[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. GOULET:: 1.	How many trust companies, loan companies or other companies in Canada are allowed to accept deposits?
2. Are such companies audited by the Department of Finance?


Mr. BENNETT:: I direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that the answer to this question is not within the power of the federal government. The trust companies and loan companies are operating in many instances under provincial charters, and it merely means that we should have to endeavour to secure the information, which I think we should not be asked to do; and the provisions as to audit by the
i
Questions

dominion are provided for in the statutes that we have ourselves enacted dealing with loan and trust companies, over which we have jurisdiction. I think the question should be dropped.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I suppose the hon. member was referring to federal companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he was not; that is the point. I asked about that the other day. The returns furnished to parliament cover that.
Question dropped.


FRENCH MOTTOES ON ROYAL COAT OF ARMS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE :
1.	Has the government received any communication from the government of Saskatchewan or from any public bodies or individuals of that province, requesting that the French mottoes: "Dieu et mon droit" and "Honi soit qui mal y pense," be struck out of the royal coat of arms?
2.	If so. were such recommendations submitted to His Majesty?
3.	What answer, if any, was given by His Majesty?
Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say that until I had seen this question, no suggestion even of what is indicated by the question had ever been brought to my attention. I have asked each of my colleagues accessible, and they tell me they are in exactly the same position as myself.


CANABIAN VALUE OF JAPANESE YEN
Mr. REID:: What was the value in the Canadian currency placed on the yen by the Department of National Revenue for duty purposes on goods coming into Canada from Japan during each month of the years 1932, 1933, and 1934?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: SO-4985-This was proclaimed by order in council-(P.C. 2800) dated 7th November, 1931-and prevailed during each month of the years 1932, 1933 and 1934.


MINGAN, QUEBEC., INDIAN AGENCY
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the position of Indian agent at Mingan, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, vacant?
2.	If so, why?
3.	Were any complaints lodged against the Indian agent in that locality?
4.	If so, what was the nature of such complaints?
5.	Who lodged such complaints?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Filled temporarily.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	and 5. Answered by No. 3.


LOANS TO PROVINCES
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	In the agreements between federal government and the three prairie provincial governments, respectively, for the present year, what is the total amount of loans to each province therein provided for?
2.	What is the total amount of federal loans forwarded to each such province up to June 1, 1934?
3.	At the rate these loans have been going into Saskatchewan for the month of May, 1934 (pee filed loans in Votes and Proceedings), will the total amount allocated to Saskatchewan in the agreement above referred to take care of all urgent and estimated requirements throughout that province?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	No such agreements have been made. Applications of the provinces for loans are considered from time to time, having regard to special needs and circumstances.
2.	Loans to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, April 1 to June 1, 1934, were $488,000, $5,000,000 and $1,000,000, respectively.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


BORDEN-TORMENTINE FERRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Before the orders of the day are called I desire to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). The car ferry ss. Charlottetown of the Borden-Tormentine service is now undergoing repairs in Montreal. This service is being carried on by the ss. Prince Edward, which is not equipped like the ss. Charlottetown for the automobile traffic, and as our tourist trade opens July 1 it is essential for the ss. Charlottetown to be back on the service. My question is: When will the ss. Charlottetown resume the service on the Borden-Tormentine route, and are the repairs to the boat being rushed to completion so that she will be on the service before July 1?
Hon. R. ,1. MANION (Minister of Railways) :	The hon. gentleman was good
enough to inform me that he would ask this question. I have made inquiries of the management at Montreal and they assure me that the work is being hurried with all possible speed, and that while the boat has been delayed four days owing to the fact that some other ship which was damaged got precedence because of custom in accidents, at the same time the four days will be the only delay. In other words, the Charlottetown should be ready for service by the 27th, instead of the original date, the 23rd. If it is ready for

Franchise Act
service on the 27th there is no reason why it should not be on the route by the first of July.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the appointment, salaries, fees and expenses of a dominion franchise commissioner, secretary, registrars, enumerators, and other employees, and to make provision for the printing of voters' lists and other documents.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: I should like to offer
some explanation in regard to the resolution which you have just read to the committee, Mr. Chairman. As is well known, the present Dominion Elections Act, as it appears in the statutes of Canada, is in the nature of a composite act. It declares the franchise of those persons who are entitled to vote at dominion elections; it also provides for the preparation of voters' lists; third, it provides for the conduct of the election itself.
After an experience under the present act from the time of its original passage in 1921 to the present, I think I am within the judgment of all sections of the committee when I say that the act as it now stands has been proved cumbersome, dilatory and expensive and it has been thought proper to introduce new legislation for the purpose in the first place of having in this country a basic electoral list which will at all times be available in case either of a dissolution of parliament or of a necessity of filling vacancies in the representation in this house as they occur from time to time. Under our present act it requires about sixty days after the dissolution of parliament before the election machinery can all work satisfactorily throughout the dominion and enable us to have a general election. It is true that probably fifty-three to fifty-four days might suffice provided that there be no miscarriage; that all the cogs of the machinery fit accurately and that no mishaps of any kind occur. In the case of byelections the information which I have received from the chief electoral officer is that fifty, or perhaps forty-eight days in a near at hand, compact riding, would suffice for the purpose. It has also come
to my knowledge that in the United Kingdom they have a much more expeditious method than we have in this country of bringing on a general election. It is true that distances in the United Kingdom are not very great as compared with those in Canada, but on the other hand they have there a population of over forty million or more than four times as great as ours. I have been told that in the United Kingdom they can dissolve one parliament and seat another in three weeks' time. They have at all times available a final and complete voters' list which can be and is utilized the moment parliament is dissolved.
It has been thought by the government that it would be well to devise some improved method to bring on a general or a byelection in this country in much less time than is necessary at present. The proposal is that the government introduce a bill for the purpose of establishing the franchise of electors for dominion purposes and at the same time of providing for the making and completion of voters' lists which shall be regularly revised and kept up to date and which shall be available at a moment's notice in any part of Canada should a general election or a byelection take place. Under the scheme which is contemplated by the motion now before the committee it is hoped a franchise and voters' list act may be passed through this house and that under the new legislation a general or a byelection may be held in not more than twenty-eight days and possibly in twenty-four or twenty-five days.
The proposal is, briefly, to appoint for the dominion a franchise commissioner who shall have general charge of the franchise and of the preparation of the voters' list; that a basic list shall be undertaken immediately after the prorogation of the present session; that it shall be the duty of that franchise commissioner to appoint in each constituency a revising officer who shall have charge of the preparation and revision of the voters' list in each riding; that the basic list shall be made in the first instance by enumeration. Provision will be made also when the bill is brought down, for the revision of the basic list before the revising officer himself and when the revision has actually taken place and been completed the revising officer will certify the list as revised and return it to the franchise commissioner at Ottawa who shall have custody of all revised lists. This shajl constitute the list of voters throughout Canada until there is a subsequent, completely revised voters' list. The suggestion is that the list shall be completely revised every twelve months. The first list will of course
Franchise Act

form the basic one; subsequent lists will be a matter of correction and revision where names are to be stricken from or names are to be added to the then existing list, but each year there will lbe a final and complete list deposited at Ottawa. These lists when returned here shall be printed by the printing bureau at Ottawa for use as may be required on the dissolution of parliament or in case of byelections.
Mr. Speaker, I have now made a general statement of the purpose of the bill which it is intended to introduce. There is no very great variation from the present system except in the matter of the appointment of one commissioner to take general charge, one revising officer in each riding and one enumerator, or more if it should become necessary to appoint more, in each polling division. There is a difference in the present proposal in regard to the method which is adopted in urban municipalities. In an urban municipality we have adopted in principle the clause which has for some years been in force under the statute of British Columbia; that provision is that an applicant for registration in an urban division shall sign a statement at the time he applies to be put on the list. The statement is merely that the applicant possesses the qualifications of an elector, but the important feature about the statement is the signature of the applicant. That signed statement will be placed at the disposal of the returning officer in the appropriate subdivision upon polling day and it will be there for the purpose of identification if necessary of a voter who appears there to vote and who may not be known to those who are in attendance at the polling booth. The voter may be asked to sign his name. This system has been in force in British Columbia for a number of years and I understand has worked very well. To a large extent it will do away with what in Ontario we are accustomed to call "plugging" and in the province of Quebec what I believe they call "telegraphing," and for which in other provinces they term impersonation. It is with the idea of doing away with impersonation, or at least minimizing it, that this particular provision will be included in this bill.
There will be another noticeable feature in the bill applying to cities which have mail delivery and where the street addresses of people are known, the voters' list shall be a geographical list rather than an alphabetical list, that names shall be arranged according to streets and numbers, so that one can see at a glance just who and how many are upon

the list for each house upon any street. This system is now in vogue in Ontario, and I believe it has worked well. It has been suggested that in addition to a geographical list an alphabetical list should also be made. Well, the question of expense is the only one to give us any concern in that respect. I have had an estimate made of the cost of an alphabetical list, if we decide to have one in addition to the geographical list. It would cost in the neighbourhood of S300.000 extra, which is a serious consideration, although I admit it would be very convenient to have both lists available at the polling booth or during the election campaign.
I do not think I need go further in explaining the general purport of the franchise act which will be introduced in due course. But this I desire to say, that in regard to this measure we have had some conferences with my right hon. friend and the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) whom he selected on his side and my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and myself upon this side, with the idea that we might agree upon a good many clauses in the proposal which will be submitted to parliament in the form of a bill. A draft measure was prepared early in the month of May. It was intended that this draft measure should form the basis for discussion, because I think it would be the view of all parties and all members in the house that in this instance we should produce a measure which will prove acceptable in all quarters of the house, one that is fair and above board in every respect. With that end in view a draft was prepared as a basis for subsequent discussion and conferences. The draft was originally in typewritten form, and I asked the draftsman to prepare a sufficient number of printed copies in order that we might have them available when the conferences took place. Two conferences have taken place, I think the first was on Wednesday, the 23rd of May, and the second on the following Monday. And I must say that in my opinion these conferences proved exceedingly satisfactory. We did not agree upon all points but we did agree upon many points and upon many clauses of the bill. There are still some features for discussion, and no doubt for debate when the bill is introduced. However, there is one point, which I wish to emphasize, namely, that the draft which was under discussion when these conferences took place was purely by way of suggestion, purely as a basis of discussion, to see how far we might agree. It was not intended that these proposals constituted

Franchise Act
a bill, not even a draft bill, although for the purpose of the conferences a limited number of copies were printed. Two of these copies were handed to my right hon. friend and two retained by me, and I think the other one was retained by Mr. O'Connor who was the draftsman of the measure. At our first conference and as our first decision, we decided unanimously to strike out subsection 3 of section 4, a clause which provided that those who were not familiar with either the English or French language should be disfranchised. We unanimously agreed to strike out that proposal, and it was struck out and has not since been considered as far as I know by anyone.
Our second conclusion-this is a memo I made at the time-was in regard to a clause that provided that Doukhobors should not be entitled to vote. Perhaps before dealing with this subject I had better say a word further in regard to the subject of the French and English language. The house is aware that under the Naturalization Act in this country every person who is naturalized and receives his certificate is entitled to exercise all the privileges of a British subject. But there is also a provision in our Naturalization Act that a man shall not be naturalized unless he is familiar with either the English or the French language. I think it is a matter of some comment that there are in Canada considerable numbers of people who have obtained naturalization certificates and who have no familiarity with either the French or the English language. This has been a matter of comment in the courts of this country, I know it from reading many criminal cases that I have to read. I find that interpreters are constantly employed. Now I have no doubt that the fact of that clause appearing in the Naturalization Act was the reason for placing a somewhat similar clause in the proposed franchise act, which clause, however, by agreement of all parties, has been stricken from the proposal in regard to the franchise measure.
In regard to the section which proposed the disfranchisement of Doukhobors, my right hon. friend immediately raised an objection, and I think we all agreed with him, that that clause could not stand in the form in which it had been drafted. The Doukho-bor situation is in itself a peculiar one. It was never intended I think on the part of any one to disfranchise the Doukhobors in Canada, but there were reasons why some special attention should be given to that part
of the Doukhobor population which resides in the province of British Columbia. Our experience with the Doukhobors in that province has not been very satisfactory, far from it.


Mr. HANBURY:: Only a portion of them.


Hugh Guthrie: I am speaking only of what I know. We have at the present time between five and six hundred Doukhobors on Piers island in a penitentiary established for the purpose of imprisoning men and women who have openly defied the laws of this country. In addition to this we had a very unhappy experience with the same communities when we attempted to take the census in the year 1931. In British Columbia it was found impossible to take a census of the Doukhobor population. They openly defied the law. They refused to give names or to answer the questions, they refused to give any information, they threatened the census enumerators with violence. Finally, after very great and protracted efforts, it was decided that we would have to abandon the attempt, and the census of the Doukhobors in British Columbia was not taken. There was an estimate made I believe, but the statistical information furnished was nil. Under such circumstances a serious question arises as to whether or not the Doukhobors in the province of British Columbia should or should not be entitled to the franchise to enable them to vote for members of this house. We know that by the provincial act of British Columbia which we have recognized in our present Dominion election act, certain races are disfranchised. Japanese who live in that province and have received naturalization certificates in Canada are not permitted to vote under our present law. Neither are Chinese; neither are Hindus, who are British subjects by birth. The provincial law provides that these oriental races shall not vote, notwithstanding that they are British subjects, and this parliament for many years has adopted that principle in the Dominion Elections Act.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: There is an exception with regard to Japanese returned soldiers.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there is an exception with regard to those who served in the forces of His Majesty during the late war. Now the question arises whether the clause in the British Columbia act should not be further extended to include those who have openly defied the laws of this country. That is a matter for the consideration of the house when the bill comes before it, but at the conference which we had it was the general opinion
Franchise Act

that the clause drafted was not proper and should not be allowed to stand in its present form, though we did not decide on any particular amendment to it. That matter has been left over for further consideration.
On the general principles of the bill I think I may say that we came to some satisfactory conclusions except in regard to perhaps three points. One was in regard to the appointment of a single commissioner, upon which there may be still some discussion. Another was as to the question of a single or double enumeration; that is, the appointment of a single enumerator or two enumerators for the preparation, particularly, of the first or the basic list. I think the other main question upon which we did not reach agreement was the question of an appeal from the revising officer in the riding. It was suggested by my right hon. friend that there should be an appeal to the county or district judge in such cases. The proposal as drafted provided that the decision of the revising officer should be final. There were some other minor changes recommended, and I believe we are prepared to accept them, but they were only as to the matters of detail.
This is as full an explanation as I desire to make at the present time, but the question of disfranchising those who are unable to speak English or French has received a great deal of publicity in western newspapers. Such a proposal was never seriously considered. As soon as the matter came up for discussion it was unanimously stricken out of the bill. I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think this is any breach of confidence, that this bill was not presented to the privy council until this week. It has not been thoroughly considered as yet, and I will not be able to introduce it to-day, though I am hopeful that I may do so to-morrow. It is now under consideration. There was no foundation for statements that have been made in the press throughout the west that the government contemplated such a thing. There was only a proposal which the government were considering, and I may say the same with regard to the rumour as to disfranchising Douk-hobors. That question was never considered by the government. There were suggestions in the draftsman's copy as I have described, and the conference dealt with it as I have indicated in my remarks this afternoon.
When the bill is presented, perhaps tomorrow or the next day, I think it will be found free from any serious defects. It constitutes a new principle in this country, but I think a sound one. I think it will be justified on the grounds of expedition, of

simplicity and of lowering of the cost. It will prove far less burdensome and cumbersome for the candidate than the present law. I think we will find that we can hold general elections throughout Canada in four weeks. There is not the intricate and involved machinery which exists under our present act. There has been a great deal of simplification. Until the bill comes down I need not say any more in regard to it, but briefly I have given an explanation of the motion standing on the order paper.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Chairman, since the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has made reference to the conference which took place between himself and the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and myself and my colleague the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), perhaps I should say a word with regard to the minister's representations in that particular. In a word, though speaking generally, I may say that so far as my recollection of the entire proceedings is concerned, the Minister of Justice has stated the matter accurately.
As the house will remember, I frequently asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when we might expect to have this new electoral measure brought down. Finally, towards the end of April, the Prime Minister stated that very shortly a bill would be printed and that he would see that, as leader of the opposition, I was supplied with a copy. When the bill was printed the Prime Minister had a copy sent to my office, and on the day the copy arrived he stated in the house that it had been so sent. Later in the day, the Prime Minister said to me that he would be pleased if I, together with one of my colleagues, would confer with the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State concerning the measure. The Prime Minister was careful to state at the time that the purpose of the conference was solely that of considering a draft measure with a view to seeing how much in the way of possible agreement might be arrived at in the introduction of a measure of the kind, and that our conference was to be entirely without prejudice in any direction. That is to say, anything that was said at the conference would not necessarily bind the government with respect to its rights in the matter of the final form of the bill and. would not in any way limit the opposition or other parties in the house with respect to proposals and criticisms they might wish to make.
When the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and myself met with the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State,

Franchise Act
we were again advised that the measure before us was a draft measure and that neither side would be committed with respect to any suggestions that might be made or with respect, as I understood it, to any conclusions that might be reached. We were simply to endeavour to see how far our minds might be brought to be as one with respect to the measure as drafted. As the Minister of Justice has stated, the draftsman, Mr. O'Connor, was present at the two conferences that took place, and was consulted with respect to the intent and meaning of different clauses.
On these matters I think there is no point of difference between us. If I have omitted to refer to any phase of either of the interviews which either the Secretary of State or the Minister of Justice would expect me to mention I should be glad to be reminded of it and to say what may seem necessary by way of comment.
In what I have now to say, Mr. Chairman, I presume I must confine myself, not to my remembrance of the draft bill, but rather to what the Minister of Justice has just said in regard to the proposed measure. My hon. friend has intimated that the present elections act is really three measures combined in one, that it is an act with respect to the franchise, an act with respect to the preparation of voters' lists, and also an act with respect to the machinery for the conduct of the elections themselves. He has stated further that the present measure is to take out of the general act as it now stands those parts which relate to the franchise and to the preparation of electoral lists. I see no objection whatever to that step being taken. I believe that will tend in the direction of simplification and, if done by agreement as I believe we should find it possible to do, it should be all to the good in a simplifying and understanding of electoral procedure.
May I deal with the first two main divisions which, I assume, are the only ones we have to consider, namely those pertaining to the franchise, and the preparation of the voters' lists. As I understand the matter, it is the government's intention in other particulars to leave the elections act as it is, and to make only such changes as may be consequent upon what may be decided upon with respect to the franchise, and the preparation of the lists.
As to the franchise, may I say that I do not believe there is a necessity for altering in any particular the franchise as it now stands. I noticed that in his remarks this afternoon the Minister of Justice has not indicated any changes to be made in that respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except the difficulty in British Columbia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister mentions the difficulty in British Columbia; I presume he means the difficulty with respect to the Doukhobors in that province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is the only possible change in regard to the franchise, and it is a matter which may easily be considered when we have the clause before us. If we leave that matter out of account, and it is understood that so far as the franchise is concerned the new measure will be in all particulars the same as the present act, that will be entirely satisfactory.
The one further matter for consideration or perhaps I should say the one real matter for consideration is the preparation of the lists and the changes which may be consequent thereon. As to the objective, namely the obtaining of a closed list which will be available at any moment for the purposes either of a general election or a by-election, I would say that personally I agree with the Minister of Justice when he states that a closed list is preferable to the kind of lists we have had heretofore, provided that its preparation can be made in a manner which will be obviously fair to all concerned. I believe that such will be the general concensus of view of hon. members in this chamber. After all, the elections are part of the machinery of governments, as such, necessary liabilities arising therefrom should be made as largely as possible a public obligation. I believe it is only reasonable and right that so far as possible the expense placed upon those who are nominated candidates should be made as light as possible, and that other onerous features of a general election, so far as the candidate is concerned, should be lightened as much as possible. I believe they can be lightened very considerably. All hon. members in this house know that in the conduct of elections, with matters as they now stand, to a great extent the burden of the preparation of -lists and expenses incidental thereto falls upon the candidate. It is a cumbersome and costly duty, and prevents that amount of attention being given to public issues by candidates which should be given since it necessitates their giving attention to a great deal of the details of organization which, if it can be made such, should be a public liability since it is a matter of public concern. In this regard I believe the present act might be considerably improved.
Franchise Act

The Minister of Justice has referred to the preparation of electoral lists in geographical form, and the suggestion has been made that they might also be made out alphabetically. He has intimated, however, that by this considerable additional expense would be entailed. May I say to him that, when one considers the public necessity of having an election conducted as much aboveboard and with as little confusion as possible, the expense is relatively trifling. If the preparation of alphabetical lists as well as geographical lists would help to enable candidates and electors the more readily to ascertain whether or not names are on the lists, and whether or not lists have been properly prepared, I believe there is every reason why there should be both lists. That is a matter, however, upon which I imagine there will not be much difficulty in reaching an agreement.
May I say the justice of a measure of this kind will depend on two things, first the manner in which the lists themselves are originally prepared, and second, whether in relation to the time that a general election is to be held, the preparation is made in such a way as to avoid possible pressure and confusion resulting from the preparation of the lists at the time the election itself is being held. I can see where, if the act were so to be administered that the preparation of the basic list would be taking place at the time that candidates were being placed in the field, and being nominated in a general election which had already been proclaimed, an impossible situation might be developed, so far as confusion and the possibility of mistakes and unfair dealings are concerned. If, however, the basic list, the first list of all, is prepared in advance of the time of the proclamation of an election, and the work completed in its entirety so that an election may be brought on a short time thereafter, it should be all to the good. I think there is everything to be said for having lists completed in a satisfactory way before an election is announced, thereby reducing to as short a period as will best serve the public interest the time necessary for the election itself. I believe that the bill in these particulars can be made acceptable.
The Minister of Justice has referred to the ;act that in the preparation of the lists under ;he measure to be introduced, the government proposes to have but one set of enumerators, or rather that the revising officers who will be appointed by the franchise commissioner, who will be an appointee either by joint agreement or by the government-


Richard Bedford Bennett: By parliament.
TMr. Mackenzie King.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes-that the revising officers will appoint only one set of enumerators, and not follow the practice which was followed in the last enumeration, upon which occasion two sets of enumerators were chosen as a result of a conference between the different political parties. I believe that would be a great mistake, and would be a double mistake because the government is proposing to add a further obligation with respect to the right of voting, namely that of obliging all electors to register or sign their names. They will have to sign a document. I must say that if the obtaining of signatures from voters is to be at the instance only of enumerators, appointed by the government itself, through its officers, there would be in the minds of everyone great reason to suspect the manner in which the lists were being prepared. In fact, I believe I have only to suggest, to make this apparent, what would be the obvious thought in the mind of any hon. member in this house as to what would occur in most cases where the enumerator of one political party went to the residences of persons who belonged to an opposite political party and asked for their signatures to documents to entitle them to vote. If the enumerator happened to be, as perhaps unfortunately many are certain to be partisan political workers, there might be an altercation between the persons asked to sign the document and the enumerator himself. If there is to be any signing of documents, it should be done in the presence of witnesses, and there ought to be at least two enumerators representative of different political parties, who should be obliged to go together, and who would be able and obliged to act and certify as witnesses to the signatures obtained. Otherwise many signatures most certainly will be suspected. A question might well arise as to whether or not an application had ever been signed; as to whether a signature was genuine or not. Each enumerator should be obliged to initial the signatures as they are obtained. If there were two enumerators chosen by representatives of different political parties who were obliged to go together and initial all signatures, I believe many evasions and mistakes and complaints will be avoided.
In addition to these reasons, I believe it will be found necessary in the circumstance of obtaining signatures that there should be one enumerator, if I may use the expression, who will be regarded as a friendly enumerator, one who is in a position to give the assurance that the signing of the particular form presented is really in the interests of the elector himself. I can see where there is

Franchise Act
going to be a great handicap, and a real difficulty, in limiting the right to vote to those only who have already signed an application for the purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only in urban communities. It worked all right in British Columbia.
_ Mr. MACKENZIE KING: It has worked in British Columbia, my right hon. friend says, but it will be new in other provinces, and I believe that the utmost industry and care will have to be taken in securing signatures, and in ensuring that as regards everyone, who ought to be included, so far as it is humanly possible to have their names included, that they are included in the lists.
Another feature that the Minister of Justice has mentioned and which I think ought to be very carefully considered is the right of appeal. The minister has said that, as matters now stand, the revising officer will take the lists as prepared by the enumerators, and that they will be the lists for the purposes of the election. The revising officers, let it be repeated, will, if the act remains in its present form, be the sole arbiters. There will be no appeal, no opportunity of having any revision, if a name does not happen to be on or has been erroneously inserted at the time the revising officer sends in the return. I certainly think there ought to be an appeal to a county court judge. If there is not, we will simply be returning to the old condition of affairs where, under the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald, revising barristers were appointed in the different constituencies. To that proposed procedure, it will be remembered by those who recall the times, there was the strongest objection raised in this house by all except those who sat on the government side. If I recollect aright, from a past reading of the debates, this House of Commons was kept in session for several days through objection to just that very feature of allowing revising barristers to have the final say as to whose names were to be on the list and not permitting an appeal to the county court. The Minister of Justice, was not in the house at the time, he came in shortly after but perhaps he will recall the circumstances better than anyone else. It certainly was not until the government permitted an appeal to a county court judge that the long blockade which took place at that time was lifted and the measure finally passed the house. If we are to agree on a measure of this kind, it ought to be possible at this time to take a step that many years ago was found absolutely necessary and in the public interest.
What I have said touches only some of the points that have been mentioned by the Minister of Justice. When we are in committee on the bill I perhaps will have more to say on other features. But I should like to repeat now that such discussion as took place between members of the government opposite and myself and1 the member for West Edmonton was wholly tentative and without prejudice, and was, I should also say, in entire confidence, a confidence which I believe has been respected by all who were parties to it.
The Minister of Justice has referred to rumours that were afloat in different parts of the country. May I say that I noticed those rumours myself, and, as a matter of fact, it was my having drawn the Prime Minister's attention to the circumstance that the press already appeared to have a copy of the proposed bill, which led the Prime Minister to say he regretted that the press had published something that purported to be this bill, and to say he could not understand how they possibly had got hold of any such measure.
I would also say-I do not know whether I pointed it out at the time to the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State-but recalling that our first interview, was on May 23, that before that interview had taken place at all, I saw in the papers of this city statements purporting to give the government's reasons for obliging those whose names were to be placed on the lists to have a knowledge of the French and English languages, and also referring to the Doukhobor matter. The news item was so worded as to indicate that it had been inspired by the administration with a view to putting forward its point of view. I do not imagine for one moment that such was the case, but the language of the interview is there, and that was before any conference at all had taken place. I think it was unfortunate that what was part of a draft, or may have been thought to have been part of the draft of the measure, has been discussed in advance, but certainly, so far as hon. members on this side of the house are concerned, I believe that anj'- who have referred to that phase of it have drawn their inferences from the common sources which we have all seen, namely the reports which appeared in the press in advance.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I was very much interested indeed in the explanation which the Minister of Justice gave of the proposed legislation which is to be founded o>n this resolution. It would appear to me that there are two important
Franchise Act

points which this house must keep in mind when considering any changes in the franchise act or in the electoral machinery which we may devise for the purpose of expediting elections.
First, we must safeguard the franchise of the electors. That in my judgment is the most important function of this house, and irrespective of the manner in which the lists may be prepared this house must see to it at all times that the name of every elector who is entitled to vote must be placed on the list if he so desires. Any legislation that falls short of that will in my judgment be a retrograde step and detrimental not only to the standing of the members of this house but to the country as a whole.
So far as the other point is concerned, namely, the reduction of the time that is necessary between the issuing of the writs and the day of the election, I believe that that is all to the good. My judgment is that elections in this country in the past have been carried on over too long a period of time, and if we can reduce the time necessary to give the electorate an opportunity of weighing all the circumstances and the proposals of the various parties who may be appealing to them, if the campaign can be confined to the time suggested by the Minister of Justice, about four weeks, that again would be a step in the right direction that I believe would be beneficial to all.
The only other point with which I wish to deal at the present time is this conference that took place between the government representatives and the official opposition. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a decided move on the part of the two major parties at the present time to ignore third and fourth and even more parties in the field at the present time, and not only to ignore them but to organize against them. In so far as the remarks of the leader of the opposition are concerned, he even went so far as to discuss the possibility of an understanding between the two major parties. In so far as the group in this corner of the house is concerned we wish to register our strong protest against any such proceedings because we recognize the fact that not only in Canada but the world over, because of the difference of opinion with regard to economic conditions, there is a growing tendency for more and more groups and more and more parties to come into the field. This house must recognize that fact, and give those parties and those groups the same standing and the same consideration that they expect to receive themselves.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Gardiner) I would remind the house that the action of the Prime Minister in stating that he would send a copy of the bill to myself, with a view to a conference, was made on the floor of the house in the hearing of hon. gentlemen in the far corner as well as of everyone else. At the time I rather expected that my hon. friend would rise and ask why he also was not receiving a copy of the bill; but the fact that he did not do so led me to believe that he had his own reason for not so asking. It is perfectly clear and within the memory of all who were present at the time that any action taken in the matter was taken in the presence and with the knowledge of everyone. More than that, the press reported each time there had been a conference, and on neither occasion did hon. gentlemen in the far corner rise and inquire why they had not been requested to participate in the conference. So far as I was concerned, as leader of the opposition, I was seeking to accommodate the government, as I believe they were seeking to accommodate the house. As to the reasons why my hon. friends may not have wished to be accommodated, of course I cannot say.


Mr. OAKLAND (Bow Kiver):: I resent these words from the leader of the opposition. We had never been invited to take part in the conference and it is not our part to butt in on the private arrangements of the two political parties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There were no private arrangements.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: This is one of the most disgraceful incidents that have occurred in my recollection in this house,- parties coming together to frame a bill of this importance without consulting a group in this corner who very shortly will be the government of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: The loud laugh bespeaks the vacant mind.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: That is an old chestnut.


Edward Joseph Garland: I submit that both parties, had they desired that unanimity and cooperation expressed in the opening words of the Minister of Justice, would have been well advised at least to have extended to us the courtesy of refusing, if we were mad or stupid enough to do such a

Franchise Act
thing. I can assure the government that we are always willing at any time to cooperate with them in the consideration of any measure which they may propose to bring before the house. I think it is an affront to the intelligence of the house itself that this sort of thing has been going on, and it is certainly an insult to the people whom we represent here.
I have this further word to say. If the principle that violation of the law is cause for disfranchisement laid down by the Minister of Justice is to be binding, or is to become a precedent for subsequent extension, then I warn the minister and the government that they are stepping into very dangerous ground which some day will bring trouble upon them and upon the country. Remember, I am not objecting to the disfranchisement of persons guilty of particular and specified . types of crime, but if this thing is to be done as the result of a violation of the law, it will be unjust. I submit the thought, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration and that of the house, that if violation of laws is to disfranchise people, the only supporters in the country of a political party would probably be those behind ourselves in this group. That is rather a consideration that might enter into the minds of hon. gentlemen.


Ernest Lapointe: What immodesty.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not immodesty; it is a fact. And if hon. gentlemen would read with more earnestness the evidence given before the Stevens committee they might be convinced that what I have said has a large measure of truth behind it. This matter has been utterly unfair from the beginning. I knew nothing whatever about these conferences; I heard nothing about them, and if there has been any exchange of bills between the government and the opposition, it surely should have been a matter of courtesy on the part of the government to have given us a copy. And since the leader of the opposition is such a lover of liberty and equality, I should imagine that he would have suggested the thought to the government, since they had not volunteered to extend us that courtesy. It is not fair, nor is it calculated to stimulate that spirit of good will and cooperation in the house which is certainly desirable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure the hon. member for Bow River will hardly think it was part of my duty or privilege to extend him any invitations on behalf of the government. My duty consisted in either accepting or refusing-


Edward Joseph Garland: I made myself very clear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
gentleman said he thought that I ought to have preferred certain requests. I felt that if any invitations were being issued, and inasmuch as the government was issuing them my responsibility consisted in either accepting or refusing the invitation extended. As regards the question of the hon. gentleman not having had any knowledge of the matter, as I have already pointed out, the Prime Minister's statement was made in this house -and it appears in Hansard-that he was sending a copy of the bill to myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said it twice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to my being an advocate of liberty, I have always felt, so far as the C.C.F. is concerned, that from the point of view of liberty they would prefer to make their own requests rather than have me make any on their behalf.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to corroborate,
if corroboration is necessary, the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to what transpired in connection with this bill. I stated in this chamber that I proposed to give him a copy of it. I later indicated to him in this chamber again that I proposed to do so, and' I did so. I did that because he is the only leader of the opposition recognized by law at the present moment. Which leader was I to select other than the official leader of the opposition? He occupies a statutory position; he is recognized as such, and is provided with certain emoluments as a minister of the crown. Now, which leader of the other oppositions was one to select? The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) has been perfectly fair; he spoke of four or five parties. Was I to send an invitation to the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), or ithe hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) ? And I was forgetting the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).
I did what I fancy any leader of a government would have done under similar circumstances, and I may say to my hon. friends in the southeast corner that the very reason I did it publicly in this house was to afford an opportunity for any statement to be made, if that was thought desirable, by others representing other sections or parties.
_ I confess that as to the number of parties in this house I have no clear understanding.
394S
Franchise Act

In my capacity I know only the official leader of the opposition, who appears in the statute and is provided f-or therein, and I must treat him as such. And I do. But when you ask me to deal with the hon. member for Acadia to-day, and peradventure the hon. member for Bow River to-morrow, and possibly the member for Labelle or the member for Comox-Alberni as leaders of parties, I find it a little difficult to understand where I am at. Under these circumstances I did what any member in this house in my position would have done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The bill is still before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that.
I stood in my place twice and said that I proposed to give a copy to the leader of the opposition, and no observations having been made, no suggestions, as sometimes has been the case in other matters, I thought that probably, for reasons that have been stated to-day, hon. gentlemen did not desire to participate in any discussions of the bill. At any rate, that is the fact.
The difficulties that we have had in dealing with this matter have been accentuated by statements that have appeared in the press. I did make a statement in the house with respect to what had appeared in one of the local papers. I have not yet ascertained the source of that paper's information, but that was based upon what we call our typewritten statement of points that had to be considered, which was subsequently set up in type, in the form these matters have always taken. We did not direct the form; it came to us in the form of a bill. That first one we had before us, and there were other points being pressed upon us.
The draftsman of the bill was asked to deal with all the points that might arise for consideration. Two of them were embodied as clauses not in the bill that it is proposed to submit to the house but in the rough draft of a bill that was discussed at a conference between the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Justice and his associates. The unfortunate telegrams that were sent to western Canada I cannot think were calculated to advance the interests of democracy. In one instance the correspondent of the paper alleged that his information came from official sources. In the other instance he quoted a section of what he said was a bill. There is only one way in which a document becomes a bill and that is on its introduction into the house as such. Since I have been in office I have found drafts of bills that

were considered and thought of but that never saw the light of day. I know one many years old that is in the privy council office. These bills were outlines of ideas that were in the minds of some ministers *who thought those ideas might be adopted. But until they are introduced into the house, they are not bills in the exact sense of the term. When at this time the government had a draft bill ready which it proposed to introduce, that was made use of to create passions and prejudices in certain quarters against the government and against certain candidates in an election in Saskatchewan. We can, however, eliminate that for the moment; the explanation has been made and it is not necessary to deal with the matter further.
But I have had some difficulty personally with regard to one phase of this question and I think it is a phase to which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has just referred: that is, under this legislation shall a body of lawbreakers who have successfully flouted the law be dealt with when it comes to a question of the franchise? One hesitates to deal with this by name because it is undesirable to mention by name. How are we to use terms so general as to be able to meet the situation? There was no intention of dealing with any sect within any province other than those in British Columbia. The difficulty is that we have for the first time in this country a successful and open defiance of the law, because it was successful, I am sorry to say. I now relate to the committee what I have not done before. When the census was being taken it gave His Majesty's ministers and council a great many hours of difficulty to determine how we were going to deal with this situation. It is very wrong to let people think they can openly and successfully flout the law of Canada; on the other hand, is it worth while to send an armed force of police and others at great expense and with much publicity to overcome this resistance? In the next place, if you overcome their resistance you cannot compel them to give you the accurate information that the census returns require. Finally, we secured the best estimate we could as to the numbers of men, women and children comprised in the colonies and as hon. members know, the house gave to the minister the necessary financial support to establish a special penitentiary on the Pacific coast where there are now, I believe, upwards of five hundred incarcerated.
Just what language should he used and whether such a provision should be made at all, is a matter that has been up for consideration and has been carefully studied, and I

Franchise Act
say frankly that we have not yet been able to arrive at an adequate solution. The problem is a very difficult one. At one time I thought of asking my colleague the Minister of Justice to leave a blank clause and to indicate what had to be dealt with, but as he very properly pointed out to me, that is not a sound way to introduce legislation. The matter is still giving us much thought and we are meeting to-night for the purpose of trying to arrive at some method with which to deal with it. I have very frankly, without any restraint, given the committee the facts regarding this problem.
With regard to the other point about which so much political capital has been made in some parts of the country, I suppose it must be within the knowledge of many members that we have had many and great difficulties in our courts. The Minister of Justice referred to his difficulty in reading reports of cases. There is the difficulty of securing an interpreter who is conversant with both English and the language of the person who is before the court in either criminal or civil proceedings. As the Naturalization Act provides that the granting of a certificate is predicated upon an adequate knowledge of either English or French, the question has been put to me and, I fancy, to many members on the other side as to what method should be adopted. The draftsman drew that clause for the purpose of having it discussed.
I may say that when I handed the proposed bill to the leader of the opposition I had not even read it in detail; it has not been before council and the bill was not before council until after the discussion in conference took place. It was agreed that council alone could not deal with it, but I say to the committee that it raises a problem of very considerable magnitude. If people go about and try to raise passions and prejudices by saying that parliament is endeavouring to take away from persons the rights and privileges they enjoy, that argues ill for democracy and for its future. If the fact that an effort is made to ensure that there shall be some understanding of the country's institutions, proceedings and matters of that kind by those who exercise the right of franchise, is to be made the reason for arousing prejudices against the government, then of course you do not get very far with improving conditions; that is all there is about that. That is how that matter came up. I fancy there are in western Canada very few lawyers who have not had at some time or another a judge speak to them about this question. At times it has been found a little difficult to proceed because of inability to 74726-250
secure an interpreter who would be able with sufficient mastery of English and the language of the settler to place the matter properly before the court. It must be remembered that these people are British subjects under the naturalization law. Sometimes when we express opinions with regard to some of these matters we are not quite familiar with all circumstances and difficulties with which we have to deal. Those were two problems that were mentioned to the draftsman as having been pressed upon the attention of the government. He made the notation on them in the manner in which the committee has it and it was dealt with at the little conference in the way indicated.
With respect to the matter mentioned by the leader of the opposition as to the two enumerators, I quite appreciate the force of his observation and of his argument with regard to an appeal to a judge. I do not think there will be any difficulty in that connection. The only reason it was left in the form in which it is, that is that it was not dealt with at all, is this: there were two considerations that should be brought to the attention of the committee before it is finally disposed of. One is the question of time; there must be no undue delay with respect to the matter, otherwise there would never be finality with regard to the lists; the other was to provide for simplicity of appeal, if possible without expense. Those two factors must be borne in mind and in addition, if there is a considerable body of appeals, you have the civil business of the district or county court judge to deal with in considering matters of this kind. I speak feelingly about this because under our present statute it became necessary to take appeals on several occasions; there was one instance in which I was interested and the delays were so considerable as to cause great difficulty to members of the house. The effort here-not the effort of the government only but the effort of this house, if they receive the measure which the Minister of Justice will submit to them-the collective effort of this house, without the government having any fixed ideas as to what is best, but hoping that the house itself will express its opinion as to what is best, will be to secure an honest expression of public opinion with respect to matters that are submitted to them at a general or by-election as the case may be. Now, I know the difficulties; I have not run in as many elections as I have without knowing the intolerable expense that candidates are put to in checking up existing lists under present conditions. A few hundred dollars would pay a candidate's entire election expenses in

Franchise Act

my constituency of West Calgary except for this. But in the last election checking up those lists literally cost me thousands of dollars. It is an exceedingly difficult thing. And I fancy that experience in a big city confirms that. One of my friends told me that in one of the large cities the cost was absolutely prohibitive. Those are the factors that we have in mind. The plan of having the elector sign his or her name was suggested to the House of Commons in 1917 or thereabouts-I am not sure whether to the house or to the government-but it was felt at that time that that would be too cumbersome a thing, and nothing was done. British Columbia adopted that plan and found it worked satisfactorily, because there is room on the sheet signed by the elector for him or her to sign again, so that the question of impersonation can be settled at once by comparison of the two signatures. What the right hon. gentleman has said as to the desirability, nay the necessity of the authenticity of the first signature being established is beyond question.


Mr. MERCIER (Outremont):: Has that
clause been effective in British Columbia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told that it has
rendered almost insignificant the number of cases in which it had to be used, because they knew it was there.


Mr. VENIOT:: It scared them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the fact of it being there had a deterrent effect. That is my information. I think Hon. Mr. Oliver put it on the statute book. I recall discussions that have taken place with many public men on both sides of politics at various times as to how this situation could be met, and this is the method we have adopted. I but state what is known to many people; I remember being told by a friend of mine that he had seen someone off on the train who had voted forty-seven times that day.


Mr. JACOBS:: He took the train at once, did he?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly did. I
merely mention that; it was not in the west. I am bound to say that in the west very little of that happens. I say that in no sense of pride but merely as a statement of fact; I suppose it arises from the fact that we are not very numerous out there and therefore we know one another, the scrutineers are sufficiently acquainted with the people of the district in which they live to know quite well if a person came down to vote in my name who in fact was not myself. I am told for 
instance that in one election in one of the great cities of this country several leading citizens appeared to vote and found that their votes had already been cast. They call that "telegraphing." Then I was informed not long since that in one of the great cities of the world, not in Canada, complete outfits of stage properties, wigs and clothes, were provided for the purpose of carrying on telegraphing on a very large scale during the whole day of an election. This is an effort to stop that. It has been found effective as a deterrent in British Columbia; I believe it will be here.
On the question of appeal I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty, providing we surround it with some safeguards that will make it clear that it is not to be used to bring about undue delay. I would like to point out that in England the revising barristers complete the work and do it in a very satisfactory way. Under extraordinary conditions there is provision for appeal-there was, I am not sure about the present law. The revising officers in the counties in England are paid a fairly reasonable stipend. I hope we shall be able to do the work in this country without undue expense, although as I said to the leader of the opposition, and say publicly here, I do not think that we should worry very much about spending a few dollars to secure decent lists in a country like this if we are to make our contribution to democracy. I hold that very strongly.
I have only this to add, that I deprecate more than I can say that an effort should have been made by false statements-because no bill has yet been submitted to this house- to create a prejudice in the minds of people whom w.e are trying to develop into good Canadians. The best way to develop them into good Canadians is to indicate as clearly as possible that they will be fairly and honourably and honestly treated, but that the same treatment is accorded to them as to others in this country. And secondly I regret, that it should be thought necessary to suggest that because we had to deal with an extraordinary condition in British Columbia, of which I have not yet found a solution that is satisfactory to me at least, that thereby it was thought that we were endeavouring to insert the thin end of the wedge to disfranchise people with whom we were not pleased. I realize the strength of every observation made by the hon. member for Bow River, nevertheless I do think that the peculiar circumstances of this case require that something be done to assert the supremacy of the law against those who have so deliberately, so defiantly and so successfully, flouted it.

Franchise Act


William Richard Motherwell: As one of the younger members of this house, both as to length of service and length of years, I was naturally very much interested in the beautiful presentation of the case by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Everything he said indicated fairness itself. It was rather unfortunate that it reminded me of an equally beautiful speech by the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) last year on the introduction of the redistribution bill. I have recollections yet of the cold steel that was used on that occasion, and I was wondering if we are due for similar disillusionment following the beautiful speech this afternoon of the Minister of Justice. Any how I know something about closed lists; nobody is going to fool me about them, when they are conducted with one government enumerator. It was because it was so obviously unfair in some cases with some enumerators that the government in 1930 gave the opposition an enumerator. In all my political experience I do not know of the opposition ever being given such a fair opportunity as that. That was fairness in action, not merely in words.
Well now, I would like to look up the history of closed election lists in Canada. We had a closed list in Canada once, in 1896. I remember it well, and it was when the government of that day also had its back to the wall. And it was a dandy closed list. I was a scrutineer at a poll and I know what was done the night before. I would have to look UP the election law and see whether that election in the west was held within the law, before I would care to say much more about it. But I would suggest to the ministry that fair words alone do not go very far in politics. I would like them to give us an opportunity to look into this matter; let it ride a little while until we look into the statutes of former years and possibly consult our constituents and see what they think about this. The year 1896 is a long time ago; there are very few people voting to-day who recall what happened then, so I would like this bill not to be rushed too rapidly. Do not let us get into a trance by mere fair words. We got out of any trance we may have been in last year on the redistribution bill mighty quick, and I am prepared to get out of any trance that I may be in now, although I do not think I am in any.


Mr. POWER:: Since I was fairly closely connected with the revision of the present act, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be permitted to make a few observations with respect to the bill shortly to be before the house. And
74726-250J
may I say that in doing so I wish to carry on the tradition which was established in that committee, namely that of looking at these problems in an effort to take politics out of elections or elections out of politics, as you may choose to put it. I believe that it is not in the best interests of any party in power to endeavour to take advantage of its majority to bring in legislation which might have the effect of giving to the opposition party or to any opposite parties an opportunity of telling the people of this country that they have been unfairly dealt with in the making up of the lists or in the conduct of the elections themselves. I think it is a sound political axiom that it is to the advantage of an opposition to go into an election campaign with a grievance as to the manner in which they have been treated. That this axiom is sound I think has been well exemplified this afternoon, when the only non-political party in the house has seen fit to take advantage of an apparent oversight in order to begin the discussion of this bill with a chip on its shoulder.
Following the point of view I have laid before the committee may I say that in many respects I think this bill deserves the commendation of hon. members. The first good point is the shortness of the time during which an election campaign will be waged. There is no doubt in the minds of most of us that a campaign lasting fifty-eight days, as is necessary under the act we now have, is far too long not only for the members of parliament but also for the people of this country. They sicken of the discussion of political issues; they become confused and in the end, I have no doubt, make up their minds all of a sudden, without giving to the questions before them that consideration which I think would be given if they had a shorter time in [DOT]which to consider them. This may sound paradoxical, but I believe that because the time is of such great length the people tend to become confused and do not give the clear, sound, sane judgment which they should on the matters brought before them.
I cannot commend the government too highly on the effort they are making, though it may not be entirely successful, to do away with personation, plugging, telegraphing or whatever it may be called. Perhaps all the members of this house have not had the experience some of us have had in some of the cities of the province from which I come. I think, however, that members from the cities of Montreal and Quebec, and perhaps even from Toronto, will frankly admit that it ha?
Franchise Act

reached the point where it is very easy for those who have the organization, those who lack conscience and those who have ability in that direction to cheat the will of the people and elect persons to this parliament who are not entitled to be elected.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: That reflects on the house.


Charles Gavan Power: This may reflect on the house, but we are speaking frankly and discussing this bill from a non-partisan standpoint. Anyone who has taken part in the elections in the cities of my province will agree with what I have said. I am told, though I have no authority for saying so, that this condition exists in some cities of Ontario, but my information is similar to that expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) this afternoon, that the custom of telegraphing, of plugging and so on obtains less and less as one travels towards the west. It may be, as the Prime Minister has said, that the western people know one another better, or it may be that they are not so well versed in the degenerate arts of politics as those of us who have had more to do with them in the past. In any case, it has come to such a pass that to my own knowledge in my own city it has become the jest of the tea parties among the ladies to see who will see to it that so and so's servant girl votes in such a direction. They say so without shame; they take it as a joke, as a farce. It has become a sort of game, like bridge, a game of bluff.
So I cannot speak too strongly or too earnestly on this point. People who are accustomed to carrying on this sort of election campaign, however, will not be easily deterred or defeated. Laws which under ordinary circumstances would deter people from taking the chance of a criminal prosecution are not likely to deter them at election time. In any case, however, because of this first attempt, because the government is endeavouring to the best of its ability to bring in some legislation which will prevent this state of affairs, I am prepared to give this particular phase of the bill my heartiest support.
Now I should like to say a word with regard to closed lists, which I assume means closed lists only in the cities, lists which will be made before the election campaign is inaugurated and which will be closed at a certain, date. On those lists the election will be decided. In principle I have always felt that such lists would be admirable. As a matter of fact during the sittings of the committee of 1929 and 1930, as you, Mr. [Mr. Power. 1
Chairman, and other members who are now in the house will recall, this matter of closed lists was discussed. Mr. O. M. Biggar, former chief electoral officer, prepared a bill covering the whole closed list situation. The idea which he presented to us was that the post offices throughout the country should be used as registration offices and that the moment the writs were issued for an election, the lists would be closed. At any time during the year except during the time a campaign was in progress in that particular constituency an individual would go to the post office and make out a form of affidavit; his name would be forwarded to the chief electoral officer at Ottawa, who would return a receipt to the applicant and also notify both or any political parties in the riding in which the man was registered. Meanwhile the list would be printed in Ottawa and kept continuously in print, adding names as they came through from time to time to the chief electoral officer. The objection to this came from hon. members on both sides of the house, and I think perhaps the same objection exists to some extent in the legislation proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). The objection was that members of parliament individually would be obliged to set up their own organizations in order to deal with the checking of applications as they were forwarded from the Chief electoral officer. This was a matter of some considerable expense to the individual member, and particularly in cases such as we have in the province of Quebec where there are no ward, county, riding or city associations which are prepared to bear the expense of the researches, the inquiries and if necessary the contestation of any names put on the list. That system was rejected unanimously by the committee. There was no question of partisan feeling or party politics and, Mr. Chairman, I know you will bear me out in that statement.
As I understand the Minister -of Justice, in connection with the outlined closed list system, as soon as the house prorogues there will be an enumeration, and I assume within a stated time the lists will be closed, and that those lists having been closed will serve for the purposes of any election which may take place until such time as a revision of the list is made, probably next year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next year.


Charles Gavan Power: Am I to understand there
is to be a yearly revision?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what is contemplated.

Franchise Act


Charles Gavan Power: First there is to be a general enumeration, of the people. Then, at a stated time the lists will be closed, and then afterwards in each year there will be a revision, not an enumeration:	The objection I find
to that-it is one which has no bearing whatsoever on party politics, but should, I believe, appeal to every hon. member representing a city constituency-is that it is almost impossible outside of election times, and even during election times, as has been pointed out by the Prime Minister, to get the people on their own initiative to come to register. The Prime Minister has expressed himself as having been obliged to spend large sums of money in order to bring persons to the registration booths.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To check them up.


Charles Gavan Power: And/ in order to check .them up; perhaps I misunderstood the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both.


Charles Gavan Power: Possibly the Prime Minister meant both. In the part of the country from which I come it costs almost as much to bring people to register, even when the lists are made during an election, as it does to bring them to the polls. I make that statement with full knowledge of the fact that bringing them to the polls is illegal. I say however that it costs almost as much to get those people to register, and perhaps it costs a little more in our province owing to the fact that as the women have not the franchise in the provincial elections they have not yet become accustomed to the exercise of the franchise in the federal elections. If it costs the individual member that much money during election times, I leave it to the imagination of hon. members on both sides of the house to decide what it will cost in a year when there are no elections. Let us suppose that there is an election this year, and that there will be no elections for three or four years to come. Next year, unless almost superhuman efforts are made by political parties or their representatives, it will be impossible to obtain any registration at all. It is a sad statement to make, but the fact is that the people of this country will not look after their own votes. I think that is the experience of any hon, member who represents a city constituency; no doubt he has found that the people themselves will not go to find out whether or not they are registered.


Mr. GOBEIL:: That is the case in the
provincial lists.


Charles Gavan Power: It is the case in any lists.
The provincial lists are usually made up by municipal councils and in the cities they are prepared by the assessors and certain other people appointed for that purpose. If I understand this legislation correctly, a registration bureau will be opened and it will be the duty of each individual voter of his own accord to come and have himself registered. It may be a reflection on the patriotism of my fellow citizens, but-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will be enumerated,
he will not have to come. He or she will be enumerated in the first instance, and if by any chance either one is left off he or she may go and register.


Charles Gavan Power: I comprehend what the
Prime Minister has said, namely, that in the first instance he will be enumerated. At this time I am not endeavouring to make any objections to the bill; I am endeavouring to commend those sections which should be commended, and altogether apart from any party interest I am endeavouring to point out to all hon. members wherein we shall be obliged to make some provision to cover the registrations at the second, third or fourth annual revisions in the cities. The Prime Minister has said that he or she will be enumerated in the first instance. But perhaps the right hon. gentleman is not familiar with the fact that in large cities such as Montreal-and this was shown very clearly before the elections committee-there is a movement of twenty-five per cent of the population per annum. So that even though a person were enumerated in the month of July, on the first of May in the province of Quebec a migration of population takes place in the cities, and in the province of Ontario a similar migration takes place in the month of October. There is a movement of at least twenty-five per cent of the population within the city from one address to another address in that city. Sometimes the migration is confined to one within the constituency, but more often it is without. That is altogether apart from young men and women who have reached the age of twenty-one years, from strangers coming into the city, from persons who have been naturalized and persons who for any other reasons have become qualified to vote. Figuring on twenty-five per cent for a four year period, we see that there is a 100 per cent migration, but we cannot figure exactly in that manner because, as hon. members know, some people remain at the same addresses year after year. The migration, nevertheless has been calculated at least twenty-five per cent.
Franchise Act


Hugh Guthrie: But their names would
be in the same division. They could go back and vote.


Charles Gavan Power: Not necessarily. When I
speak of the twenty-five per cent migration, I have in mind the example most familiar to me, namely that of the city of Quebec. The division of Quebec West, so ably represented in this house by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), is just across the street from the division which I represent. There is a continuous migration to and fro. After the first of May those who have been living in the St. Sacrement section of the division represented by the Solicitor General might very well move across the street and live in that section of St. Sacrement which I represent in this house. The same would apply with respect to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), and this movement cannot be controlled.


Hugh Guthrie: But they would be on
the lists.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: And it would be a
matter of only a few months until a new list was prepared. I inquired about this matter as it applies to England. I learned that they have the same difficulty over there, particularly in London. People living in one division move to another. If an election comes along before the second revision they go back and vote in the division in which they formerly lived.


Charles Gavan Power: But the point I make is
that those who have so migrated, although they may be on the lists in, let us say the division represented by the Solicitor General, will not take the trouble to register themselves in the division in which they reside.


Hugh Guthrie: They will not have to; they will be on the list.


Charles Gavan Power: They will be on a list, but they will not be on the list in the division in which they reside.


Hugh Guthrie: There will be a hiatus there. They will vote where they are on the list until the next revision takes place.


Charles Gavan Power: I would suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that that would hardly be the proper way to make a list which is representative of any given constituency. If .they will not register the first year, they will not register the second or third year, and when the election comes on they will have been perhaps two or three

years away from the place where they were when the enumeration was made. Those people will still be entitled to vote in the electoral division represented, let us say, by the solicitor general whereas they will have been residing let us say, in my division or in that of the hon. member for Quebec East for three years. Unless there is a check made by the individual member of parliament, and at .the cost of the member of parliament, there is no way of controlling it. A member of parliament does -not want to represent people who have not resided in his division for two or three- yeiars or does he want to deprive people who have been residing in his division for two or three years of the right to vote in the place where they live, and unless we can find some means of providing that the government will assist in the making of the second and third and fourth annual revisions, I fear that -the object which the Minister of Justice has in mind will be defeated. I am making this point not from any partisan motive because it affects equally all members who represent city constituencies. Almost inevitably it will place on their shoulders a financial burden which it will be very difficult for most of them to bear. It seems to me that if it were at all possible this burden should be borne by the state and not by the individual member.
With respect to some of the other matters which have been brought to our attention by the Minister of Justice may I say that though I have not had any experience of the matter myself the tradition exists throughout the country that the actions of the revising barristers in 1892 and 1896 were such that no one desired that we should return to that system, which made it possible for revising barristers at their will and discretion, and probably at the behest of their political friends, to place on the list or to bar from the list those whom they thought friendly or dangerous. I sincerely hope that the revising officer may have his powers so restricted and curtailed that nothing of this nature will be possible, or -that there will be some system of appeal whereby the courts of the country will be called upon to give final judgment as to whether or not R person is qualified to vote. I entirely agree with what has been said by the minister that in this event there should be some arrangement whereby appeals will be expedited. It would be useless to have an appeal to the courts if the procedure was of such a nature that persons who were entitled to vote or persons who for some reason should be excluded from voting could indefinitely hold up the judgments of the court.

Franchise Act
There is one more thing to which I should like to make a reference before I take my seat. When we had a revision of the list in 1929 and 1930 an attempt was made by some members of the committee to do away with what we called the hypocrisy of what exists in the election, act-those provisions of the act which make crimes where no crimes exist, which make it illegal and sometimes an indictable offence to do things which every one of us knows is being done in every election. I refer to the employment of canvassers; I refer to the payment of the transportation of voters-


Hugh Guthrie: That is in the other act. This deals with the voters' list.


Charles Gavan Power: I do hope that if we have a chance to revise the elections act-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will.


Charles Gavan Power: -that we shall have a
chance to efface from our statutes provisions which are more noticeable in the breach than in the observance. What is the use, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, of placing on the statute books laws which will disqualify or annul the election of any member here when every member, or almost every member does his best to evade that law when election time comes. I leave this thought in the minds of the committee, that if there is any way of taking the hypocrisy out of the election act and making it a square, fair and honest one it would be far better for the country as a whole.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Mr. Chairman, during the past three weeks I must have received over three dozen letters from individuals all over the west who have asked me whether there is some diabolical scheme on foot on the part of the government to disfranchise certain citizens of this country. It was therefore with a great deal of relief that I heard the Minister of Justice say that the section with regard to the language qualification would be deleted from the forthcoming bill.


Hugh Guthrie: It has not been in any bill and it is not going to be in the bill to be introduced.


Michael Luchkovich: In any case it was spread all over Canada that there was a scheme emanating from a draft bill of the government whereby certain citizens of this country were to be disfranchised at the next election. Personally I do not think that a language qualification is a real criterion by which to measure the intelligence of a voter for I know a great many citizens of
Canada who are not able themselves to speak either English or French but who, nevertheless have children in the universities of this country. I know of oases where men who cannot speak adequately either English or French have given to this country at least four or five children who have developed into the finest type of citizen that this country could ask for. I have in mind one of them, a young lady who graduated from Manitoba university a couple of years ago with the highest possible standing that could be given to any student. I know many similar young men and women throughout the whole country. It is not so much on behalf of the old people who cannot speak English or French, although I strenuously object to their proposed disfranchisement, that I am speaking at the present time, but on behalf of t'heir children because if their parents are disfranchised it certainly casts some reflection on these very able young people.
Even if such a language qualification were imposed by the law who would be able to judge whether a man could speak English or French? I can vizualize the hon. member for New Westminster being disfranchised by the man who had the final say in the matter because the latter might claim he could not speak English and who might say to the hon. member: You have not an adequate knowledge of English. You speak with a distinct Scotch burr. A lot of these people who cannot speak English or French are splendid citizens, highly industrious, honest, law-abiding and very intelligent. I know that in 1930 they went to the polls in droves and voted for the present government. I leave it to the present government to say whether or not that was a criterion of their intelligence.
That is all I have to say in regard to this bill. I am very glad to hear from the lips of the Minister of Justice that no such thing is contemplated as a language qualification for voting.


Mr. BROWN:: There are one or two things that I should like to say. I am fully aware of the difficulties of providing for an election list that will be satisfactory in all respects. There has been a good deal said about the crookedness with which elections have been carried out in the past but I want to bear this testimony. In the four elections which I have run in order to come to this house I have not had a single complaint to make against a Conservative returning officer or enumerator or against a Liberal returning officer or enumerator. It is true that in some cases mistakes were made. The officers did
Franchise Act

not understand all their duties and all their instructions, but 1 think they carried on the elections with perfect fairness. As regards closed lists, we have found in our part of Manitoba that the provision that allowed men to swear in their votes on election day worked very satisfactorily. In my own constituency I never heard of its being abused by either party. I found it particularly satisfactory in regard to young men or young women who had come of age just a short time before the election, and therein I see some hardship if the lists are revised only annually. It is quite possible that a young man or woman might not be of age when the list was finally revised and might therefore be precluded from voting not only at that election but perhaps for a period of five years. I speak with some feeling on this matter, because through a combination of circumstances I was twenty-nine years old before I was ever able to vote. My first vote was cast in the province of Quebec and since then I have been voting in Manitoba.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it a good vote?


Albert Joseph Brown: Yes, it was a good vote. Some consideration should be given to this, that young men and young women who perhaps are not of age at the time the list was finally prepared ought to be afforded an opportunity, if possible, of having their names recorded immediately after coming of age.
As regards the provision for signing the name on the list, I make no complaint. I think it is an attempt to secure us against that evil of personation on which emphasis has been laid. But, so that we may know these things better when the bill is before us, I should like to ascertain whether the enumerator has to go to the elector to secure his signature or whether it is left to the elector to come to the enumerator. Evidently they have to sign a list of some kind in order to be identified when they come to the poll. However, we shall probably find out these things more definitely when the bill is before us.
Another feature which I hope will appear in the new act is that the provision for removing dead timber from the list shall be a little more satisfactory than it has been in some instances. In Manitoba this was under provincial law. We had for a time a law requiring registration, but the conditions laid down for the removing of dead timber from the list were so onerous that it was almost impossible to convince a judge that

these names should not be on the list. I know that names continued to appear on the list six or seven years after they should have been removed, owing to the impossibility of submitting to the judge the necessary evidence. I trust that these points are being taken care of in the new act.


Mr. NEILL:: I agree very much with the
remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Brown). I wish to say a few words on behalf of an element that has not been dwelt on to any extent this afternoon, and that is the large country district. I know little about conditions in the city, for I am not familiar with them: I am talking solely about conditions that prevail in the large scattered areas in British Columbia, in which the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson), the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn) and I are interested.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is right when he says that impersonation has been largely done away with in British Columbia by the system of signing your name when you go to vote, but he is not on such sound ground when he holds up British Columbia as an object lesson as regards the other features of his bill, because he has not copied British Columbia; he has taken only a small portion of their act. Let me show the difference.
As far as I can judge from this legislation, there is to be a revision once a year. That is not the way in British Columbia, although the minister suggested that it was. There is a permanent voters' list in British Columbia, but it is revised every three months, and that makes a great difference, and before the election is held there is a special court of revision. The court is held within a few weeks of the election. I do not remember what the period was in the last provincial election, but it was only a matter of weeks before the election that the court of revision was held. The list formerly was revised every six months but now it is revised at intervals of three months, so that voters can get on the list.
The minister did not advert to the fact that British Columbia makes some provision for the man who has moved and is not on the list in the district in which he resides. We have a system of absentee voting which is not suggested under this legislation. That absentee vote permits a man who has moved from one district in which he is registered into another district where he is not, to vote in the latter. He cannot afford the money to go back to vote in the district in which he is registered

Franchise Act
and therefore he is allowed to vote in the district in which he is residing, though not for the candidates in that district but for the candidates in the district in which he is registered. The absentee vote is placed in a special envelope.
As other hon. gentlemen have asked, what are you going to do with a man or woman who comes of age or is naturalized during the interval of one year from the time of the last revision? The principal objection I take to that part of the legislation is this. We have a large transient population in British Columbia; nowhere in Canada more than in North Vancouver and in the district I represent does this situation prevail, and possibly in Cariboo to some extent, though I am not so sure about that. There is, however, a large transient population all the time, and not only are these people moving from place to place but they are, so to speak, in permanent transition. That is to* say, they make their winter homes-loggers and fishermen-in Vancouver, New Westminster and other places, and when the season starts in the spring they move over to the district I represent. Under the old legislation now in force they could vote in our district provided they had been there sixty days before the election; but under this system they will not be able to vote anywhere. If they are registered in Vancouver they cannot afford to go back there to vote and they will not be allowed to have an absentee vote, so that it will mean the disfranchisement of hundreds of voters in the district I represent. It would be putting it extremely moderately to say that not less than ten per cent of the usual population of the district I represent will be disfranchised if the legislation now proposed goes through. I am being extremely moderate when I say ten per cent. The same thing is true of the fishermen. The fishermen has his home in one place, but by the very nature of his occupation he has to follow the fish; he goes up the coast, and formerly he would register in the place where he was likely to be during the sixty days preceding the election. Now he will register once for all and will thereby be disfranchised.
There is a third point which was highly commendable in the dominion act and which will be done away with now, and that is what is known as swearing oneself in on election day. Suppose an enumerator, through carelessness or malice aforethought or for some other reason, neglected to put a man on the voters' list; or suppose he did not happen to be there at the time the enumerator made up the list. By the dominion act the voter could go on election day and take an
oath, provided he got someone on the list to vouch for him, swearing that he had been sixty days within the electoral district and so many days in the particular polling district, and he would be allowed to vote. He was sworn, and if he made a false affidavit he could be followed up and punished. That system has not been abused to any extent worth mentioning. Now, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) says, the first principle of such legislation should be to see that every man who is qualified and entitled to vote gets his chance; but under this legislation that will be very far from being the case.
One other thought. I see the minister taking notes. I hope he will particularly take note of the question of dealing with transients and also with that of having the revision take place oftener than once a year. I notice great stress was laid on the desirability of shortening the period before an election. When the hon. member for Acadia approved the action of the government he received considerable support from my friends to the right and it seems to be a general feeling that a shorter period is desirable. It is desirable principally for those who live in cities where a man can go and address a meeting of two thousand people every night for a fortnight and thus cover his electors. That cannot be done in a rural district. In my constituency there will be something like 150 polling stations at the next election; there were 108 at the last one. Presumably it is proposed to cover that ground in twenty-eight days. If you count out Sundays, that will mean six and a half meetings every day, which is an absolute impossibility. The average meeting in the riding I represent would run about forty people to each; the very highest would not be more than from 350 to 400 and the smallest would be a dozen, perhaps twenty. You would have to go by launch possibly twenty miles to meet those twenty people and it would be impassible to hold more than one meeting in one little place in one day. It is proposed to compel candidates to cover an area with 150 polling stations in twenty-eight days, or it might be twenty-one days, as the Minister of Justice intimated. How can this be done? Is it fair to the candidates? Is it fair to the member? It may be said that the member has as good a chance as anybody else, but hb has not, because his opponent may be busily canvassing the district while we are sitting here. This proposal puts a handicap upon the sitting member.
Again, reference was made to Great Britain. I do not think one could get a poorer illustra-
395S
Franchise Act

tion in this case than to quote Britain as an example. Compare the vast spaces of the districts in the prairies and British Columbia and then point to Britain as a suitable illustration or something to copy 1 That was not the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were talking about the marketing bill. Then they found a thousand reasons that on account of the compact, small, and highly populated area, they did not think it was appropriate to use certain standards or principles. This is a case where there cannot be any possible comparison between conditions in Great Britain and those in Canada.
By the way, someone said that it was necessary, and surely it is a sound principle, that people should be or have a chance to be informed before they cast their votes. The only way in which they can be informed, unless by reading partisan newspapers, is by hearing the candidates, and if they did so, they would at least have a run for their money.. How can that be done if the election is to be oarried out in twenty-four or possibly twenty-one days in an area such as I have mentioned in British Columbia? My district has over 2,000 miles of coast line with little settlements scattered along it. There are only 100 miles of railway in it and most of the travelling has to be done by launch or motor car. I quite agree with the idea that a shorter period is desirable for a city election, but justice must be done; the law must be made to apply to all cases, and I strongly protest against the injustice that will be done in those three instances I have indicated. I shall only repeat that I am thoroughly familiar with the subject so far as my district is concerned and I have no 'hesitation in saying that this proposal means the disfranchisement of hundreds of electors.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to reserve until the bill is before the house, any remarks I wish to make. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has stated that the questions of double enumerators and of appeals from the revising officer to a judge have not been definitely settled and that provisions with regard to them might be inserted in the bill. As it is not yet ready I wish to emphasize the necessity of incorporating those two features in order to make the bill acceptable to everyone on this side.
I understand the people will be enumerated only for the basic list which will be prepared and then a yearly revision will be made by the revising officer in each constituency without the help of enumerators. That makes it more necessary to have in the law the right 
of appeal from the revising officer at the yearly revisions.
There is one question I should like to ask the Minister of Justice: Has the question of bachelors who are at the present time employed in relief camps in many parts of the country been considered? Are they supposed to give their votes at the places where they are at present working or will they register their votes at the places from which they came? Has that question been considered at all?


Hugh Guthrie: There has been no change in regard to the residence qualification as it appears in the statute to-day. The matter is under consideration. I mean to say that no decision has been made. So far as the residential qualification is concerned, there is no provision for any change, but if these relief camps are going to be in existence for some time, some#consideration will probably have to be given to that subject.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


Mr. BURY:: May I ask with the consent of the house to revert to the order of presenting reports and motions?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
The house having reverted to the order for presenting reports by standing and select committees :



STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the sixth report of the select standing committee on standing orders and moved that
the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 100, respecting the St. Clair Transit Company-Mr. Gray.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, respecting shipping- Mr. Duranleau-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On. section 2-Definitions.
Subsections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 5-British ship registered in Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas Reid: Stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, carried.

Canada Shipping Act


Thomas Reid: I thought it was the understanding that clauses on which there may be a great deal of contention would be allowed to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But these are only definitions, they have no substantive effect. The rest of the bill depends on the definition given to these words.


Thomas Reid: But in connection with some
other definitions that affect the port of New Westminster I have some amendments to move.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be time enough
when we reach them.


Thomas Reid: But this is one of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, let us have it.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 6-Builders' mortgage.
Mr. DUFF:: Before we proceed any further with this bill I again appeal to the government not to place myself and some other members in this position. We are dealing with one of the most important bills introduced this session, one which I know very little about and for which I do not intend to take any responsibility in .the way of accepting either the definitions, the clauses or anything else. I feel that I am not qualified as a member of this house to deal properly with this bill. I do not feel that I can move any amendments to the definitions or the clauses or the schedules without consulting people who know a great deal more about these matters than I do. Consequently if the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) and the government intend to proceed with this bill, as far as I am concerned I make this protest here and now. If they want to go ahead and carry the definitions or the sections or the schedules let them go ahead on their own responsibility.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I make the same protest, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 7 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On subsection 13-Coast of Canada.
Thomas Reid: I would probably adopt the
same attitude as some hon. members on this side of the house were it not for the fact that I know how difficult it is once a bill is passed to have it reopened and amended. Therefore under the circumstances I cannot allow the bill to pass without endeavouring
to have some changes made that I think should be made. I have an amendment to move to subsection 13.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Will my hon. friend
permit me to interrupt?


Thomas Reid: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: I stated yesterday
and I repeat that in my estimation there are not many sections which will prove controversial. I think my hon. friends will agree with me on that when they have read the whole bill. I told my hon. friend that any section that he wished should stand in order to have time to study it and make suggestions I am perfectly willing to let stand. With reference to those that concern the fishermen for instance. I told my hon. friend yesterday that I did not think anything in the bill was hurtful to the fishermen or to men engaged in the fishing industry. My hon. friend said I was wrong. I may be wrong but I say this, that by this bill we do not intend to injure in any way the fishermen or the people engaged in the fishing industry. I am willing to let all the sections which may affect them stand for the moment.


Alan Webster Neill: For how long?


Alfred Duranleau: Oh well, until Monday or Tuesday of next week.


Alan Webster Neill: That is no use.


Alfred Duranleau: That will be ample time to study this question.


Alan Webster Neill: And to get word from the Pacific coast?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think my hon. friend needs word from the Pacific coast, he knows these subjects perfectly well. We do not want to injure the fishermen in any shape or form. We are prepared to accept any reasonable amendment suggested by mj hon. friends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the suggestion about subsection 13?


William Duff: The minister is very good to say that he is willing to do anything to help to amend this bill in any way which may be beneficial. He also said there were very few controversial clauses. I am sorry I cannot agree with that; there are a great many controversial clauses. Not only are there controversial clauses which I can see and Which the minister can see and which other hon. members of this committee can see, but what I am afraid of is that I have not sufficient knowledge of my own to deal here with any clauses in this bill. I feel
Canada Shipping Act

that before this bill is considered in this committee we should have the views of people who are vitally interested, both on t'he Pacific coast and the Atlantic coast and the great lakes. There is my difficulty. I say to the minister that I am not going to take any responsibility for allowing any clauses to pass, because as I said I have not sufficient knowledge to say whether they are right and proper or not.
While I am on my feet let me say that since last night I have endeavoured to Btudy a few more pages of this bill, turning from the definitions to the clauses and then to the schedules. In twenty-four hours I have read twenty-five more pages. I am now at page 99. The minister says he is willing to give us a couple of days more. I say that is not long enough. As far as I have gone in these definitions I find twenty-two objections in the definitions alone. Though I have found twenty-two objections in the 113 definitions I am afraid that I may not have found all of them. There are other people in this country who are vitally interested and who, if they had a chance to study this bill, instead of the twenty changes I have in mind might find forty. Take subsection 38 of this section. Does the minister know that a man cannot go to Hudson bay because of that subsection?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear; I was going to speak of that.


William Duff: The subsection reads:
"Home-trade voyage" means a voyage not being an inland or minor waters voyage between places nothin the area following, to wit:-Canada, the United States of America, the territory of Alaska not west of Cape Spencer, Newfoundland, Labrador, St. Pierre and Miquelon, in the course of' which a ship does not go north of the 60th parallel of north latitude or south of the 36th parallel of north latitude.
Let me ask the Minister of Marine if he knows where the 60th north parallel is. As the minister knows, a parallel is like a half moon; at one end you can go to Greenland, but you cannot get past Cape Chidley into Hudson bay.


Mr. AVHITE (London):: I should like to
ask the hon. member a question. Is he now in favour of the Hudson bay route?


William Duff: I was never in favour of the Hudson bay route, so far as building the railway was concerned. Every day I live I am more opposed to it, and I think more people are coming to believe that it never should have been built in the first place, and that we should not have spent $50,000,000 of

the money of the people of Canada on it. But so far as the Hudson bay route is concerned my hon. friend and I are in the same position; he voted and I voted money for that purpose. Each of us was foolish, if I may be allowed to include him in the same category with myself.
I have these ninety-nine pages littered with my memoranda. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) is worried about this matter; no doubt he would like to move some amendments, as it is his duty to do. I am afraid that if the minister should adopt some suggestions of mine they may interfere with some of the other clauses in this bill or some of the definitions. Let me go a little further with regard to the sections I have read in the ninety-nine pages I have covered; let me count up and see how many I think are not right and should be amended.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense.


William Duff: I will not dispense. I am
taking my own time; if you do not like it, instead of sitting behind the curtain, get out. I have the floor, and I am going to take my own time in this committee. As a marine man interested in this legislation I have a perfect right to give my views. If my hon. friend has no views to give at least he might do me the courtesy of listening, as I always listen to him. I have not been able to go into all these clauses, but there are many that I think should be amended.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are they?


William Duff: I cannot tell what they are; it would take too long. There are at least twenty-five clauses with which I am not satisfied, at any rate. I say to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine that it is not fair to expect me, with my insufficient knowledge, to deal with this matter properly. In spite of the fact that this matter has been before another part of this parliament for two years; in spite of the fact that certain lawyers have endeavoured to draft it into proper shape, I say to the minister that it would be a mistake to put this act into force or carry any of these definitions or sections without giving the people of this country who are vitally interested in the matter a chance to state their views. Because I do not feel qualified to agree to any of these definitions or sections, so far as I am concerned I must sit here in my place and let somebody else carry them if they feel they should be put through as they now appear.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for New Westminster made some reference to the diffi-

Canada Shipping Act
culty of reopening a bill after it was passed, with which we are well acquainted. I am willing to bet him the price of a hat, however, that if we pass this bill now in its present form there need be no fear but that it will be reopened next year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to say just a word in support of the contentions of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I have received certain representations from the Vancouver Chamber of Shipping in regard to many of the sections of this bill. I believe there are some eleven or twelve changes which they suggest in the particular section we are now considering, and I may add that in their communication they ask that the bill be well considered before being passed by the commons. They also ask that the other points in their memorandum, which are of equal importance, be considered before the bill is passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did they see the final bill?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that these representations were sent to the Senate last year, when bill J was before the Senate committee. I do not believe the representations were endorsed by that committee, but I am asked by a very important organization on the Pacific coast to raise these questions in committee. For instance, they want to add further definitions with regard to entry, goods, ship owner, warehouse, warehouseman, wharf, wharfinger, scow and so on. They want to re-define grain. They want to re-define the word "voyage" in section 3. They want me to discuss sections 116, 136, 156, 192, 209, 280, 366, 373, 528, 700, 721,723 and so on. I do not suggest that I agree with all the representations made by this organization but I am supporting the contention of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough that these representations have come to us from very important shipping organizations and federations throughout the country, and I believe at least they should receive the careful attention of this committee. In connection with this memorandum I should like to ask the minister if he would be good enough, if I leave the memorandum with him, to indicate the objections if any which he or the department may have to these representations as they affect the various sections of the bill. Possibly in that way we may be able to somewhat expedite the progress of the measure, and the representations which it is my duty to bring before the committee will have received full consideration.


Alfred Duranleau: I have no objection to the suggestion of my hon. friend, but I should like to point out that some Vancouver associations were heard by the Senate committee. I believe some of the points raised by my hon. friend were brought forward there and discussed, and either accepted or refused.
I know the Vancouver Chamber of Shipping sent representations almost similar to those suggested by my hon. friend, and the Merchants' Service Guild of Vancouver was heard by that committee also, or forwarded a memorandum containing what they suggested by way of amendment to the bill. I have no objection to letting the sections referred to by my hon. friend stand when they are called, and in the meantime we might look over his memorandum and see what we can do under the circumstances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to read to the minister what this organization say:
During the 1933 session a bill to consolidate and amend the Canada Shipping Act, known as Bill J, was introduced into the Senate. This was a very extensive piece of legislation and received full and careful study by shipping interests here who, after six months hard work, prepared a submission. .. . These were sent to the hon. Minister of Marine, but in the interim the bill was withdrawn from the Senate owing to slight defects of which you are probably quite aware.	For this
reason our submissions never came before the Senate committee on banking and commerce to whom the bill has been remitted, as it had in the meantime been withdrawn.
Apparently the hon. Minister of Marine has not thought fit to take cognizance of our suggestions as we find that the bill as reintroduced, now known as Bill E, to the Senate, has been changed only in one or two very minor respects in conformity with our recommendations.


Alfred Duranleau: I think this statement is not correct, because all tihe representations received in the Department of Marine either by myself or by my officials were put before the man who was in charge of the drafting of Bill J, and moreover all the memoranda were placed before the Senate committee for study. For that reason I do not think the statement in the document to which the hon. member has referred is fair to my department.


William Duff: Is the minister referring to the gentleman who gave the interview in Vancouver and said with regard to this bill he would simply use scissors and a paste p6t? Is that the person to whom he is referring?


Alfred Duranleau: I never saw the report about any interview of that kind.


William Duff: Well, it is true; he said that.
Canada Shipping Act


Thomas Reid: Yes, Mr. Griffin, who drew up the bill, said he came to Ottawa with paste and scissors, because after (he had been here and made the suggestions to the minister he wrote an article for t'he Province newspaper, a copy of which I have in my hand. But when the minister says only a few changes might occur, I must draw his attention to the fact that Mr. Griffin, the lawyer who was brought to Ottawa, said .that most of the bill was drawn on the basis of the old country act.


William Duff: Which is not applicable here.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend must agree that the bill now before the committee is not Bill J. It- has been entirely remodelled. As a matter of fact it was remodelled during the lecess, and produced before the Senate as Bill E in the present session. Bill E was studied by the committee on banking and commerce, and was remodelled to so great an extent that it had to be reprinted. For those reasons I say that we have not Bill J before us.


Thomas Reid: On that point, I should like to refer to two clauses in the bill which I believe were in Bill J, are now in Bill E, and which are very important. I refer first to the measurement of ships, which, I understand, is laid down by the Board of Trade of England and which are in t'he present bill. Then .there is the matter of the definition of voyages, which I understand is the definition given by the Board of Trade, or contained in the British Shipping Act. I understand that in Bill E. we have adopted the words "home-trade voyage," the same as defined in the board of trade articles in Great Britain. Those subsections were in Bill J and are in t'he bill before us.


Alfred Duranleau: If the hon. member has any objection to those sections we will let them stand and see what can be done about it.


Thomas Reid: I do object and I am drawing the minister's attention to the fact that what you are stating to the committee is not exactly correct, and am indicating that much of that which is now before the house has been copied from the British Shipping Act or the Board of Trade articles, and so has an important bearing upon the shipping of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member said he had some objection to subsection 13. What is the objection; what is the trouble?


Thomas Reid: I have this objection to subsection 13, that inland waters such as those 
of the Fraser river, where for a distance of oyer eighteen miles salt and fresh water combine, are not defined in the bill. If one turns to subsections 35 and 41 he will find that Montreal is mentioned, and the seacoast of Canada shown in subsection 13, but the harbour of a port like New Westminster is not mentioned and should be. The words "inland waters" of the Fraser river should be in that definition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The coast of Canada does not mean the inland waters; the hon. gentleman must take the definitions as we proceed with them. The coast of a country means simply what it says, namely the sea coast, the salt water bays, the gulfs and harbours on the sea coast of Canada. We must keep in mind the relative jurisdictions of the provinces and the dominion. The coast of the country is the contour following the parts touching salt water. There are other definitions dealing with the other points.


Thomas Reid: The representations were made to me by a man well versed in shipping, and one who has had life experience in shipping matters, and he says that as a matter of international law a question might arise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, unfortunately he does not know what he is talking about.


Thomas Reid: We will agree to differ on that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry to say that, because this definition cannot be modified without making it silly. The coast of a country is simply the coast of a country, not the rivers, or anything else.


Thomas Reid: If the Prime Minister would look at subsections 35 and 41 he would see there definitions given concerning certain ports, and also ports on the salt water.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another thing
altogether.


Thomas Reid: It is complementary to subsection 13. That shows the difficulty we are having here in committee when we attempt to put amendments. I have here a legitimate amendment concerning the port of New Westminster, and the Prime Minister just throws it out and says it is not necessary. If that is the way I am to be treated I shall have to join the others in their protests.


William Duff: Do not take any responsibility for it at all.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I believe it was yesterday the Minister of Marine made the observation that he had had communications in the form of telegrams from some marine organi-

Canada Shipping Act
zations asking that the bill be passed or pressed forward. Could he tell me the names of those organizations, and from whom he received the communications?


Alfred Duranleau: I gave the names yesterday. There was the National Association of Marine Engineers, Council No. 8. I had a communication from the Shipping Federation of Canada, an organization with branches throughout the dominion.


Humphrey Mitchell: From council No. 8?


Alfred Duranleau: No, that was the other one. I received a wire from the Canada Steamship Lines, Limited, and a telegram from the executive council of the Canadian Navigation Federation, St. Lawrence division. The last communication I received was as follows:
Respectfully submit very important shipping bill should go through and become law this session.
This telegram was signed by Mr. C. B. Hamelin.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am interested in the National Association of Marine Engineers, and I should like to know whether that organization spoke for the national association or for only one of the councils.


Alfred Duranleau: For one of the
councils.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are eighteen
councils.


Alfred Duranleau: They spoke for No. 8.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are seventeen
others.


Alfred Duranleau: I stated that yesterday.


Humphrey Mitchell: A communication from one of them would not mean anything. I have communications from the national council asking for many amendments to the bill.


Thomas Reid: Would the minister tell me how many of the 149 amendments sent by the Canadian Association of Seamen were adopted?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say offhand, but I know that they were very carefully considered and dealt with by the committee, who received the advice of the officials of my department.


Thomas Reid: My information is that none of them was adopted, that they asked for personal representation and a chance to speak on. matters which affected their very lives.


Alfred Duranleau: If none of them was adopted I suppose it is because the committee or subcommittee felt that they should not be embodied in this bill.


Thomas Reid: Why should not the seamen
have an opportunity to make personal representations when the safety of their lives depends on the provisions of this act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the
minister received any representations from the Pacific coast that this bill be passed at this session?


Alfred Duranleau: I told the committee yesterday that I received these wires yesterday because these people had read in the papers the debate of last Friday when my hon. friends opposite insisted on having consideration of this bill postponed until next session. Of course, on the Pacific coast they had not yet read the debate in the papers-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: AVe are
not as far away as that.


Alfred Duranleau: They may have read short news items, but not the full debate of last Friday that appeared in the eastern papers.


William Duff: I could not find in the eastern newspapers a report of the full debate of Friday.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend did
not read the Montreal newspapers.


William Duff: I did. I read the Montreal
Star and the Gazette.


Alfred Duranleau: Their Saturday
editions had a full report of the debate on Friday.


Thomas Reid: In regard to the load line
convention Canada is following her own course because Great Britain has a special act of fifty-four pages dealing with the load line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That illustrates, Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to point out yesterday. If my hon. friend will read the load line convention he will see that it is international in character, and that it was signed by Great Britain, Canada, and the other nations of the world. It was ratified by this country, and Great Britain's is exactly the same as ours.


Thomas Reid: My authority for that statement, now that it has been questioned, is the man that drew up the bill, Mr. Griffin. I have an article here by him in which he says that our load line is entirely different.
Canada Shipping Act


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend is
mistaken. Mr. Griffin never wrote this bill. He wrote Bill J.


William Duff: With scissors and paste.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 14 and 15 agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 16-Construction regulations.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The definition in this
subsection refers to the load line convention. If my hon. friend from New Westminster will look at the appendix he will see the convention.


William Duff: Is the Prime Minister aware
that in spite of the fact that Great Britain signed the load line convention a number of her colonies have not accepted it and will not accept it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I tried to point out to the hon. gentleman yesterday that this -is not a colony. I tried to point out further that the load line convention was executed, as he will see, by turning to the appropriate page-I gave it to him yesterday-by the representatives of the various countries listed from pages 389 to 394. The load line convention, 1930, appears in the bill beginning at page 389. He will see that it was signed on behalf of Canada by its representative, Mr. Alexander Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine, and by the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The names of the representatives of the United Kingdom are set out on page 391, Admiral Oliver, Captain Bate, etcetera, etcetera. It was also signed by the representatives of the governments of Greece, Norway, Mexico, Latvia, Japan, Italy, Iceland, France, Cuba, Chile, Belgium, Australia, India, Denmark, the Free City of Danzig, Spain, the Irish Free State, United States of America, Finland, New Zealand, Paraguay, The Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Soviet Russia; They agreed and signed the convention which was submitted for ratification to this house and which is binding upon us as well as the other countries to which I have referred.


William Duff: The Prime Minister did not quite get the import of my remark. What I said was that there were certain British colonies or dependencies-I was not referring to Newfoundland but I had in mind a British possession which has not adopted and does not intend to adopt this load line convention.
[Mr. Reid.J
In fact, I am seriously considering Changing the registry of certain vessels I am interested in to that country so that I shall not be put to the expense of spending anywhere from S500 to $2,000 for something which in my opinion and the opinion of the other owners is not necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Either the hon. gentleman does not seem to be willing to understand or he has not followed what has been said. This international convention was a convention which met in 1930; it was before the election of that year. Mr. Alexander Johnston represented the Dominion of Canada, and this house has ratified that convention. If the hon. gentleman desired to protest, the time to have done it was then, not now. This bill merely incorporates into the structure of the Shipping Act the provisions of that convention, which are binding upon us now because of the action that has been taken.


William Duff: Again we seem to be at cross purposes. I did not object to this parliament ratifying this convention, and even if I did not object I am not going to be held responsible for what this government or the previous government did with regard to it.
W'hat I said was this: My right hon. friend had said that this was an international matter, and I took it that he was conveying the impression that all the dependencies and colonies of certain powers had adopted this load line convention, and that consequently it was being incorporated in this statute. I pointed out that there are certain parts of the British Empire which, according to my information, have not adopted, and are not going to adopt this convention, and my hon. friend from New Westminster confirms my statement by saying that not only are certain dependencies not adopting this convention, but that Great Britain herself is not doing so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose it is unnecessary for me to say that Great Britain has done so, and her signature is here in common with ours. It is only necessary to go and look at the convention in the library, if the hon. gentleman desires to do so; he will find it there.


William Duff: Again may I say to the Prime Minister that I am not going to allow him to get away with that. I have read this convention perhaps more times than he has because I am vitally interested in it. I have had to read it in order to comply with the

Franchise Act
regulations imposed on me and other ship owners by the Marine department of this country. But in spite of the fact that Great Britain signed this convention in 1930, four year ago, just as Canada did, why has not Great Britain brought down legislation in 1931 or 1932 or 1933 incorporating this load line convention in her statutes? But instead of that, as my hon. friend from New Westminster has told us, Great Britain has not incorporated this convention in her statutes.
Subsection stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 14, 1934