[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) presented the third report of the select special committee on price spreads and mass buying, together with the evidence. The report is as follows:
The select special committee, to which was referred the following resolution of the House of Commons passed on February 2, 1934:
"That a select special committee of eleven members of the house be appointed to inquire into and investigate the causes of the large spread between the prices received for commodities by the producer thereof, and the price paid by the consumers therefor; and the system of distribution in Canada of farm and other natural products, as well as manufactured products, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, more particularly to inquire into and investigate:-
(a)	the effect of mass buying by department and chain store organizations upon the
Price Spreads
[Stage Direction]
regular retail trade of tlie country, as well as upon the business of manufacturers anti producers;
(b)	the labour conditions prevailing in industries supplying the requirements of such department and chain store organizations, and the extent, if any, to which existing conditions have been brought about by the purchasing practices of such organizations, and the effect thereof upon the standard of living amongst those employed in such industries and organizations ;
(c)	the relation between the flour milling industry and the bakeries of the country, and the effect of such relations upon the baking industry of Canada;
(d)	the methods and system prevailing in the marketing of live stock and animal products for domestic consumption and export, and the extent to which the present system affords or restricts opportunity for fair returns to producers.
"That the committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers, and records and the further power to request the appointment of a commission or commissioners under the Inquiries Act, to secure evidence to be presented to the committee by such commission or commissioners.
"That the committee shall report to the house from time to time its findings, together with recommendations of such measures as in the opinion of the committee may be considered necessary to secure as far as possible fair and just practices in the distribution and marketing systems of Canada, with fair and just returns to producers, employees, and employers, not inconsistent with the rights of consumers." begs to submit the following as a third report.
Pursuant to the resolution of the House of Commons of February 2, 1934, above referred to, your committee has been in session on sixty separate days and has heard and examined under oath various -witnesses, and under the pou'ers conferred upon it, appointed auditors and investigators to examine into matters pertinent to the said order of reference and coming within its purview. Due to the voluminous character of the evidence and the limited time at the committee's disposal it has not been possible for the committee to complete the investigations and inquiry contemplated by the terms of the resolution and to report thereon before prorogation.
Under the rules of parliament the powers of your committee cease on prorogation, and being fully seized of the necessity of completing the subject matter of the said resolution, your committee begs to recommend:
That the inquiry be continued;
That	the	members	of	this	committee be
appointed commissioners under the provisions of Part I of the Inquiries Act, Chapter 99 of the Revised Statutes of Canada (1927), to continue and complete their investigations and inquiry;
That	the	commissioners	be	authorized toengage	the	services	of	counsel, secretary,
accountants, technical advisers, reporters, clerks, stenographers and investigators to aid and assist the said commissioners in the inquiry, and to print the evidence, proceedings and documents received by the commission;
That	the	records,	exhibits	and evidence
received and taken by the said special committee be made available to the commission;

That the commissioners may hold meetings at such places and at such times as they may consider expedient for the purposes of the inquiry; and
That the commissioners report their findings to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
A copy of the evidence and proceedings taken is submitted with this report.
H. H. Stevens,
Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND D. MORAND (East Essex) presented the second and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the operations of the commission, under the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, as amended at the last session of parliament, as follows:
Your committee held twenty (20) sessions and heard thirty-seven (37) witnesses, including five (5) members of parliament, and, after reviewing the evidence, it has been made apparent to your committee that the establishing of national broadcasting in Canada presents many difficulties, for the correction of which time, experience and large expenditure of public money will be necessary.
Your committee therefore recommends:-
(1)	That in view of evidence given before this committee, the government should, during the recess, consider the advisability of amending the act, -with a view to securing better broadcasting facilities throughout the dominion. In the opinion of your committee, radio broadcasting could best be conducted by a general manager.
(2)	That the collection of the fees for radio licences should be simplified and that one licence fee should cover only one receiving set.
(3)	That the provision of the act dealing with advertising should be more liberally interpreted.
(4)	That a greater use of electrical transcriptions be permitted.
(5)	That, pending nationalization of all stations, greater cooperation should be established betw'een privately-owned stations and the commission.
(6)	That chapter 35 of the statutes of Canada for 1933, which expired on the 3rd day of April, 1934. be renewed' until the 31st day of March, 1935.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and minutes of evidence adduced before your committee, together with papers relative thereto, filed by witnesses, is hereto appended for the information of the house.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Raymond D. Morand,
Chairman.
Mr. WRIGHT (for Mr. Morand) moved that the report be concurred in.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising is not to make any objection,

Radio Broadcasting
but simply to inquire as to whether or not the committee considered the question of the use of the radio during the period of a general election, in order to ensure impartiality and fair play as between the different political parties. This particular subject may not properly arise at the present moment; it may, I imagine, more properly be discussed when we are considering the Elections Act. I mention it now however because it is a subject which I think should receive some attention from the house before we conclude this present session.


Mr. MORAND:: The matter was not considered by the committee.


Mr. EULER:: I should like to know the meaning of that clause in the report which recommends a more liberal construction of the provision with regard to advertising. Under the present regulations five per cent of the time is limited to advertising and I should like to know if it is the intention of the department to recommend that more than five per cent of the time may be devoted to advertising.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: This does not change the act which will still provide for five per cent of the time. The commission has some leer way and this is simply an invitation that they shall be a little more liberal.


William Daum Euler: Meaning, to give more time?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: A little more liberal in the interpretation of the five per cent provision which is still in the act.


William Daum Euler: There must have been something in the minds of the committee. Did they intend that the commission should be more liberal and give more time; is that the
idea?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: With the consent of the house, I should like to move for leave to introduce Bill No. 126 which is based on the report made by the radio committee. This bill merely reenacts chapter 35 of the statutes of last year, except that in the last section the figures "1935" are substituted for "1934."
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the house consents, I will move the third reading.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The hon. member who represented this section of the house in the committee is not present and it seems to me it is rushing things a little too much to have the three readings at one sitting. I think third reading could be deferred until later.
Motion stands.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the house
and only for the purpose of having it printed immediately, I move for leave to introduce Bill No. 127, to amend the Pension Act. This merely adds a subsection to one of the sections to provide that in the event of there being a vacancy in the chairmanship, a judge of any superior court of any province may be appointed to hold office for not more than one year and to receive his salary as judge and a per diem allowance of $15. Last year the house provided for a larger allowance in the case of the appointment of an ad hoc judge. It is considered that under present day conditions an allowance of $15 is sufficient.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.	*
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (South Vancouver) :: Mr. Speaker, that part of the report of the special committee on the civil service which refers to the soldier settlement board will, I understand, require legislation in order that it may be implemented. I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if it is the intention of the government to bring down a bill for this purpose before the house prorogues.
Right Hon. R, B. BENNETT (Prime Minister): It was not intended to do so.



COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) asked if the Post Office Department had given any consideration to the issuing of a stamp in commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of New Brunswick. During the past two years the department has been dealing with applications for the issuing of commemorative postage stamps in connection with anniversaries in various cities and provinces. Owing to the urgent
Farmers'-Creditors' Act

need for economy and in observance of the regular policy of the department, it has been found impossible to issue stamps except those which would be of nation-wide interest. There are two stamps which will issue on July 1. One is in commemoration of the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier. The other is in commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the settlement in Canada of the United Empire Loyalists. Among the applications received, was one from various persons interested in the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of New Brunswick. The department is aware that this event is not to be confused with the landing of the empire loyalists in New Brunswick, which event I understand was celebrated last year, but it is felt that the new stamp issue undoubtedly will prove of interest in connection with both events. The long established policy of the department has been not to issue stamps in commemoration of provincial or municipal anniversaries, and the issuing of such a stamp as referred to by the hon. member would be a direct departure from this established practice. The two stamps which are now in the course of preparation were considered to be of paramount importance. Widespread demands were received from all parts of Canada that such stamps should be issued and as their issuance would be in accordance with the regular practice of the department, they were given precedence over all other applications. Among other applications the following are mentioned: Toronto Centennial, Trois Rivieres, Diamond Jubilee of British Columbia, Montreal Centennial, Rounding of Basilica at Gaspe, Empire Games at Hamilton, Montreal Harbour Bridge, Welland Ship Canal, Laura Secord Anniversary.


Mr. VENIOT:: When I asked the question it was not my intention to introduce the subject of celebrating provincial events by the issuing of memorial stamps. The minister has said that it has been against the practice of the department for many years to issue such stamps, memorial stamps being intended to commemorate dominion-wide events.


Arthur Sauvé: I did not make the statement to provoke a debate.


Peter John Veniot: I am not going to provoke a debate at all. I merely wish to point out to the minister and the house that the United Empire Loyalists first landed in Canada not in Ontario but in New Brunswick, and that the issue of a memorial stamp commemorative of the 150th anniversary of the event is not dominion but provincial wide.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood
the Prime Minister to intimate yesterday that there were further supplementary estimates. If there are to be such, I should be glad if he would indicate what they are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said there were supplementary
estimates not yet passed. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman will recall that we agreed that certain items in the supplementaries should stand in order that discussion might be carried on, he having agreed that we should pass the main estimates. The supply bill was assented to yesterday in order that there might be no delay in supplying cheques to the staff. That is why we had to take royal assent yesterday.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 93, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
He said: In moving that the amendment be concurred in, I merely desire to point out that inasmuch as we added a new Part II to the Canadian Farm Loan Act, and in section 11 of the bill as passed by this house we used the word "act," the Senate has suggested that the word "act" be deleted and "part" substituted therefor. I therefore move that the amendment be concurred in.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: No conference on that, is there?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



FARMERS''-CREDITORS' ACT CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS BY THE SENATE

Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendments made by the
Senate to Bill No. 92 are in one sense important and in another merely a change of words. In subsection (1) of section 3 this house provided for the appointment of one official receiver in each county or district, and the Senate has amended that by providing that the governor in council may appoint an official receiver or receivers in each county or district, and I cannot see that the meaning of it is in any sense changed. The effect of

Dominion Franchise Act
the Senate amendment is to strike out subsection (1) and substitute therefor the following:
(1) The governor in council may appoint an official receiver or receivers in each county or district or for any number of counties or districts of any province to which this act applies, as he may deem necessary or expedient.
I cannot see that there is any great difference in result between the two and I would therefore move that that amendment be concurred in. AVhen we come to section 17 however I have to disagree with the Senate, and I therefore move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this house agrees to their amendment to clause 3 of the Bill No. 92, an act to facilitate compromises and arrangements between farmers and their creditors.
And disagrees to their amendment to clause 17 for the reason that, unless the interest rate is reduced to five per cent after the payment of three months' bonus, there would be no inducement to the lender to accept payment. The purpose and intent of the proposed legislation are to induce the lender, on payment of the principal sum and interest to the date of payment, with the bonus of three months' interest, and thereafter by reducing the interest rate to five per cent, to accept payment without further delay.
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.
The amendment of the Senate was to leave seven per cent as the amount payable after payment had been made of the principal sum and interest to the date of payment, with the bonus of three months' interest, and there would be little or no inducement, which was the point we were aiming at, on the part of the lender to accept payment. This probably is a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the measure was with respect to that part of the section which is dealt with by the Senate, and I therefore move that we concur in the first amendment and, as regards the second amendment, disagree for the reasons stated.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 101, respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister of Justice with
a view solely of expediting the consideration of this measure. Would it be agreeable to the minister that the committee should run through the bill, pass the noncontentious clauses first and hold over the contentious clauses, excepting possibly any minor amendments, and reserve until we get through the noncontentious features any observations of a general nature on the measure.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: That is quite satisfactory to me.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: My recollection is
that when this bill was read the second time my right hon. leader took the ground that he supported it with the understanding it was without prejudice to the discussion of any phase of the bill and I want to express my disapproval, on the first clause, the usual time, as I understand the matter, to take exception and strong objection to the principle of a closed list especially as applied to rural areas. We had some experience of that in the past, away back in 1896, in the Northwest Territories and it proved to be utterly impossible to get a proper closed list within any definite time before election day. It lends itself to all kinds of disfranchisement of remote or isolated electors left off the lists and I do not want any more of that so far as rural Saskatchewan is concerned.
Further, in 1912 the Conservative provincial opposition in Saskatchewan of that day led by Mr. McLean, I think it was, took it into their heads right after the election on reciprocity that open lists were bad for their party; that all the frontier areas were usually Liberal and many were obliged to swear on their names on election day. They set up a blockade against the Liberal franchise bill and insisted on a closed list. I do not suppose many in the house are aware of that but for sixty hours in succession the opposition in the legislature of Saskatchewan in 1912 stuck out for a closed list. The government of the day led by the Hon. Walter Scott was opposed to this and warned them what a closed list would mean to them, the imperfect nature of it in a new country like that, but after we had been hanging around the corridors for sixty hours a closed list was accorded them. The election of that year was fought on closed lists, the first time since 1896. The poll on voting day showed that the government were justified in taking the ground that it was the opposition that forced through its views on the franchise bill, no closure existing in those days in the legislature. We had a terrible time getting all eligible voters on the lists and then, although it was the opposition that forced this on the
Dominion Franchise Act

government, the government had to take the responsibility for it. As soon as the election was over, however, we had no more closed lists in Saskatchewan and we have not had since. Of course I realize that is twenty-two years ago and the country is now more settled but the methods of handling closed lists are or may be made just as unfair today, as the government and their officers desire to make them. I must admit quite frankly that after the experience of last year when this government deliberately tried to steal a lot of federal seats in their redistribution bill they will not hesitate to steal the election on election day through this franchise bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order!


William Richard Motherwell: There is no order about it; I know what I am saying. It is all very fine for the government to make all kinds of professions of what they desire, but I know what they want. They want political advantage through this bill to their side and I do not want them to get any such unfair advantage. Therefore I am opposed to this provision and whatever clauses it comes up on I desire to give full notice now that I am going to oppose it. The government is not so foolish as to believe that we think this bill is for anybody's manifest advantage but their own.
Moreover,, when I remember the draftsman of this measure and his pedigree and record in the past, one Mr. J. F. or F. J. O'Connor, the same draftsman who drafted the Wartime Elections Act, I am most fearful. It was the most heinous disfranchising act that was ever put on the statute books in Canada. This bill, according to the honeyed words of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, when presenting it, is supposed to be the very opposite of the War-time Elections Act. Honeyed words from the lips but the poison of asps under their tongues is a bad contrast, but that is what it was. Having regard to the before mentioned draftsman of the measure we could not expect anything else. Can a fountain give forth both sweet and bitter waters at the same time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Can Mr. O'Connor draft an act such as the War-time Elections Act, the like of which we never saw before, and then draft a white man's bill to-day? Certainly not. When the government employed this individual they should have known what would have been expected in the initial draft legislation. Having regard to that fact we should not be quite such simpletons as 
to accept at their face value those nice words with which the resolution was presented, nor can we accept what they are saying to-day that the original draft was in the nature of a memo. I think I have made sufficiently plain that I have a lack of confidence in the government in putting through any kind of franchise act at this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Evidently this clause is one which will open the way to a general discussion of the measure. Perhaps my colleague did not hear the suggestion I made a moment ago to the effect that we run through the bill, pass the non-contentious clauses first and hold over any that are at all contentious. As soon as we begin to discuss the contentious clauses, we might then open up a general discussion.


William Richard Motherwell: That is agreeable to me, but of course the question is interwoven all through the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but if at any point an hon. member wishes to have a clause stand, it is understood it will stand. I made the proposal I did solely with a view to expediting the consideration of the measure.


William Richard Motherwell: I am quite agreeable to that but one needs to have all one's hearing to understand some of these blamed sections, subsections and provisions when we come to them hurriedly and the first thing you know they are through although the clause may be contentious and should therefore stand. I am, however, willing to take my chances. I have a new battery on to-day and I think I can catch pretty much what's going on.
Section 1 stands.
On section 2-Application.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stand.


Hugh Guthrie: Why should clause 2
stand?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the one on which a general discussion might best come, clause 1 might be carried.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 stands.
On section 3-Interpretation.


Mr. POWER:: I have suggested an amendment to another section which might involve the drafting of an amendment to clause 3 for the purpose of defining the words " former electoral district." I have sent a copy of my proposed amendment to the Minister of

Dominion Franchise Act
Justice, but subject to a discussion of that later on I think the whole of clause 3 might pass.


Hugh Guthrie: We will let it pass subject to the hon. member's objection.


Angus MacInnis: Before clause 3 passes I would like to say something on rule 9. If this is not the proper time I shall reserve what I have to say for some other time.


Hugh Guthrie: Then we had better let the whole clause stand.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Why not carry clause 3 except rule 9? That is the only thing.


Hugh Guthrie: Is rule 9 the only section?


Angus MacInnis: That is the only section I wish to say anything about. I suggest that we carry the section subject to further discussion on rule 9.


Charles Gavan Power: I think I sent an amendment over.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, subject to reservation of rule 9.
On section 4-Qualifications and disqualifications of electors.
Charles Gavan Power: Would you let stand subsection (xii) and subsection 3? I have an amendment, a copy of which I shall send to the minister. Further on there is a section which says that swearing in by the elector accompanied by a person vouching for him before the enumerator will definitely establish that elector's right to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: We shall let subsection 3 stand.
Section agreed to subject to reservation.
On section 5-The commissioner and his staff.


Charles Gavan Power: That section may require amendment later on, depending entirely on who is appointed commissioner. If he held a high position in the civil service the time spent in the civil service should be allowed to count for superannuation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And subsection 3 has to be filled in as to the amount of salary.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 3 of section 5 stands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, subject to reservation of subsection 3.
Sections 6 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17-Preparation of lists of electors.
Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister considered the amendment?


Hugh Guthrie: Not yet. Let it stand.
Section stands.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we can deal with the rules in section 17.
On schedule A to section 17-Preparation of lists of electors in urban polling divisions.
On rule 1.


Charles Gavan Power: May I call the attention of the minister to line 19 and following, where it
says:
The enumerators shall leave at the residence of every elector visited by them, whose name they propose to register on the list of electors which they have been appointed to prepare, a notice in form No. 7. that they have granted the elector's application to be so registered.
I suggest an amendment indicating that they shall leave a notice that he has been accepted or refused. In case he is refused it is well that he should have a notice.
In that case you would have to change form No. 7, and I am sending to the minister a copy of a proposed change in the form and copy of a suggested amendment:
That rule 1 of schedule A to section 17 be amended by inserting after the word "granted" in line 24 the following words "or refused as the case may be."


Hugh Guthrie: I accept that amendment.


Charles Gavan Power: This involves changing the form.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rule as amended agreed to.
On rule 2,
Charles Gavan Power: There was a suggestion made in the committee that the wording "the enumerators shall visit every house in their polling division" does not sufficiently describe what is intended. They should visit every dwelling place. For instance if it were an apartment house he could say he visited it, but there might be many families.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to making it read "dwelling place."


Charles Gavan Power: "Every house and residence" has been suggested.


Hugh Guthrie: I think "dwelling place" is the broader term.
Dominion Franchise Act


Charles Gavan Power: Shall the amendment be:
To substitute the words "dwelling place" for the word "house."


Hugh Guthrie: I am satisfied. You will have to change it in line 30 also.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Rule as amended agreed to.
Rules 3 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On rule 11.
Charles Gavan Power: The suggestion I make is for the convenience of all parties. In connection with subsection (c) the following appears: of objections to the inclusion of any names in any preliminary list of electors of which at least two days' notice has been given in writing sent by mail, registered and prepaid, addressed to the person whose name is objected to at the address given for such person in the list.
My suggestion is that a form of such objection be prepared. As the minister is aware, there is a form of objection when the objection is made on oath, but in this case there is no form. In fact it is intended that these objections in writing shall be made in an informal way, but I suggest that if the registrar had forms which he could distribute to candidates or party workers or those interested it would be much more convenient both for the registrar and those interested in the election. This form could be sent through the mail. As it is now any sort of letter may be written.


Hugh Guthrie: Is that not better than
limiting it to the form? Any kind of objection may be made by letter.


Charles Gavan Power: But in a great many cases
there are certain objections, and those objections are fully stated in the form which is to be used when the objection is made under oath. I would suggest that an identical form, with the exception that no oath would be required, should be provided in this case for the convenience of all parties. It is only a matter of convenience.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is
very much in this suggestion.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Is
not subsection (c) clear enough? The right is given to object to the inclusion of any names in the preliminary lists of electors as to which at least two days' notice 'has been given in writing. Does that not cover it?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is broad
enough to cover it.
Rule 11 agreed to.
Rule 12 agreed to.
"Mi. Guthrie.]
On rule 13.


Charles Gavan Power: I would ask to have this
stand, because it is not quite clear. Perhaps I should explain to the minister my objection to it. It reads:
Every elector applying in person to the revising officer to have his name as it appears on the preliminary list for his polling division corrected shall sign an application in form No. 10-
Form No. 10 provides for correction.

in which all the information required by the said form shall be sufficiently filled in either by the applicant personally or by the revision officer at the applicant's request. Before correcting the list the revising officer shall satisfy himself that the applicant understands the effect of the statements in the application, and that he is entitled to have the list corrected pursuant to his request.
May I ask why it should be necessary to sign this application to the revising officer?


Hugh Guthrie: It is for the purpose of
precision. Evidently an error has already occurred, and this is to make it precise.


Charles Gavan Power: Only for correction?


Hugh Guthrie: That is all.


Charles Gavan Power: There is nothing here that
says what shall happen to the elector applying for inclusion, not for correction. He has not been included in the enumerators' list and he wishes to be included. That would be covered by rule 15, which says he shall sign an application. If the elector applies in person to the revision officer that should be sufficient to have his name entered on the list, but he should obtain a somewhat similar certificate to that which is given by the enumerator.


Hugh Guthrie: If he is right there on
the spot and sees his name added I should think that would be enough. I am afraid we are going to have too many documents if we do not look out, and there is a certificate under rule 15.


Charles Gavan Power: Then let us provide that he shall see the name is entered on the list.


Hugh Guthrie: The revising officer has to detach a part of the stub and hand it to the applicant.


Charles Gavan Power: No, he has not. Unfortunately we have overlooked the fact that this stub refers only to the correction and not to the application for inclusion. There is no form providing for an application in person. There is a form providing for a correction but

Dominion Franchise Act
there is none for an application in person, so therefore this stub does not exist. That is left over from the act as it was presented to the house originally.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it is of much consequence. If the man is there and sees his name put on the list that ought to be enough.


Charles Gavan Power: After all, in rule 15 we say:
If the revising officer decides that the applicant's name should be included in the list, or that the amendment thereof which he requests should be made, he shall certify accordingly by signing the appropriate certificate on the stub of the application, which he shall forthwith detach and deliver to the applicant.
We do not provide anywhere for an application to be included; there is no form for it.


Hugh Guthrie: There are two kinds of applications, and one is where a man appears in person. I grant that there is no form when a man appears in person.


Charles Gavan Power: How are you going to give the stub if there is no form?


Hugh Guthrie: The form as provided has two parts to it; it is divided. On the one side appears:
This is to certify that the application bearing the undermentioned number was refused.
That is on page 50.


Charles Gavan Power: That has to do with rule 19.


Hugh Guthrie: On the other side appears:
This is to certify that the application bearing the undermentioned number was accepted,


Charles Gavan Power: That form is called, if the minister will look at page 49, "form No. 10 (section 17, schedule A, rule 13) :
Application of an elector for correction of his name, etc. as in a preliminary list.


Hugh Guthrie: Do I understand that my hon. friend wants this form to apply to all applicants?


Charles Gavan Power: I would suggest to the minister that when a man applies in person he does not need to sign a form. The revising officer then and there decides whether he should be on the list but, for the purpose of appeal, as dealt with in another section, he should be told why he is refused if he is refused, and given a certificate of inclusion if he is included. It is a very easy matter to correct.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not object to it, but I must say I do not think it is necessary.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly it is necessary at the present time. In section 15 you refer to the stub of an application, and there is no such thing as an application for inclusion.


Hugh Guthrie: We will include it.
Rule stands.
On rule 14.


Charles Gavan Power: I would ask that rules 13, 14, 15 and 16 stand.
Rules 14, 15 and 16 stand.
Rules 17 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
Rule 21 stands.
Rules 22 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On schedule B-Preparation of lists in rural polling divisions.
Rules 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On rule 8.


William Richard Motherwell: Are we dealing with rural polls? What is being done? Are all these rules being passed or do they stand? There is no use talking about the thing afterwards if you are passing all the rules now. Have all the rules under the heading "Preparation of lists in rural polling divisions" been passed?


Hugh Guthrie: If the hon. member wishes any to stand, we will let them stand.


William Richard Motherwell: They are now standing.


Hugh Guthrie: No, but if the hon. member wishes them to stand we will let them. Otherwise, if there is no contention we will pass them.


William Richard Motherwell: There is every contention, if you are preparing rural polls on a closed list basis. I contest it, and the understanding is that the controversial parts of the bill are to stand. I am positively opposed to rural closed lists being run off like this. The understanding is that the non-controversial sections only may be passed at this time. That is the very essence of my objection; let them stand.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sullivan):: Will they
all stand?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, sure.


Mr. IRVINE:: We could hardly have them all stand on an objection of that sort, because such objection involves the whole principle of the bill. The proper procedure would be to move an amendment on third reading, and kill the bill.
Dominion Franchise Act


William Richard Motherwell: Nothing of the kind. The understanding upon which second reading was granted was that it would be read a second time without prejudice. The understanding was to allow second reading to see if we could not make a bill out of it, as we did with the central bank legislation. We wanted to get something out of it.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, suppose we let one rule stand, with the understanding that the whole subject is open.


William Richard Motherwell: All right.


John Alexander Sullivan: Then rules 1 to 10 are carried?


Charles Gavan Power: I have an amendment to rule No. 10. I move-
That rule 10 of schedule B to section 17 be amended by striking out the words "qualified elector" in line 39 and substituting the word "person" therefor.
I shall send a copy of the suggested amendment. Since rule 10 will stand, perhaps the minister would consider the amendment, and at a later time he will be in a position to say whether or not he is prepared to accept it. I believe the amendment is self-explanatory. Is the minister content to let it stand for a moment?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see that the amendment would affect the rule, because if he is not a qualified elector he cannot get on the list.


Charles Gavan Power: But you are putting the cart before the horse.


Hugh Guthrie: And an "elector" means a person who pursuant to section 4 of the act is qualified.


Charles Gavan Power: This person is a person who makes application but presumably he has not pursuant to this act been as yet qualified, because he has not been put on the list. Anyway I shall discuss the matter with the minister.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to it, if my hon. friend wishes to have the amendment; The change will be made as he has suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rule as amended agreed to.
Charles Gavan Power: Then, as rule 10 (a) I should like to suggest the following:
That schedule B to section 17 be amended by adding the following as rule 10 (a):
The enumerator shall permit to be present in the place of revision two representatives of
fM*. Irvine.]
each recognized opposed political interest in the electoral district, but no representative shall, except with the permission of the enumerator, have any right to take part in or intervene in the proceedings.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree.
Rule 10 (a) agreed to.
Rules 11, 12 and 13 agreed to.
On rule 14-[DOT]


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I should like to make
one observation in connection with this rule. It provides:
The registrar of electors shall, forthwith upon the receipt by him from any enumerator of copies of any preliminary lists of electors or of any statements of changes and additions made in any such preliminary list, supply to each of the persons who were candidates at the last held dominion election in the applicable electoral district, or their representatives, one copy of such preliminary list or statement of changes and additions.
I have looked at the bill, and stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that when the yearly revisions take place afterwards there is no provision for any such corrected lists to be sent to the former candidates, either the candidates at previous elections or the sitting members.


Hugh Guthrie: When we come to Part
III my hon. fripnd may discuss that matter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: I should like to
ask if it is the intention, in connection with a district which has been divided, to send the forms to the candidate who formerly represented the whole district?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the intention, yes.
Rule 14 agreed to.
On rule 15.


Hugh Guthrie: We had better hold rule
15 open for a general discussion. For that reason rule 15 will stand.
Rule 15 stands.
On section 18-Lists remain valid until
superseded.


William Richard Motherwell: I think that section should stand.
Section 18 stands.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
On section 21-Notice of revision.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe on this section I
may be able to meet the objection stated by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay

Dominion Franchise Act
(Mr. Casgrain). I had suggested an amendment be prepared to subsection 6 of section 21, and I think the minister would accept it. I suggest that it is through an oversight subsection 6 of section 21 with the marginal note " copies to ex-candidates " reads as follows:
(6) The registrar of electors shall, on the same day as that whereon he sends by mail copies of such notice to the various postmasters, also send by mail or deliver five copies of the notice to each person who was, at the last dominion election held in the electoral district, a candidate for election.
I suggest to the minister that at this point he should use words similar to those used in section 16, to this effect:
In the case of a new electoral district wherein, as that electoral district is by law newly described, no election has ever been held the registrar shall mail or deliver ten additional copies of the notice to each person who was at the last dominion election held in any electoral district any part whereof is embraced within such new electoral district a candidate for election, and shall request that person to mail or deliver such additional copies to such other person or persons in such new electoral district as in the judgment of such first named person ought to receive them.
The idea is that in a new district the former member or defeated candidate in the old district shall be notified, in order that he in turn may notify the persons whom he thinks should be notified. That covers the point raised by the hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay. That is to say, the candidate in the former electoral district or seat should receive the notice mentioned in this bill.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does that cover changes and additions made in annual revisions? I want to make sure that the additions and revisions made in each succeeding year after the first list is made shall be sent to the candidates, as is done in connection with the first list. I do not see in this bill any provision applying after the first list is made whereby any order is issued or it is incumbent upon the official making the list to send copies of changes or modifications of the list to the sitting or defeated members.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is covered now.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where?


Hugh Guthrie: They are printed and twenty copies are sent out.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What paragraph is that?


Hugh Guthrie: We will come to it. Twenty copies go to the candidate and the opponent who had the highest number of votes.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: What is the necessity of subsection 3 of section 21? There is no more need of such a procedure in the Yukon than in any other constituency.


Hugh Guthrie: I should like to strike that out.


George Black: It should be struck out.


Hugh Guthrie: We will come to it in a moment.


Charles Gavan Power: That provision is in another section. I imagine it has been carried over from the old acts. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) will notice the same provision in subsection 3 of section 16.


Hugh Guthrie: We will strike it out as being unnecessary.


John Alexander Sullivan: In sections 16 and 21.


Charles Gavan Power: It may be somewhere else.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) read an amendment to this section.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not one prepared at the moment and my suggestion is that when we go over the bill again we have an amendment prepared incorporating the provisions of section 16.


Hugh Guthrie: We will have one at that time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was given to understand that all additions, changes and modifications would be sent to the defeated candidate and the sitting member. The officer who is sitting in front of the minister signified to me that there was a provision covering that. If there is such a provision I should like to know where I can find it.


Mr. CARDIN:: Section 46 covers that.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think that section covers the point raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. It states "every candidate at an election" and a person might not be a candidate at the time the annual revision was made. There might not be an election in prospect so he would not be a candidate.


Hugh Guthrie: What does my hon. friend vant?


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps section 31 could be imended.


Hugh Guthrie: We have not come to that yet. Just remind us when we reach it.

Dominion Franchise Act


Charles Gavan Power: Section 31 states that when a list of electors is prepared the registrar shall certify it as correct and transmit to the commissioner the certified original list, the original signed applications for registration and all other lists and documents had by him in connection with the revision. Perhaps we should insert a clause to the effect that several copies of these lists should be forwarded to the candidates at the former elections.


Hugh Guthrie: That would entail a terrific lot of work.; he gets a printed list almost immediately.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is that
covered by section 46?


Charles Gavan Power: Section 46 is not broad enough either. We will have to change them both.


Hugh Guthrie: The definition of candidates is:
"Candidate" includes a person who is, pursuant to The Dominion Elections Act, 1934, nominated as a candidate at an election of a member to serve for an electoral district in the House of Commons of Canada, and a person who was, pursuant to that act or to the Dominion Elections Act. nominated as aforesaid at the election last held in such electoral district before the commencement of a general registration of electors-
That covers the presently nominated candidate as well as the then nominated candidate at the last elections. Subsection 2 of section 46 states that every candidate at an election shall be entitled on demand to twenty copies of the lists. If the words "at an election" were struck out it would then cover the candidate nominated for the next election as well as the person who was a candidate at the last election. I think that would cover the point. When we reach this section I will move that the words "at an election" be struck out.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Does not that refer only to the final lists?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the printed lists?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: After the basic list has been prepared, a revision is made each year and what we want is some provision whereby those revised lists will be received by the candidates at the last elections or the persons who may be candidates at the next elections.


Hugh Guthrie: The list is printed every year when it is finally revised and twenty copies go to each person who is a candidate.


John Alexander Sullivan: Shall
section 21 carry?


Mr. FACTOR:: There is an amendment.
	|


William Irvine: What section are we on?


John Alexander Sullivan: Subsection 6 of section 21.


Hugh Guthrie: There is an amendment to be prepared.


Charles A. Stewart: Would there not be a little conflict? The defeated candidate would be the person who was a candidate in the last elections. That person might be supplanted by a new nominee and as this section now stands the lists would go to the defeated candidate at the last elections rather than to the new nominee.


Hugh Guthrie: That has always been
the custom and it has never caused any trouble that I have heard of.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
suppose it would cause trouble.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 22 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
On section 27-Application for registration prior to sittings.
Charles Gavan Power: I have an amendment the
principle of which was accepted in the committee. I would move that section 27 be amended to provide that the registrar shall post up in his office, and shall cause to be posted up in an office within the polling subdivision in which the applicant resides, or, if there is no post office therein, then in the post office nearest thereto, the name of every applicant, and that he shall keep it posted for two weeks, and so on. This amendment provides that instead of merely hanging up the name of the applicant in the office of the registrar, w.ho may reside a hundred miles away from the polling subdivision in which the applicant lives, the name shall be posted up in the post office within or nearest to that polling subdivision. That amendment was carried in committee.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it was not; I understand it was passed and withdrawn. Consider the inconvenience and trouble involved. A man writes a letter before the first of May applying to go on the list, and if there is no objection his name goes on. In the meantime the application must be posted somewhere and it is posted in the office of the registrar. My hon. friend wants the list posted in all offices-


Charles Gavan Power: The post office.


Hugh Guthrie: -from which the application has come. There may be applications from twenty post offices. Is anything to be

Dominion Franchise Act
accomplished by machinery of that kind? Is there any necessity for it? I do not think so, and the committee finally concluded that it was not necessary.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister will remember that in the committee we divided on it and it was carried on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
says it was carried and withdrawn.


Charles Gavan Power: It was carried on division,
and the hon. member for Souris was kind enough to give us his support.


Hugh Guthrie: And we reconsidered it
immediately and decided that it was not necessary.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not decide that it was unnecessary.


Hugh Guthrie: Look at the trouble and expense for nothing.


Charles Gavan Power: You might just as well
not have any proceeding at all as hanging up the list a hundred miles away from the place of residence of the person concerned.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not for his benefit, but for the benefit of those concerned, who know he is applying to get on the list.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, that is the point. The people residing in the same subdivision, his neighbours, who know that he has made application should see the list. This provision as it stands is an absolute waste of time. For example, what is the sense of posting up in Murray Bay the name of an applicant residing in the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay, or posting it up in Anticosti island ?


Hugh Guthrie: If it were posted up in Murray Bay, to take the case cited by my hon. friend, the member or his agent would have knowledge or notice from those in that particular polling division.


Charles Gavan Power: How would he know whether Baptiste Laframboise had applied?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is much object in posting the list at all except to give general information. But if you impose on the election officials the task of sending notices to every remote poll or post office, it seems to me to be an unnecessary burden.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the act is framed for the convenience of the elector, not for the convenience of the officials.


Hugh Guthrie: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The elector ought to be considered above everything else in this matter.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that he should, but I do not think that in the committee there was any insistence upon the amendment. After the motion was carried it was expressly withdrawn and we worked on the principle here set out. That is the record of the committee according to the clerk who was there.


Charles Gavan Power: If the clerk made such a record I will ask him to have it stricken from the record because I certainly insisted upon it during the discussion.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us know what the amendment is.


William Richard Motherwell: At any rate it is controversial and it should stand.


Charles Gavan Power: The amendment is to the effect that the list shall be posted up in the post office nearest to the polling subdivision in which the man who makes the application resides.


Hugh Guthrie: Why not in the post office from which the man writes the letter?


William Richard Motherwell: Let it stand.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the objection to-posting it up in the post office situate in the place in which he lives or, if there is not a post office there, in the one nearest thereto. The objection made by the minister in the committee was that it might be posted up on a tree somewhere in the forest, and at the suggestion of the hon. member for Weyburn decided that it should be posted up in the post office nearest to the polling subdivision.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish to support my hon. friend from Quebec South. I am sorry there is such a misunderstanding, because my hon. friend from West Edmonton remembers as well as I do that the matter was put to a vote and was carried. Now, we are changing the law. The law as it stood allowed everyone not only to get on the list but to swear his vote in; there was no danger of anyone being left out. That is replaced by a closed list. Surely we must give an opportunity to everyone to get on the list if he is entitled to get on, or to remain on it if anyone asks that his name be removed. How can he get notice if the notice is posted up at Murray Bay three or four hundred miles from his place of residence?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Five and six hundred miles away.

Dominion Franchise Act


Ernest Lapointe: It would be impossible. We must ensure that the elector, who will be deprived of the easy way of registering his vote as provided under the old law, shall be given every opportunity to get on the list. Certainly we should not make it impossible for him to get on this closed list, without which he will not be entitled to register his vote.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Quebec South and the hon. member for Quebec East. The example cited in my own county is a real one in point. There is only one boat regularly in the summer time going down the St. Lawrence and it takes ten days to make the trip. If a man gets notice at a certain time he will have to send his letter to someone supporting the candidate to have the list revised and he may lose his opportunity of getting on in time. There would be no difficulty if the list were posted in the post office nearest to the polling subdivision in which the applicant resides. When the lists were prepared under the old law this point was taken into consideration. The minister said that every man should be given the fullest opportunity to have a vote.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we are pretty generous; there is no complaint and there was not in the committee; we got on there very harmoniously. This is only a matter of convenience or inconvenience and if there is anything to be gained by it I am willing to accept the suggestion but in my view it is entirely unnecessary. If, however, it is the opinion of the committee and particularly of my hon. friends opposite that this should be inserted, we will put it in, but I still hold to my opinion it is an entirely unnecessary bit of machinery. This reads:
And shall cause to be posted up in a post office.
Does that mean an enumerator has to go to the post office and post it up or has the postmaster to do this?


Charles Gavan Power: We are now dealing with the revision. In the bill there is a clause which says the postmaster.


Hugh Guthrie: In each instance where you put a responsibility on the postmaster you have placed it in definite language and we shall have to do the same thing here also.


Charles Gavan Power: I thought there was in the bill a general clause which made postmasters amenable to the rule.


Hugh Guthrie: Would it not be sufficient to say "shall mail it to the postmaster"?


Charles Gavan Power: Who shall post it.


Hugh Guthrie: Clause 27 had better stand for amendment.
Section stands.
On section 28-Procedure and action of registrars and revisal courts.


Charles Gavan Power: I would ask that paragraphs (a) and (b) stand.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) stand.
Paragraphs (c) to (h) inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph (i).


Charles Gavan Power: I think there will have to be a correction of form 28. Perhaps I could explain this to the minister after the adjournment; it is somewhat involved.


Hugh Guthrie: Stands as to form No. 28.
Paragraph (i) stands.
Paragraph (j) agreed to.
Section stands.
Section 29 agreed to.
On section 30-Transfer of name from one list to another.


Charles Gavan Power: Stand. There is some little amendment to be made.
Section stands.
On section 31-Certification.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it clear it is proposed to amend the clause?


Hugh Guthrie: Stand.
Section stands.
On section 32-Right of Appeal.


Charles Gavan Power: I think this should stand to provide for the right of appeal by a third party who wishes to place the name of someone on the list. This is not covered by clause 32 as we have it now. An amendment covering that was drawn.


John Alexander Sullivan: Does the whole of clause 32 stand?


Charles Gavan Power: Subclause 1 stands.
Subclause 1 stands.
On subclause 2-Meaning of "a judge."


Charles Gavan Power: I think the hon. member for Quebec East wished to discuss the meaning of "a judge."

Dominion Franchise Act


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have something to discuss on this subclause.
Subclause stands.
Subclauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Section stands.
Section 33 to 45 inclusive agreed to.
On section 46-May print in any or all districts.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps this had better stand for further discussion.
Section stands.
Sections 47 to 52 inclusive agreed to.
On section 53-To be gazetted.


Charles Gavan Power: This clause reads:
This act shall not come into force until a day to be fixed by the governor in council and proclaimed by him in the Canada Gazette.
Just for my own information, will this be sufficient in view of what we were obliged to do in connection with the Elections Act? It was first proposed it should come into force by proclamation but it was found we had to make some other provision.


Hugh Guthrie: This clause is all right because we are preserving the Elections Act so far as by-elections are concerned which may take place before a dissolution of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule 1.
Forms Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On form No. 7.
Charles Gavan Power: There should be added there " stub to be left with elector", indicating whether he is included or excluded. I think the minister has an amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: Is this the right form?


Charles Gavan Power: This is form No. 7 which is left at the residence, the dwelling place, of the elector and it provides only a notice to him that he has been included.


Hugh Guthrie: Is this the one to be
amended?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, by inserting a clause that will indicate that he has not been included so as to give him an opportunity to go before the revising officer and have his name put on.
Form stands.
Forms Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.
On form No. 10.


Charles Gavan Power: I think this should stand for a little further consideration.
Form stands.
On form No. 11.


Charles Gavan Power: While we are on this I would like to repeat my request that we should have a form, say No. 11A, which would be a form of objection not under oath to a registered elector. I am, however, only making the suggestion.


Hugh Guthrie: Form No. 11 is all right?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: And there is a suggestion as to form No. 11A.


[Stage Direction]
Form agreed to.
Forms Nos. 12 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
On form No. 30.
Charles Gavan Power: That will have to be
changed, to do away with clause 4.


Hugh Guthrie: That comes out anyway. Strike out clause 4.


Charles Gavan Power: Also clause 9.


Hugh Guthrie: Strike it out too.
Clauses 4 and 9 come out.


John Alexander Sullivan: By
unanimous consent.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that clause
12 should not be stricken out also.


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is rather important.


Charles Gavan Power: You do not ask the man
himself to say he is not, why should you ask a third party?


Hugh Guthrie: The agent says it.
Form No. 30 as amended agreed to.
On form No. 31.


Charles Gavan Power: I think this should be
further discussed.
Form stands.
Forms No. 32 to 34 inclusive agreed to.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it the wish of the
committee that we proceed with the sections that have been allowed to stand, or go on with the Dominion Elections Act, and take the non-contentious clauses of it?


Charles Gavan Power: Let us see what we can do.
Progress reported.

Canadian and British Insurance



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT

Richard Bedford Bennett: Before you proceed, Mr. Speaker, might I, with the permission of the house, move for leave to introduce a bill dealing with a matter that could not be dealt with under our practice after a bill has had its third reading here and third reading in the Senate? It is in connection with the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932, to make available the debentures and debenture stock and other evidences of indebtedness of corporations that have paid their dividends regularly for a period of at least ten years immediately preceding the date of purchase. It affects one transaction at the moment and has affected others in times past. I now have the bill printed, I should have had it this morning but it was not available. If I can get leave I merely move the introduction so that it can be taken up later in the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Leave to introduce so that we have opportunity to see the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I move we revert to motions.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By consent the house reverts to motions.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 128, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 115, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons.
Mr. NEILL:: Bill No. 115 is not printed
yet.


Hugh Guthrie: It was given to me yesterday. There was no reprint ordered. There
were very few corrections and they were done on the typewriter.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.


Charles Gavan Power: May I suggest that, with
the same reservation as was made in respect
(Mr. Power.]
to the Franchise Act, the general discussion can be held later on and that we now proceed to pass the non-contentious clauses, of which there is a large number?


Hugh Guthrie: I agree.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 2-Application for registration.


Charles Gavan Power: This should be amended.


Hugh Guthrie: There is an amendment
made in the committee.
Paragraph 2, subclause 2 is struck out and the following put in its place:
By-election means an election other than a general election.
That is the only change.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister copies of
these amendments?


Hugh Guthrie: I have the copies that
were supplied to me.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 6

Election documents, or election papers.
Hugh Guthrie: That is amended in the
ninth line by striking out the words "and books of signatures of voters."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Then in the tenth line
the words "all written applications for registration as electors," are struck out, because we abolished those signed statements.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 9-Elector.
Hugh Guthrie: There is a change in
subsection 9, just a capital "t" in the word "the."


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 10 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On section 2, subsection 13-Identification book.
Hugh Guthrie: 
Hugh Guthrie: There is an amendment to this section. In line 36 after the word "shall" the words are inserted "continue to" making it read, "shall continue to be exercised." Then at the end of the section the following words were added:
and the person who is now chief electoral officer shall continue to hold that offioe under and pursuant to this act.


Charles Gavan Power: There is one point to which I should like to direct attention. The section states:
The powers and duties appertaining to or connected with elections which, immediately prior to the 1st day of July, 1920. were exercisable and performable by the clerk of the crown in chancery-
I am under the impression that the clerk of the crown in chancery had something to do with the making of the lists, though I am speaking subject to correction. I remember that he furnished the lists to candidates.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is any conflict there. He had the custody of the lists.


Charles Gavan Power: I am under the impression that the franchise commissioner takes over some of the powers formally conferred upon the clerk of the crown in chancery.


Hugh Guthrie: There may be a conflict, so we might let this section stand.
Section 3 stands.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Staff.


Mr.   POWTER@: I think there was a suggestion in committee that this section should be recast.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been altered in committee. In the last line on page 5 the words "all of whom shall be appointed by the governor in council" have been struck out, and at the end of subsection (1) these words have been added:
such assistant chief electoral officer and stenographers shall be appointed by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Appointment of returning officers.
Hugh Guthrie: In committee we inserted in subsection (a) the words "sixty-five."


Charles Gavan Power: If we have our way the whole section will disappear.


Ernest Lapointe: The section had better stand.
Section 8 stands.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Notice of returning officer incapacitated.


Hugh Guthrie: A change was made by the committee in line 47. The last word "the" has been struck out and the words "any pending" have been inserted. It will then read, "any pending election" instead of "the election."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Office for returning officer.
Hugh Guthrie: An amendment was made to this section, by inserting before the word "such" in line 27 the words, "the proclamation of the election in form No. 5, or in other manner as the chief electoral officer may direct."


Charles Gavan Power: Would you allow this section to stand?
Section 12 stands.
Section 13 stands.
Section 14 agreed to.
On section 15-Supply of election materials by chief electoral officer.


Charles Gavan Power: We can carry this up to paragraph (d).


Hugh Guthrie: Paragraphs (d) and (e)
are struck out.


Charles Gavan Power: The rest is carried.


Hugh Guthrie: And paragraph (f) is
amended by inserting the words "or portions" in line 31, and by inserting in line 32 the words "and rural polling subdivisions respectively."


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 16 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On section 22-Return by acclamation.
Charles Gavan Power: There was some amendment to be made here.
Dominion Elections Act


Hugh Guthrie: There was no amendment made to this section.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps the section might be allowed to stand.
Section 22 stands.
On section 23-Granting of poll.


Charles Gavan Power: There was an amendment to this section in subsection (4). The form is No. 9 instead of No. 25.


Hugh Guthrie: That amendment has
been made.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 24-Deputy returning officers.
Charles Gavan Power: There was an amendment here, I think.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no note of an amendment to this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
On section 28-Ballot boxes.
Hugh Guthrie: There is a word to be added here. In line 29 the word "as" should be changed to "at."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: We had reached section 29.
On section 29-Ballots and their form.


Hugh Guthrie: There are no changes in section 29. I suppose it is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Irvine: Did section 29 stand?


Hugh Guthrie: It has just been carried.


William Irvine: I should like to have it stand, because I want to make a motion in connection with it.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I understand the motion the hon. member contemplates. If it carried, a great many sections would have to be changed. In the meantime we will carry this section, with the understanding that -if a change becomes necessary it may be made in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 30-Further duty of returning officer.
Hugh Guthrie: Section 30 has been
amended in committee. At lines 22, 23 and 24 the following words have been struck out "an identification book, the parcel of signed applications for registration which relates to the deputy returning officer's polling station." Those words have come out. And then at line 35, the words "identification book, signed applications for registration" come out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.
On section 33-Application of this section.
Charles Gavan Power: There is a slight change here.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no change at the present time but the suggestion has been made that, where a suitable location can be had, for the sake of convenience all the various subdivisions of a polling division might be allowed to sit in the same building. For instance, at some points the armoury is used as a polling station, and where there are four or five separate polls they might be held under the one roof. That, of course, would depend upon the direction of the chief electoral officer. It is only a matter of convenience, and to save people travelling here, there and everywhere in the same polling division. I suggest, therefore, if the committee approves, that the following words be added to section 33, subsection 2:
And such separate and adjacent polls may all be established in the same building where sufficient accommodation may be available.


Charles Gavan Power: I take it this subsection refers only to a case where a poll has been subdivided.


Hugh Guthrie: That is what I mean.


Charles Gavan Power: But it is restricted in that way.


Hugh Guthrie: That is all we want. We are asking that all the subdivisions of a single poll shall be under the same roof, if such a building can be obtained.


Charles Gavan Power: That does not quite meet the objection -made to me by one hon. gentleman on the other side, that it would be possible in a city or a town to have all the polls in one place.


Hugh Guthrie: That is going farther than I wanted to go.

Dominion Elections Act


Mr. ESLING:: Ever since I can remember
in mountainous municipalities of British Columbia where there are fifteen or twenty polls, available space has been scarce. Residences are on hillsides possibly from two hundred to a thousand feet up, and to reach those separate polling stations it would be necessary to climb the hills. Because of that, for many years back a central polling station has been established in the centre of the town, at the armoury, the city hall or elsewhere, and that procedure continued until the last federal election. I understood at that time it was within the discretion of the returning officer to say whether or not there should be a central polling station, or whether there should be several polling stations. Upon that occasion the federal returning officer much to the inconvenience of the electors determined that there should be several polling stations. For instance, there were fifteen hundred electors, and the new polling stations were scattered all over the hillside. An old man would have to walk up probably five hundred or six hundred feet only to be told that he voted across the gulch, or a woman pushing a baby carriage would go to one station and be told that she voted elsewhere. The result was that officials of the three parties were compelled to send out postcard notices to all electors in the district indicating at precisely what points they should vote. It caused great inconvenience, and was totally at variance with the custom which had been in vogue for many years.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the amendment
does not meet the views of my hon. friend. I am advised that perhaps the section as it is now drawn would vest sufficient powers in the chief electoral officer.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think so.


Hugh Guthrie: If he wished to exercise
it.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think it does.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 2 contains the
words:
If the chief electoral officer so authorizes or directs, and, in any event, where the list of voters of any polling division contains the names of more than three hundred qualified electors, the returning officer shall, for the purposes of, and during, any election, provide within that polling division sufficient separate and adjacent polling stations, so that not more than three hundred, and, when practicable not less than one hundred and fifty names shall be on the list of voters for each of such polling stations, and so that the name of every voter on the list for the polling division shall appear on some one, and on one only, of the lists for the polling stations.
[Mr. Guthrie.l


Charles Gavan Power: Section 13, which we passed, states clearly that the polling station shall be established at a convenient place within the boundaries of the polling division. I think the objection could be met, first, by limiting the discretion of the returning officer to place the polling station or booth outside the polling division to certain towns of, say, under ten thousand population and, secondly, if we provided that this could be arranged by agreement between the parties. In cases where it is obviously convenient, as has been pointed out by the hon. member, I believe all the interested parties would be quite ready to select one central place, such as an armoury or otherwise.


William Kemble Esling: That was exactly the trouble at the last election. There were three parties in the field. Two candidates were keen to follow the old custom of having a central polling station, but the third candidate opposed it. We got into communication with the chief electoral officer, and he replied that the several polling stations would have to remain, as they had been designated by the returning officer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apropos of
what the hon. member for West Kootenay has said, I wonder if what he has in mind would not best be met if there were an obligation upon the returning officer to notify every elector as to the place where he must vote. This was a proposal which I had intended to bring up later in the form of a clause to be added to the provisions of the bill, and I may perhaps now mention it in advance, namely the placing upon the returning officer the duty of sending a card to each elector informing him of where he votes. Under such a provision my hon. friend's friends would not be so greatly inconvenienced. The woman with a baby carriage would have to make only one trip, and the old man would not be unduly inconvenienced by going up and down hill. I say that that ought to be done, the extra cost this requirement would entail should be borne by the state. Voters should not be put to unnecessary trouble and expense in discovering where they are to cast their votes.


Hugh Guthrie: Would the committee
approve if we drew up a clause to provide that in municipalities of less than 10,000 population, the chief electoral officer may, if he sees fit, direct that there be a central polling location?


William Richard Motherwell: If he sees fit?
Dominion Elections Act


Hugh Guthrie: Leave the discretion to the chief electoral officer. If he thinks it is proper so to do, he may establish a central polling station in municipalities of less than 10,000 population.


William Richard Motherwell: That would mean rural municipalities as well?


Charles Gavan Power: I am satisfied with that.


Mr. REID:: Would that power be given in connection with municipalities of over 10,000 population?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Thomas Reid: He would not have the power? Mr. POWER: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Would that cover rural as well as urban municipalities?


Charles Gavan Power: Only rural.
Mr. \ENIOT: I should like to understand this section more clearly. Would the chief electoral officer or the deputy returning officer have the authority to establish a central voting place for a single parish in any constituency?


Hugh Guthrie: The proposal is that there would be one central station instead of running around to half a dozen, provided there is a building large enough to take care of the need.


Peter John Veniot: That would force people to drive twelve, fifteen or twenty miles to a central polling station in order to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: This would apply only to cities up to 10,000 population.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister's suggestion is to ^ be carried out he would have to say in cities between 5,000 and 10,000 population.


Hugh Guthrie: Why not say urban polls not exceeding 10,000 people?


Charles Gavan Power: There is no such thing as an urban polling division in a municipality under 10,000. Everything under 10,000 is rural and everything over is urban.


Hugh Guthrie: If we decide on the principle we can easily fix the language.


Charles Gavan Power: Subsection 6 of section 33 reads:
Every voter of an urban polling division who resides on a street, road or avenue which is included within the numbers and names of streets, roads and avenues designating a poll-fMr. Motherwell.]
ing station and contained in a list of voters prepared pursuant to subsection 4 of this section shall vote, if at all, in the station to which such list applies, and not otherwise.
That subsection seems to be in contradiction to subsection 3 of section 38, which reads:
For the purposes of an election every elector shall be deemed to have resided, and to continue until the close of the poll to reside, in the electoral district,-
In order to avoid confusion, I think we should say in subsection 6 of section 33, "every voter of an urban polling division who has resided." That is to say, his right to vote would be considered as from the time he puts his name on the list. Otherwise, an over-zealous officer in a poll might be given the opportunity to object to a person voting because at the time of the polling he did not actually reside in that particular polling division although his name had been properly placed upon the list at the time of registration or revision. Subsection 3 of section 38 is quite clear but subsection 6 of section 33 is not.


John Alexander Sullivan: "Who resided" would not make it clear.


Charles Gavan Power: Those may not be the exact words but I am suggesting that it should be changed to conform with subsection 3 of section 38.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not appreciate the conflict but we will let the subsection stand. This only applies to polls having more than one division.


Charles Gavan Power: The point is that it gives an excuse to somebody to object to a person voting.
Section stands.
Sections 34 to 36 inclusive agreed to.
On section 37-Persons in receipt of pay disqualified.


Hugh Guthrie: There was a change to be made in subsection 3. We were to strike out the words "votes, or" in line fourteen and the words "he, or" in line fifteen.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister has no objection, I should like to move that this whole section should be struck out. I do not intend to delay the proceedings in any way but I should like to place before the committee the abjections which a great many hon. members lave to this section.


Hugh Guthrie: Could we not proceed and let this section stand?


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I could give my explanation for the information of hon. members. This section states that it shall be a reason for disqualification for any elector to be employed by any candidate. A stenographer, a telephone operator, a worker in a committee room, a driver of a taxicab or automobile, any person employed by any candidate during the period of an election is disqualified from voting. It was pointed out in 1929 in the house or in the committee by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) that in order to be strictly within the law he was obliged to have the work of checking his polling lists, typewriting and so on done by people from a neighbouring constituency. This provision seems to me to be ridiculous. In these modern days the conduct of an election is something like conducting a large insurance or any sort of business. It is necessary to have twenty-five, thirty or forty people employed in addressing envelopes, sending out circulars, looking after *advertising and taking care of the various activities which must be undertaken by a candidate who hopes to carry on an election with any degree of efficiency. All these people would be disqualified from voting. Not only that, subsection 3 states:
Any person who votes, or induces or procures any other person to vote, at an election-
Would be punishable under this act. That is to say, the candidate who employs a typist or a stenographer might be presumed by his speeches to have persuaded or induced that particular person to vote. However, as they are closer to the seats of the mighty, they may have fewer illusions on the subject and may not vote for the candidate. But the fact remains that the candidate renders himself liable to disqualification, and all these other persons are disqualified. This section has been in the act for many years and I think in view of our more enlightened and modern times it ought to be stricken from the act altogether.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend would be obliged to employ my electors.


Charles Gavan Power: As my hon. friend from
Quebec East points out, I should be obliged to employ his electors, and he to employ mine, which is an anomaly that should not be permitted.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: You cannot carry
on an election with that clause.


Charles Gavan Power: Elections have been carried on from time immemorial, both in my hon. friend's constituency and in my own. while
Dominion Elections Act
this clause has existed; but I submit that we were wittingly or unwittingly performing illegal acts and we might as well get rid of it.


William Irvine: I think there is a good deal of force in the argument put forward by the hon. member for Quebec South. As a matter of fact, I should say that very few candidates can actually carry out the section. I think it induces a good deal of hypocrisy and I cannot see that it can do much good or prevent any sort of corruption from taking place; for, as pointed out, if I can hire C.C.F'ers from the next riding to come into mine and CjC.F'ers from my riding can go into the next one and vote, we are not doing much good by this section. In the last election we had great difficulty avoiding complications under this provision, and I do not see much good in it.


Hugh Guthrie: If it is the fairly unanimous opinion of the committee that this clause should be struck out I have no objection.


Charles Gavan Power: Let it stand for further
consideration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understood that
all these controversial clauses would stand.
Section stands.
On section 38-Effect of presence of name on list of voters.


John Anderson Fraser: The candidate
is permitted to appoint two agents at a poll, under section 34. I do not see any clear definition to show who may be appointed as an agent. Suppose a qualified voter from another district were in my district on election day; could he be appointed as an agent and qualify to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: He has to be a voter
in that constituency.


John Anderson Fraser: A voter in the
constituency can be transferred from one poll to another?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I think section 38 should
stand to accord with 34 if necessary.
Section stands.
On section 39-Oath of elector.


Hugh Guthrie: There is only one change here. In line 17 the words "or produce any evidence" are struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Dominion Elections Act
Hugh Guthrie: The whole of sections 40 and 41 are struck out.
On section 42-Corrections in lists and entries in poll book.


Charles Gavan Power: I thought there was an
amendment to the original act in section 42.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 43, 44 and 45 agreed to.
On section 46-Ballot paper to be initialled.
William Irvine: This is the section on which I desire to move an amendment and I should like to have it stand.
Section stands.
Section 47 agreed to.
On section 48-Returning officer and deputy to be conservators of peace.


Hugh Guthrie: In subsection 7, line 46,
there is a change-"shall appoint."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
On section 50-Counting votes by deputy returning officers.
William Irvine: If my amendment to section 46 should happen to carry, a slight amendment will be necessary in section 50.


Hugh Guthrie: Many amendments might be necessary. On page 38 the words "ballot box" should appear at the beginning of line nine.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 51-Custody of ballot boxes.
Charles Gavan Power: Have we definitely decided
that "greatest" is preferable to "highest" number in subsection (3)?


Hugh Guthrie: The subsection reads
"majority" and we made it "greatest number." Perhaps "highest number" would be better, or "largest number."


William Irvine: If you leave it as it stands now a great many members of parliament could be unseated because they have not a majority of the votes. If you change it to the largest number you are defeating the object of the whole act, which is to guarantee that the members elected shall receive a majority.


Hugh Guthrie: The subsection as amended would read:
The candidate who, on the addition of the votes, is found' to have the largest number of votes . ..
Is that language correct?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hugh Guthrie: I think myself that
"highest" would be better.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 52

Adjournment if ballot boxes are missing.
William Irvine: Subsection 7 will have to
be altered to correspond with the previous section.


Hugh Guthrie: We will put "largest number" there instead of "greatest number."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
On section 54-Application for recount or readdition by judge.
Hugh Guthrie: There is a change in this clause on page 43. It is merely a change in the numbering. Where the words "section sixty-eight" occur in line 30 and again in line 35, the words "sixty-eight" should be struck out and the words "fifty-one" inserted.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 55 agreed to.
On section 56-Return of candidate elected.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This clause deals with returns that have to be made after an election in accordance with certain forms by the official agents and the candidates themselves regarding certain expenses incurred during the election. As all hon. members know and as, indeed, everybody knows, it is very hard to make those returns accurately in the forms provided by this clause and also according to the very forms that are appended to this bill.
I dare say every person who has had to carry on an election has found it very hard to fill out the forms in conformity with the law and every prescription of the law. If everyone wanted to comply exactly with every minute detail exacted by this return from the official agents and the candidates themselves I do not know where we would all land. I know in the election laws of some provincial legislatures similar provisions existed and they Were withdrawn.

Dominion Elections Act


Charles Gavan Power: That is clause 63.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Well, maybe I am not on the right clause. I may be in the right church but in the wrong pew. Anyway, the remarks I have made ought to be considered when we
come to the other clause.


Hugh Guthrie: Clause 56 has been
amended. In line forty-five at the bottom of the page we have struck out the words:
The parcels of original signed applications of electors for registration as such, the identification books and poll books used in the several polling divisions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: In line 31 we have substituted "thirteen" for "twelve" and "nineteen" for "forty" in the numbering of the sections.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 57 and 58 agreed to.
On section 59-Chief electoral officer to retain papers, etc.
Hugh Guthrie: This clause has been
amended by striking out in line 29 the words in parenthesis:
Excepting all packages of signed applications of electors for registration as such, received from the dominion franchise commissioner.
And by striking out the last sentence of subsection 1 beginning at line 34 as follows:
He shall return all such packages of signed applications to such commissioner forthwith after receipt of them from the returning officers.
Both of those come out.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 60 to 62 inclusive agreed to.
On section 63-Return of election expenses by official agent.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Continuing the remarks that I started to make a few minutes ago I would ask the committee and the government to consider very seriously following the same course that was taken in some of the provincial legislatures when they deleted from some of their acts these provisions especially concerning the candidates themselves. There is good ground for doing that. If we want to improve the law we ought to consider removing certain of these obstructions which are really obstructions to the candidates. We really cannot carry out the law if we are called upon to comply with each and every
detail of the forms and the provisions in the clause. If everybody had to comply with that law, we would not be here. Especially subclause 3, on page 52, should be entirely eliminated.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is hypocrisy.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: An hon. member says that it is hypocrisy. Everybody knows certain expenses have to be incurred during an election. In the law there is a provision that only S500 must be expended by the candidate for personal and travelling expenses. This is possible in certain ridings of a small area but when you have ridings about 800 miles in length, when you have to hire boats every day incurring necessary expenses to go from one place to another and when also in certain cases you have to use aeroplanes, there is not a candidate who could look anyone in the face fairly and squarely and say that he had spent only $500 for travelling expenses.


Hugh Guthrie: In this bill we have raised that to $1,000 just for my hon. friend's riding.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That might not cover it in some cases.


Hugh Guthrie: That is pretty reasonable.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As regards the returns that the official agents and the candidates are called upon to make, it is not within the power of any human being to make those returns in their present form. In some of the provincial legislatures they have held this view and have struck out similar provisions. What is the use of being hypocritical about the matter? In some ridings the cost is greater; in others it is less, and I do not think these returns in their present form ought to be exacted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to offer an amendment to this clause. Perhaps I might follow the precedent of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and give a general idea of what I have in mind. About a year ago the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) in a speech in this house undertook to tell hon. members that I was very largely responsible for making permissible contributions from corporations and also in speeches across this country he tried to make me more or less directly responsible for the contributions from Beauhamois to the Liberal party.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member took the lead, the initiative, in the matter. That is what I said.
Dominion Elections Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: The fact is that I suggested an amendment to the Elections Act on May 28, 1930, when that act was up for revision. Section 9 of the act as it then stood read:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone shall, directly or indirectly, contribute, loan, advance, pay, or promise or offer to pay any money or its equivalent to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election, or to, or for, or in aid of, any political party, committee, or association, or to or for, or in aid of, any company incorporated for political purposes, or to, or for, or in furtherance of, any political purpose whatever, or for the indemnification or reimbursement of any person for moneys so used.
That section had had the effect of prohibiting contributions from labour unions or from farmers' associations to campaign funds. Those contributions were made in the open; they were small in amount but they might very well invalidate an election. On the other hand no provision was made for a report of contributions to central offices. We know there are large campaign funds collected at any general election. Senator McRae said last year that it cost over a million dollars for either of the old parties to carry on a general election campaign. Some years ago the brewers admitted having given large sums to both parties. There is no provision in the clause for any report being made of this central campaign fund, the only provision is for the reporting of sums received by the agent of the local candidate. Apparently then this clause did not fulfil the purpose for which it was designed. Further there were no penalties attached, so it was very largely a dead letter. I did suggest that I had tried in vain to get an amendment exempting the trade unions and other bodies of that kind from the operation of the clause. On an occasion something like this, I did suggest that the clause be struck out. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who *was chairman of the committee said he was quite agreeable; and with no dissenting voice, except, I think one by the Prime Minister on a technicality, the amendment passed. I would suggest that it is hardly fair for the hon. member for Melville to go across the country charging me with exclusive responsibility for having cut out this clause.
Under the circumstances it is only right that some provision should be made with regard to campaign funds, and I make this suggestion, that an amendment of this kind should be added. I am not quite sure that

it covers the ground adequately; I prepared it hurriedly during the luncheon hour:
That section 63, subsection 1 be amended by adding a paragraph, as follows:
(f) a detailed list of all contributions or stocks of literature, posters or other printed material or services supplied from any central committee or any other organization.
As we all know, into most constituencies there come very large supplies of literature from headquarters. Ordinarily there is no accounting made of this. The reports which the hon. member for Charlevoix^Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) speaks about are very different. They certainly make no provision for anything of this kind.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: They are no good anyway.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Further than that
there are large quantities of posters and other printed material shipped in from headquarters of which no report is made.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not like to interrupt, but we are taking the non-contentious clauses. Had we better not let this stand?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be through
in a moment. My purpose in introducing this proposed amendment now is that if .the idea meets with the approval of the minister, in case the particular wording is not acceptable he and his officers might perhaps draft one that would better serve the purpose. When interrupted I was saying that it is the practice to bring in large quantities of printed matter, it is very often the practice to have organizers sent in and the greater part of the campaign carried on by paid organizers, who however ire not paid by the local people. If we are going to have any reports why not have a full report of all the money spent in the constituency? Why, as a candidate, have I to report some one hundred dollars that my agent is paying out but make no report of the thousand or ten thousand that come from some outside source? I suggest that this be taken into consideration by the minister.


James Dew Chaplin: How would you find out the value?


Hugh Guthrie: The clause stands.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the _ remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) require more than passing notice. The hon. member and his party have never ceased talking about the Beauharnois campaign fund. I have always taken the ground that they are the last party in this house that should talk about it. The hon. member for Winnipeg

Dominion Elections Act
North Centre was the one who took the initiative to make campaign fund contributions from corporations "legal and proper," in the terms of the right hon. leader of the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


William Richard Motherwell: Sit down and take your medicine.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -I submit that the initiative in removing clause 9 of the act as it then stood did not make this legal and certainly did not make it proper.


Ernest Lapointe: That is no point of * order.


William Richard Motherwell: If it was not making it proper why did my hon. friend move to make it proper? My hon. friend says it did not make it legal. I have the authority of the Prime Minister that it did. My hon. friend says it did not make it proper. Well he tried to make it proper and if it is improper he is responsible for it. My recollection is that he tried this stunt three times before he pulled it. On the first two occasions the government- turned it down. The third time, I remember quite well, the Solicitor General-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


William Richard Motherwell: I want to finish
this and finish it right. The Solicitor General at that time indicated that it was agreed in the committee on elections that this question would not be dealt with at that session of 1930, would not be allowed to come up, and it did not except to say we could not change the prohibition against these corporation campaign contributions. I remember quite well that there were only four hon. members in the house who spoke on that occasion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took the initiative in spite of the understanding to the contrary in the committee, trying to get this prohibition against campaign contributions removed, and finally he succeeded. The Solicitor General spoke a short time indicating that the committee had agreed not to deal with it and make it legal or proper. The hon. member for Quebec South was indifferent about the matter. I think he was on the committee; I forget, but he spoke as if he did not care much which way it went. Then the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Kellner) was strongly with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in favour of removing this prohibition. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre admitted on a previous page of Hansard that he had himself received $100 from his central committee. Apparently with him it is a matter of size of contribution. Then in the first election after this prohibition was removed he started getting campaign funds from his own central organization. Is not that just what the other parties were doing from their respective sources and centres? I cannot conceive the logic of his reasoning, or that he, having taken the initiative, was not more guilty, if that term is justified, than the leader of any other party in this house or any other member.


James Dew Chaplin: Who was in control of
the house at that time?


William Richard Motherwell: I take the ground that every one of the 245 members, who was a consenting party, was jointly responsible with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Only four said anything about it, all the rest who were present were consenting parties. Had my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre not insisted upon it the prohibition would not have been removed, it would have been there to this day, and there would not have been any masquerading about this country in favour of immaculate elections and then taking the initiative to make them other than immaculate. Not satisfied with that he is now blathering about the country and complaining about being exposed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I must answer one or two of the statements of my hon. friend which I think are not correct. Reference was made to my having stated in this house that I had received $100 from a central committee.


William Richard Motherwell: That was your own statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was quite correct. That S100 was secured from the workers, but at the time I made the statement I was trying to point out that there were central committees with regard to which we need not report. That is the very point I am trying to make to-day. I did not receive $100 from any great corporation or anything of that sort. I want to emphasize the fact that we are required to report with regard to local matters, but not with regard to those things that come from central bodies. In the next place the hon. member for Melville stated that I tried three times previously to have this section repealed. I had not tried in any way to have the section repealed; I did try to get an exemption in the case of trades unions, which is a different matter.


William Richard Motherwell: It is that much
worse.
Dominion Elections Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: Further than that, I hope the hon. member for Melville will not insist that the Liberal party took the Beauharnois funds entirely because they felt free from the law in this regard. With regard to blathering around the country, it seems to me rather a strange thing that the hon. member for Melville should write special letters for a provincial campaign dragging in this issue, and further than that go to the church paper in an attempt to discredit me.


William Richard Motherwell: I notice that the
hon. member has never deigned over his own signature to deny any of these communications. The letter to the church paper had to do with matters brought up in this house, and not one sentence or syllable of it was ever challenged by my hon. friend or by anyone else as to its accuracy. Since my hon. friend apparently wants a little more than he got I would ask him if he has been opposed by the Liberals in Winnipeg North Centre since 1921, and where>
the support of the Liberals went in the various elections that have taken place there since that time. I would ask the hon. gentleman where he got his assistance, with the Liberals not running any candidates. It is the same thing with the whole gang of them over there; they are supported by one or the other of the old parties. We know that; the public know it. That is the farce of the whole thing. There is not a mother's son of them over there who has not been supported by one or the other of the two old parties since 1921. Having regard to that fact what a farce it is to pretend that they are a distinct entity. Does anyone suppose that Milton Campbell was not financed by the Tories? Or does anyone suppose that the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) is not in the same position? I cannot prove it, but we all know a lot more things than we can prove.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It happens that I
was opposed by the Liberals in 1925. That is another case in which the hon. member for Melville is not correct. Further than that I was not opposed in the last election by the Conservatives. I did not know that the Liberals were so stupid that they and the Conservatives contributed these large amounts to elect me.


William Richard Motherwell: There is just a
difference of ten months between 1925 and 1926.


Samuel Gobeil: The committee is on section 64.
Section 64 agreed to.
Sections 65 to 69 inclusive agreed to.

On section 70-Liability of election members.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a change in
subsection (5) on page 59, in line 19. The words "section seventy-two" are struck out, and in line 22 the words "or section seventy-two" are added.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 71 and 72 agreed to.
On section 73-Conveyance of electors to polls.
Charles Gavan Power: I am going to move that this section be struck out.


John Alexander Sullivan: I second that motion.


Hugh Guthrie: Stands.
Section 73 stands.
Section 74 stands.
Sections 75 to 82 inclusive agreed to.
On section 83-Election not voided unless illegal practices by candidate.


John Alexander Sullivan: I do not think section 77 should be included.


Hugh Guthrie: Stands.
Section 83 stands.
Sections 84 to 94 inclusive agreed to.
On section 95-Who may vote at advance polls.


Charles Gavan Power: Subsection (b) is new, it it not?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 96-Conditions for voting at advance polls.
Hugh Guthrie: This has been amended so that subsection (a) shall read:
(a) he produces to the returning officer at the advance poll an advance poll certificate in form No. 40 that he is a person to whom the privilege of voting at an advance poll extends, which certificate shall he signed by-*
(i)	the returning officer, or
(ii)	the election clerk.


Charles Gavan Power: I would ask to have that stand.
Section 96 stands.
Sections 97 and 98 agreed to.

Dominion Elections Act
On section 99-Who shall not be appointed election officers.


Alan Webster Neill: Was there not to be an amendment to section 99?


Hugh Guthrie: I believe there will be an amendment moved, and perhaps I could state the nature of the amendment without moving it at the present time. It is to provide for absentee votes among certain occupational classes including lumbermen, miners, fishermen and sailors. If any person in those four classes is more than twenty-five miles away from the polling division where his name appears on the voters' list he may go to the poll nearest to the place he happens to be worldng, and deposit a special ballot.


Ernest Lapointe: In the same province.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it must be in the same province. The ballot is accepted by the returning officer at that point and is transmitted to the proper poll where the person's name appears upon the voters' list. This is a system which for a number of years has been in force in British Columbia, and it was suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that to meet the special requirements of many constituencies in the province of British Columbia such a clause should be adopted generally throughout Canada. I have given the matter the best consideration I can. It was discussed in committee, although the committee did not reach any definite conclusion on the matter. I have now drawn an amendment which I think will cover the point, and when we come to the contentious clauses I shall move it.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Where does the special ballot come from?


Hugh Guthrie: It is supplied by the returning officer who will be supplied with the special absentee ballots.


Mr. McINTOSH:: When will it be transmitted to the correct poll?


Hugh Guthrie: Immediately after the
count a telegraphic dispatch is sent showing the number of votes.


Mr. BROWN:: Will it be transmitted from one constituency to another?


Hugh Guthrie: Within the same province.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Is it to be done under oath?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, the voter must swear that his name appears on the voters' list of a certain subdivision more than twenty-five miles away from the point at which he happens to be working. If he is a qualified 74726

elector and takes the oath printed on the ballot he affixes his signature, and then marks his ballot which is put in the box. Of course, these ballots are different from the others. When they are counted the absentee votes are marked under their proper polling subdivision, and the number of them is transmitted forthwith by telegraphic communication to the returning officer of the appropriate division.	.


Vincent Dupuis: Will the minister tell me why-


Hugh Guthrie: Probably we had better wait until I can elaborate upon the matter, because the amendment is somewhat lengthy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has suggested four classes to whom this provision would apply. May I ask if he would not also include men in construction and relief camps? They are in a similar position.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I cannot extend the privilege any farther, and at a later time I shall explain the reason.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What kind of ballot will it be?


Hugh Guthrie: I shall explain later.


Mr. THOMPSON (Simcoe):: I should like to ask the minister if it would not be possible to adopt the same provision for mariners as appears in the Ontario act, whereby a sailor may vote in his own riding by giving a proxy to a relative who is a voter.


Hugh Guthrie: I have not considered that.
Section 99 stands.
Sections 100 to 103 inclusive agreed to.
On section 104-No amendment to apply to election for which writ is issued within three months, except after notice.


Charles Gavan Power: I find in this section the
words, "no amendment to this act." Does that mean the Canada Temperance Act, or the bill we are now discussing?


Hugh Guthrie: "This act" means the
Elections Act.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps we had better let
the section stand until we read it over.


Hugh Guthrie: The heading "Canada
Temperance Act elections" might lead to some misunderstanding. I do not know that the expression should be used here at all.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, we will let it carry.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Elections Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 105-Repealed enactments.
Hugh Guthrie: There is an amendment
to this section whereby we add as subsection (2) the words:
Notwithstanding anything in this act contained all by-elections "which shall occur before the dissolution of this present parliament shall be had and held under and pursuant to the provisions of the acts which by subsection 1 of this section are repealed and for the purposes only of by-elections so had and held such repealed acts shall be deemed to continue in full force and effect.
The object of the amendment is to provide that any by-election which may be held in Canada before the dissolution of parliament shall be continued under the present elections law and not under the new act.


Vincent Dupuis: That is a new subsection.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been added by
the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: In this connection I think
it will be necessary to refer to section 106 which states:
This act shall not come into force until a day to be fixed by the governor in council and proclaimed by him in the Canada Gazette.
If I understood the amendment correctly it was to the effect that the subsections repealing the Dominion Elections Act, an act to amend the Dominion Elections Ant, and a further act to amend the Dominion Elections Act will continue to apply to by-elections. But the last section in the bill, namely, section 106, suspends the operation of the legislation until it is proclaimed. Is it possible to have the two acts proclaimed at the same time?


Hugh Guthrie: When this legislation is
proclaimed it immediately comes into effect. But no matter when it is proclaimed, if any by-election is held between now and dissolution the provisions in respect of elections in the present act shall prevail.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister covered a case where a proclamation has been made, and yet the old Dominion Elections Act remains in force?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The new subsection does not come into effect until the proclamation.


Hugh Guthrie: If any hon. member
wishes the section to stand, I am content to have it stand.


Charles Gavan Power: No, I am content.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 106 agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I propose now to go on with the contentious clauses of both bills. Meantime, however, I have been asked to report progress so that the house may proceed with some other business.


Charles Gavan Power: Could we not go through
the schedules before that is done?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I believe we should
do that before we report progress.
Schedule 1.
Form 1 agreed to.
On form 2-Oath of returning officer.


Hugh Guthrie: I have an amendment to this form. I move that the words "by section 22" be changed to "by section 9."


Charles Gavan Power: Should we not say "Dominion Elections Act, 1934"? Is that not the proper title?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is the title of
this legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps we should amend
accordingly.


Hugh Guthrie: Probably so, as that is
the title under section 1 of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Forms 3 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On form 13-Oath of poll clerk.
Hugh Guthrie: There is a change in this form. The present words are "with partiality" and they should be "without partiality." These words have been in for years.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Form 14 agreed to.
On form 15-Form of ballot paper.
Hugh Guthrie: There is just a slight
change to be made here. The word "block" should be "black."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Forms 16 to 18 inclusive agreed to.

Dominion Elections Act
On form 19-Oath of person applying to vote.
Charles Gavan Power: I think this form should be altered. It should be remembered that in one section of the bill it is provided that no person shall be called upon to take an oath other than those provided for in this act. The oath is:
You swear (or solemnly affirm) that you are (name of the voter) whose name is entered on the copy of the list of voters now shown to you (showing copy of list to voter); that you have not before voted at this election either at this or at any other polling station, that you have not been employed by any person for pay or reward, in reference to this now proceeding election in any electoral district unless lawfully by an election officer and that you have not received anything, nor has anything been promised to you, either directly or indirectly, in order to induce you to vote, or to refrain from voting, at this election.
If the amendment which I moved with respect to those employed in committee rooms is carried, this form will have to be modified. I think the person should be asked to swear if he is a British subject and twenty-one years of age. That has always been provided for in any other act. In closed lists of this kind it is often found necessary to challenge a person as to whether he is a British subject or twenty-one years of age.


Hugh Guthrie: The fact that a name
is on the list is proof that the person is twenty-one years of age and a British subject.


Charles Gavan Power: On many occasions in the
past when voting with closed lists it has been found possible to challenge a person as to whether he is a British subject or twenty-one years of age. Is it intended that the fact of a name being on the list is sufficient to permit a person to go to the poll who is not properly qualified? The name may have got there in the hurry and bustle of registration. I do not propose to add a long list of qualifications but I think a person should be qualified as to being twenty-one years of age and a British subject.


Albert Joseph Brown: And as to residence.


Charles Gavan Power: Residence would not be of
any importance because the fact that a person's name is on a closed list is some evidence that at the time the list was made he was qualified as to residence.
Form stands.
Form 21 agreed to.
74726-282i
On form 22-Oath on transfer certificate.


Hugh Guthrie: This should read "dated
this .... day of	 19..."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Forms 22 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
On form 26-Information for voting.
Charles Gavan Power: I am asking that this form
stand. Is this a new provision?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I think it has always
been in the act.


Charles Gavan Power: I think it is new.
Form stands.
Form 27 agreed to.
Form 28 stands.
Forms 29 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
Forms 35 to 38 inclusive stand.
Form 39 agreed to.
On form 40-Advance poll certificate.


Hugh Guthrie: The words "or as the case
may be" have been added.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Form 41 agreed to.
On schedule two.
Hugh Guthrie: It has been suggested
that the name McAdam Junction should be added to the New Brunswick list, and the names of Brantford and Woodstock are to be added to the Ontario list.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps this schedule could stand. I do not think certain hon. members on this side were aware that there would be a possibility of adding names to these lists.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Why is Swift Current
not included?


Hugh Guthrie: Because no application
has ever been received. If my hon. friend desires it should be included and it is a place of consequence, we will add it.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It is a larger place than many on the list.


Hugh Guthrie: They were a little more
active.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I ask that it be inserted.


Hugh Guthrie: I shall be very glad to
insert it.
Schedule stands.
Dominion Elections Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I spoke this
morning of the insertion in one or the other of these bills of a provision with respect to the use of the radio for broadcasting purposes during general elections, a provision which would ensure an equitable division of time and use of the service as between the political parties. Considering the importance of the radio in electoral contests, some provision of the kind ought to be made, and I suggest to the minister that while dealing with other matters in the interval he should take this one into consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: I shall be glad to consider .t and also the other suggestion in regard to notification by the returning officer to all persons entitled to vote as to where they are to vote. I am in favour of that, but considering that there are six million names on the voters list it would require an enormous staff throughout Canada to notify them all. They tell we that in ordinary -work a clever stenographer can address fifty postal cards in an hour, which of course cannot be done by penmanship. In eight hours you wtould get only four hundred done. There are twenty-five thousand more names on the list in the ridings, but the total is some six millions. If it were not for the expense I should say yes; but it would be a pretty expensive operation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is considerable expense, the alternative lies between the state meeting a legitimate expenditure and placing what is a perfectly proper electoral charge on the shoulders of the candidates and their supporters. The elections act is part of the machinery of government. The elector must know where he is to vote before he can discharge his duty as a voter. It seems to me it should be an obligation of the state to notify him officially where he has to vote.
Where the work is left to committees they have to incur all the additional expense of postage, as well as of stenographic assistance. If the electors were notified by the state, the frank could be used, and all that expense would be saved to candidates and political parties without adding anything in this way of expenditure by the state. Furthermore, it would avoid a great deal of confusion. If a voter received an official card notifying him that he was to vote at such and such a poll, if any question arose as to his being at the wrong poll, the possession of an official card would be prima facie evidence of his being at the right poll. As regards expense, we are at this very moment voting $40,000,000 as a special measure to help to provide labour for the 
unemployed and improve conditions in the country. Of that amount there is over $1,000,000 to be voted for a barracks in the Prime Minister's own constituency. Surely, if we can vote $1,000,000 for a barracks, even should it require $1,000,000 to see that a truly representative poll is taken in a general election, that would be preferable to devoting an equivalent amount of money to the other purpose. I think the bogy of expense is all nonsense, where it is not necessarily considerable and is both necessary and legitimate. I stand for economy, but I recognize that it is absolutely necessary that every elector should know where he has to vote. With closed lists I think he is entitled to be officially informed. At the last provincial election in Ontario I asked my secretary to find out where I was to vote, and he informed me he was obliged to make inquiries from five different sources before he could definitely ascertain where the poll was located. It must be remembered that while some of us may be in the fortunate position of having telephones and motor cars which enable us without too great inconvenience to go from one polling booth to another, the majority of people have neither telephones nor cars, and are without ready means of informing themselves; and, if they are dependent upon what some party committee advises them, they may often be deceived by being deliberately furnished with a wrong notice from some committee. I do think it would relieve candidates and their supporters of a very considerable expense. We are seeking to have elections as free from corruption as possible and to get rid as largely as possible of the necessity of campaign funds. As everyone knows, corruption may arise out of expenses that are essential to the legitimate conduct of elections, and not only out of practices that may in themselves be termed corrupt. Campaign funds have to be acquired for the purpose, and, if we can reduce the amount of campaign funds which are necessary for perfectly legitimate purposes, it will all help in the matter of securing cleaner and better elections. I am glad that the minister agrees with the suggestion and the idea; I believe that members on both sides of the house are practically unanimous with respect to it.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want the committee to go away with the idea that this is a new suggestion on the part of the leader of the opposition; it was discussed when he was Prime Minister and was not adopted. We did discuss this very question in the committee

Dominion Elections Act
and the whole committee was in favour of it, the only question being one of expense. I agree that we should do everything to make the franchise as complete and as convenient as possible to the voter, but a line must be drawn somewhere. The next demand will be to carry the voters to the polls. There is a responsibility on the voter to do something for himself. He should take sufficient interest in the question to see that his name is on the list and to poll his vote without being coaxed to do so. I think the suggestion is a good one, and the only thing that causes me to hesitate until I further consider it is the question of expense. If we can overcome that I am heartily in favour of it.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest a compromise. I cannot share the enthusiasm of my leader; I should not like a partisan returning officer to notify the voters in my constituency. It would cost far less to the country if the candidates, within a certain period prior to the election, were permitted to use a frank to send out notices to the electors, and if the electors were not properly notified as to where to go only one or two persons would be to blame, the respective candidates.


Hugh Guthrie: Suppose a supply of cards, sufficient in number to cover all the names, were given the various candidates and on these cards we printed a frank, "On His Majesty's Service": you would get rid of a large portion of the expense.


Charles Gavan Power: That is a good idea. It has been calculated that in large cities like Montreal, indeed in any city, it costs 4 cents per name, including the printing of the card and 2 cents for postage, and that is something worth considering when you run into constituencies of fifty or sixty thousand voters. The suggestion made by the Minister of Justice is an excellent one.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us agree on that suggestion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should hesitate to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Quebec South; it seems to me the suggestion of the leader of the opposition is preferable. There might be trouble if we had a returning officer who was very partisan. The suggestion of the leader of the opposition lifts the matter to a higher level. If you leave it to each of the committees, it means three sets of cards in a great many constituencies, and that is not only a duplication but a triplication of expense all round. Moreover, a procedure of that kind might easily lend itself to manipulation. Someone in any party might
put down a name or an address that was not the proper one and send it out, and the poor elector would have to travel all over the country.


Charles Gavan Power: That has been done; there is nothing original about that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, it has been done and it is possible under the hon. gentleman s suggestion. Very often there is a great deal of confusion as between polling booths in federal, provincial and municipal elections. In the municipal elections in my own city the city clerk sends out a card of notification and it is- found in practice to be helpful. Each elector knows precisely where he has to go and that official intimation helps to clear the situation. I would endorse rather the suggestion of the leader of the opposition; I think his arguments are sound.


Charles Gavan Power: Might I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there is a wide difference between a notification given in municipal affairs and one given in federal or provincial affairs. So far in municipal affairs, at any rate in most municipalities there are not clearly defined political parties and the municipal clerk is not supposed to be the appointee of one political party. He is as a rule a permanent official who is far above parties. In this case there would be an officer appointed by a party whose duty it would be, if the suggestion of the leader of the opposition is carried out, to notify every elector as to the place where he shall poll his vote. Inevitably, whether a returning officer is impartial, nonpartisan or not, some of those notices and some of those cards will be lost. When a large number of cards of that nature are being distributed, the postmen as a rule are extremely careless with them and a large number will be lost. That will serve to arouse among the people who have not been notified a prejudice against the returning officer and possibly partly against the party which appointed him. I say frankly there is no doubt any man who does not receive his card will say: This is the fault of the party that appointed the returning officer and he is doing it on purpose that I will not be notified. This will only cause ill-feeling and complicate the election issue for no good reason. Were all three parties, if there are three, to proceed to the notification of their electors, surely one out of the three would hit the right man. Time and again in an election campaign complaint is made to me: I did not receive notification from you where the polling place was,

Excise Act-Senate Amendments
but I received it from your opponent. That is all right; there is no objection to that, but with three parties notifying the elector there is no doubt he will receive notification.


Hugh Guthrie: I believe the Senate is waiting for something and we can go on with this afterwards. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message from the Senate:
Friday, June 29, 1934.
Resolved that a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house that the Senate has agreed to the free conference desired with the Senate for the purpose of communicating the reasons which induced the Commons not to concur in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill 89, intituled, "An Act to amend and consolidate the Excise Act," and has appointed the Right Honourable Senator Meighen and the Honourable Senators Copp and Cote as managers on their part at the said conference, and
Also, that the managers of the free conference on the part of the Senate will meet in Senate committee room No. 258, at six o'clock, p.m., on this 29th day of June, instant.
A. E. Blount,
Clerk of the Senate.


Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that the House of Commons has appointed Messrs. Matthews Cahan and' Euler to act as managers on behalf of this house of the free conference with the Senate with respect to the amendments made to Bill No. 89, an act to amend and consolidate the Excise Act.	,	.,
That the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.
from the bill on the ground that it disqualified persons working in committee rooms, etcetera. I do now formally move that the whole of clause 37 be struck from the bill.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: While I am entirely in favour of this disappearing, there should be some limit to the number that can be employed, because otherwise this will lend itself to a very nice way of employing one person for just an hour and paying him whatever is wished, and so on. Some limit should be set as to the number who can be employed.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the amendment is much too sweeping. This has been a provision in the law for a long time. While it may be inconvenient, I do not know that it has ever been abused and I do not know that it has ever been a very great inconvenience. I have never found it so and I believe I have contested probably more elections than anyone here. It has been in the act as long as I can remember. It may, however, be capable of some modification but I could not agree to its being stricken out and nothing else put in its place.


John Alexander Sullivan: I object to this clause. In the large cities we cannot carry on an election without employing hundreds of people to prevent impersonation.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend from
East Essex (Mr. Morand) made a suggestion that we must pay heed to. If we have no limitation at all there is nothing to prevent one hiring one hundred people for an hour at $5 each, which would be a clear case of bribery. We must make the thing reasonable.


Charles Gavan Power: In these days of depression
one is not likely to hire a hundred people at $5.


Hugh Guthrie: The depression will be
over before the election.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Another false promise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 115, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 37-Persons in receipt of pay disqualified.
Charles Gavan Power: This is the clause which it will be remembered I moved should be struck


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to some form of limitation if it can be worked out.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we shall have to draft a clause. I would not like to strike out the whole thing.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite willing to let
it stand.


Hugh Guthrie: The carriers of the election officers are not disqualified.


Charles Gavan Power: No, they are excepted.

Dominion Elections Act


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. The objectionable
words in subsection 1 are:
Every person employed by any person for pay or reward in reference to an election in any electoral district shall be disqualified. ...
Now the exceptions are all right, I understand.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: The limitation will have
to be applied in subsection 1.
Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) agreed to.


Hugh Guthrie: Can we get a section or
paragraph (e) to subsection 2, which will put a reasonable limit on those persons who may be employed?


Samuel Factor: Why not follow the wording of paragraph (d), "any person necessarily and properly employed"?


Hugh Guthrie: That is just as objectionable, because you might employ half your constituency.


Mr. OHEVRIER:: I cannot see the wisdom of having any limitation at all. You might as well leave it as it is; why limit it to one or two or three or four? The evil is there.


Hugh Guthrie: Leave it as it is then.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: No, I want the whole
thing struck out. It is just as ridiculous when you come to the other parts, whether you have one or twenty-five.


Charles Gavan Power: The implication of this
would extend to the trainmen employed on the private car which conveys the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition about the country, the people employed on the radio when some candidate makes a speech, the man who pilots an aeroplane, or to persons who are often employed to make speeches for one or the other political party; although I do not think it ever has been applied to that length.


Hugh Guthrie: The question is what is
reasonably necessary. Can we fix any limit?


Charles Gavan Power: Any limit to the amount of money expended?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is not the amount
of money, it is the number of persons who can be employed.


Charles Gavan Power: As pointed out by the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan) in large constituencies it is very difficut to limit the number. What would be extraordinary and extravagant for a constituency in the city of Quebec would be far too small in the city of Montreal. I can well remember that at
one time it was stated here, I think a return was made by one of the candidates, that he had expended $44,000 in legitimate expenses in his election; that was His Excellency the Hon. Mr. Marler. The Secretary of State should be very familiar with the expenditures in that constituency, though I would not go as far as to say that he expended $44,000 in legitimate expenses.


Mr. CAHAN:: He made a return under oath with a proper audit.


Charles Gavan Power: I quite agree, and I am not complaining, I only indicate that you cannot possibly place a limit on the amount of money expended for perfectly legitimate employees in a large constituency. It will be remembered, I think, that during that election candidates on both sides sent canvassers out to take photographs of the voters in order to be sure that there would be no impersonation at the polls. They went from door to door and asked voters to sit for their photographs and took snapshots. It costs money to do that with thousands and thousands of voters. But that is a perfectly legitimate expenditure, in fact it is to keep the election clean.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Suppose you have in a committee room four or five telephones, would you say that you should not have more than one telephone operator, more than one stenographer, more than one clerk? I think it is absolutely ridiculous.


Hugh Guthrie: How would it be to add to paragraph (d) a clause something like this:
And such persons as may be reasonably necessary to afford clerical help to the candidate during the election, but which in no ease shall exceed	in number.


Ernest Lapointe: That would satisfy me.


John Alexander Sullivan: Will that prevent impersonation? We may have a hundred men going from door to door taking photographs of these people, getting their names and addresses and whether they have a telephone and so on. If we have sixty thousand electors, we have to be very careful, three or four thousand people may come and telegraph; that is what we are up against.


Charles Gavan Power: I think if the minister would let it read "such persons as may be reasonably and properly employed" that would be enough. Our object is to prevent what you might call electoral blackmail. If this thing is carried on during elections-and it is, there is no use trying to get away from it-at least let us be able to put up a good case before a
Dominion Elections Act

judge if we have to go before him, and if the judge is a bit sympathetic and knows that the complaint is not bona fide but only made for the purpose of intimidating a candidate or the person elected, then he will have a chance to throw out any prosecution. That is all we want.


James Shaver Woodsworth: While there may be danger in the clause as it now stands, I submit that to strike it out is a still more dangerous proceeding. There would then be no limit to the amounts that might be spent. It may be that the island of Montreal is an outstanding example of the difficulties of winning an election without a large election fund, but I submit that there are other methods by which elections in that city might be cleaned up than by opening wide the door to a reckless and unlimited expenditure. If this is cut out it will simply be a race to see who can spend the most money, because there will be no limit to what might be done in the way of sending out literature, employing canvassers, having people check and re-check, and so on. That would mean that the man with the deepest purse or the man who could command the utmost in the way of resources would be the man who would win the election, and that is fatal to any real democracy. So I would rather take the chance and insist that if people will not do this work voluntarily they must lose their franchise in that particular election. I think that is the only solution, short of what I suggested several years ago, that legitimate expenses should be put up by the government itself. I think that would be a reasonable proposal. If it is worth while to carry on an election in order to select a government, it seems to me worth while for the country as a whole to put up reasonable expenses. As an alternative, however, I should like to see this section retained.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon. gentleman misses the point entirely. This has no reference to the number of people who may be employed; it states that those people will be disqualified from voting. If a candidate wants to employ a thousand people and pay them

and have one thousand votes disqualified-he is at liberty to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot accept'the motion, but if there is any reasonable basis upon which we can arrange it I am willing to confer with my hon. friends. I think there must be some limitation. I think my hon. friend from Ottawa has misapprehended the situation. At present you may employ such clerical assistance as you need, and you may pay for it, but those who are employed are disqualified from

voting in that riding. That is a safeguard. If we removed this section a man might employ say a hundred workers for an hour at $5 or $10 each. That is bribery, but it could be done without disqualifying those workers.
I do not object to a reasonable number being employed during the campaign, but I do not know what a reasonable number is. I know that from five to eight would be employed in the central committee room in my riding, and they would be chiefly stenographers.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Several
hundred might be needed in other ridings.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no experience in the large cities, but I believe there should be some limitation. I do not like to open the door too wide. If my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) thinks we can come to any satisfactory arrangement I should be glad to discuss the question with him, but if not I would have to ask that the section remain as it is.


William Irvine: If there are those who desire to use money to prevent the people from expressing their true views at the polls I cannot imagine a better way to do it than under this section. A very wealthy Conservative might hire all the C.C.F.'s the night before, and disqualify them all, or perhaps a wealthy Liberal might do that. The point is that anyone who wants to act crookedly can do so under the section as it now stands.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have had some experience in running elections in the city of Montreal, and as a matter of fact I do not employ voters in my own constituency; I employ voters who reside and vote in other constituencies, which is perfectly legitimate. As a matter of fact, if I am to conduct an election in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George first I must have an inquiry to ascertain that the alleged voter resides where he says he resides. Then I must have some description of him so that he can be identified, and usually in order to identify him by questioning I wish to know his telephone number; if he has an office I wish to know where his office is situated and his office telephone number. I cannot run an election otherwise. In one of my elections a thousand voters were impersonated before they got to the polls. You must have means for a complete identification, and your representatives at the polls must be thoroughly informed so that they may prevent impersonation. At election time I employ people who do not vote in my constituency to do that clerical and protective work.

Dominion Elections Act
You must remember that if you are running an election in the city of Montreal you can go to an association in New York who will supply you with fifty or one hundred or two hundred or three hundred impersonators. These men will come to the city the day before the election, supplied with cards stating whom they are to impersonate; they will go from poll to poll impersonating voter after voter. In one election the only way we succeeded in preventing it was with the aid of a number of young men belonging to athletic clubs, some of them associated with McGill university, who were active supporters of mine. They saw an automobile carrying five or six men; it would stop at one poll and one man would get out and vote; it would go to the next poll and another man would get out and vote; and we then discovered that they were imported persomators. We took the law into our own hands and disabled each one of those automobiles, and defied the police to take charge of us for breaking the law in that way. So we were able to smash the combination. But there must be some way whereby money may be legitimately spent in investigating and informing ourselves with regard to prospective voters, in order to secure such information as will enable us to identify each and preserve his right to vote. I can only avoid the present law by going to some other constituency and engaging men there to do that preventive work for me.


John Alexander Sullivan: I could not do that.
Your riding is different; I am one of your electors.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There must be some way to ensure that elections will not be carried by impersonation. That is very difficult indeed. So far as I am concerned I will be satisfied if this section remains, but then I may not employ people in my own electoral district to secure the information which is absolutely necessary. In one case I think we secured thirty or forty detectives from another province and some twenty or thirty others elsewhere. Strange to say, before the election I learned that even they were being bribed. We brought some sixty of them into the main committee room, told them we knew they were being bribed and were working for the opposite party and asked those who admitted it to take two paces to the front. Two-thirds of those men took two paces to the front, admitting that they were working for the other party and not for us. Such a situation is difficult but some way must be found to remedy it. I have evidence that at least fifty or sixty blank warrants were issued for use in my constituency. They were signed
by a judge to be filled out when necessary. One committee in the St. Lawrence ward of my constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, composed of respectable men, were arrested and put in gaol before the poll opened, through the use of blank warrants ostensibly signed by a judge in the city of Montreal.
I have had police officers come to my main committee room where most representative women of the city were engaged on the telephones to persuade the voters to come to the polls. Those police officers had blank warrants which had been filled out on the street, with which they attempted to come in and arrest the most representative people in the city. We have stood at the door and said we would use strong measures if they attempted to carry these warrants into effect, because we knew they were false and fraudulent. That sort of thing is carried on, and it is not surprising to find that in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George the election expenses have run up as high as $120,000 or $125,000 in a single election. I know of one case where the candidate contesting the election spent $75,000, and there was a contribution of $25,000 to the election fund which had never been reported to him.
I claim no special purity whatsoever, but I do claim that I have taken every possible step to prevent fraud. No dollar has been expended except on * the approval of an auditor, and every person who works for me during an election is told that we have put up a fund to send him to gaol if when working in my interests he secures a vote for me by fraudulent means. I have done all I can, and there it remains.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not the Secretary of State believe that the closed list would help to remove a situation such as he has described?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it would, to a great extent. I do not wish to refer to personal matters, but may I say that when some years ago we were discussing this matter in the committee on privileges and elections some hon. gentlemen opposite representing the province of Quebec were the most earnest supporters I had in my endeavour to secure better conditions. Since in and out of committee we have entered upon a discussion of this matter, may I add that I have been gratified that hon. members sitting behind the right hon. gentleman opposite have expressed to me with every evidence of sincerity-and I have full confidence that they were sincere-their desire to prevent this sort of fraud. I am sure they are as anxious as I am to prevent it.
Dominion Elections Act


Mr. BRADETTE:: I wish to say only a
few words, because I believe the more we try to amend the act the worse it will get. I notice that subsection (c) of section 37 states:
Any person employed pursuant to this act as a deputy returning officer, poll clerk, messenger, interpreter or constable, or otherwise necessarily or properly employed by the returning officer for the conduct of the election.
May I say that scrutineers are engaged. It is legal for a candidate to have two scrutineers, one inside and one outside the poll. It is a well-known fact, and this applies to every hon. member and every candidate, that in some cases those men are paid. In my own riding I have an area bigger than the whole of the province of New Brunswick in which there are hundreds of polling divisions and hundreds of scrutineers.


Hugh Guthrie: But you never were
allowed to pay scrutineers.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is done. I do not
say that the law permits it, but it is done. We are doing some plain talking and I want to be fair about this matter. I say it is not fair to deprive hundreds of voters of an opportunity to vote at election times. In my section of the country many people have to go some considerable distance to vote; some of them are old, and cannot walk. My opponents have hired cars, and I have hired cars; that is a well-known fact. May I say that that applies not only on voting day but throughout the whole election. Then, I must pay the man who drives my car. No one can expect another person to work during an election campaign without receiving something for his time.


Angus MacInnis: As one listens to the
statements made by the Secretary of State one would despair of making progress through democracy. As I listened to his remarks I was satisfied that I lived in the wild and woolly west and not in the liberal and ultrareligious city of Montreal.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Order.


Angus MacInnis: Order is right. I am
not particularly concerned with this section, because I do not pay my workers. As a matter of fact, they sacrifice something in order to do the work. However, if there is any further proof needed that the clause should stand as it now is, or that there should be very little modification-


Charles Gavan Power: To shorten the discussion
I shall withdraw my amendment. That will carry the section. We are just wasting time.


John Alexander Sullivan: Why?


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid it does not
meet with anything like the unanimous support of the house, and in such a matter I do not think I should insist. I should be content, if the minister and hon. members agree, to have a vote right now.


John Alexander Sullivan: I understood the Minister of Justice was going to move an amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I am satisfied to
have it withdrawn.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The best argument
against the withdrawal of the section is made by the Secretary of State himself.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Effects of presence of name on list of voters.
Hugh Guthrie: This section was allowed to stand.


Charles Gavan Power: It was allowed to stand for some redrafting, apd to make it conform to another section. It does not now conform to subsection 6 of section 33.


Hugh Guthrie: Let it stand for redrafting purposes only.
Section stands.
On sections 63, 73 and 74.


Charles Gavan Power: In these three sections the
same question is involved. I refer to payments for conveyances to carry voters to the polls. These provisions have existed for many years and, if I may so express myself, they qre more notorious in their breach than in their observance. There is hardly an hon. member on either side of the house who at one time or another has not known that remuneration of some kind was being paid to persons who conveyed electors to the polls. If the house were in a more favourable and receptive mood I would urge the necessity for these pieces of arrant hypocrisy being taken out of the act. I know of nothing more hypocritical than for 245 members of parliament to make a crime of something which every one of them has carried out at one time or another. That is absurd and ridiculous and it belittles us in the eyes of the people. However, if all this is going to delay prorogation I am going to let it drop but I shall bring it up again on some other occasion when we have more time for discussion.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I want to make the same remarks which I made with reference to sec-

Dominion Elections Act
tion 63. It would be pretty hard for an agent to make this return, especially in polling divisions as extensive as some of those in my constituency. It would mean he would have to be in contact with people within a radius of fifty, sixty or one hundred miles or more. It is most ridiculous to insist that this form should be filled in.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us get this thing straight. Do I understand that objection is being taken to section 63 by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and to sections 73 and 74 by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power)? Are these agreed to?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before these sections are declared carried, I should like to object decidedly to the statement made by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) that every one of the 245 members has carried on elections in contravention of this act. As far as I am concerned, that is not true.


Hugh Guthrie: Write him a letter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That statement has been made on the floor of the house and I want to contradict it. Furthermore, the hon. member has suggested that we are hypocrites because we do not endorse the method of remedying the evil which he has suggested. He claims that that is the best means of getting away from the difficulty, but I think there is another method. If he brings it forward I shall be glad to consider it carefully. We are not hypocrites simply because we do not jump at his particular method.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know the right biblical quotation but I accept the statement of the hon. member that he never paid anything to his knowledge for the conveyance of voters in an election in which he has taken part. I accept his statement in the spirit in which it is given, but I must say that he is a remarkable exception.


Mr. SPENCER:: I would remind the hon. member for Quebec South that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not the only exception.


Charles Gavan Power: We will except the whole lot of them.
Sections 63, 73 and 74 agreed to.
On section 46-Manner of voting.


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I desire to move an amendment to section 46. I understand that the act which we are amending is an instrument to assist in the carrying out of the will of the electorate in electing members
of the House of Commons. I understand that the underlying principle is that the House of Commons shall truly represent the will of the people so voting. I think hon. members will agree with me when I say that it would be rather an accident if under the system of electing which we have been considering in this bill we should return to parliament a true representation of the will of the people. I do not think it is necessary for me to enter into any exhaustive treatise on the subject of proportional representation. This has been put forward from time to time in this house as a remedy for the fact that very often after an election the will of the majority of the people has been defeated by the method of elections. Fortunately, proportional representation is not a new thing in this house. It has been discussed exhaustively on several occasions. I would refer hon. members to the discussion which took place in this house in 1921, I think on the motion of Mr. Sexsmith. I refer them also to the committee of the house which was appointed to investigate the whole matter as a result of that motion. I also refer them to the motion made by Mr. W. C. Good on May 10, 1922, when this matter was covered both comprehensively and in detail. As the principle of proportional representation is well understood by hon. members, I shall not attempt anything more at this time than to state the important points which now concern us in view of the fact that the Elections Act is now before us.
I should like to draw attention to the weaknesses of the present method of voting. I think the first thing every hon. member should do is to face frankly the weaknesses in the present voting system and for which proportional representation is the proposed remedy. As I have said, it would be accidental if the present system of voting resulted in a parliamentary membership which reflected the true will of the people. Under the present voting system it is possible for a minority to be either entirely excluded or to have a representation far below that to which their voting strength properly entitles them. On the other hand, it is possible for a minority to obtain representation in parliament far in excess of that which is warranted by their voting strength. One or the other of these undesirable results occurs to varying degrees in every election. In some elections a party representing a minority of the electorate goes into power, thus depriving the party receiving the majority of the votes from forming the government, as it should do properly. An occurrence of that sort certainly violates the true principle of representative government. In
Dominion Elections Act

other cases a large majority may have no representation at all, as occurred in the recent election in Saskatchewan where the Conservative party, having roughly over one-third of the entire votes of the province, did not secure a single representative. The recent elections in British Columbia and Ontario demonstrate the same weaknesses in our voting system, to which I have referred already. I mention these elections because they are fresh in our memories and we can refer to the facts very easily. An examination of the results of almost any election conducted under the present system of marking ballots would give similar evidence.
I refer to two other instances. In the dominion elections of 1926 the Conservative party polled 83,000 more votes than the Liberals, yet had 25 fewer seats. In the federal elections of 1930 the Conservatives polled 1,909.955 votes and obtained 136 seats while all other parties polled 1,989,040 votes and obtained only 107 seats. Under proportional representation the Conservatives would have had 119 seats and the other parties in the house a total number of 124 seats. This makes a difference of 17 seats which the Conservatives obtained under an unjust system of voting. An examination of the figures of almost any election will reveal that it is practically impossible under the system in vogue to procure a parliamentary membership which reflects accurately the opinion of the voters. In other words, we have what the Right Honourable David Lloyd George called an "anomalous, unjust and grotesque electoral system which is a fraud and a mockery of democracy." So much for the defects of the present system of voting.
Proportional representation is a method .of voting which gives representation of citizens on elected bodies in proportion to their voting strength, thus ensuring that the majority of the electors shall rule, while at the same time providing .that all considerable minorities shall be heard. The method of voting adopted under proportional representation is called the "single transferable vote." This implies:
1. That constituencies shall be grouped or be made large enough for the purpose of electing several members, the number to be fixed according to what is practically convenient.
2.	That while there are several members to be eleoted in such a grouped constituency, each elector shall have, as now, only one vote.
3.	The elector, in marking his ballot, will use the figures 1, 2, 3, and so on, indicating the order of his preference of the candidates, instead of marking an "X" opposite only one of the candidates, as he now does. Voting

is quite as simple for the elector under proportional representation as it is under the present system, the only difference being in the task of the returning officer in making the count and in the results of the election which a true voting system would yield.
4.	The vote of an . elector may be transferred according to the choice as indicated by him in marking his ballot.
5.	A vote may be thus transferred according to indicated choice in the event of the candidate against whose name the figure (1) has been put not requiring to use the vote thus given. There are two conditions under which the candidate of the first choice may not require the vote of an elector. These are:
(a)	if he is hopelessly defeated; or (b) if he has a number of first choices equal to or greater than the required majority.
In the former case the candidate so hopelessly defeated is dropped, and the second choice attains the status of the first choice, and so on until each ballot is exhausted in the election of a candidate, whereas in the case of the single transferable vote in multimember constituencies, the surplus above the desired majority may be transferred in the order of the indicated choice, as well as the votes giving first choice to a candidate who comes last in the running.
6.	The majority required in a grouped constituency is determined on the same principle on which a majority is determined in a single member constituency. That is to say, a majority in a single member constituency is determined by dividing the total number of votes by one more than the members to be elected and adding one. If there were five members to be elected, the total vote would be divided by six, and adding one to that quotient would give the majority required by each candidate, or as it is called, the quota.
7.	In single member constituencies this principle of vote transference is known as the alternative vote. It is applied only when there are more than two candidates running in a single member constituency, and it ensures that the elected member shall obtain a majority of the votes cast in the constituency. The candidate with the lowest number of votes in this case is dropped, and his votes are transferred to the others according to the choice indicated by the voter. In this way the candidate elected will finally obtain a true majority of the votes cast in the riding. While the alternative vote does give a majority in each riding to the elected member, it would not in itself prevent the total membership of the house representing a minority vote, nor would it be a guarantee that minorities would have representation. It

Dominion Elections Act
only guarantees a majority in each riding where it is used.
The transfer of votes according to choice may be carried out with complete justice to each candidate and to the electors concerned. The method may be illustrated in the following manner. Let us say that the quota required to elect a member in a grouped constituency is 2,000. A obtains
3.000.	He therefore has 1,000 votes that are useless to him. One thousand votes happens to be a third of all the votes which were marked with a "1" for him. The returning officer, therefore, goes over the three thousand ballot papers a second time, and discovers the names against which the second choice have been marked. Let us assume that candidate B is second choice on 2,400 ballots and candidate C is marked second on 600 papers. We have seen that candidate A can spare one-third of all his 3,000 votes. He can, therefore, spare to B one-third of 2,400 of the ballot papers on which B is marked second choice, or 800. He can also spare to C one-third of the 600 on which C is second choice, or 200. This would result in electing A with his proper majority of
2.000,	and would transfer the other thousand to B and C proportionate to the choices indicated, which as we have seen was 800 votes to B and 200 to C.
Is proportional representation the remedy? That proportional representation would do as it claims it would do, namely, result in an elected assembly which correctly reflected the opinions of the voters concerned, there can be no doubt. Fortunately, the system is used in many countries, and in many cases other than in elected public bodies. I quote only one case. The provincial election in Alberta in 1930 gives us a notable example. Proportional representation is applied in the cities of that province. I quote what happened in the city of Calgary in the 1930 election. The Conservatives obtained, in the final count, 10,519 votes. They elected three members. The Liberals obtained 7,082 votes. They elected two members. Labour obtained 3,492 votes, and elected one member. Contrast these figures with rural ridings in Alberta at the same election, when the U.F.A., with a vote of 70,957 elected thirty-four members. The Liberals, with 34,187 elected eight, the Independents with 23,832 elected three, and the Conservatives with 7,481 elected none, while Labour with 6,156 elected two members. The figures should have been, under proportional representation, 24 instead of 34 U.F.A., 11 instead of 8 for the Liberals, 8 instead of 3 for the Independents, and 2 instead of none for the Conservatives.
Proportional representation is used for elections to municipal councils in:
Cleveland Cincinnati Hamilton. O.
Boulder, Colo.
Winnipeg
Calgary
West Vancouver St. James, Man.
Dublin
Cork
Christchurch. N.Z.
Arm i dale, N.S.W.
Berlin
Hamburg
Vienna
Budapest
Copenhagen
Stockholm
Oslo
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Zurich
Berne
Geneva
And hundreds of other municipalities in the following countries:
For all important public elections of representatives in:
The Irish Free State
Germany
Austria
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
The Netherlands	[DOT]
Luxemburg
Bulgaria
Saar Valley
Cuba
For parliamentary elections in the following countries also:
Malta
Belgium
Switzerland
Czechoslovakia
Poland
Finland
Iceland
Esthonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Danzig
San Marino
For some members of parliament in:
Great Britain
Northern Ireland
South Africa
India
Costa Rica
Portugal
Hungary
Uruguay
For provincial elections in most of the countries mentioned, and in:
Manitoba (part)
Alberta (part)
Tasmania Argentina (part)
For school boards throughout Scotland.
Dominion Elections Act

I have taken a little time outlining proportional representation, because I want to make it clear that while the amendment which I shall move does not include that method, in my opinion until that system is applied we shall not get rid of the whole difficulty to which I have alluded, namely, that under the system now used minorities may come into power while on the other hand they may not have representation at all-results depending on the accident as to how the votes happen to be divided in constituencies where more than two candidates run.


Thomas Reid: How would the hon. member prevent plumping under that system? Suppose there were three candidates, how would you make sure that they indicated first, second and third choice?


William Irvine: There is no possibility of preventing the voter from doing what he pleases; he may exercise all his choices or only one. If he decides to use only one, there is no discrepancy or injustice done him at all; he has done all that he wanted to do, and that is often done. In many cases voters do not use all their preferences, but in most instances they do, and with satisfactory results.
I am glad to say that in urging the adoption of the alternative vote in single member constituencies where more than two candidates are running, I am able to quote the recommendation of a special committee appointed by this house in 1921, and which committee reported to the house on the 13th of May that same year in part as follows:
It must be apparent to all that the present system of election in single member constituencies meets fully the purpose intended only when not more than two candidates are nominated. Rpcent experiences in elections in Canada have brought home to our people the fact that where three or more candidates present themselves in single member constituencies, the candidate declared elected may and often does, represent merely a minority of those voting in the constituency.
Your committee believes that in constituencies where more than two candidates present themselves, the adoption of the alternative vote offers a solution of the difficulty, inasmuch by such method the candidate finally declared elected would represent the choice of the majority of the electors.
The system of the alternative vote has its application only in those constituencies in which more than two candidates present themselves. The work of the elector is simple. Instead of marking a cross opposite the name for which he desires his vote to count his privilege is to place the figures 1 and 2 after the names of his first and second choices. If upon the counting of the ballots it is found that a majority of those voting have placed the figure one (1) after the name of one of

the candidates, then that candidate is declared elected. Should, however, it be found that none of the candidates has received an absolute majority, then in such event the following procedure is adopted. The candidate having the lowest number of first choices is dropped and the second choices expressed on his voting papers are transferred to those indicated on such ballots. This procedure of dropping the candidate having the lowest number of votes after each count is continued until but two candidates remain, and the candidate who has the greater .number of votes of these two is declared elected.
Your committee is of the opinion that this system will give a truer reflection of the desires of the voters in the various constituencies than will be obtained where more than two candidates run under our present method of counting the votes.
As already stated, the only difference to the voter in marking his ballot is that he uses figures instead of an "X" or a cross. In actual practice it has been shown that this method of marking ballots is as simple to the electors as the other, and the percentage of ballots spoiled in provinces where this system is used is no greater than that of those that used to be spoiled under the old system.
May I, in further urging the adoption of the alternative vote in one-member constituencies where more than two candidates are running, draw the attention of the committee to the figures in a recent election, which figures, I think, will give point to the contention. Again referring to the election in Saskatchewan we find that the Liberals obtained 173,066 votes and secured forty-nine seats; the Conservatives polled 103,647 votes and got no seats at all; the Farmer-Labour party polled 87,709 votes and got five seats. In other words, the Conservatives and the C.C.F. combined had a plurality of 18,290 votes and elected only five members, while the Liberals, who were in an actual minority of the votes polled in that province, secured forty-nine seats. If the object of the election act is actually to assist the people of this country to say who shall govern, the method of voting must be altered. Of course I am not arguing that if we had had the single alternative vote in Saskatchewan the result would not have been the same ; the electors might have voted Liberal on second or third choice, but they should have had the privilege; that is all I am contending. I am sure all hon. members will agree with me it is our duty to give the electorate that opportunity to make a second choice in cases where there are three or more candidates running in one-member constituencies so that the individual who may be elected will have a majority of the votes in that riding.

Dominion Elections Act
I would gladly have moved the acceptation of the entire proportional representation proposal, but I know, in order to put that into effect, we have to group our constituencies in some form or another and that would mean going over the whole redistribution again. At this time of the session, and probably for all I know, the last session and perhaps the last parliament for some, it is better, I think, that we should confine the amendment to the alternative vote which is practicable and which would go some way at least toward remedying the evil. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer):
That section 46 be amended by striking out subsection 3 and substituting therefor the following:
Every voter shall have one vote only which may be transferable in the manner hereinafter provided.
The voter on receiving his ballot paper shall forthwith proceed into one of the compartments of the polling place and there mark his ballot paper with the black lead pencil provided, as follows:
(a)	Shall place the figure 1 on the ballot paper within the white space containing the name of the candidate who is his first choice and every vote given by placing the said figure 1 in such white space shall be a "first preference vote."
(b)	May in addition to the figure 1 authorized by this section place on his ballot paper the figure 2 within the white space containing the name of his second choice, the figure 3 within the white space containing the name of his third choice and so on in the order of the candidates he would prefer if the candidate of his prior choice does not need his vote, or cannot be elected. He may thus express as many choices as there are candidates.
(c)	He shall then fold the ballot paper so that the initials and stamp on the back of it and the number on the counterfoil can be seen without opening it and hand it to the deputy returning officer, who shall without unfolding it ascertain by examining his initials and the stamp and the number of the counterfoil that it is the same ballot paper that he furnished to the voter and shall then in full view of all present including the voter, remove the counterfoil and tear up or otherwise destroy it and place the ballot paper in the ballot box.
This amendment has been taken verbatim from the Alberta Elections Act which provides for this method of voting, and in the event of the committee carrying this amendment there are several other clauses that would have to be correspondingly amended. For instance, the clause dealing with spoiled ballots would have to be amended; the instructions to the returning officer would have to be slightly amended, and the facsimile of the ballot would have to be slightly changed, but beyond that very few changes would have to be made. I suggest that if the committee did feel like accepting this, we could avail
ourselves of the Alberta Elections Act and if it did not suit us in its entirety, it would at least form a basis for the amendments necessary.
I conclude by making an appeal to the leaders on both sides of the house to call off the whips in connection with this vote. Recognizing that there is a wrong here and in a matter of this sort, taking all things into consideration, the leaders of the house might very well allow hon. members to settle this question as they themselves actually think outside all party considerations whatsoever. If under those conditions it is defeated I shall be, not content but at least I shall know that we have acted according to what we actually think individually. I suggest that the leaders take that suggestion into consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sure the committee appreciates the very able and concise manner in which the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) has presented the question not only of proportional representation but also of the alternative vote. I had noticed that my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin was going to present this matter by way of amendment during the committee stage of this bill; he mentioned the matter in the committee but the committee thought it would not be well to consider it there and that it should be discussed in committee of the whole.
I hope he will not think me disrespectful if I do not seek to elaborate what may be called the case against proportional representation and the alternative vote. I am well aware that there are certain sections of the country and large bodies of people who are entirely favourable to a change in our electoral system by the adoption of some means akin to the suggestion which the hon. member has just made, but I do not think there is in Canada any very general demand for a change. I would not be prepared to say that there is not a great deal of merit in the proposal, but I do not think that at this time in the history of the country and at this hour of the present session it would be profitable to enter upon a prolonged discussion of this subject. I think it would be better if my hon. friend were content to let the matter lie until a later date, after another general election. I do not think that the present time is opportune for the consideration of a question of this kind, therefore I must tell my hon. friend that at present we cannot look favourably upon the proposed amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I have already supported the principle of the alter-
Dominion Elections Act

native vote in this house and I feel that I am bound to support the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Irvine) although I agree to some extent with what my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) says as to the lateness in the present session and the difficulty of considering on its merits at this time a question which involves such an important change in the election law of the country. I only regret that this matter had not been brought before the house at an earlier stage of the session. I must call the attention of the committee to the fact that this House of Commons has already expressed itself as being in favour of the principle of the alternative vote, not only by a vote in the house in 1923 but also through the report of a committee in 1921 which had been sitting for a long time and which recommended the adoption of the alternative vote, a report which was accepted by the house. I might say that in Ontario also during the session of 1921 a committee reported favourably on the principle of the alternative vote.
There is all the difference in the world between the alternative vote and proportional representation. Under the system of proportional representation minorities are represented in parliament. The alternative vote is the opposite of that; it is to assure the representation of the majority at all times. In England a royal commission investigated that matter for a long time and declared against the adoption of the proportional representation system but in favour of the alternative vote. Their report was accepted by the House of Commons by a majority of one. but the Lords rejected it. It was revived later, in 1924, I believe, when the Labour government was in office. Mr. Henderson for the government said that if it were limited to the alternative vote they might adopt it, but the motion was for proportional representation as well. The Liberal party in Great Britain at every annual meeting adopts a resolution in favour of both proportional representation and the alternative vote, but I must say that the Labour party in England seem to have changed their views when they came into power and refused to put into effect what they had been advocating in opposition.
There is no doubt that the alternative vote system is a fair way of assuring representation of the majority in each constituency in the House of Commons. In many continental countries they have what they call the ballottage-I do not know whether "ballot-tage" would be a good translation-meaning that when no candidate has the absolute majority of the votes the weakest candidates are eliminated, and eight days after the date

of the general election they hold a special election between the two strongest candidates. It is the same thing except that it happens after the election while under the alternative vote it happens at the time of the election.
I think there is more justice in that system than in our present system of electing the one who in the polling comes first. There are electors who would prefer one candidate on account of certain planks in his platform, but would like another on account of certain planks, in his. Nobody is perfect, and there are always various questions submitted to the electors; it is a good thing that the electors give their first vote to the candidate they prefer, but have a chance to make a second selection. In the end it ensures that no member of the House of Commons would be there against the will of the majority of the electors in that constituency. I repeat that I think this is a fair method which should be accepted in this country. I am not quite sure, however, that at this late hour of the session, when no educational work has been carried on and when the question has not been submitted to a committee, as should be done before such a radical change is effected, it is wise to press the amendment. I quite understand that there are those who would not be willing to vote favourably under these circumstances, but so far as I am concerned I will support the amendment of my hon. friend.


Albert Joseph Brown: I should like to give my support to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). I do not see that there can be any reasonable objection advanced to the alternative ballot, though there are objections to proportional representation in a country like Canada. Our population is too scattered; it would necessitate very large constituencies, and for these reasons to my mind proportional representation in Canada is impracticable. But as I see it there can be no objection to the alternative vote. I do not think the objection that it is late in the session and that the system is not sufficiently well known should carry weight. This is not a new system in Canada. We have had it for some years in Manitoba; I think it was introduced by the Liberal government about 1920 or thereabouts. I think I am correct in saying that three provincial elections have been held under the system. In Manitoba we have both proportional representation and the alternative vote. In the city of Winnipeg we have proportional representation; Winnipeg elects ten members. In the last provincial election the Liberal-Progressive government elected three who passes the pole first. There are electors

Private Bills
members, the Conservatives elected three, and the Independent Labour party elected four. I think it was pretty generally conceded that this was a fair representation of the wishes of the electors. In the great majority of the constituencies the Liberals and the Brackenites, as they are sometimes called, formed a coalition, and in most constituencies there were only two candidates. There were, however, some three or four constituencies-I have forgotten the exact number-in which the result depended upon the second choice of those who had voted for candidates who were eliminated by virtue of being out of the running entirely, but I think when the second count was made the candidate previously receiving the majority of the votes was elected, which expressed the wishes of the people. I think in every case it happened that the candidate having the largest number of votes also received the majority of the second choices, but it might have been the other way just as easily.
I do not think we should have a condition such as resulted in Saskatchewan after the last provincial election. The probability is that if the alternative ballot had been used in that province the C.C.F. would have been eliminated completely and a number of Conservatives would have been elected; at least that is possible. Whether or not it would have been desirable, of course, is a matter of opinion. However, I do not think it well that large bodies of the electorate should have no representation in the house. I have been a supporter of the alternative ballot for the last twenty years, or ever since it was brought to the attention of the people, and I should like to give my support to the amendment that has been moved. I do not think the objections that have been raised are valid, in view of the fact that it is such a simple matter. It is not as though we were bringing in some elaborate scheme; this is so simple that we might as well pronounce upon it now as at any other time. It is simply doing in one operation what in our nominating conventions we do in two. If three candidates are nominated the low man drops out and a second vote is taken, giving those who voted for that man an opportunity to exercise a second choice as between the two candidates remaining. That is all it amounts to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The committee I know are anxious to vote before six o'clock, so I shall be very brief in what I have to say. The hon. member who introduced the amendment suggested that the leaders of the parties
give their followers freedom to vote as they please. Leit me say to him at once that as far as the Liberal party is concerned, each member is absolutely free to vote as he pleases. Personally I shall vote for the amendment if it comes before us, and the hon. member presses it to a vote, because I am in favour of the alternative vote and am also in favour of proportional representation. Burt I must say that I agree with the Minister of Justice and my colleague from Quebec East, that to press this matter to a vote at the moment would probably only serve to prejudice the cause the hon. member has at heart. I imagine at this time many hon. members are voting to get away rather than to add to the number of sections that will have to go into the act.


Samuel Gobeil: Shall the amendment carry?


William Irvine: In view of the fact that we are hurrying to get through and in view of the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition and the Minister of Justice in regard to the difficulty of carrying this change through at .the present time I would rather not press for a vote which might prejudice the case, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has just said. So with the permission of the committee I will withdraw my amendment in the hope of having an opportunity of introducing it at some other time.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Eugenie Margaret O'Reilly Stavert.-Mr. Davies.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of George Harold Allen.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Ena Beatrice Duclos Boyd.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Paul Herbert Addy.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Small Loan Company of Canada-Mr. Geary-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Small Loan Company
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. COOTE:: There was considerable discussion concerning several of these bills, and I thought it was the understanding that they were to stand until consideration had been given to Bill No. 123, to amend the Loan Companies Act, introduced by the Prime Minister and considered only yesterday. So far as I am concerned I should oppose very much the passing of this bill unless we had some assurance that the other bill would be proceeded with. If possible I should like to proceed with it first so that we may know the circumstances under which this company will be allowed to operate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, since
yesterday, when we dealt with the amendment to the Loan Companies Act, I have given some consideration to the preparation of new sections for the amending bill, No. 123. The proposal is at this session to make all companies heretofore or now or hereafter incorporated subject to the amending bill or, as it will be, the amending act. Section 111 of the Loan Companies Act will read as follows:
Where it is established to the satisfaction of the Minister of Finance that any company has, subsequent to the passing of this act, in respect of any loan or other transaction, charged, imposed or collected, directly or indirectly, interest and other charges, of any kind, nature or description whatsoever, exclusive of fees imposed for registration purposes,-
That probably should be changed to "disbursements imposed for registration purposes," as suggested by the hon. member for Battle River this morning.
-amounting in the aggregate to more than two per centum per month on the monthly balance due by the borrower-
And I suggest that it should be "owing by the borrower."
-the minister may recommend to the governor in council that the charter of the company be forfeited, if it be a dominion company, and that its dominion powers be terminated if it be other than a dominion company, whereupon the governor in council may by order provide that upon such day as may thereby be fixed,
(a)	if the company be incorporated by an act of the parliament of Canada, its charter shall be forfeited;
(b)	if the company be otherwise incorporated, any or all rights, powers, franchises or authorities granted to it by any act of the parliament of Canada shall cease and determine.
2. Upon the making of any such order, such charter shall be forfeited or such rights, powers, franchises or authorities shall be terminated, according to its terms, as fully and effectually as if the provisions of _ such order in council were incorporated in this act.
Bill 123 has been reprinted and now appears on the files of hon. members. Since

yesterday I had the opportunity to look into the Money Lenders Act of Great Britain which was passed in 1927, and about which it will be remembered a very great deal of discussion took place both in the Lords and in the Commons. Also I have had an opportunity briefly to study the provisions of American statutes dealing with money lenders. In Great Britain the maximum is four per cent per month, by statute. That covers all charges such as we have here. In many of the American states the rate runs between three per cent and four per cent. As I indicated to members of the committee my own view is that two per cent may be too small, and that two and a half per cent would seem to be the minimum we might hope to use in this country, having regard to the experience of other countries.
Frankly I may say I have no idea that these small companies discharged the useful functions in all countries which an investigation by the Russell Sage Foundation disclosed. As they are the subject matter of much legislation in various countries my own view is that the enactment of this amendment will protect the public in the meantime, and that we could pass at next session of parliament a money lenders' act modelled along the general principle of the British legislation. For instance, it was news to me that one company on the American continent has about four hundred agencies, and does a very substantial business with a limitation much greater than that which is imposed here. I believe it operates at a rate of three and a half per cent.
Under the circumstances I desire to assure the hon. member for Macleod that it is my intention to proceed with this bill immediately the opportunity offers, and to make all companies, which heretofore have been, are being or may hereafter be incorporated, subject to it. The limitation mentioned in the bill is two per cent, but after reading the British Moneylenders Act, and other legislation, I may say that when the time comes we may adopt a rate of two and a half per cent instead of two per cent.


John Alexander Sullivan: A minimum of two and a half per cent and a maximum of three per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no maximum. That is the maximum.


George Gibson Coote: 
James Dew Chaplin: What is objectionable?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to say that I have considered that and in my judgment the bill which we are now proposing to ask the house to accept is of so drastic a character, imposing the risk of the loss of the charter, that I do not think we need fear much of that form of advertising. I believe that the whole matter must be dealt with and should be dealt with while we are a new country and before the vested interests create a situation such as developed in Great Britain when the Moneylender's Act, 1927, had to be considered. If the indulgence of the electors permit me to do so, this may be done after the next elections.


George Gibson Coote: I understand that in Great Britain the kind of advertising which these companies may carry on is very well defined by the law.


James Dew Chaplin: What is there in that advertising that is objectionable?


George Gibson Coote: They say that you can get out of debt by borrowing from the company on very easy terms. The evidence given in the banking committee was that these companies were receiving from forty to ninety per cent on the bulk of their loans. Once a person borrows from such a company, I will not say he is in debt for the rest of his life but he certainly is in debt for a long time. I think it is safe to say that at least one-half of what the borrowers pay in, is for interest and other charges. It should not be called interest; it should be called usury. I am not saying that the companies make too much, because I do not know what their earnings are, but I think parliament should be very careful in granting charters to these companies. It is a serious reflection upon our social and economic system that people are obliged to pay such high charges in order to secure loans of from S50 to S200. Advertising of this kind is simply leading people into trouble. I am advised that the city manager of one company was formerly a manager of a chartered bank. This company must be making very good earnings in order to employ a man of that type as manager. What I should like to see done is to have this advertising controlled so that the people will not be misled into thinking that they are getting loans at low rates of interest. The circular which I quoted from states that the company charges the lowest rates in Canada on loans of this type and that their rates are authorized by a special act of parliament incorporating the company.


James Dew Chaplin: They do not say what their rate is.
Small Loan Company


George Gibson Coote: The superintendent of insurance, to whom all these companies report anid who is well acquainted with their operations, stated that in some cases the interest and charges collected amounted to ninety per cent of the amount of the loan.


James Dew Chaplin: That statement is misleading. The inference is that that all goes to the company whereas it includes disbursements.


George Gibson Coote: There was also corroborating evidence to the effect that practically every cent of it goes to the company, that the so-called service charges and disbursements were made to employees of the company.


James Dew Chaplin: That was assumed but it was never definitely determined.


George Gibson Coote: The superintendent of insurance made a very definite statement on that point. He said that in most cases the charges were paid to employees of the company.


James Dew Chaplin: He said in some cases;
he did not say in all.


George Gibson Coote: I am sorry his evidence was
not recorded as I am sure it would have shown that in the majority of cases this was so. In a number of cases the chattel mortgages were not even registered so there were no disbursements in that connection.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: The objection I take to all these bills is that it would nullify our other financial legislation. All these loan companies should be like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. The marginal note states, "forfeiture of charter of company imposing interest and charges exceeding fixed limit." The Prime Minister has mentioned two and a half per cent. While that provision will not wholly eradicate the evils of these various bills, I believe it will partly do so.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Do I understand that we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that should .these bills pass, Bill No. 123 will be put through this session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will ask that they stand for third reading until our bill has passed.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have three amendments to move, two to section 5 and one to section 8. If this other bill passes it would not be necessary to put them forward.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.

On section 5-Powers.
Subsection (a) agreed to.
Subsection (b), paragraphs (i) and (ii) agreed to.
On paragraph (iii)-Additional charge.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: This has been amended by adding the following words at the end of the paragraph:
-save that in the case of loans of one hundred dollars or less in amount, the said charge for the legal and other actual expenses disbursed by the company in connection with the loan, but not exceeding the sum of ten dollars, shall be in lieu of the charge authorized by subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph.


Grote Stirling: This
subsection is to be amended by adding the following words at the end:
And in neither such case shall the charge exceed the sum of five dollars.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I think the charge of
$5 is too high.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be governed
by the provision in the general statute, that it cannot be more than two and a half per cent for any purpose.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is inclusive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections (c), (d) and (e) agreed to.
Subsections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On subsection 4-Penalty.
George Gibson Coote: I wish to move an amendment to be known as new subsection 3 (a):
The company shall not, nor shall any person acting on its behalf, knowingly send or deliver or cause to be sent or delivered to any person except in response to his written request any circular or other document advertising the name, address or telephone number of the company or containing an invitation-
(a)	to borrow money from the company;
(b)	to enter into any transaction involving the borrowing of money from the company;
(c)	to apply to any place with a view to obtaining information or advice as to borrowing any money from the company;
nor shall the company or any such person publish or cause to be published in any newspaper or other printed paper issued periodically for public circulation, or by means of^ any poster or placard, an advertisement advertising any such particulars or containing any such invitation or containing any information or statement other than the name of the company, the authorized address at which the company carries on business, the telephone number of the company, a statement that the company

Personal Finance Corporation
lends money with or without security, the highest and lowest sums that the company is prepared to lend and the date on which the business of the company was first established.
If any document issued or published by or on behalf of the company purports to indicate the terms of interest upon which the company is willing to make loans or any particular loan, the document shall express the interest proposed to be charged in terms of either an effective rate per centum per annum or a rate per centum per month.
The reason why advertising by such companies should be circumscribed is that they are using the mails to advertise their business and get a lot of people into debt, people who normally, I think, might keep out of the clutches of such concerns. In spite of what some hon. members think, I believe that the advertising which many of these companies indulge in is misleading. It is desirable, I submit, to keep people from getting into debt with companies of this class as far as it is possible to do so. Certainly we should prevent, if possible, companies of this type from indulging in lavish advertising which I think creates a false impression of the position which people will find themselves in once they enter into an agreement with one of these companies for a loan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust the hon. member will withdraw the amendment which in terms is a section that appears in the British Moneylenders Act, adapted to our present conditions. I am wholly in favour of it, but it would be rather anomalous to include it in the present bill and leave all those companies that have heretofore been incorporated not subject to its provisions. It would be difficult in a general bill to make such a provision without making a study of the various charters issued by this parliament, and in view of what I have suggested regarding the necessity for a general statute dealing with money lenders, I think it would be desirable not to press the amendment at this time. I make that suggestion in what I conceive to be the public interest.


George Gibson Coote: On the suggestion of the Prime Minister I am willing to withdraw the amendment unless I have some assurance that the committee would like to have it pressed. Personally I am willing to have it included in this bill although it may not be applicable to companies already incorporated. If we may expect at some future session-I trust at the next session, regardless of what government is in power-steps to be taken which will bring the general act up to date, I am prepared in the meantime to withdraw the amendment.


Henry Elvins Spencer: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it would be in order to insert in Bill 123, which will come before parliament this session, an amendment such as my hon friend from Macleod suggests?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I intimated to the committee this afternoon, after having got the British Moneylenders Act and looked up the authority, which is a combination of names-a book has been published upon it and is in the library-I concluded that it would be undesirable to do it in that bill, because a general bill must be introduced at a not distant date embodying many other considerations than are in the measure now before the house. In fact, the Monejdenders Act of Great Britain covers several pages of statutes, and I think it undesirable to endeavour to deal with the matter piecemeal for the short time that remains before the whole question will be considered.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would it not be a good thing to refuse to grant more incorporations of this kind until that safeguarding legislation is introduced?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not, in view of the fact that there are other companies outstanding at the moment whose charters are valid. And the fact that there is competition in the market may ensure better conditions for those borrowing. Furthermore, with the restrictions that will be imposed by the statute I am about to ask the house to adopt, I think few of them will run the risk of losing their charter, which is the penalty involved for dereliction of duty with respect to the provisions of the law as it stands.
Amendment withdrawn.
Subsection 4 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 43, to incorporate Personal Finance Corporation- Mr. Haekett-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Powers.
Grote Stirling: Subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) is amended by the addition at the end of it of the following words:
And in neither such case shall the charge exceed the sum of five dollars.
4482	COMMONS
Discount and Loan Corporation


George Gibson Coote: Will that make subparagraph (iii) identical with a similar provision in the bill which was passed just before this?


Grote Stirling: So far as the additional words at the end of the sub-paragraph are concerned they are identical.


Henry Elvins Spencer: This bill is identical with the one we have just passed, only that it has a different title?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no substantial
difference.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Bill reported.



DUPLATE SAFETY GLASS COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 12, respecting patents on certain inventions of which Duplate Safety Glass Company of Canada, Limited, is entitled to benefit-Mr. Lawson-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask that this
bill stand.
Bill stands.



SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 117, to incorporate Security National Insurance Company-Mr. Lawson-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Grote Stirling: In clause I the word "dealer" has been substituted for the word "banker" in line nine.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DISCOUNT AND LOAN CORPORATION OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 58, to amend an act to incorporate the Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada-Mr. Sullivan-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
John Alexander Sullivan: This company was incorporated last year and this year it came before parliament to have a certain amendment. When the bill came up for third reading it was referred back to the committee on banking and commerce. In that committee clause 2 was deleted and subparagraphs (ii>
[The Chairman.]
and (iii) of clause 3 were also deleted. We are now asking for clause 1, incorporation. The idea is to have in Quebec the right to have the name of the company officially translated into French. It would be "La Corporation de Prets et d'Escomptes du Canada."


Henry Elvins Spencer: This bill came before
the house and got first reading. After second reading, instead of going to the committee on banking and commerce it came into committee of the whole.	For some reason,
apparently in private members' hour no one was wise to what was in the bill; it was not challenged and it stood for third reading. It was merely by chance that it did not receive third reading on the night it went through committee. Owing to its being held for third reading a number of members, including myself, hearing of what was in the bill, criticized it when it came before the house for third reading. It was on this bill that the Prime Minister suggested that I withdraw the amendment I had made that there should be a limitation of thirteen per cent to cover all charges and that instead it should be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. The bill therefore went to that committee and it was found so objectionable that, on the recommendation largely of the superintendent of insurance and a majority of the members, it was reported by the committee with a large amount of it deleted. This only shows that it is very good policy for these bills to be sent to special committees where more detailed attention may be given to them. I would like to ask the mover of this bill where the head office is.


John Alexander Sullivan: Montreal.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Has all the capital been obtained in Montreal or is it connected with some United States interest?


John Alexander Sullivan: All the capital is paid up in Montreal, $250,000 all paid up.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it not connected at all with Chicago or New York?


John Alexander Sullivan: Some money may come from New York. I do not suppose we have any objection to taking American money.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the hon. member inform the committee what percentage of it comes from the United States?


John Alexander Sullivan: It is their own money; they may get some from New York,-I cannot tell how much they get from the United States. They are all pretty well to do people.

Duplate Safety Glass Company


Henry Elvins Spencer: To what extent is this company or the parent company doing business in the United States?


John Alexander Sullivan: I cannot say what proportion. I know that in the United States they are a very large company, the largest of its kind in the United States. But they may have subscribed to this company, what amount I do not know. All I know is that the capital of this company is $250,000 fully paid up.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it true that the representative of the company attending the banking and commerce committee came from the United States headquarters?


John Alexander Sullivan: Yes, he came from New York.


Henry Elvins Spencer: So that there is a very close relationship between the United States corporation and this company?


John Alexander Sullivan: There is.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What would that relationship be?


John Alexander Sullivan: I presume that these people are always ready to lend money, because they are not making much money. They will never be broke, and they will always be in a position to reimburse, to pay any debt they may owe.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member says they are not making much money, yet they will always be in a position-


John Alexander Sullivan: To pay.


Henry Elvins Spencer: -to make up any deficiency. Could the hon. member give some idea of the relationship? Are there so many common directors?


John Alexander Sullivan: All the directors are Canadians, every one.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are any of the Canadian directors also on the United States board?


John Alexander Sullivan: No.


Henry Elvins Spencer: None at all?


John Alexander Sullivan: No, none at all. All the directors are Canadians; all the shareholders are Canadians. It is a Canadian company doing business in Canada, with its head office in Montreal, and that is why we are asking to have a French name in the province of Quebec. We are bilingual.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am not objecting to that, but I am drawing the attention of the committee to the fact that this bill very nearly slipped through the house on third reading, and because it did not but went to the banking and commerce committee-


John Alexander Sullivan: It was pruned.


Henry Elvins Spencer: -it received rather severe treatment there. I remind the committee that we ran a close chance of having put through this house a bill that the banking and commerce committee decided to cut down considerably.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Alexander Sullivan: Clause 2 is struck out.


Grote Stirling: Clause 2 has been struck out in committee.
On section 3-Loans.
Subsection (i) agreed to.


Grote Stirling: Subsections (ii) and (iii) have been struck out in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall said bills be read the third time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The loan company bills, Nos. 15, 43 and 58, will stand for third reading until later this day or next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Richard Bedford Bennett: If the house will permit I should now like to take the order, Bill No. 123, to amend the Loan Companies Act, because it is a bill in committee; we can give third reading to that and to the other bills that are now suspended.


George Gibson Coote: Would the Prime Minister be willing to let me proceed with Bill No. 122, a public bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is not serious?



INTEREST ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved the second reading of Bill No. 122, to amend the Interest Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


George Gibson Coote: This bill asks that no interest exceeding the rate or percentage of five per cent per annum shall be chargeable, payable or recoverable on the whole or any
Interest Act-Mr. Coote

part of the principal money advanced on or secured by mortgage of real estate hereafter made, advanced or executed; and that this section shall come into force on September 1, 1934.
The Interest Act as it now stands places no limitation whatsoever on the rate of interest which may be charged. That is left to agreement between the lender and the borrower. The Bank Act, however, does fix a limit of seven per cent which may be charged by any bank on a loan. Amendments to the act recently passed make this seven per cent clause effective, ail though it was not before. The bill I have introduced asks for a limitation on the rate of interest which may be charged on real estate mortgages. According to evidence given before the banking and commerce committee last year real estate mortgages on farms are estimated at $726,000,000 and urban mortgages are estimated at $765,000,000, making a total of $1,491,000,000.
I should like to deal first with farm mortgages. Last year the committee received a statement from the bureau of statistics to the effect that the rate of interest charged on all mortgages in Canada, rural and urban, would average 6.90 per cent. I think it is fair to estimate that the average rate on farm mortgages would be at least seven per cent. This would make the interest charge to be met by the farmers of Canada on their mortgages approximate the sum of $50,000,000. I think everyone will agree that this interest, if it is to be paid, must come from the production on these farms. Everyone knows that the farmers have been going through very difficult times for the last four years. From 1928 to 1932 the net revenue of the farms of Canada fell by 57 per cent; in other words the revenue in 1932 was only 43 per cent of the revenue in 1928. The costs of the farmer and the expenditures necessary to production were not reduced to anything like the same extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In some cases more.


George Gibson Coote: So really the farmer has been producing in most cases at a loss, and has had no margin whatever out of which to pay interest, though for the last four years the interest charges have been continuing. In 1932 the net agricultural revenue in Canada is estimated by the bureau of statistics at S600 per farm, out of which the farmer had to pay interest, taxes and other cash payments, and on the average there were six persons who had to get their living from each farm. The interest burden is becoming intolerable, and

here is a very good example of what is going on. I have here an article from the Renfrew Mercury, repeated in the Ottawa Citizen:
Not many weeks ago, not a hundred miles from Renfrew, an Ontario trust company sold a fine, well-cultivated farm which had come back on their hands, for less than $2 (two dollars) per acre. Why? There had been loaned' upon the farm, on the security of a mortgage, an amount of several thousand dollars, but the mortgagor, the farmer who had owned the farm, could not meet the payments; the price of farm products was not sufficient to pay for wages, living expenses, mortgage interest and taxes. So the farm was sold for less than it would have brought nearly one hundred years ago.
Something has happened to the farmer's dollar-it has shrunk in value, failed to keep pace with the fluctuations in prices of the things which the farmer has to pay for, for the farmer's currency is the products he grows or raises or manufactures ...
It is too much to expect that the problems of Canadian agriculture are capable of being solved over-night-especially with Canada's present defective monetary system-but this much is certain, that the present fiscal policy of the Dominion is inimical to the best interests of agriculture and until the policy of exploiting the farmer for the benefit of the non-producer, of crushing down agriculture with a burden of invisible indirect taxation, and of taking away with the one hand any benefit extended to agriculture with the other, is abandoned, the "fair exchange value" will never be experienced by the Canadian farmer, and the return of prosperity to the nation will be deferred.
The burden of interest is felt very keenly by the farmer because, as I said before, it can only come out of the margin the farmer has over his costs of production. To-day, as for the past year or two, farmers are being urged to sign mortgages bearing rates of interest of seven per cent and eight per cent. I have personal knowledge of farmers who have paid eight per cent for twenty years and still owe the principal. Had they been charged only five per cent the other three per cent would have amortized the loan and the debt would have been retired by this time. I admit that some relief legislation has been introduced, but it is not in any way sufficient to deal with the existing situation.
Let me direct the attention of the house to legislation passed in Brazil on December 1, 1933. I am quoting from the monthly bulletin of the British chamber of commerce of Brazil, and this quotation is taken from one of the official journals:
Whereas:-
Agricultural production contributed almost the whole of the sacrifice demanded of the country for the purpose of national exchange defence measures;

Loan Companies Act
owing to the crisis having become general, and all the products thereof have suffered a considerable reduction in value;
such reduction in value has placed almost all agriculturists-or, it may be said, national economy itself, since its foundations rest on agriculture-in a position of serious difficulty;
in such cases it is incumbent upon the public authority to act in the matter, taking the necessary steps for the defence of national interests intermingled with those of private individuals;
The head of the provisional government of the republic of the United States of Brazil, by virtue of the powers conferred on him by article 1 of decree No. 19,398 of November 11, 1930, decrees that:
Art. 1. As from the date of this decree, the amount of all debts of agriculturists contracted before 30th June, 1933, against real or pledged security, is hereby reduced by fifty per cent.
I should like to direct the attention of the house to that paragraph once more;
-the amount of all debts of agriculturists contracted before 30th June. 1933. against real or pledged security, is hereby reduced by fifty per cent.
In the next paragraph debts contracted after June 30, 1933, provided they constitute renewals of old debts, are also included under the provisions of the decree.
My time is almost up, but before sitting down I would say in regard to urban mortgages that the ability of the people to pay is fixed by the income they receive. To indicate the extent to which their ability to pay has been reduced may I point out that in 1929 the wages paid by the Canadian National railways amounted to S177,000,000 while in 1932 they dropped to $106,000,000, and that is a good indication of what has happened to the wages of our people generally.
Those two great classes of people, the farmers and the labouring people, are responsible for most of the interest which must be paid on real estate mortgages. Their ability to pay has in many cases almost completely disappeared, and I would urge the house to give consideration to this measure which asks that a limitation of five per cent be placed on real estate mortgages entered into after this time.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

Richard Bedford Bennett: Before you proceed, Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house may I proceed with this short bill, because the bills that passed this evening are subject to this general act. I redrafted the section, and it has been circulated as reprinted. I
think we could get rid of this rather quickly and then give third reading to the other bills, so that all the bills could go to the Senate.
The house resumed from Thursday, June 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 123, to amend the 'Loan Companies Act-Mr. Bennett-Mr. Smoke in the chair.
Section 1 (amended section 110) agreed to.
On section 1 (amended section 111)-Forfeiture of charter of company imposing interest and charges exceeding fixed limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move in amendment:
That the word "imposed" be deleted from the eighteenth line, and the word "disbursed" be substituted therefor.
I believe this makes the meaning a little clearer. Then, I move:
That after the word "two" in the twentieth line the words "and one-half" be inserted, so that it will read "two and one-half per centum."
And I have the following amendment promoted by the horn, members from Macleod (Mr. Coote) and Battle River (Mr. Spencer):
That the word "due" in the twentieth line be deleted, and the word "owing" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Mr. JACOBS; Is the Prime Minister satisfied that there is no conflict of jurisdiction between the federal and the provincial powers with regard to the words "and other charges".
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman would be entirely right in questioning the procedure if we were endeavouring to interfere with a contract, but this parliament having granted a corporate existence and made the company into a corporate entity, has imposed a condition on the exercise of its powers. That comes directly within a judgment of the privy council, namely, that parliament in the exercise of its incorporating power may impose conditions on the exercise of that power. This is one of the conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I would now move that bills Nos. 15, 43 and 58, which stood for third reading this day, until Bill No. 123 was passed, be read a third time.
Railways and Shipping



THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 15, to incorporate The Small Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 43, to incorporate Personal Finance Corporation.-Mr. Hackett.
Bill No. 58, to amend an Act to incorporate the Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada.-Mr. Sullivan.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln) presented the fifth report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping as follows:
The select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated' and controlled by the government begs leave to submit the following as a fifth report:
Your committee, in accordance with order of reference dated May 4, 1934, has considered the annual reports respecting the accounts of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and in connection therewith has examined the following witnesses;-
Hon. C. P. Fullerton, K.C., Chairman, Board of Trustees, Canadian National Railways.
Mr. F. K. Morrow, Trustee, Canadian National Railways.
Mr. J. E. Labelle, K.C., Trustee, Canadian National Railways.
Mr. S. J. Hungerford, President, Canadian National Railways.
Mr. S. W. Fairweather, Canadian National Railways.
Mr. V. I. Smart, Deputy Minister, Department of Railways and Canals.
Mr. B. J. Roberts, Comptroller, government guarantee branch, Department of Finance.
Mr. T. H. Cooper, Canadian National Railways.
Mr. 0. A. Matthews, of Geo. A. Touche & Company, accountants and auditors.
Your committee recommends that in future the naming of the committee on railways and shipping be made as early in the session as possible, and that the railway management be requested to expedite the submission of their reports and estimates with the least delay after the close of the calendar year.
A copy of the proceedings and evidence taken is attached hereto.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
J. D. Chaplin,
Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 101, respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons-Mr. Guthrie-Mr. Smoke in the chair.

On section 3, rule 9.
Charles Gavan Power: We asked that rule No. 9 on page 4 should stand until it was possible to draft an amendment to cover the question of residence of persons temporarily absent from their residences in so-called unemployment camps. Accordingly I move:
That after the word "and" in line 26 the following words be added "if there be any such place of residence or home either of himself or any member of his family to which he could return he shall, notwthstanding his presence in such unemployment camp, be registered at such place of residence or home, and moreover-
And so on.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rule 9 as amended agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (xii).
Charles Gavan Power: The next section which stood was at page 5 of the bill paragraph (xii) dealing with Doukhobors. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. MePhee) had a word to say in this connection so I shall ask to have the paragraph stand.
On section 4, subsection 3.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to move the following amendment:
That after the word "shall" in line 46 the following words be added, "subject to the provisions of rule 10 of schedule B of section 17 of this act."


Hugh Guthrie: I agree.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Charles Gavan Power: I should explain that subsection 3 of section 4 provides that the franchise officer shall be the final arbiter as to disqualification and incapacity of any particular person. Rule 10 provides that in cases where the enumerator refuses to add a name to the list in a rural subdivision, if the person takes the oath and is accompanied by another person who vouches for him, the enumerator shall be obliged to accept that oath. This is proposed to carry out the intention of rule 10.


Mr. JACOBS:: What is the position of the Doukhobors under this amendment?


Charles Gavan Power: I thought that stood for
the moment.


Mr. McPHEE:: Of all asinine sections to
put in the bill, this is certainly one. I have some Doukhobors in my constituency and if one of these should happen to be the son of

Dominion Franchise Act
a Doukhobor living in British Columbia, he would be disqualified notwithstanding the fact that he was a good citizen. These Doukho-bors are as good citizens as any others in this country. On their behalf I resent this section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I quite realize why this section was inserted; it was because of the troubles that have occurred in British Columbia through the refusal of certain citizens to observe the laws of the country. However, I want to go on record as being absolutely opposed to any sect or any religious community being singled out by name, as they are in this legislation, and disfranchised by the parliament of Canada. I am entirely opposed to the lawless practices of some members of this sect; I am absolutely in favour of law and order being observed, but it will be noted that in the statutes of British Columbia they are not mentioned by name. The minister will find that the provincial act of 1931 states:
-that every person exempted or entitled to claim exemption, or who on production of any certificate might have become or would now be entitled to claim exemption from military service by reason of certain orders in council, and' every descendant of any such person, whether born in the province or elsewhere, shall be disqualified from voting.
I may be incorrectly informed, but my information is that certain Doukhobors in British Columbia served overseas with the Canadian forces. It will be noted that the next section in the British Columbia act includes Japanese who saw service overseas with the Canadian forces, and the same thing is done in the federal act. It seems to be exceedingly unfair to disfranchise the sons of Doukhobors or naturalized Doukhobors or even Doukhobors who served overseas. I think we are adopting the wrong principle when we are bound more or less by the terms of a provincial statute. I am opposed to any sect being disfranchised by name. If it is necessary to do so, I would rather see it done some other way. We grant certain privileges to other people who served overseas, so why should we not give it to these if there be any? The sons or grandsons of these people who are born in British Columbia may migrate to Yorkton or some other constituency, and they will be disfranchised. If these people refuse to obey our laws they should be punished, but I think disfranchisement is the wrong form of punishment. It is an invidious distinction. I hold no brief for these people as I think they deserved the punishment which the attorney general and the government of the day in British Columbia meted
out to them, but I think it is a bad precedent for this parliament to follow. I sympathize with the troubles of the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling), but this is the wrong principle to follow.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I spoke in connection with this matter the other day. It is a bad principle to have a federal law dependent upon provincial laws. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) will recognize at once that that is not a good way to pass federal legislation. In connection with this particular sect, probably only one out of twenty Doukhobors are members of the Sons of Freedom, who have been causing some trouble to the government. The rest of the Doukhobors are good citizens, as is shown by the report of the royal commission appointed some years ago by the British Columbia government This fact is known to those who are resident in Saskatchewan. This legislation is something new in the history of the country. It is directed not against a national group but against a religious group. It is a very serious thing. Apart from the fanatical outburst of a few of their number, the only thing against the group as a whole is the fact that they refuse to bear arms. The whole country was shocked a few months ago when certain individuals were refused citizenship in the United States because they refused to bear arms.


James Dew Chaplin: They also refuse to wear clothes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am referring to certain individuals in the United States who were refused citizenship, one of them being a woman, another a Canadian of high standing. We all thought at that time that it was a serious thing when individuals were penalized and refused citizenship for no other reason than their conscientious objection to participation in military service.
I am sure that this section will involve all kinds of complications. There is a large number of Doukhobors resident in Saskatchewan; there is a smaller number in Alberta and quite a large group in British Columbia. There is an invidious distinction between those in Saskatchewan and Alberta and those in British Columbia. As the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) has pointed out, all sorts of complications will arise by these people passing from one province to the other. Only a few weeks ago I met an old friend of mine who is now a lawyer in Saskatoon. I have known him since his undergraduate days, almost twenty years ago. He is a Doukhobor who in his earlier days was given an education by the Quakers in
Dominion Franchise Act

Pennsylvania. I am sorry to bring personal matters into this discussion but the matter is such a serious one that I think I am justified in doing so. The wife of my Doukhobor friend is the daughter of a former lecturer at Queen's university. If this prominent lawyer, who was a candidate in the recent Saskatchewan provincial elections, should migrate to British Columbia he would be disqualified, and his descendants, the children of the daughter of a former lecturer of Queen's, would also be disqualified.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where was he born?


James Shaver Woodsworth: He is I think Canadian born, and the only objection which could be taken to him would be on account of his parentage. This man has received a splendid education in the eastern states which he completed in Saskatchewan university where he was one of the popular students. He then took a course in law and has been practising in Saskatoon for a number of years. It is absurd that a man of that character and his children should be disfranchised. It is a wholly new doctrine. Not only is the individual discriminated against because of his religious beliefs but such discrimination extends to his descendants. Most of us have assumed that a man's religion is a matter of his own choice, and that if he wishes to do so he may repudiate the religion of his parents. But that is impossible under this law. The section enumerates certain classes who may not vote. Subsection (xii) reads:
Every Doukhobor person in the province of British Columbia, and every descendant of any such person whether born in that province or elsewhere, who is by the law of that province disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province.
It seems to me a most indefensible piece of legislation and one that is bound to cause very serious trouble. I think the minister would be well advised to withdraw it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To begin with I do not think the minister has carried out the intention of the government in the way the section is worded. I recall that the Prime Minister, when discussing the franchise bill before, said that any disqualification respecting Doukhobors would apply only to Doukhobors voting in British Columbia. As this is worded, it would if he happened to be a descendant of British Columbia Doukhobors disqualify a Doukhobor in Saskatchewan or Alberta or any other province. The error is due to the transposition of a clause. In order to carry out the intention of the government it should read: "Every Doukhobor person in the prov-

ince of British Columbia, and every descendant in the province of British Columbia
of any such person..." That would correct
the first error; as it is at present worded the provision is contrary to the government's intention as proposed. A further reading of the section would disclose that it carries with it the right of a Doukhobor born in British Columbia to vote in another province if he happens to go to another province.


Hugh Guthrie: No doubt about that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pointing
this out in regard to the drafting. Apart from that, on the principle involved I agree with other hon. gentlemen; I do not think that persons of any class or race should be disqualified on the score of their religious belief, and especially that one should not go back to the Old Testament times and seek to visit what we regard as the iniquities of fathers upon their descendants to the third and fourth generation.


Hugh Guthrie: The words suggested by
my right hon. friend should be inserted. After the word "person", in line 31, there should be added the words "in the province of British Columbia".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would
it not be better, and would it not obtain the same result if you struck out the word "Doukhobor" altogether and also the words "and every descendant of every such person" so that it would read: "Every person in the province of British Columbia who is by the law of that province disqualified from voting", and so on.


Hugh Guthrie: That would disqualify a
lot of other people besides Doukhobors. This is the law of British Columbia and we have adopted that law, and while it is true that in the British Columbia legislation the word "Doukhobor" is not used, I think we are more candid about it and have put it in. The idea of the section is that they shall not vote if they are not entitled to vote in British Columbia-not in any other province but only in British Columbia. To make that clear I move that the words "in the province of British Columbia" be inserted after the word "person" in line 31, as suggested by my right hon. friend.


William Richard Motherwell: I will not be satisfied with any mere amendment to this section. I want to know whether we are going back to the days of the thumbscrew and the inquisition in matters of religion. Now that is not a dream. There are many of us who -have

Dominion Franchise Act
not much religion, and you find others with too much. It seems to me we require in Canada some with too much in order to preserve a half decent average. Here we are, supposedly a Christian community, making the franchise depend upon the religion of certain people. The Doukhobors are a distinctly religious sect, fanatical if you like. They take the ground, some of them, and at times, that they can worship the Creator better in a naked condition than clothed or partially clothed. Well, we sometimes run across other people with peculiarities in religious matters, but if they are genuine, is that a good ground for disfranchising them? How will that cure them? I will not say anything of a threatening nature, but I would not want anything better than this in an election to campaign with against the government. The government can leave it there if they like. There are other heinous provisoes connected with the franchise which appeared in the bill when it was first drafted, and when the proper time comes we shall not forget any of these attempts to disfranchise good citizens. As regards these Doukhobors, I say it would be a standing disgrace to Canada, as it would be to any Christian country, to pass this section. It is a fine example of reactionary Toryism when applied to the franchise with respect to certain people who have cast their lot in with us in Canada. I know something about the Doukhobors. We run across them as farm labourers on adjoining farms, and I know that they are as a whole a hard working, conscientious people, industrious, thrifty and, if you like, God-fearing. The hon. member for Yorkton has not exaggerated their many good qualities., I do not know how they vote and I do not care. A lot of them did not vote at all in the early days as a matter of principle, but that is not the point. Just imagine what is being done now in this day, when we seem to be developing a more active spiritual religion, a real live religion, stimulated by the Oxford group and other movements of that kind. While that is going on, within the shadow and even within this building, we have this government penalizing a religious sect and saying to them, "You cannot vote and be citizens of Canada so long as you hold such and such religious beliefs." It is no wonder the Minister of Justice is getting as red as a bubbly-jock. It shows there is some hope for him yet. He is getting white behind the gills and red in the wattles; that shows also there is some conscience left in him. I appeal to him now not to disgrace us all by committing this unseemly act. If it were only disgracing an already disgraced government it
would not be so bad, but it will disgrace this whole parliament, the Senate as well, because they will be expected to swallow it. I wonder, is that the artist sitting in front of the minister, the artist who drafted this blooming act as well as the War-time Elections Act. If he is so artistic as to draft this bill he should be able to draft another one equally good and avert this political crime.


Mr. STANLEY:: Be fair; the man cannot defend himself.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh well, I will take on anyone either in parliament or out of it as far as that goes.


George Douglass Stanley: When he can't talk.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister ought to be ashamed to have the draftsman of this act and of the War-time Elections Act sitting in the house before him, and trying to make out it was just a memorandum they gave the conference members on this side, when it was a full fledged act like any other.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Deliberately drafted.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and deliberately deceiving us into thinking it was only a memorandum. It was bad enough to draft the thing, but to come here and brazenly falsify it is a thousand times worse. The Doukhobors don't do anything like this anyhow; they are usually truthful. What they are they are, and they are not ashamed of it. But this government, hiding behind the draftsman, brings down this kind of legislation, this kind of heathen stuff, to push through parliament.


William Kemble Esling: Hon. members opposite need have no concern about any injustice to the Doukhobors. Had they had just a little experience with them, they would not be disposed to extend very much sympathy. For the past fourteen years prior to the last election there has never been a Doukhobor vote cast in British Columbia, although within the past fourteen years many Doukhobors bom in Canada have been entitled to exercise the franchise. It was only at the last election that they ever were encouraged or signified any intention to vote. I assure hon. gentlemen opposite that could they have witnessed the scenes in West Kootenay at the last federal election they would all have been quite willing to have disfranchised this religious sect. There can be no sense of responsibility and no individualism in a member of any group in which the leader dictates and dominates the marking of the ballot. Just prior to the last election the Doukhobors in
Dominion Franchise Act

British Columbia were called together by their leader, Peter Verigin; there they were instructed just how to mark their ballots and they marked them with all the precision and accuracy that any well trained and intelligent Canadian could use; indeed, more accurately, as was indicated by the fact that out of 248 ballots cast at one poll not a single ballot was spoiled and every one was marked accurately with a cross after the Liberal candidate's name.


Mr. YOUNG:: Is that why they are being disfranchised, because they voted Liberal?


William Kemble Esling: No. To those who may be disposed to think that this may be a political advantage, we will admit it is a political advantage and a very pronounced one, but it is a political advantage to every candidate regardless of what party he may be affiliated with. There is no individualism in permitting a leader or one man practically to vote for any one group. There are 4,500 Doukhobors in West Kootenay and there are 1,000 more in the adjoining federal district of Yale. Of the 4,500 in West Kootenay, about 2.000 have the franchise and they could very well have exercised it at the last election had there not been an endeavour to prevent them. In other words some registrars did not make a return of their lists to the returning officers. Those lists came to light just at the last day.
Let me say just this to satisfy my hon. friends opposite: the Doukhobors came here in 1898 under an order in council passed in 1896. They were given large tracts of land; they were otherwise bonused or provided with implements and with some money and they went upon the land. We heard very little of them for a while until they moved to West Kootenay some twenty odd years ago. They have absolutely no regard for Canadian law. They will not admit of any provincial law. They will not register births, deaths or marriages. There is not anybody who can challenge a Doukhobor and tell who he is and what is his age. More than that, they have just exercised their own inclinations by the burning of schools; they did not want their children to go to school and their action in that regard in the last few years has resulted in the burning of some thirty-five schools in British Columbia. The situation became so tense in the federal district of Yale that the people there had to guard the schools with floodlights. Then the Doukhobors had their nude parades which cost British
	*
Columbia some 850,000 for keeping Jhose Doukhobors at Okalla and they have cost the federal government many thousands of dollars for the creation of this penitentiary at the coast.
One specific agreement under the order in council states that the Doukhobors should be exempt from military service and that is their greatest and keenest desire. Let me assure hon. gentlemen opposite, regardless of what they say, the Doukhobors do not want the vote. Just about two weeks ago they had a mass meeting and strange as this may seem to hon. gentlemen opposite, that body of Doukhobors passed resolutions at their mass meeting presided over by their leader, Peter Verigin, extending the most grateful acknowledgment to this government for having indicated that it would disfranchise them at the federal election. They simply took the ground that this disqualification confirmed the agreement under the order in council made in 1896 which exempted them from military service, and that is precisely what they wanted.
Further, after that mass meeting the younger element of Doukhobors, a society known as the Doukhobors Youths, gathered at a public meeting within the past ten days and recorded resolutions again thanking this federal government for having disqualified them, and this was done simply on the ground that the government's action confirmed the terms of the order in council exempting them from military service.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask my hon. friend this question:	This government has not
disqualified them yet. Were they not a little too soon with their resolutions?


William Kemble Esling: I know that, but the press reports to that effect were out nearly a month ago.


Samuel William Jacobs: They relied upon press reports. I would ask my hon. friend this further question: How is disfranchisement going to help the situation? Will they wear clothes if they are disfranchised?


William Kemble Esling: I hope they will when the hon. member for Cartier comes to British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: The tale told by the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) has not that sickly sentimental flavour that some of the speeches we have heard to-night have had, but it happens to be true. This is not a question of religion; it is one of behaviour, which is quite a different matter. An attempt has been made to show that these Doukhobors

Dominion Franchise Act
are a downtrodden, God-fearing people. It is not part of their rdigion to go without clothes; that is not why they take their clothes off. They do this to show their displeasure when they are asked to obey the laws of the land; they stage these nude parades in order to show their displeasure.


Samuel William Jacobs: They want to tell the naked truth.


Alan Webster Neill: It is easy to trot out one particular case. My hon. friend beside me (Mr. Woodsworth) talks of an isolated case of a professor, but they are not all professors. The hon. member for West Kootenay talked about their burning schools and I think he mentioned thirty-five schools, but he did not tell of the Doukhobors bombing a school when a poor young white woman teacher was in it. The teachers had to be taken from the schools because their nerves gave way. The hon. member did not tell the committee of the time that a train was bombed and their leader and a member of the legislature were killed. He did not tell of the Canadian Pacific having to spend enormous sums in guarding railway bridges because the Doukhobors had a playful habit of blowing them up too. That does not sound so God-fearing if you put the matter in that light.
There is one point I should like to speak about, and that- is the remark of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) when he said that it was outrageous or unbelievable or something like that, that the federal franchise should be dominated by or from the provincial legislature. That is exactly what we are bound to do, to follow the provincial law in that regard. The question was brought up some years ago in connection with the admission of Hindus. My hon. friend to my right was very enthusiastic on behalf of them, I remember. I heard the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, then leader of the opposition, most emphatically lay down that principle, and I rather think the right hon,. leader of the opposition to-day spoke along the same lines, but he is here to contradict me if I am wrong. At any rate I know that Mr. Meighen laid it down as an accepted axiom of constitutional law under the British North America Act that we in this parliament were bound to follow the inhibitions or any other restrictions made by the provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may be strong on the constitution but I never said that.


Alan Webster Neill: I naturally associate the word "constitution" with the right hon. leader of the opposition. I do not think he will say that he did not support the idea that we ought to follow the provincial legislatures in their franchise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I do not think I ever agreed to anything of the kind.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I will take it back; he ought to know what he said. But I remember distinctly-Mr. Meighen is not here to contradict me-I know I quoted him in contradiction to my hon. friend here, who would not let a chance like that slip.


Samuel William Jacobs: My recollection is the same as that of my leader.


Alan Webster Neill: You see the extreme partisanship. He only thinks the same as his leader. Mr. Meighen said it-and even if I am deprived of Mr. Meighen's backing I can point to history: we have always done that, always followed any inhibition that the provinces created in regard to the franchise.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask my hon. friend if that is true in regard to the disfranchisement of women in the province of Quebec? They have a vote in the federal not in the provincial elections.


Ernest Lapointe: And we are in favour of their having a vote here.


Alan Webster Neill: The question came up the last time this Franchise Act was put through, in 1924 I think; the same question was raised in connection with the Japanese voting in British Columbia, and it was decided under the leadership of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, at any rate he did carry into our franchise the inhibition against orientals that existed in British Columbia. That is what I am saying to-day, that the province has the right to say what their own franchise shall be. The matter was taken to the privy council on one occasion in connection with a Japanese called Yatagama or some such name.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the amendment that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) moved been carried?


Hugh Guthrie: The insertion of the words "in the province of British Columbia" in line 31 after the word "person" is the amendment.


Samuel William Jacobs: If I am in order I would move that paragraph (xii) be struck out of the bill.
Dominion Franchise Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should very much like to second that motion. I am going to take the opportunity of making some further comments in regard to this little-understood sect- I have personally known them since they were brought here under the late Sir Clifford Sifton who was then Minister of the Interior. They were granted at that time certain privileges, among others that of living in communities and of exemption from military service. When Sir Clifford Sifton was superseded by Hon. Frank Oliver there was a change of policy on the part of the department; they insisted that the Doukhobors should take up individual homesteads and swear allegiance, which was contrary to their rather peculiar ideas. So they gave up lands which some have valued at $10,000,000, a great many of them subsequently going on small farms for themselves, breaking with the parent community. A number of the members of the community proper then migrated to British Columbia, and established a community at the junction of the Kootenay and Columbia rivers. Undoubtedly, as I remember the late president of the university of British Columbia saying to me, they have managed to accomplish through their cooperative efforts in that rather rough country what the ordinary individual settler had been unable to do. Anyone who visits their community there and inspected their jam factories and logging operations and so on cannot but recognize that at least from a material standpoint they have made good. Certain of the merchants in the town of Nelson several years ago set up an agitation against them because they were buying by wholesale rather than from the retail stores. A commission was appointed by the British Columbia government to investigate the whole situation. Had I known this matter would come up I would have had the volume here to quote from the report of the commission, but I remember it very distinctly. The report of that commission stated that there was no crime whatever among them, that they were good citizens in every respect, but according to their religious ideas they would not participate in the ordinary affairs of government. That was a number of years ago.
From the first there have been in that community, I quite frankly admit, a certain number of people who have been fanatical. Personally I am inclined to think that some ' of them are a little crazy-


An hon. MEMBER:: They are not alone.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -and they have fantastic ideas. It was this particular group that caused trouble when they went to Win-

nipeg some years ago, having abandoned their homes and implements and so on. They had to be returned. Every once in a while this fanaticism breaks out. There are to-day three distinct groups. I should say that while about eight or nine thousand Doukhobors came to the country forty years ago there must be *nearly twenty thousand in Canada to-day. There are three groups; first the community Doukhobors proper under the jurisdiction of Peter Verigin; second the non-community Doukhobors who have broken with the colony and who have individual farms and homesteads. Most of those in Saskatchewan now are non-community Doukhobors, descendants of the original immigrants who have gone off on their own and are in every respect Canadian citizens. Then, third, there is this little fanatical group called the Sons of Freedom. That is the group that has caused the greater part of the trouble in British Columbia and also whenever there have been outbreaks in Saskatchewan. They refused to obey even Peter Verigin-and perhaps I may say that although the first Peter Verigin was an able man I believe the present man is not a very desirable type of citizen. Nevertheless he was regarded as the religious head, and his followers gave him their allegiance.
Reference has been made to some acts of terrorists. Someone bombed a train; Peter Verigin was on that train and was killed. It has never been established who bombed the train. The Doukhobors themselves are inclined to blame the Sons of Freedom. I talked to the engine driver on the train concerned, and he told me he believed it was a prospector, who had some dynamite aboard and who was also killed at the time. He did not think the Doukhobors were guilty of the outrage. I do not know.
Then we find that in British Columbia a number of schools were burned. The people who follow Peter Verigin, the community Doukhobors, believe it was done by these Sons of Freedom, and they were so much afraid of the Sons of Freedom that they called in the mounted police and the government officials to protect them against this small fanatical sect. I could show that by reference to the Nelson News, in which a good many documents were published a few years ago. So that although a certain number of Doukhobors were presumably guilty of outrages, it was never proved in any court but it was believed by the Doukhobors themselves that it was the Sons of Freedom who were guilty, and certainly it is the so-called Sons of Freedom who have given the government such trouble. But my point to-night is that

Dominion Franchise Act
it is not fair, when perhaps not more than one out of twenty belongs to the Sons of Freedom, to penalize the other nineteen-twentieths of the Doukhobors in this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: And their descendants.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: And their descendants. The statement is made that they do not want their children to go to school. That was true a great many years ago. That is still true of the Sons of Freedom; it is not true of the great majority of the Douk-hobor people. For years I have been closely in touch with those people in Saskatchewan. Some years ago I had occasion, while working under a government bureau, to make a rather careful analysis of the situation existing among the non-English speaking peoples, and I found the great part of the Doukhobors in Saskatchewan attending school in the districts in which they lived. There is no trouble there. Two years ago I took occasion to revisit the community near Nelson, British Columbia. I visited four or five schools and talked with the teachers. One of the teachers was a young Doukhobor woman; the other three were Canadian born girls. I asked one of the teachers who had been there for six or eight or ten years, "Do you see anything of these parades?" She said, "In all the years I have been here I have never seen a nude Doukhobor." I asked, "What about the education of the children?" She said, '(Practically all the children in this district are now attending public school, and a finer class of children you would not see anywhere." I saw them in their classes; I saw them out on the playing fields, and they were a fine type of children. They came from the neighbouring districts to attend these schools.
I think it is absurd that the newspapers, with the idea of getting some picturesque stories, should have played up these nude parades to such an extent that it has given the 'Canadian public the idea that the great majority of the people are fanatics. That is not true. I quite admit that it is true of a certain sect, but that is just my point. Penalize the people who refuse to obey our laws, if you like; that is right, but do not penalize merely because of religious ideas. It very well may be that the present Peter Verigin may want to keep his people from exercising the franchise. I can quite understand that. As someone has said, he is a little dictator, but why should we heed the behests of Peter Verigin? I submit that among the younger people especially there is a decided move to participate in the life of the Canadian people
which should be encouraged. If we do encourage that move it will be only a few years until these troubles will have passed away with the older generation. If, however, we keep them isolated and refuse to grant them citizenship with the rest of us undoubtedly there will be trouble all along the line.
It has been stated that one individual taught them how to vote; apparently the shoe is pinching because he taught them to vote Liberal instead of Conservative. I think it is absurd that these people should be disfranchised merely because they are told by one of their spiritual leaders how to vote. If the newspapers are right, in the last Ontario election some of the clergy told the people of Ontario that they should vote Liberal.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They did not need to
be told; they knew enough.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But that does not
alter the fact that they were told. It would not be the first time that religious leaders have instructed their people how to vote. It is not the course of wisdom to play into the hands, if I may use that expression, of the one dictator we have there, Peter Verigin. I hope the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) will be accepted. The only possible justification for legislation of this kind would be if it were confined very strictly to the people who have broken the criminal laws of this country. I do want to plead very strongly for this section of our community, and I wish to protest against certain religious tenets being made the basis for disfranchisement.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has given the committee the benefit of a most specious piece of special pleading. He has stated that he has been well acquainted with these people ever since they reached Canada. I very much regret that, according to my experience with them, his acquaintanceship with the Doukhobors has not benefited them. The hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Ealing) has recounted some of the behaviour of the Doukhobors in his constituency at the time of the 1930 election; may I, in a very few moments, carry the chapter one page further.
Five days before the general election of 1930 Peter Verigin arrived in the town of Grand Forks. The Doukhobors had not been placed on the voters' lists; they had not asked to be placed on the lists, neither had the enumer-

Dominion Franchise Act

ators asked them if they desired to be on the lists. Peter Verigin instructed them to swear themselves on the lists on the day of the poll, and they flocked to the polling places for that purpose. They came in such numbers that by the time the poll was closed by no means all had succeeded in swearing themselves on the lists, for to a large extent the men resembled each other like two peas, and 'the women were so much alike that it was necessary to challenge each one in the attempt at least to record the name of the individual. They voted. I have not the clear evidence of how they voted that the hon. member for West Kootenay has in regard to one certain poll, but I have this very fair inference, that in the polling divisions concerned my majority was reduced to a certain extent at each poll. Therefore it follows, to my satisfaction at least, that the Doukhobors voted Liberal en bloc. That has nothing whatever to do with the case before us, except that if they voted en bloc in one direction, there is no reason why they should not vote en bloc in another direction at another time, and personally I do not consider that the franchise in Canada should be so exercised.
There is one other incident to which I should like to direct the attention of the committee; I refer to the happenings on the hills above Grand Forks, where the Doukhobors live, at the time an attempt was made to take the census. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre describes these people as virtuous, as having children who make good scholars and as a happy, contented, industrious people. When the census officer went to their community he endeavoured to obtain the information that was required. They are a people, as the committee already has been informed, who have always snapped their fingers at provincial statutes such as the vital statistics act. There is no record of when they were born or where they were born. They refused to give the information; three attempts were made on three successive days to secure the information required for the census. At last a solicitor employed by the census bureau accompanied the enumerators to endeavour to explain to these people that no harm would come from filling out these forms so that the statistics of Canada might be complete. I am sorry to say that an attempt was made to take the clothes off the solicitor. I must draw the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the fact that the leaders of those unruly proceedings were two girls who had been through high school.

Let me recount one further incident. In the summer of 1931 or perhaps of 1932, the citizens of Grand Forks, utterly weary of the difficulties they had experienced in watching their schools, in flood-lighting them, in endeavouring to protect their water intake in the river and so on, called a meeting of their prominent citizens, to which the provincial member and myself were asked to come. It was a meeting of the city council, the board of trade, representatives of the church and representatives of the various social organizations of that little town, and we heard what they had to say with regard to the Doukhobors. I should like certain hon. members who are advancing contrary views to have been present on that occasion and to have seen a side of the picture exactly opposite to that described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and several other hon. members. The farmers on the outskirts of Grand1 Forks whose farms lie on the borders of the Doukhobor community not only suffer from fright but suffer from actual danger to life and limb. The Doukhobors behave with disgusting indecency in front of their farms. The children and the growing up young men and women cannot comport themselves in reasonable freedom because of the danger of molestation from the Doukhobors who certainly do not regard clothes as an absolute necessity.
I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) make the statement-if I understood him correctly-that some of the Doukhobors in that area had seen military service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
informed that was the case, but I did not know.


Grote Stirling: I wonder if the hon. member could produce proof of the statement, because I think it would be read in southern British Columbia with great astonishment. I have lived in the neighbourhood for ten years. I make an annual visit into that country and endeavour to inform myself as to the circumstances. While on any of my visits I have never heard, the statement made by the hon. member.
It has been suggested that the Sons of Freedom are the bad actors. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the people who endeavoured to take the clothes off the young lawyer were certainly not calling themselves Sons of Freedom, and if you endeavoured to find out just who the Sons of Freedom are or who are the free Doukhobors, you would find it impossible to draw any distinction between the Sons of Freedom and any of the rest of them.

Dominion Franchise Act


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to check up on the remark that I made a moment ago. I now have Hansard before me, and after consulting it I must apologize to the right hon. leader of the opposition. The allusion was not to him, but to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. At page 4647 of Hansard for 1923 I spoke as follows:
It is a British Columbia problem for this reason: the franchise invariably originates in the province. It is entirely a provincial matter. I would quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier who in 1917 laid down in most emphatic language in paragraph after paragraph that the true basis of our dominion franchise under the British North America Act is the provincial franchise. He used the word "originates." The franchise originates in the province and then has to be translated into the dominion act. The right hon. leader of the opposition,-
That was Mr. Meighen.
*-last year is on record in Hansard to substantially the same effect. He said that where prohibitions existed in the provincial franchise we carried them into the dominion franchise, and if that is correct, and here we have two of the ablest men of our time on this subject, then the thing for us to do is to take this subject up in British Columbia and deal with it there, and the province of British Columbia would know how to deal with such a subject in the best interests of Canada as well as the best interests of the province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend should mention the fact that at the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier made that statement the dominion lists were based on the provincial lists. That is not the case to-day.
I have only one further observation to make. I do not wish to delay the committee, but I still think that in its present form the clause is ambiguous, and might carry the same meaning as it did originally. I suggest the proper transposition would be to begin the clause with the words, "In the province of British Columbia" and thus obviate ambiguity. The clause would read:
In the province of British Columbia every Doukhobor person and every descendant of any such person, whether born in that province or elsewhere,-
And so on. It now reads:
Every Doukhobor person in the province of British Columbia, and every descendant of any such person, whether born in that province or elsewhere-
And so on. I suggest that change should be made.


William Richard Motherwell: The criticism some of imy remarks incited render it necessary for me to make some further observations. I happened to be a member of the first Saskatchewan government, and one of our first duties after taking office in 1905 was to deal with
74726-284J
some of these Doukhobor parades. I remember them distinctly. There was no resentment against authority at that time; the parades were part of their religious rites and performances. I do not know what later developments were; it may be that in later years it developed into an action of resentment, as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has said. I can say, however, thht in eaiilier years it was an act of worship towards God. We found in the administration of justice through the department of the attorney general that a great deal could be done by tempering justice with mercy, and fair dealing with kindness. The history of the world indicates that if you undertake to persecute a people for their religious beliefs, no matter how absurd you may think they are, you will just make them more determined, and bring the very worst out of them. As a matter of fact, was not the Christian church disseminated all over the world by persecution? I ask you that. The blood of the martyrs was said to be the seed of the church. The point is that in this instance we may not confine such action to the Doukhobors, because if we set our hand towards establishing this kind of precedent, we do not know who or what people will bring down the wrath of the Tory government next.
I do not know how many hon. members can recall the advent of the Salvation Army into Canada. In those days I was attending school in the old town of Perth. The Army did things which appeared strange to us, and were garbed much the same as to-day They beat their tom-toms just the same, and they sang just the same. They assembled in front of the hotel doors just the same and offered up prayers for the guests, and they had pitchers of water thrown on them from upper windows as a kind of reception or collection. That was the only collection they got in those days of nearly sixty years ago. When we look back to those days we have no cause to be proud of ourselves. To-day the Salvation Army is one of the most respected religious bodies in the world. But, because they were different from the rest of us, we seemed to think that hating them would count as righteousness into us. Civilization based on hating some one or some thing is not on a good foundation; yet that was our attitude towards the Salvation Army. I was born a severe hater of everything that was French and everything that was Catholic. Anything I can do to rectify that mistake, that terrible mistake of my early training, I shall do for the rest of my life. I was wrong; absolutely wrong. And towards men and women who worship at the same
Dominion Franchise Act

shrine as we do, and who worship the same Godhead as we do, how dare we take this attitude, of persecution? That is all I have to say. I am in favour of the amendment to throw this section out of the bill higher than a kite.


Humphrey Mitchell: I feel I should make
some observations, because if there were a vote I should feel I must vote in a certain way. I believe cooperation with a government is an elementary principle of civilization. Where would our institutions be if that were not the case? I am a great believer in freedom and in the rights of the individual, but I wonder where the country would be if all the different racial groups refused to cooperate. I think this question transcends the liberty of the individual. If the French, the English, the Irish, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Ukrainians and others all failed to cooperate in enforcing the laws of this country, where would we be? The first obligation of any individual is to cooperate with the state. I think that is elementary in the building up of our democratic institutions.


William Irvine: I have only one word to
say, but if this is going to a vote I want to show why I am voting the way I intend to vote. To a great extent I agree with what the previous speaker (Mr. Mitchell) has said. I think that those who refuse to recognize our institutions and abide by the laws of our country have no right to the franchise, but, on the other hand, we have some responsibility to these people. We may be forty years too late in discussing this problem. I should say that the proper way to deal with this matter is not to impose political persecution in a statute but to get these people out of the country if they refuse to obey our laws. We cannot afford to allow the great seal of Canada to be placed on a statute of persecution.
Amendment negatived on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister agreeing to the amendment to put the name of the province first?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not agree with that. If you read down the whole section you will see it states every person, every Indian, every Doukhobor. I think it means the same if I put in the words "in the province."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to be meticulous but I think it should be made perfectly clear that the section relates onfy to the province of British Columbia.
(Mr. Motherwell. 1


Hugh Guthrie: We could make it read,
"in the province of British Columbia, every Doukhobor person and every descendant of any such person."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (xii) as amended agreed to.
Vincent Dupuis: We are dealing with the
liberty of citizens of this country. Even if the citizens described here by their racial name voted Tory in the last elections I would be in favour of allowing them to continue to have their rights. Are we going to allow this government-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smoke):: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the section was carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The section was carried before.


Vincent Dupuis: I ask the consent of the
committee to revert again to that section.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Vincent Dupuis: I want to voice my protest against the disfranchisement of these people.
On section 5, subsection 3-Appointment, tenure of office and rank of commissioner.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not prepared an
amendment to this subsection but I suggested to the minister that it might be necessary to make some modification. We want to know what the commissioner is to be paid and what pension provisions are to be made. If the minister is not prepared to give us this information, I can go on to another amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know what the
salary is as yet.
Subsection 3 stands.
On section 17, subsection 3 (b)-Enumerators.


Charles Gavan Power: This paragraph deals with the appointment of enumerators by candidates of political parties.


Hugh Guthrie: If the hon. member will read his amendment I think I can accept it.


Charles Gavan Power: As no argument seems to be necessary I shall proceed to read my amendment. I move:
That section 17, subsection 3, he amended by striking therefrom clause (b) thereof and substituting therefor the following:-
"(b) Within five days after the registrar shall have published the proclamation men-

Dominion Franchise Act
449*
tioned in section fourteen of this act the candidate who at the then last preceding election in an electoral district, as then by law bounded (and hereunder termed the former electoral district) part or all of which is embraced in or identical with the registrar's electoral district, received' the highest number of votes in such former electoral district, and the candidate who representing at that election a different and opposed political interest, received the next highest number of votes, may, each, by himself or by a representative, nominate a fit and proper person or fit and proper persons for appointment as enumerators in any or all of the polling divisions (or parts of polling divisions) in the registrar's electoral district (if it is identical with such former electoral district), and, if it is not so identical, then in such part of the registrar's electoral district as is identical with the part or whole of such former electoral district embraced therein, and, subject to the provisions of this section, the registrar shall appoint such persons to be enumerators of the polling divisions or parts thereof for which they have been nominated."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On paragraph (d).
Hugh Guthrie: The next paragraph will have to be amended.


Charles Gavan Power: In connection with this paragraph I move to strike out all the words after "possible" in the twenty-second line and to the word "or" in the twenty-fourth line. The following words should be Struck out, "or if the electoral district, as bounded and described by law, is new, and no election has ever been held in it".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection 3 as amended agreed to.
On rule 15.
Charles Gavan Power: I think the amendment to this rule has been handed to the minister. If he will move it, I shall be satisfied.


Hugh Guthrie: The amendment my hon. friend has in mind is that rule 15 shall be amended by striking out the words:
"or that the amendment thereof which he requests should be made, he shall certify accordingly by signing the appropriate certificate on the stub of the application, which he shall forthwith detach and deliver to the applicant."
All that is struck out and the following is substituted therefor:
He shall in the presence of the applicant enter his name upon the list.


Charles Gavan Power: That passes 13.
On rule 16.


Hugh Guthrie: A further amendment will be necessary to rule 16. In line 31 the word "openly" should be struck out and after the word "applicant" there should be inserted the words "in writing"-he shall notify the applicant in writing.


Charles Gavan Power: That passes 13, 14, 15 and 16.


Vincent Dupuis: Do I understand that now a third party will not have the right to ask the revising officer to put an elector's name on the list? It will be necessary that the elector himself register his name?


Hugh Guthrie: Or his agent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rule 16 agreed to.
Rule 15 agreed to.
On section 21-Notice of revision.
Charles Gavan Power: An amendment has been prepared by the draftsman in connection with subsection 6 of section 21.


Hugh Guthrie: The amendment is to add at the end of section 21 the following:
In the case of a new electoral district wherein, as that electoral district is by law newly described, no election has ever been held, the registrar shall mail or deliver ten additional copies of the notice to each person who was at the last dominion election held in any electoral district any part whereof is embraced within such new electoral district, a candidate for election and shall request that person to mail or deliver such additional copies to such other person or persons in such new electoral district as in the judgment of such first-named person ought to receive them.
It is to provide for the case of electoral districts newly created and which formed parts of former districts. The object is that in the new district copies of the list shall be distributed to the new candidate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 27-Application for registration prior to sittings.
Charles Gavan Power: I have recast this section to provide for the mailing and posting up of notices of applications which have been made to the registrar, and I will read it. I move that section 27 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Any elector may at any time during the month of April in any year file with the registrar of electors of the electoral district whereof the polling division in which such elector resides is situate a signed application in Form No. 28 to be added to the existing lists in such polling division. The registrar shall post up m his office the name of every
449S
Dominion Franchise Act


Hugh Guthrie: I agree.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 28-Procedure and action of registrars and revisal courts.
Charles Gavan Power: I had made some objection to section 28, paragraph (i), but on further explanation from the draftsman I am prepared to accept it.


Hugh Guthrie: I understood that (a) and (b) of section 28 stood.


Charles Gavan Power: I am satisfied, and (i) is also satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 30-Transfer of name from one list to another.
Charles Gavan Power: This section stood for a small amendment. In line 43 I move that the words "general registration of electors or" be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 31-Certification.
Charles Gavan Power: This section stood in order to strike out in line 17 the words "the original" and in line 18 the words "signed applications for registration of electors." I think the words "received by him" should also go out. The words struck from this clause then would be:
The original signed applications for registration of electors received by him.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the words "received by him" might stay in, because there follows:
And all other lists and' documents had by him in connection with the revision.


Mr.   POWTER@: This is the first time the words "received by him" occur. With the words I have mentioned struck out, it will read:
The certified original list and all other lists and documents had by him in connection with the revision.


Hugh Guthrie: All right. Strike out also the words "received by him."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 32-Right of appeal.
Charles Gavan Power: This clause covers the right of appeal to a judge. I did propose to have it stand and to draft an amendment making it quite clear that a third party could have an appeal. I am not convinced that this is permissible under clause 32 but the draftsman believes it is, so I am going to take his word for it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before this clause carries I would move:
That subclause 2 of clause 32 be amended by adding after the word "judge" in the thirteenth line the words "or a district magistrate" and also by amending paragraph (c) of subclause 2 of clause 32 by adding in the twenty-sixth line, after the word "lies" the following "or a district magistrate."
That has to do with the subject matter which I discussed in the committee here and also in the special committee on elections regarding the trouble some people may have if they want to apply for revision of the list before a judge in order not to force people Who live in remote places in my county to travel 400 or 600 miles to go before a judge of the superior court either at Murray Bay or at Rimouski. A district magistrate in the province of Quebec, has jurisdiction up to $200. District magistrates sit at various periods of the year on the north shore in different sections of the district I represent and might be able to look after this revision of the lists. I leave it in this way, that the appointment of this district magistrate would be under the direction of the chief justice of the superior court or the acting chief justice, so that there would be no danger in this.


Hugh Guthrie: This is limited in every province to judges in the various courts of the different provinces, and I would not consent to an innovation of the kind suggested in the amendment.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Dominion Franchise Act
On section 46-May print in any or all districts.
Charles Gavan Power: Subclause 2 of this clause stood in order to meet the suggestion made by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay to provide that copies of lists should be furnished to candidates. I would move:
That the words "at an election" in line eight be struck from the clause and that there be added after the words "electoral district" in line eleven, that is after the last word of this subclause, the following words "he may demand such copies in the case of an annual revision of lists as well as of a general registration of electors."


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: He shall be furnished with.


Charles Gavan Power: I will accept the suggestion of the senior member for Ottawa.


Hugh Guthrie: If he does not ask for them, I do not know that he should be furnished with them.


Charles Gavan Power: Let it read:
And he shall be furnished on demand.


Franklin Smoke: I had better read the amendment:
And he shall be furnished on demand with such copies in the case of an annual revision of lists as well as of a general registration of electors.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Angus MacInnis: Has clause 46, subclause 2, been carried?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: I am afraid the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec South takes away the sense of the subclause. It provides that at an election the candidate shall be entitled to demand so many copies of the list. If the amendment, as I understand it is passed, he will not be entitled to that except at election time.


Hugh Guthrie: "Candidate" is defined in the interpretation as a candidate at an election.
On form 7.


Charles Gavan Power: I am satisfied that this form meets with the requirements.


[Stage Direction]
Form agreed to.
On form 10.
Charles Gavan Power: In view of the amendments to section 15, this form is now all right.


[Stage Direction]
Form agreed to.
Charles Gavan Power: I suggested this morning
that we draft a form 11a, but as far as I am concerned it is no longer necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 2 was allowed to stand.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
closed lists are all settled now; I can feel the rope tightening around my neck already. And my hon. friends opposite will pull on the rope too. I know exactly what we are confronting, and what it is for. Apparently the house will have to go through one closed list experience in rural areas before they know what it means. I want to warn all on this side that they will have to be prepared to have about three thousands votes more than is necessary to elect them in some ridings in order to have enough to save them from defeat. I know what was done via the closed list route in 1896. It was not always in the law but in the way it was interpreted. The lasts were closed two days before the election, but they were not closed to the enumerators. During those two days it was not quite clear what the duties of the enumerator were, but an interpretation came from Ottawa to the Northwest Territories indicating that during that two days the enumerator could still put on the list what names he liked, and then the counterpart of that, he could still take off what names he liked. Good eligible names were taken off wholesale and others put on. It was easy to keep the ineligible from voting by means of active scrutineers, because such would have to be sworn, but those kept off were off. Let me say further, for the benefit of the government, that when you go too far in a matter of this kind it is so badly overdone that the people rebel. Dozens of enumerators refused to act after they learned the nature of the law, showing that in the Tory party there is a lot of fine white men in spite of the official Tories. They refused to act as deputy returning officers when they learned the .power of the enumerator and what they were expected to do. They turned in their resignations. A lot of others would not take advantage of the law as interpreted,
. while some of the others pretty nearly got tarred and feathered when they did take advantage of it. At a number of polls, as soon as we found on election day what was happening and saw what a large number were being disfranchised, we had to send out to the adjoining polls on fast horses all the runners we could get, with advice as to what the gov-vernment officials were doing to old and eligible voters. The result was that polls that never gave a majority in their lives gave one in 1896 because of the heinous crimes of the government and their officials of that day.
Dominion Franchise Act

So I am comparatively calm about the matter. There is a sense of justice among the electorate of Canada and I predict that in many districts this government will not be able to find the necessary officials to do the kind of dirty work that they expect them to do.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Angus MacInnis: This morning I said I
wished to draw attention to rule 9 of section 3. This refers to unemployment relief in Canada and provides that no person shall lose his franchise because of time spent in an unemployment relief camp.


Franklin Smoke: I would
remind the hon. gentleman that this clause was carried.
Mr. MaoINNIS:	I was not in when we
began this evening, 'and the Minister of Justice said this morning he would hold it over.


Charles Gavan Power: We had to stay here all day to pass these, and I object to any hon. member coming here and saying he wants to go back because he was not here all day. We have been here ail day.
Mr. MaoINNIS:	I was here but I was
called out just as we began with this section this afternoon.


Franklin Smoke: Order.


Angus MacInnis: This is a matter which
concerns the unemployed and we could very well give a little time to it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The book is closed.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 3 was carried, and the title.
On form 30.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the minister agreed to strike from this form section 4 as well as section 9.


Franklin Smoke: That is struck out.
Form 30 agreed to.
On form 31.


Charles Gavan Power: I asked that 31 stand, but I am willing to withdraw my objection now.


Hugh Guthrie: It is marked "carried" here. Then there is a blank as to the commissioner. I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Charles Gavan Power: Let us finish the elections act.
Progress reported.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 115, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons-Mr. Guthrie-Mr. Smoke in the chair.
On section 30-Supply of election materials by returning officer.
Hugh Guthrie: There is one clause I want to discuss for a moment, with regard to sending cards of notification. I have drafted this clause, to be added, if it passes, to section 30 as clause (f):
The chief electoral officer shall also furnish to the returning officer for each electoral district a supply of notification cards equal to the number of voters upon the voters' list for the applicable electoral district, and the returning officer shall cause one of such cards to be mailed to each voter whose name appears upon the said list at the address stated upon said list notifying such voter of the date and place of polling and the polling division for which such voter's name appears upon the voters' list. Such cards shall be mailed not later than the day after the day fixed for nomination and shall be entitled to pass through the mails free of postage. Such notification cards may be in Form No	
Form
Notification to voter of time and place of voting
Electoral district of ...
Take notice that your name appears upon
the voters' list for polling division No	
in this electoral district.
Polling will take place on the	 day
of	 193.., between a.m and
p.m.
You are entitled to vote at	
Returning officer.


Charles Gavan Power: Did the minister specify that this applies only to urban polling divisions?


Hugh Guthrie: No, to every polling division in the country.


Charles Gavan Power: And that the notification shall be given within twenty-four hours after nomination?


Hugh Guthrie: The day after nomination. Of course in some ridings-for instance I shall probably get an acclamation and it will not be needed in mine.


Charles Gavan Power: A third suggestion I should like to make is that the returning officer notify the candidates on both sides as to the cards which have been returned.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I am not cluttering it up in that way. That is too much.

Dominion Elections Act


Charles Gavan Power: I respectfully submit it is not cluttering it up.


Hugh Guthrie: He would not get them back until after the election.


Charles Gavan Power: They would get back the next day in cities. Put it in for urban divisions.


Hugh Guthrie: When I give an inch you try to take everything.


Charles Gavan Power: We might as well recognize that the returning officer is to be appointed by this government; he will be a partisan officer, and is very likely to think that his duty is rather to the government than to the state. In cities, and after all that is where it is important, he will know by the cards returned that Mr. So and So, whose address is so and so, has moved from that place, or is dead, or has moved to another address, as the case may be. That returning officer inevitably will give that information to the Tory committee room.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps we had better
not insert this provision at all.


Charles Gavan Power: I would prefer it not to be there at all rather than give an undue advantage to one political party as compared with another. It is one way of checking the lists at government expense. If the same information is given both political parties well and good, but if it is not I think it is an outrage. I believe it is altogether uncalled for to give that advantage of using the mails and the money belonging to the people of Canada to one candidate rather than another. Though I like the suggestion and am quite willing to support my right hon. leader, if it does not work out fairly, equitably and reasonably for all parties then I would prefer that the suggestion be withdrawn.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I think the hon. gentleman is unduly suspicious of the men who will take the oath of office, but it would be very easy to have the postmaster not return these cards until after election day.


Charles Gavan Power: Then you are up against
Tory postmasters; you have fired all the Liberals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely it would be very easy and simple to provide that the returning officer should make available to the candidate or his agent any information he may have as to notices returned for one reason or another. Instead of requiring the returning officer to notify both sides, if that
is expecting too much, simply require that the candidate or his agent shall have the right to obtain from the returning officer any information he may have with regard to cards that have been returned. The same information would then be available to both sides. It would not involve any expense.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not wedded to it
at all.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: This is a
good thing; it will be helpful to both the electors and the candidate. I believe the principle is sound. In Montreal during municipal elections every man who has his card goes to the polls. There is no canvassing; we are not obliged to go from door to door, and it saves an enormous amount of money to the candidate. If cards are returned they come back to the returning officer. There will not be so many of them if the list has been made properly. If I am the candidate in St. Henri I may find about five hundred cards returned. I try to find where those people have moved; then I give the new addresses to the returning officer, and he has a chance to send the cards out again. In Montreal if you mail a letter by ten o'clock in the morning it may be delivered the same afternoon, due to our efficient service, and if the address is wrong the card will be returned once more. I believe this is a very helpful suggestion, which will save a great deal of money to the candidate. We heard the Secretary of State say that in 1930 he spent $25,000 to be elected in the constituency of St. Lawrenee-St. George, so I humbly submit that this is an appropriate remedy, and that it should be easy so to frame the law as to prevent any abuse.


Hugh Guthrie: I tried to meet in full, absolutely and completely, the suggestion made by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition this afternoon. If it is not satisfactory let us drop it.


Charles Gavan Power: So far as I am concerned, if there is no amendment in the sense I have indicated I propose to vote against it, no matter who proposes it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Many of us feel that it is quite in harmony with the suggestions we made this afternoon. I do not think we should be too suspicious of the returning officers.
Section as amended agreed to on division.
Dominion Elections Act

On section 33-Extra polling stations.


Hugh Guthrie: There was a discussion this afternoon as to a central polling place in certain parts of Canada which offer certain physical, geographical difficulties; it was felt that if the polling places could be all brought together in the one building, as they do in some places, it would be a great convenience to the residents. The suggested amendment, which would be subsection 8, is as follows:
The returning officer may with the prior permission, and shall upon the direction, of the chief electoral officer, establish in any city or town of not more than ten thousand population a central polling place whereat the polling stations of all or any of the polling divisions of an electoral division may be centralized; and upon the establishment of such central polling place all the provisions of this act shall apply as if every polling station at such central polling place were within the polling division of the electoral district to which it appertains.
This can be done only on the direction of the chief electoral officer.


Charles Gavan Power: This is in towns of less than ten thousand population?


Hugh Guthrie: I believe it applies only in some places in British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-General powers of chief electoral officer.
Charles Gavan Power: This section stood because of some inquiries I desired to make as to the powers and duties of the clerk of the crown in chancery prior to 1920, but I do not know whether it is worth while going into that. I am willing to let it pass.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13

Polling divisions with three hundred electors.
Charles Gavan Power: The suggestion I should like to make to the minister is that instead of a polling station containing as nearly as possible three hundred electors, that number should be reduced to two hundred and fifty. I think perhaps three hundred electors is too many for a polling division. I only make the suggestion ; I am not insisting on it.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we had better leave it at three hundred, as it was in the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
(Mr. Woodsworth.]
On section 22-Return when no more candidates than number of members required.
Charles Gavan Power: This stood only for the purpose of checking up.
-Section agreed to.


Charles Gavan Power: Section 37 has been carried, over my dead body.
On section 38-Effect of presence of name on list of voters.


Charles Gavan Power: Section 38 stood in order to have it conform to subsection 6 of section 33. I have no objection to it now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 46-Manner of voting.
Charles Gavan Power: Section 46 stood so that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin would have an opportunity to discuss it.


Hugh Guthrie: We did discuss it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 63-Return of election expenses by official agent.
Charles Gavan Power: That was carried.


Hugh Guthrie: That was carried this afternoon.


Charles Gavan Power: And sections 73 and 74 were carried.
On section 83-Election not voided unless illegal practices by candidates, agent, etc.


Hugh Guthrie: What about section 83?


Charles Gavan Power: Let us go on and finish up, and then come back to section 83. Has that section to do with absentee voting?


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is farther on.


Charles Gavan Power: Very well, this section may carry.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 96-Conditions for voting at advance polls.
Charles Gavan Power: I think that section is carried.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, we did carry it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was subsection 7 of section 96 carried?


Charles Gavan Power: I have no amendment to it.


Hugh Guthrie: The section did not stand, so far as I know.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: There is a section standing which I should like to discuss.

Dominion Elections Act


Charles Gavan Power: Some forms stood; had we not better discuss them first?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Was section 63
called?


Charles Gavan Power: Called and carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have an amendment to move, of which I gave notice to-day.


Hugh Guthrie: Very well, we will revert to section 63.
On section 63-Return of election expenses by official agent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I move:
That section 63, subsection 1, be amended by adding as subsubseetion (f) the following:
"a detailed list of all contributions or stocks of literature, posters or other printed material, or services supplied from any central committee or other organization."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On form 19-Oath of person applying to vote.
Hugh Guthrie: Form 19 refers to the oath.
I agree with the suggested amendment. It is: That after the word "voters" in the third line the following words be added, "that you are a British subject of the full age of twenty-one years."
What about the other part?


Charles Gavan Power: I was trying to copy the oath which has been in the act for many years. The form in the bill is a new form of oath, and I wished to have it conform as far as possible to the old one.


Hugh Guthrie: This is the same as it is in the old act.


Mr.   POWTER@: No. If I had a copy of the old act before me I could show that the form of oath therein stated differs radically from the form proposed in this bill. However, I think I can strike some form of oath which will be satisfactory to the minister.


Hugh Guthrie: I wanted particularly to insert the words "you are a British subject of the full age of twenty-one years." That is now in.


Charles Gavan Power: But I have some objection to the remaining part of the form.


Hugh Guthrie: The remainder of the form merely states:
That you have not been employed by any person for pay or reward, in reference to this now proceeding election.


Charles Gavan Power: We never had those words in the former oath.	_


Hugh Guthrie: Does not the hon. member think it is a good clause?


Charles Gavan Power: No, because of the almost unanimous opinion of the committee to-day in connection with that section dealing with employment for pay of persons acting in committee rooms. The feeling of the committee seemed to be that if it was at all possible we should get rid of that provision. Why accentuate it? Do not make it worse than it was. The old oath stated that one was not guilty of any act of bribery or of any corrupt practices. Give us a chance to get away with an oath of some kind, instead of specifying all this hypocrisy.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the oath is all right as it is now amended.


Charles Gavan Power: Let the sin be on the minister's head, not on mine.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Form as amended agreed to.
Sections 36, 37 and 38 agreed to.
On schedule two.
Hugh Guthrie: Schedule two states the
places where advance polls may be established by returning officers. I have had the request that in New Brunswick we add the name McAdam.


Ernest Lapointe: That is schedule two?


Hugh Guthrie: Schedule two. To the
Ontario list will be added the names of Brantford, Woodstock and St. Catharines; to the Saskatchewan list the name of Swift Current and to the Quebec list the name of Beauport.
Schedule as amended agreed to.


Hugh Guthrie: There is another important amendment which will have to be discussed; shall I go on with it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: These amendments provide for absentee voters casting their votes under these closed lists. This point was raised in the committee by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and there has been considerable discussion over it. We have tried to adopt some of the provisions of the British Columbia act. These will be new sections and their provisions are limited to fishermen, sailors, lumbermen and miners.. They will apply to men who are more than twenty-five miles away from home on the date of the election. Such a man will be entitled to go
Dominion Elections Act

to the nearest polling division and obtain what is known as an absentee ballot. He then takes an oath which is attached to the ballot that he is on the list in some polling division within the province. He will be entitled to cast his vote and at the close of the poll the returning officer will count the absentee ballots and send them (o the appropriate division where the man is on the voters' list. If it is found that he is on the voters' list in that poll, his vote will be counted. The machinery to put this into force is quite complicated but I think we have it fairly complete. Therefore, I move:
That Bill No. 115, the Dominon Elections Act, 1934, be amended by inserting, immediately after section ninety-eight, as sections ninety-nine to one hundred and five, inclusive, the following, with Forms No.	and No.
additional, and that the numbering of subsequent sections of the bill be altered to accord: 99 (1) In the six next following sections of this act the expression-
(a)	absentee voter" means a person, being one of the classes of persons in the next following subsection mentioned, whose name is registered on the list of electors of a polling division of an electoral district and who seeks to vote pursuant to sections ninety-nine to one hundred and four, inclusive, of this act;
(b)	"fishermen" means and includes all persons who are engaged or employed in or about any ot the processes of fishing as an industry [DOT] including sealing and whaling and the operation ot fish or marine animal reduction plants;
(c)	lumbermen means and includes cruisers
loggers,	bushmen,	sawmill	employees and	allpersons	who are	engaged	or employed in	orabout any of the	processes	of lumbering as	an
industry, including surveying, felling, hauling, driving and milling lumber or timber;
(d)	"miners" means and includes prospectors
as well as workers in or about mines, and all persons who a.re engaged or employed in or about any of the processes of mining as an industry,	including	surface	operations, as	bv
washing hauling, assaying and milling as well as operations underground;
(e)	"sailors" means all persons who are engaged or employed in any capacity whatever on board ships or vessels.
(?) The provisions of this section and of sections one hundred to one hundred and four, inclusive, of this act, shall apply only to persons whose regular occupation on polling day is that of lumbermen, fishermen, miners or sailors, as by subsection one of this section defined, and they shall not apply to any person who on polling day is not actually engaged or employed m one of such occupations within the limits of the polling division of the polling station whereat he seeks to vote.
100	(1) Any person who, being an absentee voter within the meaning of subsection one of the next preceding section, is, oil polling day at an election, absent at a distance of not less than twenty-five miles from the polling station whereat, if he were there present on that day he would be entitled to vote, and who is not at the time out of the province in which he ordinarily resides and wherein such polling station is situate (whether he is or is not at 
the time within the electoral district which contains the polling division of such polling station), may, in manner stated in this section, obtain an absentee voter's ballot and poll an absentee voter's vote.
(2) The twenty-five miles mentioned in the next preceding subsection shall be calculated as running along the ordinary route of travel.
101	(1) The manner of polling an absentee voter's vote shall be as follows:
(a)	The absentee voter may, at any time while the poll is open on polling day, apply to the deputy returning officer of that polling station which is nearest to the place where the voter is temporarily engaged or employed for leave to poll there an absentee voter's vote.
(b)	The deputy returning officer shall thereupon require the absentee voter to sign and depose to an affidavit in Form No. . That Form shall be printed on the back of all absentee voter's ballot papers. That affidavit shall be made before that officer. The ballot paper shall be in Form No. or such other form as the chief electoral officer shall prescribe and direct.
(c)	The deputy returning officer shall prepare the ballot paper for the voter by writing with ink on the counterfoil thereof the name of the electoral district to which the ballot appertains and by writing in the ballot with ink the names, residences and occupations of the candidates who, as shown by the printed list of candidates supplied to that officer pursuant to section one hundred and four of this act, have been nominated for the electoral district from which the voter is absent and to which his vote appertains. Only one name, description and occupation of a candidate shall be written in any one space in the ballot paper.
(d)	The deputy returning officer shall, before delivering the ballot paper to the absentee voter, fold and seal it, in such manner that the voter's name and signature, as writen in the affidavit, are concealed.
(e)	The deputy returning officer shall then
deliver the ballot paper to the voter, who shall mark and fold it in the manner provided by section	of this act and return it to the
deputy returning officer, who shall, in the presence of the voter, and without removing the counterfoil, place it in the ballot box to be thereafter dealt with as in the next following section of this act provided.
(2)	If in any case the absentee voter's ballot paper as supplied to the deputy returning officer has not sufficient spaces to contain the names of all the candidates the deputy returning officer shall add, by pasting thereto enough blanks in Form No. 43 to contain all such names. If in any case such ballot paper has more spaces than are required to contain the names of all the candidates the excess spaces shall be left blank.
(3)	In the ease of an absentee voter who is illiterate, blind or otherwise unable to write his name or mark his ballot the voter may sign by his mark, the deputy returning officer may write the voter's name and the ordinary provisions of this act shall in other respects apply.
102	(1) After the close of the poll, on the counting of the ballots, the deputy returning officer shall separate from the ordinary ballots of his polling station all absentee voters' ballots and segregate the latter into parcels according

Dominion Elections Act
to the respective electoral districts to which they appertain. He shall unfold and examine that portion of them which shows the name of the electoral district and the names of the candidates and make a list showing the number of votes cast for each candidate in each electoral district. It shall not be necessary for him to enter in such list the names of electoral districts or of candidates in respect of which or of whom no votes have been polled.
(2) After the examination of such ballots and the compilation of such lists the absent voters' ballots shall be refolded by the deputy returning officer so as not to disclose how the voters or any of them have marked such ballots. The deputy returning officer shall then place the absentee voters' ballots which appertain to each electoral district, together with a copy of the above mentioned list in so far as it relates to each electoral district, in separate envelopes, which he shall securely close, marking on the outside the name of the proper electoral district along with the words "Absentee Voters' Ballots," and he shall without delay forward them prepaid, by registered mail, properly addressed, to the returning officers of the electoral districts to which, respectively, they appertain. The deputy returning officer shall place in the ballot box copies of all such lists so mailed and he shall supply copies thereof to any candidate or to the agent of any candidate present who applies for the same. Finally, the deputy returning officer shall send by telegraph, or by the most speedy means available, to the returning officer of each electoral district in respect of which absentee voters' ballots have been polled at his polling station, a statement of the number of votes polled for each candidate as shown by the list prepared pursuant to subsection one of this section.
103. On the making of the final count pursuant to section	of this act the returning
officer in every electoral district shall open each parcel containing absent voters' ballots received from each deputy returning officer at any time before the completion of the final count, and shall deal with each parcel separately and in the following manner: Without unfolding that portion of the absent voter's ballot paper containing the candidates' names and without disclosing how the ballot paper is marked by the voter, he shall open that portion of the absent voter's ballot paper containing the signature and the affidavit of the voter. After examining each affidavit and finding that it is signed by the deponent and by the deputy returning officer before whom it was sworn, and finding that the deponent is a voter whose name appears on the list of voters for the polling division named in the affidavit, and that no person has in fact voted as such voter at the poll held in the polling division, the returning officer shall detach that portion of the ballot paper containing the names of the candidates from the counterfoil, and shall put the ballot without being opened into a ballot box to be used for the purpose of counting absent voters' ballots, and shall note on the list of voters against the number of the voter the fact that he has voted as an absent voter. If the returning officer finds that the name of the deponent does not appear on the list of voters for the electoral district named in the affidavit, or that some person has in fact voted as such voter at the poll held in the electoral
district he shall not count and he shall retain the whole ballot paper unseparated as to any part thereof and unopened as to that portion of the ballot paper containing the candidates' name. After all absent voters' ballot papers have been dealt with, the returning officer shall proceed to count the votes given for each candidate and in his statement showing the result of the election he shall take into account all absentee voters' ballots found by him as aforesaid to be countable.
104 (1) Immediately after the close of nominations on nomination day the returning officer of every electoral district in Canada. shall transmit by telegraph to the chief electoral officer the names, addresses and occupations of all candidates whose nominations are in his hands, as these names addresses and occupations will appear on the ballot papers of such returning officer's electoral district. The chief electoral officer shall cause sufficient printed copies of the applicable names, addresses and occupations of candidates to be made to enable every returning officer in every electoral district of Canada to supply to every deputy returning officer in that returning officer's electoral district a list of the names, addresses and occupations of every candidate nominated in every electoral district in the province in which such returning officer's electoral district is situate and of the electoral districts wherein such candidate, respectively, have been nominated.
(2) The chief electoral officer shall, in time to enable performance by returning officers of the provisions of sections ninety-nine to one hundred and five, inclusive, of this act. transmit or cause to be transmitted to all returning officers sufficient copies of lists of names, addresses and occupations of candidates, absentee voters' ballot papers and Forms No. 42 and No. 43 to enable every returning officer to transmit to every deputy returning officer w-ith-in that returning officer's electoral district (which operation that returning officer shall execute) in time for use on polling day, sufficient copies of such documents for use at and for the purposes of each deputy returning officer's polling station, to enable compliance with sections ninety-nine to one hundred and five, inclusive, of this act.
105. Every provision of this act which can apply to absentee voters and absentee voting as provided for in sections ninety-nine to one hundred and four, inclusive, of this act, shall apply thereto.
Form No	
Affidavit on application for absent voter's ballot paper:
I, ... (name) .... presently of . .. (place)...,
in the electoral district of	, in the
province of	 (insert occupation),
do hereby apply for an absent voter's ballot paper at the election now pending and I do hereby make oath (or affirmation) and say:
1.	That I am duly registered, pursuant to
The Dominion Elections Act, 1934, under the above name as an elector in the electoral district of	 in this province of	
and at the time of my registration as such I resided at (here insert the place of residence and street and house number, or number of lot, or other local description) in the said electoral district.
2.	That I am a (lumberman, fisherman, miner or sailor, as the case may be) within the mean-
DoAiinkm Elections Act

ing of The Dominion Elections Act, 1934; that I am now actually engaged or employed in such occupation within the limits of the polling division whereof this is a polling station; that the distance from this polling station to that whereat I am entitled to vote at this election is not less than twenty-five miles, calculated along the ordinary route of travel; and that this polling station is that which is nearest to the place where I am temporarily engaged or employed as a (state occupation) as aforesaid.
Sworn (or affirmed) before me at	
in the province of	 this	
day of	, 19..
(Signature of applicant.) Deputy Returning Officer.
Form No	
Form of absentee voter's ballot paper front
The black line above the first name shall extend to the upper edge, and the black line below the last name shall extend to the lower edge of the ballot paper, and all black lines be prolonged to the edge of the paper.
Now that is a lengthy proposal and the form of the ballot paper in blank is attached. It has been represented to me that in many provinces, particularly in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, there are frequently large bodies of men engaged in remote places-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And Saskatchewan.


Hugh Guthrie: -and it is impossible to have them poll their vote without bringing them long distances. This will simply provide that the absentee may vote and his vote may be counted at his own polling division and he may transfer it or vote at the poll nearest to the place where he is working, and anywhere within his own province that vote may be counted if he is on the list. The machinery is pretty intricate, but on the whole I approve of the proposal and I think we should add it to the purposes in respeet of the four classes mentioned in the proposal.


Mr. RALSTON:: Will the minister look at the definition of miner? It sounded to me as if there was no inclusive class similar to the definition of lumberman.


Hugh Guthrie: If the hon. member could make it more inclusive I should be glad to hear his proposal. " ' Miners ' means and includes prospectors as well as workers in or about mines, and all persons who are engaged or employed in or about any of the processes of mining as an industry, including surface operations, as by washing, hauling, assaying and milling as well as operations under ground."


Angus MacInnis: I wish to propose an amendment to the amendment. Provision should be made so that men who are in un-

employment relief camps will not be deprived of their votes. It is very well known to everyone that men in the relief camps are more than twenty-five miles away from the place in which they are ordinarily registered and it is of little use to1 give them the right to the franchise unless you provide for their exercising it. I would move therefore that included among those who may vote by use of the absentee ballot there be added persons in any unemployment relief camp.


Hugh Guthrie: The section in regard to
relief camps has already been carried.


Angus MacInnis: No.


Charles Gavan Power: Not for voting in relief camps.


Hugh Guthrie: In relief camps anyone Who is a miner or lumberman or sailor or fisherman can vote, I fancy, by the use of the absentee ballot, provided his home is in the province. It could not be taken in British Columbia for use in Halifax, for instance, and he has to be on the list where the vote is counted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am in sympathy with the purpose of this legislation but it is limited distinctly to four classes of people: fishermen, sailors, lumbermen and miners. These men are undoubtedly in many instances remote from ordinary polling places, but there is another class which is just as important and unfortunately to-day it is very numerous, that is, men engaged in relief camps. We have already recognized this class by making provision that they may be registered in their home districts, but these home districts are sometimes one hundred or two or three hundred miles from the camp in Which they are temporarily employed. It is all very well to make provision for their registration, but it is useless unless we give them an opportunity for voting, and there seems no reason why they should be discriminated against. It would be an easy matter for the minister to include as a fifth group those engaged in relief camps. We have already dealt with them in the other act. They are a clearly defined class, and I would ask the minister to add them to the list. It is bad enough for people to be out of work through no fault of their own, but it would be a serious matter if they were in practice disfranchised.


Charles Gavan Power: With all reserve of rights as to whether we will accept the whole amendment or not, which it is difficult to accept without consideration-

Excise Act-Senate Amendments


Hugh Guthrie: I read it for the purpose of making it public.


Charles Gavan Power: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre very well eaid, we provide for the registration of men on unemployment relief; they are to be registered at the place from which they come before they enter the relief camps. There is no reason, if they are registered, why they should not poll their votes at the place at which they are when an election occurs. If we accept the principle and if it is found there are sufficient safeguards in the amendment as proposed by the minister, there is no reason why that category of person should not be added to the list of those who are to be included as voting as absentee voters.


Hugh Guthrie: That is, provided they are on the list.


Charles Gavan Power: That applies to everybody in any case, lumbermen, sailors and everyone else.


Mr. POULIOT:: With due reserve, I find the principle of this amendment unsound because a man has a right to vote in his constituency, in the area where he lives, and I do not see why a man should be permitted to vote within the province and outside the constituency in which he lives. This amendment has a strong smell of the War-time Elections Act. It .refers to fishermen, miners, sailors and lumbermen. If the ship of state docks at Riviere du Loup wharf with all its crew I am not afraid of it; we can take good care of it. But the principle is most unsound and it is absurd to give men the right to vote outside their constituency in order to fill the boxes with ballots of people who do not live in the constituency in which they vote.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not inclined to increase the list. In the last twenty-four hours I have heard many demands for increases for school teachers, ministers of the gospel, berry pickers and apple pickers. We have decided that this is a special privilege to the people to whom it has been given and it was in that light our committee discussed the matter.


Mr. MALONEY:: I rise to say a word in defence of the old act of 1930. I feel that every citizen of this country, man or woman, who is a British subject and is over the age of twenty-one, should have the right to vote. The old act was not so bad. While this may be better, I cannot see that it is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that it is now twenty-five minutes to twelve. This house decided that it would adjourn at eleven o'clock. It seems to me that this is stretching the matter almost too far. Evidently we cannot complete this bill to-night.
Progress reported.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that a mesage has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate doth insist upon their first, second and third amendments made to Bill No. 89, an act to amend and consolidate the Excise Act, and that the fourth amendment be amended by substituting for paragraph (b) of subclause (2) of new clause 169A, the following:
(b) that he exercised all reasonable care in respect of the person permitted to obtain the possession of such horses, vehicles, vessels or other appliances to satisfy himself that they were not likely to be used contrary to the provisions of this act or, if a mortgagee or lien-holder, that before becoming such mortgagee or lien-holder he exercised such care with respect to the mortgagor or lien-giver.


Robert Charles Matthews: Referring to the free conference held to-day, on behalf of the managers appointed by the House of Commons at the free conference with the managers appointed by the Senate in respect to amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 89, to amend and consolidate the Excise Act, I beg to present the following report:
Tour managers beg to report that they duly held a conference with the managers appointed by the Senate in respect to amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 89, of the House of Commons intituled: "An Act to amend and consolidate the Excise Act" and that the managers of the Senate have agreed to recommend that the Senate do not insist on their fourth amendment but agreed that the same be amended by substituting for paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of new clause 169A, the following:
"(b) that he exercised all reasonable care in respect of the person permitted to obtain the possession of such horses, vehicles, vessels or other appliances to satisfy himself that they were not likely to be used contrary to the provisions of this act or, if a mortgagee .or lien-holder, that before becoming such mortgagee or lien-holder he exercised such care with respect to the mortgagor or lien-giver."
Price Spreads

I move:
That this house do accept and concur in the first, second and third amendments by the Senate to Bill No. 89, intituled: "An Act to amend and consolidate the Excise Act" and also to the fourth amendment agreed to at the free conference with the Senate, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister if he would have any objection to making the last amendment retroactive? I ask him that seriously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He could not do that.
Motion agreed to on division.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Saturday, June 30, 1934