that because a man has handed in an affidavit ten or fifteen days before, the representatives of the candidates should not be entitled to swear the voter to the essentials of his qualifications in the presence of a returning officer.


Air.   AIACDONALD@: There is no provision for that in the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes; the Act is subject to all the provisions of tlhe Dominion Elections Act which are applicable.


Air.   AIACDONALD@: I find no provisions here, after the returning officer has made the list, for adding to or striking off any names that may be on the list.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because being on that list is not essential to the right to vote.


Air.   AIACDONALD@: Where do you provide for anything outside that list?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I understand the idea of the minister, although I do not approve of it. The idea is that the moment a person has taken the affidavit he becomes an elector, and his vote can be challenged, but there is no provision in the Act for challenging his vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision that makes it possible to swear a man in the presence . of the returning officer and the scrutineer is that in subsection 6 of section 4 which says that except as herein otherwise provided, the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act relating to the power and duties of the returning officer and other officers shall so faT as applicable apply.
159i
Section 153 says:
Except in the province of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory, an elector, if required by the deputy-returning officer, the poll clerk, one of the candidates, or an agent of a candidate, or by an elector present, shall before receiving his ballot paper, take such oath of qualification as by the law of the province he may in the like case at a provincial election be required to take, such changes having been made in the form of oath as are necessary to make it applicable to the election being held, and shall also, if required, take the oath in form Y.
I am free to admit that we are not dealing with an oath that is required for a provincial qualification. There are other provisions and I am pretty confident that I could lay my hands on them; but to make the matter absolutely clear, we will put it in so many words so that there can be no possible doubt about it. At tlhe time I examined the Act I was satisfied that, by referring back to these provisions, we would make it possible for a man to be sworn at the time as to his qualifications, but as there may be some doubt about it, we will put it in.


Air.   AIACDONALD@: Is the general language used in subsection 6, where you are adopting the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, sufficiently broad to cover the appointment and presence of scrutineers at the polls?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a subdivision of
the statute called " the polling." Section 137 says:
In addition to the deputy-returning officer and the poll clerk, the candidates and their agents, not exceeding two in number for each candidate in each polling station, and, in the absence of agents, two electors to represent each candidate at the request of such electors, and no others, shall be permitted to remain in the room where the votes are given during the time the poll remains open.


Wilfrid Laurier: The trouble
is this, that you may have thirty or forty candidates represented at one poll, and you may have 230.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is barely possible, but it is assumed that the returning officer in adjusting his poll will make as many polling places as are necessary. We assumed that if he had a knowledge of the different electoral districts with which he had to deal, in cases where there might be only a few voters in each electoral district, he would probably endeavour to subdivide his polls so as to include them in one poll. If he have a large number on one electoral

[DOT]district, he may have to provide several polls for that district. We leave it to the judgment of the returning officer so to dispose of these things as to make the matter workable. One cannot say in advance how many electors a returning [DOT]officer may have to deal with. In one camp he may have only one or two, while in another camp he may have half a dozen. The provision is:
The returning officer shall proceed to hold such number of polls upon the day fixed for the holding of the election in the several electoral districts, within such camp or base, and appoint such deputy-returning officers and officers as may be necessary' therefor.
I think we can leave it to the returning officer to make the necessary arrangements. I hardly think that any returning officer will arrange to hold polls for twenty electoral districts all in the same polling booth unless he has secured very large accommodation. If there are half a dozen voters from one electoral district, I doubt if there is any reason to anticipate that there will be representatives of candidates there. If the voters are numerous, there will probably be representatives of candidates there, but it seems that it might properly be left to the returning officer for his owm comfort if for no other reason to provide sufficient accommodation.


Frank Oliver: I would like to say in plain words whatever right the candidates have with regard to the scrutineers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it is desired to have it copied in, I shall have it copied in, but I would ask my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), for instance, if he has any doubt that, when this Bill says that the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act relating to the polling shall apply, all of those sections which are in the Dominion Elections Act under the title polling apply.
. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: The difficulty is this: we have -now over 230 constituencies, and it is not an extravagant supposition that there may be at a camp the electors of perhaps thirty or forty constituencies. In the camp at Montreal, or at Ottawa or at any other central place, there may be candidates from British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and other parts of Canada. IJndeT the law as it is, at present electors can be scrutineers without any authority from the candidate. Any two electors in a constituency [DOT]can go and be scrutineers; but it might be impossible to get authority from a candidate in British Columbia to have representatives

at the poll at Montreal or at Ottaw'a, and I believe some provision should be inserted that any two electors in any constituency can be scrutineers for all on the one side or on the other side of politics.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Two electors in. the city of Montreal could go as scrutineers, and if they were to be scrutineers for one candidate, they could be scrutineers for all the candidates.


Robert Laird Borden: The matter will
really work out in that way, because the right hon. gentleman will remember that if no person is appointed as scrutineer for the candidate, any two electors can undertake to represent him.


Wilfrid Laurier: They can represent one candidate, but not all the candidates.
SiT ROBERT BORDEN:	I think they
can.


William John Macdonald: There are a great
many deputy returning officers who will say that this legislation does not provide for candidates' representatives. It would be wise if the minister would draw up some section to meet the suggestion of my right hon. friend to provide for two agents of the same political party as the representatives for alii the candidates who may be voted for at the .same poll.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be inclined to think, if it happened that in the same polling booth votes were being polled for more than one electoral district, that two electors coming in there would be entitled to represent candidates from different electoral districts. Now, as regards the possible ignorance of returning officers that the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act apply with regard to polls, I would like to point out that in addition to that we have a provision :
This Act shall be construed as one with the Dominion Elections Act.
The duties of returning officers as well as others are to be governed by that. It would be his duty under the Dominion Elections Act, and under this Act, to furnish the deputies not only witih this Act but with the Dominion Elections Act, and furthermore to furnish them with the instructions that are got out. Of course, if considered necessary, the Dominion Elections Act could be copied instead of telling

the deputy returning officers and the returning officers that the provisions. of the Act apply. But I should hope-as these returning officers are to instruct the deputies-that we should be able to find men of sufficient intelligence, that when told that all the provisions about the duties of returning officers and deputy returning officers, and about the polling and the taking of the vote, would apply, they would be able to understand that without it being nee sary to print these sections; but I will get them printed if-


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not necessary. It was only to understand the Bill and to put it as intelligibly as possible. I appreciate that we should have, perhaps, more legislation about scrutineers. But. scrutineers are chiefly useful to prevent personation. There cannot be much personation here, because there is means of identification. Two electors can see that the formalities are followed.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it will work out that way. Let that section stand.


Frank Oliver: Many people who will have to work out this Act will find great difficulty in referring to the Dominion Elections Act and reading one into the other. There are not nearly so many people learned in the law on the outskirts of civilization as in the city, of Ottawa, and it is surprising how difficult it is for a man who is not used to such work to go through such an Act and read one section in the light of another. For that reason, I would ask that whatever is required in	regard to scrutineers
and the voter getting his name on the list up to whatever time is allowed him- that these provisions be made perfectly clear on the face of the Bill. Another thing: Are the returning officers and deputy returning officers to be civilians or military men?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They will be appointed as other returning officers and deputy returning officers are appointed. The returning officer will appoint his deputy just as other returning officers and deputy-returning officers are appointed. There is nothing to [DOT] require xior to prevent him selecting mili-"tary men if he wants to.


Frank Oliver: But he does not need to
choose military men?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the Governor General will appoint the returning officer for the camp just as he appoints the deputyreturning officer for an electoral district.


Alphonse Verville: The minister says that the Dominion Election Act is to be followed. But in these places there is a certain military rule. Is the minister going to do anything under this clause to make sure that the military rule shall not override the Elections Act? I know that has been done in other cases and probably would be done in this.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think there is room for the slightest doubt that the Parliament of Canada controls soldiers in Canada. And where this Act, if it is passed, says that a certain thing shall be done, the soldier has- to obey as much as any other man. Here we have an express direct clause, providing what is to be done in the camp, and there is no military rule that can override Parliament's expressed provision.
Section stands.
On subsection 7,-reporting vote to several electoral districts:
On section 4, subsection 8-poll at which to vote:


Wilfrid Laurier: In all cases, except under this proposed legislation, the electoral list determines whether or not a man has a right to vote. If he is on the list, he has a right to vote; if not, he has not a right to vote. In this case, what constitutes the right to vote is the affidavit of the soldier.


Charles Joseph Doherty: A man whose name has been put upon the list must vote at the place where ihe is allotted, and not elsewhere. I would not have it understood that this section implies that the man who is not allotted at all should not vote anywhere.


William John Macdonald: There should go with that the correlative provision that the military authorities shall see that facilities are provided to enable the volunteer to vote at the poll to which he is assigned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am willing to insert a provision to that end, although I had not thought it necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 4, subsection 9-obtaining certificate that voter is on list where voting on previous qualification:
William John Macdonald: Under this provision a soldier from a western constituency who is in an eastern camp would have to communicate with his friends in the far-distant
-!526

constituency in order that the certificate of the returning officer might be obtained.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There might be some difficulty about that. The provision makes it a duty for the returning officer in a certain electoral district who receives notice that somebody has claimed to be qualified in that district, to send the electoral list there. The returning officer who receives the list may ascertain whether the name of the man in question is upon it. Perhaps it would he well to put in some words providing that if the returning officer fails to find that name on the list, he should have power to reject the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 10-procedure when volunteers leaving Canada before election day:
Alphonse Verville: I wish to ask again whether the amendment which I proposed at eight o'clock would be in order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Inasmuch as the Bill which we are dealing with provides for an expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, it had to be preceded by a resolution assented to by His Royal Highness the Governor General. That resolution was looking to a provision being made for votes being given to the military forces, the expenses in connection therewith to be paid in the manner which I have indicated. I do not think that it is open to us to introduce into this Bill an amendment extending the scope of the proposed legislation, and introducing an entirely different subject matter, unless we have a new resolution assented to by the Governor, and re-introduce the Bill. For that reason, I do not think it is advisable to accept an amendment providing for something entirely different from that which was originally contemplated.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not sure that that is a good reason.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In my own experience I have found myself precluded from the possibility of providing-not in connection with a Bill exactly like this, but in connection with a Bill that required a resolution-for something not contemplated in the resolution, and which would involve the cost or charge of carrying out the thing not contemplated. If it is necessary that the Governor General should assent, surely he must assent to what he understands. He has assented to a charge being created for the purpose of providing funds for
	, j
soldiers, and, under guise of that assent, to provide for votes for large numbers of other people, with a possible expenditure connected therewith, would be legislating in respect of something that the resolution did not contemplate.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me that there can be no expenditure in connection with the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Maisonneuve. It is simply to provide that railway officials who are engaged in train service shall be enabled to vote either on the polling day or on the day preceding.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It may not be a very
heavy charge, but you are imposing new duties on the deputy returning officers; and either you are going to compel them to do two days' work for one day's pay, or you must provide them with remuneration for two days' work. However, without insisting over much on that, I have said what I desire to -say in regard to the amendment.


Albert Sévigny: In my judgment the Bill referred to the committee by the House is an Act to enable Canadians on active military service during the present war to exercise their electoral franchise. Bourinot says-, at page 546:
It is a clear and indisputable principle of parliamentary law that a committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference.
I understand that the only thing referred to the committee from the House was the Bill under consideration, and accordingly I 'think it my duty to declare the amendment out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-distribution of Act:
Charles Marcil: I thought the minister had agreed to strike out the word " enrolled?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: We struck out the words " enrolment or " enlistment " in places where it might possibly create some confusion. I do not think it can do any harm here, but as I have no desire to insist on its staying there, I move that the word " enrolled " be struck out.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-when voter cannot vote under this Act:
Mr. ^MARCIL: This is when he has to leave camp and go to the polling booth?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, if he is a voter qualified for that electoral district.


Charles Marcil: If this will interfere with his military duties, has he to obtain permission from 'the military authorities?


Wilfrid Laurier: If his voting at the camp interfered with his military duties, 'he would have to get permission from the military authorities.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-termination of Act:
Wilfrid Laurier: I see' that the minister has passed over the clause he prepared as clause 4, providing for the appointment of scrutineers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I explained this morning what happened with regard to this clause, and I am sorry if I did not make myself understood. That clause, as I have explained two or three times, was drafted with a view 'to having some conference as to whether it should be carried out. It was inserted in that first reprint of the Bill by a misunderstanding, and that fact was one of the principal reasons that led me to make the second reprint. I said this morning with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. John that if something on the line of the suggestion that 1 a.m. is contained in that section, modified as to the number of commissioners and providing for the appointment of scrutineers, would in any way be satisfactory I should be glad to consider it, and even have a special committee to deal with something on those lines. As I understood it, the response that was made to that suggestion was an insistence on the proposition of the hon. member for St. John, and I said in answer to some hon. member that I was not making a proposition on the subject, but endeavouring to meet the suggestions, and that if anything on that line would be acceptable I should be glad to try and work it out. This morning I put before the House this corrected reprint, with the explanation that the insertion of that clause as nrinted in the Bill distributed yesterday was* the result simply of a misunderstanding, and I am sorry if I have created the impression that I proposed to go on with the first reprint which has been corrected by this corrected reprint, which does not' contain that suggestion.


William Pugsley: The minister should
state one further thing. He was asked whether these scrutineers would have any
notice of when and where the votes would be taken, to which the minister replied in the negative. Therefore, it seems to me that was simply an empty proposition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not discussing the value of the proposition at all. I was explaining that I did not put forward that clause as a provision of my Bill, but was endeavouring to see if a suggestion carried out on those lines would be acceptable. The hon. member for St. John, for reasons he thought sufficient, did not consider it acceptable.


Wilfrid Laurier: We understood the whole thing very differently. The hon. member for St. John suggested that we should have scrutineers, and have some check upon the voting. He suggested a commission and my hon. friend agreed to that and he suggested that we should proceed with the Bill. We thought that, before we proceeded with the Bill as to the manner of voting, we should be able to provide some check preferably by way of a commission, and we offered some suggestions as to that. If the idea of a check upon the voting in the form of a commission should be adopted it would be necessary to modify the clauses accordingly. That is the reason why we did not press the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to take
advantage of anything that may have been a misunderstanding. The hon. gentleman will bear me out when I say that hon. gentlemen opposite did not consider my suggestion satisfactory. At three o'clock, with this matter standing in that shape, I did state that we were not prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John, but that if something on the line of carrying out what was printed there, with the necessary modifications if we were to subtitute two commissioners, and if they were to have power to appoint scrutineers, would be acceptable, I would be glad to consider it and to refer it to a committee. There was some discussion as to how that was to work out, and I was asked whether I would consider whether there should be a provision that every officer, before he proceeded to take the votes, should call in the scrutineers. I said I did not think that would be workable, and I understood that was a proposition that was entirely unacceptable.


William Pugsley: Only to myself; I did
not speak for the leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I put the proposition
in the most general terms to the hon. member for St. John. However, I do not want tc draw any consequences from anything that may have been a misunderstanding. If that was understood in the other way, I shall be glad to consider some provision for the appointment of scrutineers.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we might consider one or two matters that have been allowed to stand a little later in the forenoon, and I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 1.12 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, April 14, 1915.