[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temisoouata): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to
present a petition of Jean-Frangois Pouliot, M.P., praying that the House of Commons may give due consideration to the attached report, of 138 pages, on the classification of one half of the unemployed on relief in this country.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens) moved:
That the first report of the joint committee on the printing of parliament, presented to the house on Friday, June 14, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretaiy of State):: On the orders of the day I wish to reply to an inquiry made yesterday by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I am instructed that in connection with the examination now being held by the civil service commission for clerks, grade 4, with university graduation, there appears to be a certain amount of misunderstanding. This is not a new class but one which has been in existence for several years, and positions in the class in general are not limited to university graduates nor to members of the male sex. The positions for which the current examination is being held, however, are suitable for men only, and on that account this particular examination was limited to male candidates, the commission feeling that it would be unfair to invite applications from female candidates when no positions were at present available for them. For positions in w'hich female appointees will be suitable, however, the examinations will be open to them.



MAJOR GENERAL ASHTON

Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday, in replying to a question of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), I stated that the salary which the chief of the general staff was to receive was 87,500. What I should have said was $8,000.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 109, to amend the Dominion Franchise Act.
Franchise Act-Mr. Cahan
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Last night I asked my right hon. friend about the order of the day and he specifically said that we would not take the Dominion Elections Act.


Mr. BENNETT:: This is not the Dominion Elections Act.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This bill was introduced yesterday and has been distributed to-day. I think we have the right to read the Dominion Franchise Act as it is and consider the purpose and the effect of this amendment. To move the second reading of this bill the day after its introduction would seem to be raither too much urgency.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps after I have explained the bill the hon. gentleman will have clear information regarding it and then, if it is necessary to consider it further, he will have full opportunity in committee of the whole house to discuss it at a later date.
Section 3 of the Dominion Franchise Act, which is the interpretation provision, defines the following terms:
"Commissioner" means the dominion franchise commissioner, who is appointed commissioner by resolution of the House of Commons under section 5 of the act;
"Registrar of Electors" means an officer appointed by the commissioner for each electoral district, pursuant to section 11 of the act:
"Electoral District" means any place or territorial area for which a member or members may be returned to serve in the House ' of Commons of Canada;
"Polling Division" means any division, subdivision, district, subdistrict or other territorial area within which a poll is held.
The commissioner was appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons. The registrars are appointed by the commissioner and the commissioner and registrars are responsible to the House of Commons and are really in effect officers of the House of Commons and entitled to the protection of this house. Section 7 of the act provides that:
7. (1) The commissioner shall-
(a)	exercise general direction, supervision and control over the administrative conduct of all registrations and revisions of lists of electors for dominion elections;
(b)	issue from time to time to franchise officers appointed under this act such instructions as may be deemed to be necessary to or proper for the securing of effective execution of the purposes of this act, and
(c)	hold all such franchise officers to fair and impartial performance of their duties and to faithful compliance with the provisions of this act.
The commissioner has issued his instructions to the registrars throughout Canada. The registrar as a franchise officer is subject to the direction, supervision and control of 
the commissioner, except, as provided in section 32, subsection 5, that in cases of appeals to a judge:
5. The judge shall report in writing to the registrar of electors the result of all such appeals as relate to such registrar's electoral district, and the registrar shall be governed in placing, retaining or removing any name on or from the list of electors by the decision of such judge concerning that name.
Sections 20 and 22 provide that, beginning with the year 1935, the revision of the lists shall begin on the 15th day of May and continue to the first day of July in each year.
Section 25 of the act provides that:
25. Any elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the electoral district of any registrar of electors may, at any time during the month of April in any year, by notice of objection in form No. 26, file with such registrar two copies of a notice in writing setting forth, with grounds, an objection to the retention of any name appearing on the then existing list of electors of any polling division. The notice shall state the actual post office address, if known, of the person against the retention of whose name on the list objection is made and, in any event, it shall state his address as appearing on such list. Objection may be made under this section on the grounds of death, removal, or want of qualification, or on any ground that would disqualify the elector from having his name retained or registered as an elector on any list of electors prepared under this act.
Objections are made in duplicate in form No. 26, and filed with the registrar. Form 26 reads as follows:
Form No. 26. (Sec. 25.)
Notice of Objection to Name on List
Electoral district of	
Province of	
To the registrar of electors of the above-mentioned electoral district:-
Take notice that I, an elector whose name appears on the list of electors of polling
division No	 of the above-mentioned
electoral district object to the retention of the name of (state name, and, if known, the actual post office address of the elector concerned) on the list of electors of polling division No	of that electoral district, on
the ground that (state ground). The address of such person as appearing on such list is (state the address) and his occupation as it appears thereon is that of a (state occupation) .
Date	
(Name of Objector.)
This is to be signed by the objecting elector.
Section 26 of the act provides as follows:
26. (1) Upon the receipt of a notice of objection in form No. 26 the registrar of electors shall forward to the person against whose name objection is made a notice in form No. 27 attaching a copy of the notice of objection, and' stating the place and date of the sitting of the court of revision at which the objection will be heard. The notice

Franchise Act-Mr. Cahan
shall be sent by registered mail addressed to the person at the address shown on the list on which his name appears; and where the address set forth in the notice of objection filed with the registrar differs from the address shown on the list, the registrar shall also send a copy of the notice, in form No. 26 by registered mail addressed to the person at the address set forth in the notice of objection.
(2) An objection under this section shall not be heard at any sitting of the court of revision which is held within fourteen days after the date of the mailing by the registrar of the notice in form No. 27 in respect of the objection.
Fourteen days must elapse between the mailing to the elector of the registrar's notice in form No. 27, and the hearing of the objection by the registrar sitting as a court of revision.
Section 28 of the act provides that the registrar of electors, sitting as a court of revision for his electoral district, shall revise the lists of electors, and the time is specified in the section which I have read as between May 15 and July 1 of each year.
Paragraph (b) of section 28 provides with respect to the registrar that:
(b) He shall deal with each objection separately upon the merits to be disclosed by examination on oath of the person making the objection, the person against whom the objection is made, and the witnesses present on their respective behalf.
I wish to call attention here to the fact that there is no provision in this franchise act and there has been no provision in any previous franchise act whereby witnesses can be summoned to appear at the court of revision. Paragraph (b) proceeds:
After each objection is dealt with the registrar shall, in his discretion, either strike off the name of the person from the list in which it appears or allow the name to stand. The onus of substantiating sufficient prima facie ground to strike off any name from the list shall be upon the elector making the objection, and it shall not be necessary for any elector against whom objection is made to adduce proof in the first instance that his name properly appears on the list, or until the registrar "avers that in his opinion prima facie ground to strike off the name has been established. The absence from a non-attendance at the court of revision at the time of the objection is dealt with of any person against whom objection is made shall not relieve the elector making the objection from substantiating a prima facie case by evidence which, in the absence of rebuttal evidence, is considered by the registrar sufficient to establish the fact that the name of the person objected to improperly appears on the list.
It will be noticed that, at t'he hearing of the objection, after the fourteen days' notice provided in section 27, subsection 1, the absence or non-attendance at the court of revision, at the time the objection is dealt with, does not relieve the elector making the
objection from substantiating a prima facie case by evidence, which, in the absence of rebuttal evidence, is considered by the registrar as sufficient to establish the fact that the name of the person objected to improperly appears on the list.
This paragraph (b) also provides that:
After each objection is dealt with the registrar shall, in his discretion, either strike off the name of the person from the list in which it appears or allow the name to stand,
This statutory discretion is the discretion of the registrar, and not the discretion of any other person.
There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the words prima facie. Murray's New English Dictionary, the Oxford edition, defines prima facie as "at first sight"; "on the face of it"; "as appears at first without investigation"; "based or founded on the first impression." Cases, to which I desire to draw the attention of the house for a few minutes, have arisen in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, Montreal, which I have had the honour to represent in this house for the past ten years.
During the past twenty-five years the fraudulent impersonation of persons, whose names are on the voters' list, has prevailed to an alarming extent at both federal and provincial elections in this district. On several occasions, before the standing committee on privileges and elections and before this house, I have discussed these matters very frankly.
During the month of February last a group of young men and women determined to ascertain whether the lists of electors, as recently compiled. represented electors actually resident in the various polling divisions of this electoral district, or whether the lists contained, as had been suggested, the names of persons who were disqualified! from voting as being aliens, dead or absentees. In all, about seventy investigators undertook to visit each residence or the apartments in each residence in the district to ascertain the facts. A card system for the residents of the entire district was also prepared by which the names on the list could be compared with the ascertained facts. It was ascertained by this careful investigation and scrutiny that between four and five thousand of the names on the list did not represent qualified voters resident in the district, and these names were checked by investigators two or three times before notices of objection were filed.
Prior to April 30 last qualified voters of this electoral district, who had, in each case, personally investigated the facts, prepared and filed with the registrar written objections,
Franchise Act-Mr. Cahan

in duplicate, in form No. 26, signed in each case by the objecting voter. The registrar thereupon mailed by registered' post, as prescribed by the act, one copy of the objection together with the registrar's notice in form No. 27 in respect to each objection, addressed' to the name and residence of the alleged elector, as his name appeared on the .ist of voters for one of the polling divisions of the electoral district. These envelopes, so addressed and registered, were returned through the post to the registrar, with the exception of less than four hundred, I aim informed, with the postman's note thereon, 'Removed," "Not known at this address" or the like.
These facts disclosed that there were several thousand names on the lists of voters for these polling divisions in this electoral district, who were not qualified by residence as voters in the district. The retention of these names on the lists would, at the ensuing election, facilitate impersonation and fraudulent voting to an unprecedented extent-and when I say that, it means something, because there are precedents for impersonation in that district that have had no equal in any other constituency in Canada of which I know.
There is no provision in the present act, nor in any previous act, for the issuing of a summons or subpoena to compel tlhe attendance of witnesses. The objector, in each case of the first lot of objections filed, attended before the registrar and on oath proved that he had investigated and made search and found that the person objected to was not resident at the address indicated on the list of voters. In addition, the registrar had the registered mail returned as I have stated, which he had sent out to the elector at his address as shown on the various voters' lists.
To facilitate such investigations upon which the objector had to rely, the present act provides that in urban polling divisions the names shall be entered by streets, roads, avenues, arranged in form No. 13, thus giving the number of the alleged place of residence on each such street, road or avenue in the urban electoral district. When these cases came before the registrar, he had before him the returned envelope sent by registered mail to the alleged voter at his address as it appeared on the list of electors, and he took the evidence on oath of the objecting voter, who previously had personally investigated the facts.
The registrar thereupon in the exercise of his statutory discretion found in a large number of cases that a prima facie case had

been made out for the removal of names from the lists, and he thereupon called upon any person who wished1 to produce rebuttal evidence to do so at a date fixed. In none of these cases was any rebuttal evidence whatever offered. The registrar thereupon proceeded and struck from the list of objections first heard something less than two hundred names. A notice of appeal to the chief justice of the superior court of the Montreal district was thereupon filed by or on behalf of an elector, who in no case was the elector objected to and who admittedly had no personal knowledge of the facts. In one hundred and five of the cases in which such objections were filed and appeals so asserted, which first went on appeal before the chief justice, the objector had failed after exhaustive search in sixteen of the cases to find the new address, if any, of the elector whose name was objected to. But as to what be did, I am going to call attention to a few of the facts.
Mr. Henri Bougearel resided at 1429 Bishop street in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. His name appears on the list of electors for polling division No. 31. An investigator, who is an elector in this district, made inquiry and by investigation ascertained that this gentleman was not a British subject, and then filed with the registrar an objection in writing, in duplicate, in form 26 against the retention of this name on the list of electors. On April 24 last the registrar, by registered mail, sent a copy of this notice, together with a notice in form 27, signed by himself as Registrar of Electors and' Revision Officer, to Mr. Henri Bougearel at the address show-n on the list. On April 30 this gentleman replied in a letter to the registrar, acknowledging receipt of this notice and stating that, as a French citizen, he was not entitled to have his name inscribed on the Canadian electoral lists, signing himself as Vice-Consul of France, and requesting that his name be removed from the list. When the case was called by the registrar, the investigator gave evidence accordingly. The registrar then decided that a prima facie case had, in his opinion, been made out, and called for any rebuttal evidence. No evidence in rebuttal being forthcoming, the registrar struck Mr. Bougearel's name from the list.
The chief justice 'held, on appeal, that there was no legal evidence on which the registrar could exercise discretion, and ordered this gentleman's name entered on the list of electors as a resident of this electoral district.
Take another case. The late Mrs. J. G. Greaves, a lady quite well known in her vicinity, resided during her lifetime at No.

Franchise Act-Mr. Cahan
3517 St. Famille Street in this same electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. An investigator made an investigation and ascertained from her former neighbours that Mrs. Greaves had died, and then filed his objection in duplicate with the registrar in form 26, one copy of which the registrar sent by registered mail, with his own notice in form 27, to the address of the late Mrs. Greaves as shown on the voter's list for polling division No. 17. The registered letter was received by the late Mrs. Greaves' married daughter, Mrs. Shehyn, who opened the letter addressed to her mother, apparently not knowing the purport of a registered letter arriving in that way. Ascertaining that this was a notice with regard to the possible removal of her mother's name from the list, she wrote to the registrar confirming that her mother was dead. The investigator, not knowing of this letter to the registrar, again visited the neighbourhood and ascertained that Mr. Shehyn, who I believe lived in the vicinity, was a son-in-law of the deceased lady. Thereupon he called personally upon Mr. Shehyn and confirmed the fact of Mrs. Greaves' death.
The chief justice has held that these facts did not constitute a prima facie case upon which the registrar, in the exercise of his discretion, could order the removal of the late Mrs. Greaves' name from the list of voters. In open court, as reported by the court stenographer, the chief justice said:
I would not take the word of the son-in-law, Mr. Witness. The wish was father to the thought.
The chief justice thereupon declared to counsel:
You will proceed as you would before the court and prove the death of Mrs. Greaves in the proper manner or not at all.
This chief justice is expert in criminal cases. I suppose if this were a murder case some additional evidence would have to be provided showing the death, such as bringing in the undertaker or something like that.


Mr. POWER:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has no right to criticize a judge of the superior court of the province of Quebec.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am restraining myself very much; I have not and will not cast any reflection upon the chief justice.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. gentleman is getting worse and worse.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I did not understand the Secretary of State to criticize the judge. He stated that in a criminal case the chief justice might require a little different evidence or a
higher class of evidence than he might require in a case of this kind, but the Secretary of State did not criticize the chief justice, as I understand it.


Charles Gavan Power: May I explain, Mr. Speaker, that the chief justice of the province of Quebec is well and widely known throughout that province as having been one of the best criminal lawyers to practise there. The indirect reference by my hon. friend is to the effect that he imputes to the chief justice a lack of knowledge of any other law than criminal law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Nonsense.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the remark to which I object.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If there was any such imputation I withdraw it at once, but I am going on to read from the final judgment of the chief justice, as reported and signed by him.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: The chief justice was right, the proof was not sufficient. The certificate of death should have been filed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There will be ample opportunity to discuss these points later. In his final ruling the chief justice said :
Fortunately for the dead persons there is no proof of their death, and so far as the registrar is concerned and the proof made, they are alive.
I will restrain myself as much as possible, but I am not impressed-


Charles Gavan Power: I again rise to a point of order. At page 96 of Beauchesne I read:
(j) cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts unless such conduct is based upon a substantive motion;
I submit, sir, with all respect that the Secretary of State is casting reflections on the conduct of a judge of the superior court of Quebec.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The facts may oast some reflection, but I am not doing so.


Charles Gavan Power: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I quite agree with the authority that has been quoted but, as I stated a moment ago, I did not understand the Secretary of State to be casting reflections upon the judge. He is stating certain facts and says that he differs with the findings of the judge.


Charles Gavan Power: As to the conduct of the judge.
Franchise Act-Mr. Cahan


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No, he does not agree with the findings of the judge and he brings in an amendment to the act to overcome a situation which he thinks is contrary to the spirit of the act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 
Mr. DUPUIS:: Are you going to read them all?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, but I shall give various illustrations.
Mrs. C. Preston and her son, Austin Preston, formerly resided at No. 1426 Crescent street, in polling division No. 31 of the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. Before moving from this residence, an investigator interviewed Mrs. Preston early in April last, when she stated that she and her son were moving to Portland, Ontario. Later the same investigator ascertained from Mrs. Preston's son, Mr. R. W. Preston, who is in the employ of the Dominion Rubber Company, at Montreal, where he now works, that his mother and brother had removed to Portland, Ontario, and Mr. R. W. Preston, in the presence of the investigator and another witness, signed a declaration in writing to that effect. The same procedure was followed before the registrar.


Mr. RINFRET:: Did the chief justice give separate rulings on each of those cases, or did he give only one ruling, involving all of them?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He gave one ruling, and placed them all back on the lists.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The minister is leaving the impression that separate decisions were given in each case.

Franchise Act-Mr. Cahan


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, they were, but given in one writing. Then to continue with the facts of this case: The investigator gave evidence accordingly, and the registrar struck from the list of electors of poll No. 31 the names of those who had removed their residence to Portland, Ontario.


Vincent Dupuis: We know them all by heart.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The chief justice, without hearing any evidence whatever, ordered the names of Mrs. Charles Preston and her son, Austin Preston, re-entered on the list of electors for poll No. 31 in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. In view of the suggestion which has been made, I am refraining from comments.
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Wilson formerly resided at No. 1446 Crescent street, in polling division No. 31 of the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. An investigator visited this residence and ascertained from a Miss Mallinson that Mr. and Mrs. Wilson had removed on November 22, 1634, to another residence at 1866 Dorchester street west, which is outside the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. Thereupon Mr. and Mrs. Wilson were both interviewed by the investigator at their new residence in another electoral district, and each of them signed a declaration in writing, in the presence of the investigator and another witness, that since November 22, 1934, they had resided and now reside at 1866 Dorchester street west, which is in another constituency. The investigator gave evidence on oath accordingly before the registrar, who called for rebuttal evidence, and, none being forthcoming, the registrar struck the names of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Wilson from the list of electors for polling division No. 31. The chief justice in like manner, without hearing further evidence, ordered the names of both Mr. and Mrs. Wilson re-entered on the list of electors for polling division No. 31, in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George.


Mr. RALSTON:: The minister said "The chief justice, without hearing further evidence"; was further evidence tendered?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, none. What happened was-


James Layton Ralston: It seems to me that is a comment which reflects directly upon the judge and is not justified.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am stating the facts.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is suggesting, by saying that no further evidence was heard, that the evidence was tendered and not received.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, no further evidence was tendered.


James Layton Ralston: The minister did not say that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps not but I thought I was saying it.


James Layton Ralston: He said: The chief justice, without hearing further evidence-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Without hearing further
evidence.


James Layton Ralston: That means notwithstanding.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Notwithstanding?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It suggested that he gave his decision without hearing the evidence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, no. What the chief justice has said is that in each of these cases the lack of qualification or lack of residence must be proved with all the particularity required in a criminal or civil case.


Charles Gavan Power: He has decided in each of these cases that these persons will not be disfranchised under the Franchise Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They should be disfranchised in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George anyway. This is a new electoral list. The chief justice ordered the names of both Mr. and Mrs Wilson reentered on the list of electors for polling division No. 31 in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George, in which they have not resided since November 22 of last year.
There is another case. Doctor J. R. Malone, who is well known, formerly resided at No. 1436 Crescent street in polling division No. 31 in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. An investigator, upon visiting this residence, ascertained from Mrs. Berri, the landlady, that Doctor Malone had removed to Gatineau street. The investigator found Doctor Malone at his new residence, No. 5381 Gatineau street, in another electoral district, and the doctor, in the presence of the investigator and another witness, declared in writing that on October 15, 1934, he had moved from his former residence to his new residence, which is in another constituency outside the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. The investigator gave evidence on oath before the registrar, who declared that a prima facie case had been made for the removal of this name from the list of electors for poll No. 31 in St. Lawrence-St. George, and then, in the absence of rebuttal evidence, struck Doctor Malone's name from that list.

Franchise Act-Mr. Cahan
When the matter came before the chief justice no further rebuttal evidence was submitted with respect to Doctor Malone and no further evidence was heard, and the chief justice ordered Doctor Malone's name reentered on the list of electors for polling division No. 31 in the electoral district St. Lawrence-St. George, in which he has not resided since October 15, 1934.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Did the chief justice mention Doctor Malone's name specifically in his judgment?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In all the cases in which appeals have been made he ordered that the names as they were before him be entered on the list.


Paul Mercier: On the general principles of evidence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Too general. Here is another case: Mr. Kingsley Davey formerly resided at No. 1481 Bishop street in polling division No. 31 of the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. An investigator, upon inquiry at this residence, ascertained from the janitor of the building that Mr. Davey had moved to 3465 Cote des Neiges road, in another electoral district. The investigator sought out Mr. Davey and obtained from him a declaration in writing, signed in his presence and in the presence .of a second witness, that on November 30, 1934, he had removed to No. 3465 Cote des Neiges road, in another constituency, where he now resides. The investigator gave evidence accordingly on oath before the registrar, who said a prima facie case had been made out, called for rebuttal evidence, and, none being forthcoming, he struck Mr. Davey's name from the list. In the same manner and under the same circumstances the chief justice ordered Mr. Davey's name re-en'tered on the list of electors for polling division No. 31 in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George, in which he has not resided since November 30, 1934.
Miss Ruth Stericker formerly resided at No. 1535 Bishop street, in polling division No. 31 of the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. An investigator was informed by Miss Corbett at this address that Miss Stericker had removed to 3816 Oxford avenue, Notre Dame de Grace, and subsequently he personally interviewed Miss Stericker and obtained from her a declaration in writing as to her removal and that she had not resided in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George since October 27, 1934.
I could go on at considerable length with these cases, but I wish to state this, that in all the 105 cases which were on appeal in which
92582-238i
the question of an address came into the issue the new addresses were obtained by the investigator in every case except 16. With regard to those 16 a careful examination of nearly every house in which they could possibly reside in St. Lawrence-St. George was made, and no evidence could be obtained of any old or new address. All of these names were ordered to be re-entered on the list of electors.
Now, generally speaking, that same condition will apply to several thousand names in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, names that we are absolutely sure are not the names of persons entitled to be registered in that electoral district. Affidavits were furnished with regard to this.


Charles Gavan Power: Furnished to whom?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Affidavits were furnished to the registrar and affidavits were produced before the chief justice on behalf of the investigator who investigated, and the chief justice said he would refuse to read a single affidavit, and he did refuse to read a single affidavit. His entire point apparently was this, that, in case of death, evidence in each case must be produced before the registrar as to the fact that these people were dead such as would be brought in a civil case, the proof of a will, for instance, or, as I said without offence, in a criminal case as to the death of the person alleged to be murdered. Now that was never the intention of this act or of any other franchise act which ever passed this house. If that had been the intention there would have been means provided whereby a subpoena or summons could issue out of the registrar's court to compel witnesses to attend. If these cases are to be fought out as an ordinary suit in a court is contested, if that is to be the issue, then I must bring, from the constituency of St. Lawrence St.-George, before the twenty-one judges of the superior court 5,000 cases of persons whose names I contend should be struck out and 2,500 cases of persons will have moved into that district and whose names should go on the list. But that never was the intention.


Charles Gavan Power: Why not?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because there is no provision to that effect.


Charles Gavan Power: The court has authority to issue subpoenas.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What court?


Charles Gavan Power: The court of revision.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not in these cases.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly it has.
Franchise Act-Mr. Cahan


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly not. There is no provision for issuing subpoenas, and if there were, why should a member or candidate in St. Lawrence-St. George in order to get rid of five thousand names, of possible use to impersonators, be put to the expense of litigating in the courts five thousand cases which could not be litigated at a less expense than $200 each.


Charles Gavan Power: Why not pass a decent act?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The law is passed, and I say this without reflection that no other judge from the Atlantic to the Pacific-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Order. Mr. Speaker-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am going to repeat that sentence because it is no reflection at all. I say that no other judge in the course of this revision, so I am informed by the dominion franchise commissioner, has taken that same view of the law.


Charles Gavan Power: It has not been put before any other judge.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In what province?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend is talking
without knowledge.


Charles Gavan Power: I am talking with knowledge.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under these circumstances-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Cite any other case.


Charles Gavan Power: Quote another case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am stating-


Charles Gavan Power: Quote any other case, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not going into it,
but I have in mind another constituency in which there were eight thousand.


Charles Gavan Power: Have the cases been put
before a judge?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Some of them have.


Charles Gavan Power: And has the judge given a
decision?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The judge has followed the ordinary course.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the ordinary
course?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The ordinary course is laid
down, that the registrar who sits in the first case must decide from the evidence submitted as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. If he so decides and states

that in his opinion a prima facie case has been made out, then he calls for rebuttal evidence.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. gentleman
state that case, and the judge and the court.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with this case in this court.


Charles Gavan Power: I am asking the hon. gentleman to state any other case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not going into other
cases; I am dealing now with this case.


Charles Gavan Power: You cannot give any other case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with this case.


Charles Gavan Power: Give us another.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can go on with scores
of cases.


Charles Gavan Power: Give us another case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What I am saying is that
the ordinary course is that the registrar, having decided that a prima facie case has been made out, calls upon others present for rebuttal evidence, gives them time to produce the evidence and, no rebuttal evidence having been adduced, he then exercises the statutory discretion which is vested in him and in no other person, and he removes that name from the list. And I say there is no judicial authority in this country who has the right to reinstate that name on the list without some affirmative proof that the person is not dead, that his residence is in the district or polling division in which the name is to be reinstated, and that the person whose name is so reinstated is a qualified elector.


Charles Gavan Power: There is a judicial authority, the chief justice of the province of Quebec. He is the judicial authority.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If you wish to discuss that,
come on any public platform where I can talk freely. What I am saying is this-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Bring on the election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What I am saying is this.
My hon. friends may make any suggestions they like; I am not saying that they are doing it, I am not saying that any Liberal committee is doing it, but in the constituency of St. Lawrenoe-St. George there are not going to be facilities for five thousand impersonations. I have known in one of my own elections one thousand men to be impersonated before twelve o'clock in the day.


Charles Gavan Power: It is too bad for you to
have done that.

Franchise Act-Mr. Power


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, all I can say is, look at the election expenditure returns.


Charles Gavan Power: That clearly shows you must have done it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman inr
sinuates-


Charles Gavan Power: I am not insinuating anything.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then don't make that statement; it is one you dare not make outside this assembly. Now, the result is that in order to make the procedure clear I am proposing that the law should be amended to this effect-and I think it is a very fair provision. This bill may not be enacted into law to be of advantage to me but it will be, I trust, a law that will preserve a certain decency in election campaigns and electioneering practice in the city of Montreal. I am not saying anything about the city of Quebec; I presume they do not follow Montreal practices down there.


Charles Gavan Power: That is a rather nasty statement to make.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have there been any objections raised outside the division of St. Lawrence-St. George?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps not. What I propose is that a new subsection 5 be added to section 32 of the Dominion Franchise Act, reading:
(5) Upon the hearing of any such appeal from any final ruling which the registrar of electors, sitting as a court of revision, may, in the exercise of his discretion, have made, placing, retaining or removing the name of any person on or from the list of electors of any polling division in the electoral district of such registrar, the judge shall not rescind such final ruling of the registrar nor order that the name of such person shall be placed, retained or removed on or from the list of electors for any polling division of such electoral district, except evidence satisfactory to the judge has been adduced at such hearing that such person is a qualified elector whose place of residence is in the said polling division and that his name should be placed or retained on such list, or that such person is not a qualified elector whose place of residence is in said polling division and that his name should be removed from such list.
All I am asking is that any judge on appeal, before he orders the re-entry of a name objected to on the list of any polling section in any electoral district, shall have before him, adduced at such hearing, evidence satisfactory to him that such person is a qualified elector in that district.


Charles Gavan Power: We have reached a rather pretty pass in this parliament. First of all we have an act to deal
with the elections in one province and now we have an act to deal with the elections in one constituency. I had almost suggested to my bon. friend that this be referred to the private bills committee; this is essentially a private bill. One of my hon. friends has just whispered to me that it might be entitled, "A bill for the relief of Charles H. Oahan." So far as I am aware, nowhere else throughout Canada has a similar situation arisen; at any rate, if it has, no one appears to have complained. It is true my hon. friend a moment ago stated-and I think perhaps,, in the excitement of the moment, he stated what was not quite accurate-that some other judge had given a decision different from that of the chief justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. I asked him to cite a case and he spoke of registrars acting as a court of revision, but he did not mention the name of any other judge nor of any constituency in which a similar complaint had been made.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There was no cause for it.


Charles Gavan Power: No cause for it? Then I should like to pin my hon. friend down to that statement. When he said that no other judge, from one end of the country to the other, had rendered a similar decision, what did he mean?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will tell you what I meant if you want to hear.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, I do.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I made an inquiry of the dominion franchise commissioner as to whether other judges in Canada were taking the same attitude as that taken by Chief Justice Greenshieldis. He told me that he had been in communication with a number of judges with regard to the administration of the act and that no other judge had adopted the same view with regard to re-entries of names in the lists of electors.


Charles Gavan Power: The point I am making is this: The hon. gentleman has said that other judges have taken views different from those of Chief Justice Greenshields. No other judge has had similar cases laid before him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. member say so?


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member said so himself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not,


Charles Gavan Power: I asked the hon. member to cite any case. He said that no other judge from one end of the country to the other had given a similar judgment. I said: Quote any instance in which a similar case was put
Franchise Act-Mr. Power

before a judge, and the hon. gentleman said that the dominion franchise commissioner had talked to a judge. My hon. friend has been practising law for forty or fifty years and he knows he cannot in this house quote as a judgment a conversation someone has had with a judge outside a court. We do not have to teach the. hon. gentleman law; siurely he knows it.
What is the object of this bill? It is, as I understand the matter, twofold. The first Object- is, under the provisions of a franchise act, mind you,.to disfranchise 4,000 voters who, the chief justice of Quebec said, were entitled to vote. The second object is to render valid, to legalize the proceedings -of the political organization presided over by -the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. Those are the two 'main objects of this bill.
I suggested a moment ago that perhaps this bill might very .properly be sent to the private bills committee. I do not wish to raise the point, but I think it is a point that could be raised that the minister is acting rather improperly in introducing in this house a bill in which he has a personal political interest. I suggest to him that with his knowledge of British constitutional practice, with his knowledge of parliamentary practice and with his long experience in parliamentary affairs, had he reflected a little bit he would perhaps have asked the Minister of Justioe, who after all is the man who originally introduced the franchise act, to introduce any amending bill, instead of the Secretary of State, introducing a measure to deal with a condition which, according to him exists in his own constituency. I doubt very much whether the Minister of Justice would have come before this house with a bill dealing with only one constituency. Is every hon. member opposite going to say in the house: Such a condition exists in my constituency; I might be defeated in the next election; give me a new election act, one for me, one for the Minister of Justice, and for the chief whip, one for the hon. member for Pict-ou.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I do not need one.


Charles Gavan Power: Are we going to come to that in this house? Are we going to have 245 special election acts, one for each and every one of us? Is that the way we are going to carry on the business of the country? Is that the way we are going to legislate? This all comes from one thing: In 1929-30, after a good deal of labour participated in conscientiously by members on both sides of the house, an act was passed by the unanimous consent of the parliament of that dayK

an act which the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney), speaking last year, said-I have not his exact words before me- was a good act, and he objected to any change in the 1930 act. That act was passed with the consent of every hon. member. One of its main objects was to see to it that, in future, elections were in so far as possible taken out of politics. By the act of 1930 we provided that instead of returning officers being appointed by ministers of the crown, by orders in council or by recommendations of ministers of the crown, from then on they would be appointed by a man who was appointed unanimously by this house, namely the chief electoral officer, and that the returning officers should be permanent. It is true that in certain constituencies-and I see opposite me the hon. member for Pictou- complaints were made that the chief electoral officer had not appointed the returning officer in a nonpartisan manner; but generally speaking, throughout the length and breadth of the land, the returning officers were men of high standing, high qualifications, men holding public office of some kind or another and satisfactory not only to the people but to the members of parliament themselves. However a few hon. members opposite, in order to control what they thought was the electoral machine, began to protest against the act of 1930, and because under the 1930 act the lists were made after the dissolution of parliament and after the writs had been issued so that that act took something like fifty-eight days for its operation between the time the writs were issued and the elections could take place, under the guise, mind you, of trying to shorten the election period they tore up the 1930 act and brought in two acts. How did they shorten the election period? Every hon. member knows this 1934 franchise act has been used as an excuse by hon. gentlemen opposite to remain in office ever since December, 1934, when they should have gone before the people. They know every time we have asked them to appeal to the people, they have said: Oh. we cannot; the lists are not ready; they are not printed; we must have a new revision of the lists, the very revision which my hon. friend wishes to tear up. We are told we must have a new revision to put 400,000 new voters on the lists. My hon. friend in his own constituency wants to knock off 9,000 of those 400,000. Did he say 9,000, or was it 5,000? He wants to knock off more than his proportion of the 400,000 new voters my hon. friends opposite want put on. Therefore the excuse for keeping this parliament in being, that we need to put on

Franchise Act-Mr. Guthrie
400,000 new voters, falls to the ground at least so far as the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George is concerned. If he is going to knock off 9,000 and add only his proportion of the 400.000, he is going to have a minus quantity in so far as the excuse given for holding this parliament in session so long is concerned.
It was decided that we would have a new electoral list for one reason only, and that was in order to get rid of the returning officers who had been appointed impartially by a public officer, the chief electoral officer appointed by joint vote of the House of Commons. That was the sole, the real reason, and what has happened? We have got this election act. There is hardly an hon. member who will be willing to rise in his place and say that the franchise act is a good act; that the Dominion Elections Act is a good act. Both of those acts have been proved to be just the same as pieces of legislation that have been passed time and again under this government, without thought, ill conceived and impossible of administration. This act has been extremely difficult of administration. We spent-I speak subject to correction-over a million dollars during the course of the last year in the general registration. What this revision is going to cost the Lord only knows, and according to my hon. friend's own statement the lists are not complete* Not only are they not complete but they are badly made and in his riding according to his own statement they leave room for fraud, for corruption, for impersonation, and for every species of electoral trick. That is the position we have reached by endeavouring to tamper with an act which was passed with honest intent by the unanimous consent of all the members of this house.
I should like to deal for a moment with some of the suggestions made by my hon. friend the Secretary of State. He cited some forty or fifty cases perhaps out of the total of four thousand. In the large majority of those cases, to which I listened very carefully, the question involved was this: Miss Comeau, or Doctor Maloney, had moved from such an address in such a street to another constituency. My hon. friend through his agents, through these young men of whom he speaks, traced these people, made complaint to the effect that they had left their former places of residence and had moved to another constituency, and he comes to ask us to pass a law whereby those people, about whose right to vote there is no question whatsoever, who are over twenty-one years of age, British subjects living in Canada shall be deprived of
their right to vote, because his investigators inquired from the janitor as to whether or not they were living in such a place and found that they were not. To that, sir, I object, and to that I think most of the members of the Liberal party will object. This act was passed as a franchise act, not as a disfranchising act. Until such time as my hon. friend can show to the house that he or his agents have made provision whereby Doctor Maloney who has moved from one constituency to another will not be deprived of his right to vote I think he has no right to ask us to pass any such legislation as this. If my hon. friend will show us that those voters will still be entitled to use their franchise in this country as Canadian citizens, then perhaps we will give some consideration to his bill. Until he does so I object, and I shall certainly vote against the second reading of the bill. '


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I in the first place say that the administration of the franchise act and all that has to do with the franchise commissioner is under the Department of the Secretary of State and not the Department of Justice. It is for that reason, I assume, that the Secretary of State has brought in the present bill. He certainly is the appropriate minister to do so. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) must be under some misapprehension as to the meaning and intent of this proposed amendment. He seems to think that it is confined in its application to a single constituency. That is entirely erroneous. If passed it will apply to every constituency in the Dominion of Canada. It is brought in to clarify something which may be doubtful in the present act. To my mind there is little doubt about it, but through judgments rendered by the chief justice of the province of Quebec the intent of the act is not being carried out in regard to certain cases which have arisen in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George in that province.
I well remember what took place in this house when the franchise act was passed, because I had the honour of conducting that bill through the house-


Charles Gavan Power: Why not the Secretary of State?


Hugh Guthrie: -and I remember quite well how definitely we decided that a registrar of electors should be appointed in each riding, in whom should be vested discretion both to add and to remove names from the voters' list upon a proper case being made
Franchise Act-Mr. Guthrie

out. That met with the approval of the house, and that discretion was vested in the registrar in each constituency. It was only after the committee which was discussing the bill had had several meetings that a suggestion came that there should be any appeal whatever from the ruling of the registrar. Finally the committee decided that an appeal should be provided for from the decision of the registrar to various judges in the various provinces.
Now the registrar in the first instance does not act autocratically. He has placed before him in writing the reasons why a certain name should be removed from the list, either death or removal or some other reason, and upon evidence being brought in support of that application, to remove a name the registrar acts in his discretion and rules that the name shall either be taken from or retained on the list. From that ruling there is an appeal to the judge. Now, if I understood aright the statement which was made in this house to-day, in one instance or in a number of instances before one judge the view of that judge has been that unless evidence is adduced before him he has a right to set aside the discretion which we understood we had vested in the registrar in the first instance. Without evidence being tendered or heard a judge in the province of Quebec in a great number of cases has given judgment that names shall remain on the list notwithstanding that the registrar in his discretion had removed them. All I can say is that if that is the effect of the law which we passed last session it was not the intention of parliament. If the decision of that judge be - correct and be valid throughout Canada then the discretion which we vested in the registrar may be swept aside in every case without any evidence.


Mr. EULER:: What is the use of the appeal?


Hugh Guthrie: There would be no use of the registrar giving a decision. If there is doubt about the matter-it is true that only one judge as far as I am aware has made such a ruling, but if that ruling should be followed in other cases then it is necessary that this house make a declaration, as contained in this bill, that a judge shall not order names to be restored or removed without hearing evidence id the matter. That is all that is asked in this amendment. It will clear the matter up and remove doubt in the future. This does not apply to St. Lawrence-St. George riding particularly, but to every riding in the Dominion * 1 Canada.

There has been an attempt on the part of the hon. member for Quebec South to cast some reflections upon the Dominion Franchise Act and upon the Dominion Elections Act, which were passed last session after very serious consideration by this parliament, and with very little difference of opinion. I am not going beyond the facts when I say that they were passed practically unanimously. There were some differences in regard to details; there were some slight amendments offered which were rejected, but these acts fairly represent the consensus of opinion of this parliament. My hon. friend from Quebec Sodth says there was no need for them. One thing I think we all agree we did need was a definite franchise act in the Dominion of Canada, and that is the act which my hon. friend the Secretary of State now seeks to amend, to explain and to clarify.
The other was in regard to a dominion elections act. Unfortunately, under the former act we were in the position that on the dissolution of parliament, or in the case of a by-election, in an ordinary constituency something like fifty days had to elapse between the issue of the writ and the polling. In Great Britain in twenty-one days parliament can be dissolved and a new parliament seated at Westminster. They have a basic list always ready. We formed the design, and I think my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in agreement with us, that a basic list would be an excellent thing in this country. Now we have a basic list and that list is open to revision once a year. Under the new election law the house can be dissolved and an election brought on in twenty-eight dlays. That is a tremendous advantage over the other elongated system of bringing on an election in this country.


Charles Gavan Power: Apart from the month
and a half or two months it takes to revise the lists.


Hugh Guthrie: We do not need to delay an election by reason of the revision of the lists; that has never been asserted in this house by any minister of the crown as a reason for the delay of dissolution. Who has ever asserted that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The Prime Minister.


Hugh Guthrie: The question is one of
propriety. We could dissolve to-day and hold an election in twenty-eight or thirty days, but would it be a proper thing to do in the midst of a revision of the list? It is a question of propriety. I have heard it stated that 'there will be three or four hundred

Franchise Act-Mr. Rinjret
thousand new names added to the list. I doubt that very much. In my judgment one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand would be the most that would be added.


Charles Gavan Power: I quoted the figures given
from the other side.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it would
be a very great outrage to dissolve the house, if it were necessary to do so, in the middle of a revision notwithstanding that certain men would be disfranchised, but the whole question is one of propriety. There is nothing to prevent us dissolving to-day and having the election within thirty days. It was with that object in view that the basic list was established. My hon. friend from Quebec South condemns the whole system, though he was a party to its enactment and as yet it has not been tried out in an election. He is condemning it entirely in advance. I am satisfied that the act will prove to be a good, expeditious act and that it will receive the approval of both sides of the house after it has been in operation for a general election. The present amendment does not affect the election act at all; it is simply an attempt to clarify the law, and if the statements made by my hon. friend the Secretary of State are correct I think it is time we settled that disputed point in this house.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, first I desire to protest, together with my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power), against any amendment to either the election act or the franchise act in the dying hours of the session and on the eve of an election. I think everyone not directly interested in the matter will agree that on the eve of an election there always will be suspicion in the minds of the people that whatever amendment is brought in by the government is not intended1 to bring justice and fair play in the election but rather to devise some advantage for themselves at the last moment. This is my first objection to this bill, and this also will be my objection to the bill providing that the province of Saskatchewan will pronounce on this government in a different way from' the other eight provinces of the dominion.
In my opinion this bill is even more contentious, because it deals-if not in principle at least in fact-with just one constituency in the Dominion of Canada. It is true that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), trying to throw oil on the waters said in a very dispassionate way that this would apply everywhere, but it will not be required anywhere else than in the constituency of St. Lawrenoe-St. George, because nowhere else have the same circumstances appeared.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should just like to tell
the hon. gentleman, as I have already said, that I know of one other constituency-and I am not going into any details-where there are five thousand cases of the same kind outstanding.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think it will
help the case if it is shown that there may be two constituencies affected, but my information is that it only deals with one. And mind you, Mr. Speaker, this bill must be through within a few days or it will not apply. It is being practically rushed' through in order to alter the conditions of the election in my hon. friend's constituency.
I think the Minister of Justice has made a very noble effort to try to place the Secretary of State in a somewhat better light than he placed himself. The Minister of Justice said that the operation of the act was under the direction of the Secretary of State, but he admitted that he introduced the act that was brought in last year. What does it mean when the Minister of Justice introduces an act but, when any amendment is required, it is brought in by the Secretary of State? That is a very peculiar situation. I think the Minister of Justice, who is very genial, realized that the Secretary of State had placed himself in such a disgraceful position that he had to interfere and say this was according to the routine of the departments. He introduced the act; my hon. friend the Secretary of State now seeks to amend it, and if further amendment is needed I suppose the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) will put it through.
The main objection we have to this bill, Mr. Speaker, is not that it amends an act but that it does so in the course of the operation of that act. Last year the bill was passed unanimously, which makes it even more imperative that it should n.ot be amended' by the consent of only one of the parties in this house. We all consented to the bill last year. We say very candidly that we did so in the spirit of compromise. I, together with many members on this side, do not believe in a fixed, permanent Mat. We rather think the old system of having the list prepared or revised at the last moment, on the eve of an election, was a better system. But we discussed it on this side, and I suppose the same thing took place on the other side, and in the spirit of compromise we agreed to accept the bill. The government gave way a little, I will admit, in providing that the list should be prepared by two enumerators, one representing each party. The lists were prepared last fall, according to the act; they were being revised this spring, also according to the act, the
Franchise Act-Mr. Rinjret

compromise entered into by both parties and I suppose even the third party in the corner, but at the last moment, because my hon. friend' the Secretary of State thinks he is going to be bothered or annoyed personally in his own riding, he has introduced a bill to amend that act that was agreed upon by both parties. That is our main objection to the bill. If miy hon. friend came here during another session and cited these cases, asking us to amend the act in regard to a future revision, then he would be on much safer ground, but when he comes here just a few days before the revision is over and asks us to amend an act that was agreed upon by compromise between both parties, I think upon reflection he will agree that unless there is a compromise again he should withdraw his bill.
I find fault with the minister because he has not given a proper picture of the conduct of the judge. He went on to cite cases in which it appeared that a Mr. So and So residing on a certain street had moved to another street. The minister said such a case would be brought before the judge; the judge would not hear the evidence, but would order those names to be restored to the list. Another person residing somewhere else died; his case was brought before the judge, and the minister added, without listening to evidence the judge ordered that that name be restored, and so on. The minister went on that way for half an hour, and he gave the impression that every individual case had been brought before the judge with the evidence annexed to it, and that the judge had refused the application.
But that is not the fact. The fact is that an appeal was entered by a party against the striking out of over 4,000 names. I am not a legal man, but I followed the case closely, and I know the question involved was one as to who would be forced to bring evidence before him. The minister admitted that, himself. He states "Here is a registrar deciding that over 4,000 names must be struck off the list; am I, as a candidate, going to be forced in every case to prove the necessary facts, and must I furnish evidence?" If I understood the case properly, that was the whole contention. The judge decided that unless evidence was produced before him he would not consent to disfranchising 4,000 electors. That is the way I understood the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: An entirely erroneous understanding.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If the same thing had
happened in St. James constituency I would have thought, had a judge decided in the same way, that he had taken a proper posi-

tion. Mind you, before the compromise of last year I said there was disagreement in the act. We cannot at one and the same time have a permanent and a flexible list. If we have a list being formed and revised at certain dates it is inevitable that between a date of revision and an election date a number of electors will have moved, a number will have died,- and you cannot prevent that. With the act as it stands we will always have on the lists for every constituency, and especially in the cities, large numbers of electors who will not be at the points indicated in the lists, and who may be on the list in one division whereas they should appear on the list for another. Under the present act we cannot prevent that. That does not mean that when a judge is presented with a list of 4,000 electors he is going to say, "Well, unless every one appears before me"-and how will the dead ones appear?-"and unless each produces his own evidence I shall rule that the decision of the registrar is a proper one, and allow the disfranchisement of thousands of electors." That is the way I understand the act.
The appeal to the judge was placed in the act, I believe at the demand of hon. members on this side of the house, to protect the electors from the over-zeal and over-devotion of a registrar. Sometimes a registrar may be stirred up by the evidence prepared by electoral agents; all hon. members know that can happen. The Secretary of State has said that no other judge would have given the decision he has indicated. Well, evidently I have more confidence in that tribunal than has the minister. On the contrary I say there is not one judge on the bench who would have consented to strike off 4,000 names, or to substantiate their being stricken off by the registrar, exacting at least a certain amount of evidence in every case.
In my view the basis of the act is the proper placing of names on the list by enumerators. Enumerators from the different parties go from house to house, inscribing the names of the electors on the lists. Last year we insisted that the procedure be made as simple as possible, and that an elector who had his name placed on the list should not be asked to enter into a very complicated procedure, such as was at first contemplated. I believe we are on firm ground, too, when we say that once an elector's name has been placed on the list by an enumerator he should be protected against any further effort to withdraw his name from that list. If a man or a party has reason to ask a registrar to strike a name from the list, and if a registrar complies with the request and an appeal is made to a judge it should be up to the party who has made the

Franchise Act-Mr. Mercier
representations to the registrar-that a person has moved or died-to appear before the judge and make good the charge he has made before the registrar. I ask that the right to vote he not made too complicated. I do not apeak in any partisan spirit, but I speak after a cloae association with the'electors of the city of Montreal. Each time the election act has been before this chamber it has been complicated by legal minds to a point where it has become very difficult for common people to know how to vote. That is my contention, and has been my contention f.or some time. I will admit, gladly, that the government has made it more simple. We must remember however that whether or not we require it from them the common people will not spend a whole year wondering whether or not their names appear on the list.
Unfortunately our election act has been changed every three or four years, with the result that electors come to us stating they do not know how to proceed to vote, and asking, "Why is it not the same as it was four years ago?" I believe we should try to have a permanent act, stick to it for a number of years and make it easy for people to understand where and how they shall vote. The contention of the Secretary of State is that when a man's vote is being challenged and a registrar decides against him he must appear before a judge and plead his own case for his right to vote. I do not believe in that, at all. I must disagree with the Secretary of State on that point. In my view it is up to the party who challenges my right to vote to make good that challenge, not only before the registrar but before the court. That is why I say the chief justice of the province of Quebec, acting on his own interpretation of the act, did rightly when he said, "At the demand of some electoral agent. I am not going to disfranchise 4,000 electors in the constituency of St. Law-rence-St. George merely because I am asked to do so. I want to have the evidence; I want to know about these cases."
Much graver in my opinion, however, is the position we will take when the judge has rendered his decision. After all, are we going to show a disregard for the court? Are we going to 9ay, "If the court decides against us, because we are members of the House of Commons or ministers of the crown we are going to change the law." I say that is an abominable principle. I appeal to the Prime Minister, who I believe has as fine a legal mind as any person in Canada: Do you not think it is an abominable principle to say that because a decision had not been favourable to me, a minister of the crown, I am going to introduce a bill to change the law, and force it through
parliament in time to be effective in the actual revision? I object to that principle. I have great respect for the Secretary of State; I will say it is not often that I disagree with him, but in this instance I believe he has been ill advised. I do not. dare censure him, because he is muoh older than I am, but if I were in his place I would rather try to be elected by a majority of my electors than to try to be elected by a majority of this house.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I gave some attention to the franchise act last year when it was before this house, and although I thought that the old law needed to be changed in certain respects I believe that in so far as the making up of the lists is concerned the old act was far superior to the present one.
A few days before the election in 1930 enumerators were named, who went from house to house and inquired as to the residents in these different houses, took down the names of those who were entitled to vote, these names were put on the list, and very shortly after the elections were brought on and these lists which had been compiled a very short while before were used. The only objection to that system in the city of Montreal so far as I saw was that these lists were made up in the summertime when a large number of the residents were out of the city at the different summer resorts, but many of the electors of Montreal took the trouble to come back to the city and see that their names were properly inscribed on the lists. In my experience and in the experience of the other members for the city of Montreal, and I think even the hon. Secretary of State will bear me out in this, there were very few objections made as to the manner of bringing in the votes in the election of 1930.
But what is the situation under the present act? The situation is this, that last fall the country went to the expense of having a list prepared, and twenty-one copies of the lists for each polling subdivision in his constituency were sent to every member of this house. In my own division of Laurier-Outremont there are 225 polls, 150 in Laurier and 75 in Outre-mont, and twenty-one copies of these lists containing the names of the electors at 225 polls were sent to me two or three months ago. What was the result? Those lists are still wrapped up in the cellar of my house. I have not even opened the packages because I knew that this revision was coming on and that these lists would be of no avail. I quite admit that in the revision the typesetting of the original list will be used in preparing the new list but actually a new and complete list
Franchise Act-Mr. Mercier


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Ont.) (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I was paired kith the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Ont) (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CHEVRIER (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion); otherwise, I would have voted against the second reading of this bill.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Simpson); otherwise, I would have voted against the second reading of the bill.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin); otherwise, I would have voted against the second reading of this bill.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell); otherwise, I would have voted against the second reading of this bill.
Bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.

On section 1-Judge may not rescind final ruling of registrar, or add, retain or remove name?, except upon certain adduced evidence at bearing.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the present status of these 4,000 names? Are they on the electoral list or are they off or where are they?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: At the present time I think less than 200 cases have been heard by the registrar and have gone on appeal to the courts. In the case of others the court hearings have not yet been reached.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand the hon. member to say the hearings have not been held before the registrar?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Except in regard to less than 200 names.


Charles Gavan Power: What about the remainder?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose they will proceed before the registrar. I have no doubt he will hear the remainder from day to day as fast as he can hear them; it will take him a long time.


Charles Gavan Power: I hope the hon. gentleman understands that the revision finishes on June 30 and it is now the 18th,


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand that.


Charles Gavan Power: How does he propose that the registrar shall hear those cases if he has not already heard them, or is it only a matter of giving judgment?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not a matter of very great importance to me whether the registrar hears them all.


Charles Gavan Power: I thought so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have nothing to do with
the hon. gentleman's thoughts, but if he keeps on thinking he may think that possibly this bill may not apply solely to the present registration and the present appeals. The member for St. Lawrence-St. George, even if he has to meet 1,000 or 2,000 impersonations in his constituency, can still be elected there by the unanimous suffrages at any rate of his own supporters. Although at my age I would like to retire, but simply because certain suggestions have been made, I intend to contest the election. Really I have not a personal interest in this bill. If I could say this without the hon. gentleman taking it as a reflection on him, I would say that to whomsoever you may attribute the fact, it is a disgrace that in a constituency such as that, 5,000 names or even 4,000 or 3,000 names of persons who, prior to April 30 last,

Franchise Act
which was the last day for objections, have forfeited their right to vote in that constituency, should be left upon the lists. I am quite prepared, if these people are to be gathered in from all over Canada, to stand my chance of getting a majority of them. Of course, the hon. gentleman knows what it means, the expense of gathering electors in from all over the country. I am not afraid of the electorate of St. Lawrenee-St. George, not in the slightest degree. But in that constituency, as my hon. friend knows, there has been impersonation and fraud, which is a disgrace to the city of Montreal in which that district is situated. I and the younger men who support me-at least it shows I have some friends when seventy of them will gather for the purpose of cleaning up this list-are going to stop impersonation in this city of Montreal if by any legitimate means it can be stopped. And we are going to stop it particularly in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George. This bill will be of far more use to other hon. gentlemen at a subsequent revision than it can possibly be to the revision proceeding in St. Lawrence-St. George between now and the thirtieth of this month. This bill enunciates a principle which has been recognized in all electoral franchise acts of this country for years, that if a prima facie case is made out and full opportunity given for rebuttal and no rebuttal whatever is adduced, the name goes off the list, and it should not be restored unless there is some affirmative evidence of the existence of that person and his or her qualification by residence in the electoral district. That is what this bill affirms. Whether or not it passes is immaterial to me as far as my own election is concerned.


Mr. ILSLEY:: If the registrar acts improperly and does not carry out the statutory requirements, if he puts names on the list that obviously should not be there, should it be incumbent upon the judge on appeal to insist on evidence? Should he not be free simply to say: That name obviously should never have been- put on the list at all, and therefore I overrule the decision of the registrar? Is not that the function of an appeal court.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I presume that if it were
shown that a registrar had violated the law, but that would require evidence.
Mr. ILlSLEY:	No, that appears from the
record. Under this provision the judge would he helpless, he would 'be unable to do a thing in the case of an incompetent or a crooked registrar.
M'r. CAHAN:	That registrar is an officer
of this house, and' he is competent. The suggestion is that the registrar has placed a name on the list improperly. Well, there must be evidence to Show that before the judge can remove the name from the list, and there must be evidence before a name is reentered on the list that the person is entitled to have it so reentered. And the only evidence required by this bill is "evidence satisfactory to the judge" adduced at such hearing.


Mr. GRAY:: He is hardly a judge of appeal, he is more a judge of first instance.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He is a judge on appeal, he is ruling on the decision in the discretion of the judge of another court, a court established by statute of this parliament.


Mr. BINFRET:: I want to stress again the point I made in the debate on second reading. I do not think my hon. friend is right, but even if he were I think this is a very improper time to amend the act. This bill if it goes through must go to the Senate, it must be sanctioned. There is the question of time, there is just the possibility that the bill may be sanctioned two or three days before the revision is over. Then the bill comes into force. What does that mean? It means that four thousand people m-ust appear before Mr. Justice Greenshields to make good their right to remain on the list. Is that fair? I put it to the committee- as I did to the house. Even if the bill be right in principle-I do not think it is-this is not the proper time to bring at in, 'because the intention is to have it acted' upon this month. The revision will be over by the thirtieth of June, and there will not be time for that satisfactory evidence called for in the bill to be adduced before the chief justice. Would dt not be much fairer to abide by the act as passed- last year by both parties rather than pass an amendment Which cannot be effective in the time, even if there were any merit to it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can only say we are abiding by the franchise act and its intention as we understood it when passed- last year. We are making no amendment which will abrogate or alter the intention we then had. These electors, whom the hon. gentleman has mentioned, have had time since the thirtieth of April last-if any one of them wishes to show that he should' be on that list he has had ample opportunity and notice to adduce evidence for that purpose before the registrar, and not one of them has ever produced a scintilla of evidence. He 'has also the right to go before the court and adduce affirmative evidence there, and I am not taking away that right. But the matter is far m-ore important than that. These electors were on the List at the last revision, and it is now found in this
37b2
Franchise Act

revision that four or five thousand of them are no longer resident in the constituency. They are in other constituencies, they are applying in those other constituencies to have their names on other lists. If they wish to remove their name from one constituency to another there is a short form provided by which that removal miay be effected. But what I am objecting to is names remaining on the lists in any constituency, whether in Toronto, in which I understand in one constituency there are five thousand objections, or in Montreal' in which there are these objections, names which facilitate impersonation and fraud. In order to prevent impersonation and fraud this parliament at the last revision provided that the names should! be entered in urban constituencies according to the numbers of the street or avenue, and these numbers had to be consecutive; or if it were in an apartment house that the number of the apartment should be given. Now what have we? In the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George I am told we have about twenty-five hundred applications from people to be placed on the new lists, and unless some such amendment is made we shall have such cases as several families, crowded on tfhe list for one apartment, which we know can hold only one family; there -will be the old family and another, and1 possibly a third family alleged to be occupying that one apartment when everyone knows that there are no such residents there. Whether we clean this up now or whether we clean it up at some future time there can be no objection to the principle and import of this amendment. It simply prevents persons, who moved out of the district long ago and lost their residential qualifications, from having their names on the list, to be voted not by themselves but by others who impersonate them and vote in their names fraudulently.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have another argument to present to my hon. friend along the same line, having regard to the fact that this amendment is brought in too late and that the act should not be amended while it is in operation. My hon. friend seems to think all those names are going to be impersonated. I am not of that opinion at all. In every election you have on the list for your division the names of hundreds of electors who have moved since the list was prepared, and you have to look for them and tell them where they vote. It is possible that quite a number of the four thousand people should not be on the list in St. Lawrence-St. George but should be on the list in some other constituency. It is also possible-and I trust that my hon. friend will be perfectly organized 
in that respect-to tell these men where their vote belongs and see that they vote there. You cannot have perfect lists. I have presented the argument that the act we passed last year rather tended to bring about that situation, more so than the previous act.
Here is another point, and I wish to appeal to the minister once more before he insists on this bill passing. I say that if this amendment is passed and put into force it will leave only a few days for these four thousand people to produce satisfactory evidence that they should be on the list. Or it may be proved that they do not belong on the list and should not be there. They will be given no time at all in which to register on another list. The act provides a period of six weeks for a revision. Why? Because it does require a number of weeks, if a man's name has been taken off the list for St. Lawrence-St. George, for that man to see the other registrar in St. James or St. Mary and have his name put on this list. Even if it were true that most of these names do not belong to my hon. friend's division, by this amendment the hon. gentleman is going to disfranchise those people who have moved, because they will have no time to register anywhere else. That will be the effect of this amendment; four thousand people will be disfranchised just because they have moved.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The date fixed was April 30; under the provisions of the statute any objection must be lodged before April 30. The revision began on May 15. During the entire month of April any person who had taken up a new residence in any part of Canada could have applied to have his name entered on the list of the electoral district in which he then resided. That has been going on throughout April and May and on into June. I cannot speak except from information I have received, but I understand that in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George already there are over 2,500 persons who seek to have their names put on the new list. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that St. Lawrence-St. George comprises practically all the largest apartment houses as well as a great many of the smaller ones. It includes every class and condition of society, and there is a great deal of movement in that constituency. On any May 1st or October 1st a great number of people move out of St. Lawrence-St. George and a great many other people move in. This revision which is now taking place does not take off a single name of those who have moved out since May 1. April 30 was the last day for objections. A certain number of people moved out in the May movement. I cannot say where they have gone,

Franchise Act
but they have not been deprived of the franchise. Those who moved out before April 30 deprived themselves of the franchise in that electoral district as the new revision began on that date. They are applying in other districts everywhere over the city, but they have no right to vote, they have no right to be entered upon the list of electors in my constituency, or in the constituency of my hon. friend, from St. James, or the constituency of the hon. member for Cartier unless resident there. This bill is perfectly fair and equitable. It deprives no person of a vote, except a vote in a constituency in which he has no right to vote. That is all. On the other hand it does give some control during the election of this vast system of bribery and impersonation that one has to stand up against in a constituency in Montreal.


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. gentleman has mentioned my name. Why is it .that there is so much skullduggery and rascality in that one division of Montreal, St. Lawrence-St. George? I should like to know that, because I am the neighbour of my hon. friesnd and I do not complain about it nor do any of my opponents. My good friend from Mount Royal has a very large moving vote, yet no person seems to complain except my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George. I should like to know the reason for that.


James Layton Ralston: Once more I should like to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter of putting this act into force so as to affect the present -revision. My hon. friend has made some case for an amendment to the act so far as the future is -concerned but I say he has made no case whatever for alleging that the judgment of the learned judge was wrong in law. We often have the experience of a judge deciding contrary to our own ideas and against the particular case we have presented, but we do not come to parliament- to have an act passed in order to reverse that decision. All -that happened was that the learned judge announced what in his opinion was the law, and under our system of stare decisis that becomes our law. I aim sure my hon. friend realizes that this is in just the same position as if there were litigation between two parties. Two parties have gone to court and a decision has been given in favour of one of them. Instead of accepting that decision, because that has become the law, the other proposes to come to parliament and have that particular decision amended -and overruled. I submit that this is an instance where a hard case is going to make bad law and worse legislation;
I submit that the principle is bad, and I think my hon. friend will be the first to admit it. It may be that we are justified in legislating for ithe future in declaring, as the Minister of Justice has said, more clearly what was the intention of parliament, but the intention of parliament is taken from the words which we put into the statute. The -learned judge, a most distinguished jurist-not an experienced judge but a most distinguished judge of the province of Quebec-has said that in his opinion the statute means so and so. That opinion having been given and that decision having been reached in favour of the people whose names were on the list, which names were sought to be struck off, I submit that my hon. friend has no right to ask this parliament to overrule that decision. I submit that the decision must stand, and if my hon. friend does not think that was the intention of parliament as he had it in his mind or as the Minister of Justice -had it in his, then it is perfectly competent for us to amend the statute t.o apply to the future i-n order to have that situation remedied.
I do submit to my -hon. friend that in this bill, just- as in any bill that is -passed amending the law, there should be a provision that this is not to affect pending litigation. That provision appears, as my hon. friend from his long experience, knows far better than I do, in many measures. I submit that exactly the same principle should apply here, and that the Minister ought to add to this section a subsection providing that this section is not to affect any revision which may be in -progress under the Dominion Franchise Act, at the time of the coming in-to force of this act,
Then the minister has pointed the moral by the cases he has cited, and he has given notice -to everybody who may be affected by the act that he must show such and such a thing to the judge.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What about the dead
ones?


James Layton Ralston: That will always hap-pen; no revision is perfect. Does the hon. member suggest that we come to parliament solemnly to legislate dead persons off voters' lists? There is a perfectly competent and distinguished jurist who has decided that the law we passed does not cover that case. There is no reason why we should pass a special act to strike the names of some dead persons off the list. I suppose there are irregularities in almost every constituency; some decisions may be made by registrars or judges which may not be to the liking of a candidate or sitting member. Surely we do not come here

Franchise Act

to amend those conditions and to constitute ourselves a court of appeal from every decision of every officer who has judicial discretion under this act.
Therefore I say to the minister that having regard to the principle, and leaving aside the merits, he has stated he is perfectly willing to accept the situation as it is. Let him do it, then. Let us say the minister was unlucky in the decisions in his constituency- but that does not justify parliament in legislating or changing the law and depriving people of certain rights they had, as those rights have been laid down and determined by a judge. Therefore I move the following amendment:
That there be added to section 1 the following subsection:-
(2) This section shall not apply in respect of any revisions which may be in progress under the Dominion Franchise Act at the date of coming into force of this act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, there are
no two parties in tihis controversy before Mr. Justice Greensbields. Not a single elector, or alleged elector to whom objection is made has made an appeal to Mr. Justice Green-shields. The gentleman who made the appeal had no personal knowledge or acquaintance with any of these electors. He simply wrote out on a sheet of paper words indicating that he was appealing for all of them.	This
amendment does not take from the list the names to which I referred this afternoon. If and when the bill is enacted it will not affect any prior decision of any judge in any part of Canada. Therefore the point the hon. member has in view in connection with pending litigation, is entirely preserved. This bill would not affect a pending appeal.


James Layton Ralston: Yes it does.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It does not affect any
appeal which has been decided, and there are no other pending appeals.


James Layton Ralston: It affects any appeal
which has not been decided. It changes the law as it was laid down by Mr. Justice Greenshields, in connection with appeals.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can tell the hon. member
that at the present time there are no appeals pending.


James Layton Ralston: Well then, there can be
no objection to accepting my suggestion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly the bill should not
apply to appeals which have been asserted at the date it is enacted. Then, there is a further point-and I am not going to get into any further controversy with the hon. member for Quebec South.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It would be well for parliament to declare its intention, because there are scores of constituencies throughout Canada in which judges are sitting and for some days and weeks will be sitting on appeals.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The language in- the act is quite simple. I find these words "They shall be heard and determined in such summary manner as the judge shall deem propeT."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That deals with the
"manner," but it does not say that the judge has the right to declare that the statutory discretion of a junior judge or junior court has been improperly exercised.


James Layton Ralston: It does not say he has not the right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But that is what has been assumed.


James Layton Ralston: But it does not say he has not the right. He hears it as an appellate court, and an appellate court has the right to overrule the judgment of the lower court.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He has the right to overrule tha-t judgment on any evidence which has been submitted to him only after hearing new evidence.


James Layton Ralston: Or through lack of evidence.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It is just an ordinary case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But in this instance the names were not then on the list. On his own intuition, shall I say, he has undertaken to order that names be inserted on the list which according to the evidence may not properly be inserted upon it.


James Layton Ralston: No, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where is the judgment?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the judgment.


Charles Gavan Power: He ordered to be reinserted names which my hon. friend's friends took off the list.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, they did not. I have no friends in the matter, at all. Anyone will admit that the registrar in the electoral district of St. Lawrence-St. George is a man of the highest possible repute in the French-Cana-dian race.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not saying anything to the contrary.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And there is no partisanship or prejudice in respect of his decision.

Franchise Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to understand the legislation before us, because it appears to me the proposed change goes entirely too far. As I understand the situation one may apply to a registrar either to add or to take off names. He makes his decision on certain evidence adduced before him. An appeal from his decision either to add or to take off names goes before a judge, who may decide the appeal in a summary manner. I believe the act states that it shall be heard and determined by a judge in such summary manner as the judge shall deem proper. The appellate court may simply read the record of what was sent up from the lower court. It is one thing to look at the record, and it is another thing to hear the evidence. This change would deny to the court of appeal the right of every court of appeal to ascertain from the record whether or not the decision of the lower court was wrong. This condition does not apply only to the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George. There may be appeals in my constituency from the registrar. I believe that there the appellate tribunal is the county court judge. There may be occasions on which the registrar has manifestly acted improperly. That is, he has given a decision either on no evidence or insufficient evidence. It should be competent for a superior or county court judge hearing an appeal simply to state that there seems to be no evidence or insufficient evidence. It should be competent for him to say "I reverse the registrar, and place it in the position where it was before the registrar acted." Under the bill he could not do that; he could not lift his finger. He could not do one thing in connection with a decision made by the registrar which was manifestly wrong, unless evidence were adduced before him.


Charles Gavan Power: In each single case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, in each case. To my mind it is an objectionable piece of legislation. I do not know what the particular position is in St. Lawrence-St. George, but I say we shouLd not have a law whereby the judge shall not rescind a final ruling of the registrar, except evidence has been adduced at the hearing before the judge. It may be negative evidence. It may be evidence that such person is not a qualified elector whose place of residence is in such a polling division. It should never be the law that evidence must be adduced at the hearing before the judge. There may be hundreds of cases where no evidence will be necessary at all, and where it will be manifest from the record, without any evidence, that the registrar was wrong.
92582-239*


Ross Wilfred Gray: Would the Secretary of State please answer the hon. member for Hants-Kings? Surely he has given a reasonable interpretation of the act, and I would like the Secretary of State to give his.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The answer is so clear that there can be no need for me to arise to give it, but if the hon. gentleman will take his seat I will answer.
Parliament has appointed a commissioner. The commissioner under the authority of parliament has appointed registrars of courts of revision; these are the judges of that court, and parliament has ordered these judges on prima facie cases to exercise their discretion in adding or removing names,'with this proviso, that when the registrar has found that a prima facie case has been made he must so declare and give opportunity to any elector or anyone in his behalf to adduce evidence to the contrary. Then the burden of proof is entirely shifted. Under the act as it is now the moment the registrar declares that a prima facie case has been made and has said, "I will adjourn to hear any evidence that may be adduced against my decision that a prima facie case has been made out," then the burden of proof is shifted to the person whose name is to be added or removed as the case may be. Now on appeal from that decision I suggest that no court has the right to interfere with a statutory discretion vested in the registrar, but the onus remains where it was when the registrar gave his decision to add or remove a name, and that onus of proof is not changed by reason of an appeal of some third party to a judge of the superior court. When the case reaches the judge of the superior court he must make his finding from the evidence adduced before him. If there is a record it can be brought before him; if there is other independent evidence it can be adduced before him. But this bill declares that the evidence so adduced must satisfy the judge as to the decision which he may give. The onus is shifted. If he decides that the name shall be reentered on the list1 or that it shall be removed, he cannot do so without new evidence. Evidence must be brought before him that the elector is qualified or disqualified. It does not matter whether the evidence brought up from a lower court is satisfactory or not, but there must be new evidence adduced as to the elector's qualification which satisfies the judge that that name should be reentered on the list or that that name should be removed from the list. By this bill I have left it entirely in the judgment of the judge, but his decision must be on evi-
Cornwall Bridge-Mr. Shaver

dence adduced at the hearing, which he declares to be satisfactory to him, otherwise he cannot override the statutory discretion of the registrar.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. 'Chairman, I have listened very carefuLly to what the Secretary of State has just said, but I have understood nothing of what he has said. Will he be kind enough to make it clear? I have not understood a word of what he has said.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



MONTREAL SHIP CHANNEL

Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: With the unanimous consent
of the house, I should like to revert to motions in order to file the interim report, interdepartmental, of the Montreal ship channel water levels board, with a summary in both English and French.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stewart (Lethbridge) for the second reading of Bill No. 108, respecting the Cornwall Bridge Company.
Mr. F. T. SHAVER (Stormont):: When
I moved the adjournment of the debate on Friday evening last I said that it was my desire to oppose this bill, and I wish to place before the house as briefly as possible some of the reasons why I am opposed to the second reading.
This bill, respecting the Cornwall Bridge Company, is for the purpose of giving an extension of time to the company for beginning the construction of their bridge. I regret very much that the hon. gentleman who sponsored it did not indicate to the house the purpose of it nor give any idea of the proposal he is placing before us. The proposed bridge is supposed to start from a point in Glengarry county and to be erected across the St. Lawrence to St. Regis island, a road to be constructed on the island, and another bridge at the western part of the island leading to the province of Quebec. The act incorporating the Cornwall Bridge Company was passed in 1930 and was assented to on May 30 of that year. Under the terms of

that act the company had two years within which to present their plans to the governor in council for approval and they had three years after that to begin construction. They made very definite promises to the people of Stormont county, to the people of the town of Cornwall and to the residents of Glengarry that immediate construction would be started in 1930. They made glowing and definite promises. It was said that hundreds of men were to be put to work immediately, large quantities of material were to be used, and a bridge across which thousands of tourists would move in an uninterrupted stream would be constructed in a short time for the benefit of the people of eastern Ontario. The company, however, waited the full limit of two years before submitting their plans, because those plans were not approved by the governor in council until May 31, 1932. Then they had three years from that time to begin construction.
Speaking as a layman without any legal knowledge whatever, it seems to me that their act is now null and void and was after May 31, 1935, because they took no steps at all to carry out the provisions of the charter and did absolutely no work. When the people of Cornwall found that no effort was being made by this company to carry out the promises they had made to the town to begin work under the charter, the business men, the board of trade and the town council, acting in cooperation with the chamber of commerce of the town of Massena in New York state took steps to have the railway bridge planked for vehicular traffic. This railway bridge across the St. Lawrence has been in existence for nearly forty years. Mr. Horovitz of Cornwall, who was then mayor of the town, was one of the very active promoters of this scheme. It was necessary that an act should be passed by the House of Commons giving the Ottawa-New York railway and its lessee the New York Central Railway Company power to lease this bridge to another company who might use it for purposes of vehicular traffic. I had the honour of sponsoring that bill in the house myself. It passed at the session of 1932 and was assented to on May 26 of that year. There was considerable opposition to that bill when it was before the senate committee and I was of the opinion, as many supporters of the bill were, that that opposition was engineered by the proponents of the Cornwall Bridge Company, who adopted a dog in the manger attitude. They did nothing to carry out the terms of the charter which they had received two years previously but they were endeavouring to prevent the planking of an existing

Cornwall Bridge*-Mr. Shaver
bridge for vehicular traffic. The bill was passed in 1932 with amendments safeguarding the rights of the Canadian government, and it gave the New York Central Railway authority to lease their bridge to a toll bridge company to be used for vehicular traffic. Concurrent legislation was passed in the United States, giving authority at that end. The bridge was planked, the approaches were built and an excellent paved road was constructed on Cornwall island in 1933. Early in 1934 the bridge was opened for traffic-on May 17, 1934, to be exact. The official opening took place on June 30, 1934, when the bridge was opened by His Excellency the Governor General and the Hon. Mr. Dern, United States Secretary of War, representing the President. Others present were:	Her Excellency the
Countess of Bessborough, Bishop Couturier of Alexandria, Bishop Roper of Ottawa, Hon. J. A. Macdonald, representing the Prime Minister of Canada. There were also present the mayors of several American and Canadian cities and towns and many other distinguished visitors.
I have had placed on the desks of all hon. members copies of a folder showing the bridge. Now let me point out that this is an actual bridge, something in existence; it is not merely the figment of someone's imagination, the imagination of some promoter who wants to sell stock to the unsuspecting Canadian public. It is a bridge which is and has been for over a year in actual operation, and there were conveyed across it last year thousands of cars, all safely and expeditiously. The bridge is in two sections, one across the northern channel of the St. Lawrence. Then there is a very fine paved road across Cornwall island, the bridge then crossing the south channel, there being a section across the Ra-quette river on the American side. Every possible safety device has been installed-gates, automatic signals and guards and a telephone, so that every precaution is taken for the safety of the travelling public. These safety devices were all approved by the board of railway commissioners.
The proponents of this Cornwall Bridge Company, which is so far only a paper bridge, have used the argument that the existing bridge, which has been planked, is not wide enough for two-way traffic. That is an entire misstatement, because I myself have crossed it several times and I know that there is absolutely no difficulty for two automobiles to pass each other on the bridge. They also state that owing to the fact that it is an international bridge an accumulation of traffic piles up on the bridge while oars are passing
through the customs. That also is a misstatement, because both the Canadian and the United States customs offices are built on Cornwall island, where there is plenty of room; there is adequate parking space and a sufficient number of officials to handle the traffic expeditiously.
Many hon. members of this house have crossed the bridge since it was opened last year, among them being a very distinguished member of the House of Commons in the person of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who crossed it this spring and who, I am sure, can give evidence as to its thorough efficiency and safety. In the first year of operation, from May 17, 1934, to May 16, 1935, 60,000 vehicles, mostly passenger automobiles, crossed the bridge. This bridge is adjacent to one of the most beautiful sections of the St. Lawrence river. One of the important points in all our efforts to attract tourist traffic to Canada is in my opinion the impression which the tourist gets when he first enters this country.
I trust many hon. members have read an editorial which was published a couple of weeks ago in the Ottawa Journal and which advised the citizens of Ottawa that if they wanted to take a drive of great scenic beauty, they should go south along the Morrisburg highway to the St. Lawrence and then down to Cornwall. On the drive along number two highway are some of the most beautiful spots on the whole St. Lawrence river. You pass historic sites like the old battlefield of Crysleris Farm and the Long Sault rapids, perhaps the most spectacularly beautiful spot we have on that river. Then you pass wooded islands and see away to the south the farm homes and villages of our great sister nation. Those coming into Canada over the Cornwall bridge-and when I speak of the Cornwall bridge, I am referring to the bridge which is now in operation and across which thousands of tourists are coming-get a very fine impression of this country. Looking to the west they see a very prosperous section of the county of Stormont, and looking to the east there is spread out before them in a panorama the fine industrial town of Cornwall. They can see directly in their line of vision two or three of the largest industries in that town.
Therefore my first argument is that it would be a most ridiculous idea to build another bridge seven miles away from the present one. It would be designed entirely to attract traffic from the same section of the United States. There are of course along the St. Lawrence other places where it would be

Cornwall Bridge-Mr. Shaver
reasonable that a bridge might be built, say fifty or seventy-five miles away from the one at present in operation. In addition to that, the Cornwall bridge is a commercially feasible proposition because it was already there; it has been there for nearly forty years, being used as a railway bridge, so that it necessitated a capital expenditure of only about $350,000 to plank the bridge, to build the approaches, to construct the roadway on the island, and to fit the bridge up so as to accommodate vehicular traffic. The bridge proposed in the bill now before the house, it is suggested, will require an investment of $3,250,000. We know no undertaking of this kind has ever been put into effect without the actual cost running far beyond the estimate. We will say that there is an increase of approximately 25 per cent when the bridge comes to be built, making a total cost of about $4,000,000, which would be a very moderate increase over the estimate of the company's engineers. I believe all hon. members will agree that it would be impossible in connection with such a highly speculative enterprise to sell bonds that would bring less than five per cent, and to pay five per cent on an investment of $4,000,000 would require an annual revenue of $200,000 without allowing one cent for cost of operation or any other incidental costs.
If we use the same toll rates as those in effect on the bridge which is at present in operation, the average return from an automobile crossing the proposed bridge would be in the neighbourhood of one dollar, because it will be noted that there is a special trip rate for an auto and driver of $1.25 if he makes the return trip within twenty-four hours, or an average rate for the one-way trip of sixty-two and a half cents, which brings the average rate down to the neighbourhood of one dollar. Therefore it would require an annual traffic over this bridge of 200,000 cars to pay the interest charges alone. If you increase the average rate for automobiles to $1.25, this would require 160,000 cars.
I desire to give the house some figures so that it may form an estimate as to the traffic that might be expected on this proposed bridge if it were ever built. I know there will be quoted by the hon. gentleman who is sponsoring the bill, traffic experts who give highly optimistic reports of what might be expected and who will probably give you any type of report you are looking for; but I want to quote actual figures of the cars which crossed the whole international section of the! St. Lawrence in 1934. This includes all the traffic over the Cornwall bridge from May 17 to December 31, 1934, the traffic across the 
ferry at Aultsville, the ferry at Morrisburg, the very important ferry at Prescott which is directly opposite the city of Ogdensburg, the ferry at Brockville, the ferry at Rockport and the ferry at Gananoque. The total traffic in that section was 150,997 cars including return trip cars. Therefore if all these ferries and the Cornwall bridge were closed and if the proposed bridge had all this traffic, it would be $50,000 short of meeting its interest charges alone. I understand the promoters of this bridge themselves estimate the cost of operation at $90,000 per annum, and in addition to that there would be charges for taxes and many other incidental charges. I am sure therefore hon. gentlemen can see that from a financial standpoint this would not be a commercially feasible proposition. I think it is a well known fact that there are not very many toll bridges or tunnels that at the present time are meeting the interest charges on their bonded indebtedness, but the favourable situation of the bridge which is described in the folder, the one which has been in operation for a year, is that a very small capital expenditure was required. The bridge that is there required a capital expenditure of only $350,000 to fit it for vehicular traffic in addition to the rental which is paid to the owners of the bridge.
As I stated before, the bridge proposed in this bill is to be only seven miles east of the present Cornwall bridge. Last year the house passed a bill to give a charter for a bridge at Ivy Lea near Gananoque, and I understand there is also in effect a charter for a bridge at Brockville. At those points there would be a reasonable expectation of a bridge paying because those points are sixty or eighty miles from the present bridge, but it appears to me to be the height of absurdity for any company to expect any reasonable financial return from the building of another bridge within seven miles of one that is now being successfully operated.
The people at Cornwall and in the vicinity are well satisfied with the present bridge; it brings a large number of tourists to our section of the country and it is within a mile of the centre of the town, but the bridge proposed under this bill would divert traffic from Cornwall; it is located five miles east, and all the tourists coming into Canada on their way to Montreal and on the way back from Montreal to the United States would never see the town of Cornwall at all.
I am sure the hon. gentleman who is sponsoring the bill will tell the house that one of the greatest features in favour of the proposed bridge is the fact that it is constructed entirely in Canadian territory, but before he finishes,

Cornwall Bridge-Mr. McGillis
if he attempts to show how successful the bridge will be, he will quote not figures of local traffic flowing back and forth, but figures of traffic from the United States, showing that the bridge is designed entirely for tourist traffic. Therefore, what particular advantage is there in having it located entirely in Canada? Furthermore, there would be no particular advantage for those tourists who would enter at Hogansburg and other points along the border of Huntingdon county to cross the bridge and go down the north shore of the St. Lawrence. The great majority of them would use the very excellent roads in Quebec which are on the south shore of the St. Lawrence and would cross to the north shore at Chateauguay or by one of the bridges close to Montreal.
In my opinion there are only two purposes that can be in view in asking this extension of time. I am absolutely satisfied that the promoters have no intention of building a bridge. Is it a commercially feasible proposition? I think it would be very difficult for them to finance it. But there are two possible objects they might have' in mind: first, to sell stock or bonds in wihat is, to say the least, a highly speculative enterprise, or, second, to use the charter for its nuisance value against the company operating the present bridge. I think it is a duty of this house so far as possible to protect the investing public. That was one point upon which the price spreads commission laid particular emphasis. I listened with careful attention to the excellent speech made the other day by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and also the very able speech of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), and I noticed that while they differed perhaps on some fundamental points, they were of one mind, as are other hon. members, that the Companies Act should protect the investing public as far as possible. And when any private bill is introduced I think it is just as much the duty of the house to see that the investing public is protected. When we think of the widows left with perhaps only a little life insurance to last them to the end of their days, or with which to raise a family, or old people who by a life of toil have saved a little money, we should not give to a corporation like this the opportunity to send out high pressure bond salesmen through the country in remote parts of Canada where people would have no idea of the traffic that may be expected over the river at this point, and who would paint a glittering picture of the returns to be expected. It is the duty of this house to vote against a measure of this kind that would make that sort of thing possible. I owe a
duty to my constituents and I believe they are very adequately served by the bridge at present in operation, which gives excellent service and with which they are satisfied.
Therefore, to place on record my opposition to this bill I move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. McGillis), in whose constituency the Ontario end of this proposed bridge would be situated:
That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.


Mr. ANGUS McGILLIS (Glengarry):: In
seconding the resolution to give this bill the six months' hoist, I desire to make some observations.
The people of my constituency were promised in 1930, when the Cornwall Bridge Company were granted) a charter, that construction would begin immediately, thereby giving employment to a large number of people. Five years have elapsed and no effort has been made by the promoters to carry out either the promises made in 1930 or the terms of their original charter. In the meantime a very satisfactory roadway for vehicular traffic has been opened1 over the New York Central Railway bridge at Cornwall, which has all the necessary accommodation for the travelling public, in my opinion sufficient to carry all the traffic there will be at that point for many years to come. This proposed bridge has been stressed by the promoters as an "all-Canadian bridge," but I fail to see the significance of this argument, as the promoters themselves stress its value from the standpoint of tourist traffic, which is international. During the last five years the Caughnawaga bridge has been opened, linking up a great avenue of traffic between Montreal and the south shore of the St. Lawrence. The Peace bridge at Fort Erie and the Ambassador bridge at Windsor are both international and link up large centres of population.
In conclusion, I may say that in my opinion the bridge proposed in this bill would never be a paying proposition and I have absolutely no faith in the idea that it will ever be constructed, even if given this extension of time.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto):: This company was incorporated by this parliament in 1930. In days past it was very popular to grant these franchises for international and interprovincial bridges. But that day is past. When the bills for the Detroit river tunnels and bridges were before this parliament I strongly opposed them in the standing committee on railways and canals. Franchises were handed out to railways and corporations all

Cornwall Bridge-Mr. Church
over Canada for works some of which could not by the widest stretch of imagination be .said to be for the general advantage of Canada, and this bill is of that type. The bill for the Detroit river tunnel was supported! by the Canadian National1 Railways, and as a result of the hand out policy of that time when this parliament had what they call "big eyes," we have the railway bungle in which the country now finds itself as a result of all these franchises granted so readily, and three transcontinental railways.
Following those errors a -royal commission was appointed in 1917, to investigate the whole railway and bridge problem, consisting of A. H. Smith, then general manager of the New York Central Railway, W. M. Acwort-h, an eminent English engineer, and Sir Henry Drayton, then chairman of the board of railway commissioners. In their report they referred to bills of this description and recommended that before any franchise be given or extended to cross interprovincial or boundary streams the proposed bridges should first be reported upon as to their utility, method of construction, and rates and tolls to be charged by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. In another section they said that before any extension of such charters should be granted the proposal should -be reported upon by the board of railway commissioners.
Are we going to treat that report as a scrap of paper? In 1930 when this particular bill was before the house they showed a large map. Here is a map they have now, and they use the name of Mr. Roosevelt, President of the United States, which they probably think will be of some value to them. No doubt the boards -of trade of Montreal and Toronto have been circularized. Ten years ago there was a much more elaborate map of this bridge hung on the walls of the railway committee. At that time they were handing out franchises for bridges all -over; there was scarcely anyone who did not know how to play "bridge." I do not know how to play it; I have seen -it played in the opposition and government lobby and in this lobby, but I do not know anything about that kind of game. I am glad I do not, because you can lose money in other ways than in a bridge game. This company seem to think they have lost a lot of money; they are pleading the financial situation- as a reason for holding this paper franchise over until 1937. The Lord created1 the wonderful natural resources of the St. Lawrence river, and for all His creatures, not for private greed and gain. Yet the 
powers on that river were given away to every Tom, Dick and Harry who asked for them. The Lord intended all the blessings of the river, -light, power and transportation, for all His creatures and not for private individuals who have exploited that river ever since the days of The Company of One Hundred Associates.
Th-is Cornwall company should be denied this privilege. This act was passed in the spring of 1930, under the late government, and the bridge was to be built within three years, or by 1933. Now it is 1935; they have spent little or no money and they propose to take until 1937 to commence work on the bridge. If the matter comes to a vote I will vote against any extension of this charter. This bill was initiated over in the senate. I am glad the senate have started initiating something this session, but bridge bills like this and divorce bills are about all this wonderful senate have initiated. To-day the senate is nothing but an anachronism. If this is the best and only legislation they can send over here in days like this all I can say is that the senate will be a bridge of sighs, back in the constituencies of this country. The other day I attended one of the senate committees, and I must say that I was surprised at the way they do business over there. They need a Gilbert and Sullivan to describe the way they amend our bills and bills like this and other bills that I saw being considered the other day.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman should not refer to what has taken place in another chamber.


Thomas Langton Church: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am not reflecting. No one can reflect on the senate; reflections are a bit late. This bill should not pass this parliament. If you look at the map accompanying the -bill on every-one's desk here, you see a red ring drawn around the St. Lawrence river; they have thrown out the lasso and lassoed as far as -Cornwall. The ring has not extended as far as Ottawa yet. We have heard of other rings in connection with Montreal, but this red ring in connection with this bridge map has missed both Ottawa and Montreal. Look at what has been done by the senate of the United States to keep bills like this out of that chamber; look at the social legislation that has been initiated by the senate of the United States and here in Canada. I am surprised -to find bills like this sent over here from the other chamber. We should go over the books and eliminate every paper franchise that still exists in con-

Housing Commission-Mr. Hanbury
nection with railways, canals and bridges all through the country. No wonder we have a railway bungle on our hands. Who will say that, in view of the unrest and ithe difficulties in connection with transportation that we have at present, we should seek to create or preserve or extend these paper franchises in connection with the St. Lawrence river, which has been the home of private ownership and greed since the day of The Company of One Hundred Associates?


Mr. J. S. STEWART (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, owing to circumstances over which I have no control, and denying any and all responsibility, I am the foster father of this bill. As was stated by the previous speaker, this .measure originated in the Senate and, I fancy, after due consideration and investigation it was passed by that honourable body and sent to this house for consideration. The proponents of the measure are most anxious that this bill should be sent .to one of the standing committees of the house in order that explanations may be given as to what work has been done and what investigations have been carried out, and also as to the cost of the bridge and the revenues which may be derived from it. I am further informed that not only will it cost some millions of dollars but that it will give work to a thousand Canadians for more than 360 days. If any construction can be undertaken at this time that will give that amount of work to that number of Canadians it seems to me nothing should be put in the way of the construction of the bridge. Therefore I would respectfully ask the house to give the bill second reading and allow it to go to one of the standing committees for further investigation.
Amendment (Mr. Shaver) agreed to on division.
Motion as amended agreed to. DOMINION HOUSING COMMISSION



PROPOSED LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES, SALARIES OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF AND ADVANCES

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (for the Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish a dominion housing commission and to assist in the construction of houses, and to provide for the salaries of the commissioners and staff, and for the payment of expenditures, and for advances for the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, there are certain observations I should like to make on the resolution. It was my privilege to serve on the special committee on housing, and therefore to be given the opportunity to gather information for the consideration of this problem. I believe I could sum up my thoughts most satisfactorily by referring to the evidence given before the special committee on housing on April 4, 1935, by Doctor W. C. Clark, Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance. I shall refer particularly to his evidence as it appears at page 357, at which point he summarizes the findings he placed before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: You do him a great honour.


Wilfred Hanbury: His summary is as follows:
(1)	It would not accept hasty commitments in regard to the most difficult and complicated phases of the housing problem on which other countries have been working (without too much success) for a generation or more. Nevertheless, it would provide machinery for taking the first steps towards a rational and permanent solution of the whole problem.
(2)	It would make possible a substantial volume of construction which would provide a stimulant to business recovery and absorb a considerable number of the unemployed.
(3)	It would make possible a large volume of construction without pressing with undue heaviness upon an already over-burdened public exchequer. For instance, a $10,000,000 appropriation by the dominion government would make possible a $50,000,000 construction program.
(4)	It would provide federal funds in the junior mortgage position where private funds are not obtainable at all, or if obtainable, only at prohibitive costs.
(5)	It would make use of private lending agencies instead of driving them out of business, but it would provide for a financial setup which by the pooling of individual mortgages and the maintenance of proper margins, would make possible the securing of all the funds required on a reasonable cost basis. In other words, the individual mortgage would be liquefied and made a readily marketable credit instrument.
(6)	It would provide for control in such a way as to assure the carrying out of the program on a sound and business-like basis.
I wish particularly to emphasize article No. 4 of Doctor Clark's summary:
It would provide federal funds in the junior mortgage position where private funds are not obtainable at all, or if obtainable, only at prohibitive costs.
I should like to read further from the evidence given by Doctor Clark:
It is possible that instead of the federal government coming in there on a central
3772	COMMONS
Housing Commission-Mr. Hanbury
housing board to buy the preferred stock of these local bousing corporations, you might provide for the setting up of an insurance corporation to guarantee the last twenty per cent of an eighty per cent mortgage.
And further down on the page:
... and then provide this national insurance corporation which would guarantee that last twenty per cent, then you would have a scheme which would, in effect, give you the same results as the plan I originally outlined, but possibly a little simpler.
It is through the medium of the federal government placing itself in the junior position of mortgage holders that I suggest we may best lend a stimulus in the matter of encouraging the construction of houses for immediate relief of the unemployment situation.
We had many proposals placed before us, but I believe the function of any government, as outlined in Doctor Clark's evidence, is in the first place to avoid the socialization suggested by many of the witnesses. We had suggestions to the effect that the government should go into the house construction business, and furnish all the funds therefor. We had the suggestion that the funds should be furnished at practically no cost to the people. I believe there is money in Canada which could go to provide all the housing required. In my view one of the reasons the money is not available at the present time is to be found in the legislation passed by many of the provinces. If the moratoria in the various provinces were lifted there would immediately become available money for loan purposes in connection with the construction of houses. I cannot see wherein this parliament should lend itself to placing money in the various provinces through this or any other scheme when we have no protection from the provincial moratoria now existing or to be placed in the future.
The report of the committee has recommended the establishment of a housing authority. We considered the use of the expression "housing comipission," but it was the opinion held by a majority of the members of the committee that it was not a commission we wanted, but rather an authority. Interpreting the recommendations made 'before the committee by Doctor Clark I can see no necessity for setting in motion the ponderous machinery of another commission. If we wished to establish an insurance corporation to underwrite the junior securities of these mortgage companies I believe the Department of Finance could function in that particular, and it would not be necessary to have a commission for that purpose.

It is true that if we are going to give consideration to slum clearance and to other problems we must have some body or authority to make a thorough investigation, because the question of slum clearance is quite involved. It will require considerable investigation and much in the way of legislation on the part of municipalities, provinces and federal authorities. So I say we shall have to have some body to investigate slum clearances. But to my mind there is no necessity for a commission; an authority under some department of government could undertake that work. If we are to accept the recommendation of Doctor Clark, or give it the consideration to which it is entitled, there is no necessity for a commission. The Department of Finance or some other department could place these insurance funds as well as any other body.
I turn again to Doctor Clark's evidence, and in particular his reference to slum clearance. At page 354 I find the following:
It would be wise to avoid any hasty commitments in regard to the most difficult and the most complicated aspects of housing; for instance, the problem of slum clearance, that problem seems to me is going to take a great deal of cooperation between provincial and municipal authorities, and dominion authorities probably. It is going to involve a good deal of legal and other considerations. It is going to involve a lot of cost. I do not think it is a problem that we ought to jump into hastily. If we did I think we would quickly be saddled with a very heavy loss, so far as that long-run problem is concerned. I would suggest that you recommend further investigation, however, by some central housing body to be set up, or by some appropriate body. I would like to have a start made on the solution of that problem, but I would not jump too far into it over night.
I read that statement to support my suggestion that if we are going to accept Doctor Clark's recommendations there is no necessity at the present time to establish another commission. If we did establish a commission, by the time .they had their machinery in operation months would have passed. On the suggiestion which Doctor Clark has made and which I support, I can see no reason why, through the use of existing channels such as mortgage and loan companies, the money could not be put into circulation for this purpose at an early date. I do not see why we should not consider using the established institutions. They have over a period of years developed a personnel to the point where they understand the lending business thoroughly. I think it is fair to assume that it is not our purpose here to give our money away. Rather we propose to lend money for legitimate purposes, and, Mr. Speaker, I want to accent the

Housing Commission-Mr. Heaps
word "lend." We do not propose to give money away. We are going to lend money, and if we are going to lend money it must be lent on an economic and sound basis. I repeat that the existing loan and insurance companies have their personnel who have been well trained in the lending business over a period of years.
The existing loan and insurance companies have large sums of money available. If we can assist them andi assist ourselves at the same time by having these provincial mora-toria raised, the loan and insurance companies would have money available to lend up to fifty or sixty per cent of the total value. I think it is reasonable to assume that no member of this chamber or anyone else who is active in the interests of the people would suggest that any money should be put out to any individual or company which did not have in the first place a reasonable amount of its own to add to the amount they were borrowing. I suggest that a minimum of twenty per cent should be required of any individual or company before any amount was lent to them for construction purposes under this housing scheme. With that money available on the part of the borrower, if the existing loan and mortgage companies would add to that fifty or sixty per cent of the total amount required, then if through this insurance company which has been suggested the balance of the money, probably fifteen or twenty or even twenty-five per cent was made available, I think on that basis we would have a sound and businesslike proposition. If we require people to put up their own money I think we will have a sound, businesslike proposition. If we leave the insurance and loan companies, with the experience they have had in these matters, in charge of this affair, we need have no fear that our money will not be properly spent, and we need have little fear of politics entering in or of bureaucracy which undoubtedly will creep in if we have a commission.
There was one other point which was made before the members of the committee. We were told of the necessity of providing homes for the underpaid workers which they might rent on a basis that was not economically sound, on a basis that would not give a fair return to the investor. I prefer, M*r. Speaker, to look at that problem in a different light. I think our duty here, instead of relegating these people for all time to the position of underpaid workers, instead of expecting to have underpaid workers in Canada for all time, is to see that our workers are properly paid so that they can provide their own homes,
and for that reason I think we must take into consideration the general conditions in Canada. Under present conditions even the higher paid worker is not able to provide his own home. So the question of housing is not simply a question of providing money. It is a question of general conditions, and as general conditions improve and when they do improve, as I am sure every person believes they will, housing is not going to be the serious matter it is to-day. I should be very sorry to see the government go into a general policy of socialism based on the general conditions today. The fact there is a large number of people in Canada who Cannot provide proper housing for themselves does not in my opinion justify a policy for all time to meet these special conditions of to-day.
I come back to my point that an authority under one of the departments of government could meet this situation and could probably make the funds available much more quickly than if we attempted to establish another commission at this time. I am going to suggest to the government that they give very serious consideration to letting the Department of Finance or some other department of government try it out-not necessarily the Department of Finance, but some department. It will be only a matter of a ferw months before parliament will be meeting again and if in the meantime the department has not been able to meet the situation as they should1 have done, it will be an easy enough matter to establish a commission. At present I think we have too many commissions and I believe the general public are coming to be of the same opinion.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak at the moment but I should like to say that in committee I shall be glad to explain the points that have been raised by the hon. gentleman. I am glad to see that he is ready to support the bill as it is drafted.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Sir George Perley) I think it would have been better if the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) had raised his questions in committee, but in view of the fact that he has raised them in the manner he did I should like to say a word or two in reply.
First of all it is extremely difficult for me to follow his argument, if it was an argument at all. It was totally against the report of which he himself as a member of the committee approved.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
3774	COMMONS
Housing Commission-Mr. Heaps


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is my opinion. I was a member of that committee and I think it is most unfair for any member to extract from the report the evidence of one particular witness and then try to make it appear to the house that that evidence was the consensus of all the witnesses who appeared before that committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did not say so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know he did not say so, and that is why I say his remarks would have come better in committee of the whole instead of on the floor of the house, and that is why I rose to reply; for if anything could be taken out of the evidence submitted to that committee it was the need for a certain type of housing in the Dominion of Canada.
Whilst the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard claimed that he was very anxious to protect the public treasury, let me say that if he had his way there could be no surer way of defeating that object. He wanted the government to be responsible for junior or second mortgages on the homes which might be built. If he knows anything about mortgages in these days he knows that second mortgages have very little value in this year 1935. But the hon. gentleman was quite prepared to suggest that private lending corporations and special interests should take the first mortgages and that the government should assume the second mortgages. If that is the way he intends to protect the public treasury of this dominion, then I feel very sorry indeed for the public treasury.
Secondly, may I point out that it was shown by every witness who appeared before the committee how great was the need of cheap money to build houses. There is no private corporation to-day which can build houses at the rate which was suggested by practically every witness who appeared before the committee. The rate suggested was three or four per cent at the outside.
Mr. ST-PERE: What will you do with the labouring men who at present own houses and cannot keep up their payments?


Abraham Albert Heaps: If they cannot keep them up to-day they cannot keep them up under any circumstances. There is great need to-day for houses of a type that the private corporations will not construct, and if we are to give a stimulus to industry as was suggested, the only way to do it is by providing funds out of the public treasury-yes, out of the public treasury-at a low rate of interest, and by giving to the government a first mortgage on

these homes or guarantees by provincial and municipal governments.
If there is one class of artisan in this country who needs assistance it is that which consists of those engaged in the building trades. The artisans in the building trades have been mostly out of work for many years, and there is very little hope for the immediate future. The construction of houses or a housing program is part of the platform, may I hope, of the Liberal party. I do not think a question of this kind is really a party question at all. I think the only way is for the government to step in at this time when private interests have failed so lamentably during the past few years, and see that something is done to provide for the thousands of houses that are needed, and to provide work for the men who need work so much at the present time.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said that we should allow the mortgage companies and other financial institutions to lend money to those who require homes. There is nothing to prevent them from lending their money now, but the fact is that they are not lending at the present time. If they have plenty of money it is locked up somewhere in the coffers and is not available to the people who require homes. One of the main difficulties is the belief that at the present rate of interest which is required, the security is not very good. It would be at a lower rate of interest, three or four per cent. No private corporation to-day can lend money at three or four per cent, but possibly the federal government can.
There is another factor which the hon. gentleman entirely omitted, and that is the fact that many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee suggested that the government might even subsidize the building of houses exactly in the same way as the building of houses is subsidized in many parts of the world. For instance, he might have said that in Great Britain they have been building houses by the thousand, and no one has been hurt; in fact, it has been a stimulus to the whole industry of the country. It is estimated that in this country we require approximately 35,000 houses per year for the next few years on account of the lack of house building which has manifested itself in the past few years. If that is so then there is in this country need for some sort of housing committee or commission or whatever you choose to call it, and that body should proceed as quickly as possible with the work of providing these houses. Their first object should be the provision of houses, and in the second place it

Housing Commission-Mr. Mackenzie King
would be the means of creating work for artisans who require it at the present time.
I do not want to discuss the question just now because in committee we shall be able to go into it at greater length; but it is unfortunate that the name of an official of the government should be brought into the discussion. He is not an authority on housing; he may know something about finance, but so far as housing is concerned he knows little.
Mr. ST-PERE:	Most of those witnesses
there never knew anything about real estate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the hon. gentleman wishes to make a speech he can do so in his own good time. I will say this, that the witnesses who appeared there all had probably a lifetime of experience in the housing problem either in this country or in other parts of the world. In practically every country of the world, apart from Canada, governments have entered into large and comprehensive schemes of housing. We are probably the last nation in the world to tackle the problem and I should like to see the government proceed with this question and go into committee this evening, and by the time we get through I hope that something will have been done to relieve the housing situation in Canada, and in the second place to provide work for the thousands of mechanics who have had no employment for a number of years past.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am inclined to think that the suggestion made by the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) is a good one, namely, that it might be well to see the bill before we further discuss the resolution. Much will depend on the provisions of the bill as to the extent to which it may be possible for all parties to unite on the measure. What strikes me at the outset is this. The proposed resolution is one which deals with one phase of the greatest of all problems, that of providing employment. I think I am right in assuming that providing employment is one of the specific aims of the bill. Not only is it intended to assist in providing necessary housing where something should be done to effect that end, but it is hoped it will help to provide employment in a manner that, so to speak, would serve two ends-that of furnishing employment to some of those in need of work and also that of furnishing accommodation for some of those in need of proper housing. What is most essential with respect to remedying unemployment and providing employment-and I have said so from the beginning of this parliament-is
that there should be, not a number of different commissions dealing with different schemes but one national commission charged with the supervision of all state effort towards the relief of unemployment. What should be done is to establish a body which will seek to coordinate and correlate the efforts of the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion. Otherwise we shall have different public bodies spending public moneys in a manner that will lead to extravagance, waste and overlapping. If this resolution contemplates the establishment of a federal commission to go off on its own and undertake the building of houses on behalf of the federal government, I for one should be inclined to view it with a good deal of suspicion. If, on the other hand, the bill proposes to establish some body that will see to it that any federal moneys expended to provide employment may be expended in part in the construction of dwellings, where slum clearances are needed and proper accommodation for working people should be provided, and that this is done in accordance with a scheme which will correlate the efforts of the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion, then the measure may be all to the good.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is something of that kind in the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the bill in that respect carries out the recommendation of the report, it will serve to bring about a certain degree of unanimity in the house with respect to what it proposes. But if it is to establish another commission to enable the present administration to appoint some more officials to spend public money out of the federal treasury, without any relation to what is done by the municipalities or the provinces, then we should oppose it very strongly. However, I for one am prepared to await the introduction of the bill. I attach much importance to one word in the resolution, namely., that it is to "assist" in the construction of houses. Evidently the resolution does not contemplate the federal government going into this business as some new venture at the present time.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.


George Halsey Perley: Perhaps I ought to have made some explanation of the resolution when I was moving it, but I thought that in the usual way we might go into committee at once and I could answer questions and make such explanations as might be necessary. As a matter of fact, although this resolution
Housing Commission

provides for the establishment of a dominion housing commission, with the consent of the house we propose not to carry out that part of it, that is to say, the intention at present is that we will proceed with this housing scheme through the Department of Finance, and we shall have an official in that department specially charged with that duty. We wish to move slowly in this matter, which is a very important one, and I am glad to know that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury), on this occasion at any rate, might well come and sit on this side of the house.


Wilfred Hanbury: Next year.


George Halsey Perley: This question of housing is of great social significance and national importance; I think we are all agreed on that. On that point I am at one with the three hon. gentlemen who have spoken. And here may I compliment the committee that considered this very serious problem. I have read over their report and I see that they gave a great deal of attention and consideration to all the different points. Indeed, it was a very happy circumstance, so far as I am concerned, that they were unanimous, that they passed a unanimous report, which is always a pleasant thing in the House of Commons. I hope it will be found so here.
In considering how far we should go in this matter at the present time, I want to read this paragraph from the report of the committee:
Good housing means less expenditure on prevention of disease, less crime, greater benefits for education, less unemployability as opposed to unemployment. The elimination of bad conditions has a cash value as well as a moral value to the nation. Further, there are wider economic aspects to consider. Bold and constructive housing projects will increase employment both directly and indirectly through the activity generated. To mitigate any liabilities on the national finances the cost of unemployment would be directly reduced, tangible and intangible assets will be created, the yield of sales and income taxes will be increased by the profits of those in building and industry, as well as those who benefit from the increased spending power of wage earners employed through the undertaking.
Personally I entirely agree with that view as set forth in the report of the committee, and it is along lines of that kind that this bill which I hope to introduce before long will be based.
The object of this bill is to formulate a plan to assist in providing houses suitable particularly for the low wage earner and to keep down the cost and interest charges within his ability to pay; it is also to provide work for the unemployed. It is evident that construction of this kind would stimulate

business and hasten recovery by providing employment for those trades and industries in which unemployment is most acute.
The bill which I propose to introduce recognizes and comprehends two distinct though related points of view in regard to this problem. The first of these is that the dominion may be of assistance in investigating conditions and collecting and disseminating information which may be used as the basis of formulating a constructive policy with regard to housing in Canada. This point of view visualizes the question as a long-run problem and one that will entail a vast amount of research, investigation and preparation, before any action other than purely temporary measures can be taken. It emphasizes the necessity of basing a housing program on a sound foundation of factual information in regard both to conditions in this country and to the experience of other countries. It recognizes the need for cooperation on the part of provincial and municipal authorities, particularly in regard to the institution of adequate zoning regulations designed to assure reasonable stability of property values.
The other point which I wish to stress is the obvious desirability of taking certain immediate steps of a practical nature designed to assist in solving the existing problem of unemployment. This point of view submits that it is not necessary to wait for t.he formulation of a comprehensive housing problem before any aasistanc-e can be given. Not only may the first steps be taken with regard to the housing problem as such, but any assistance given in this direction at the present time will be of value in stimulating business recovery and absorbing existing unemployment. I am one of those who believe a solution of the housing problem will do more good in this country than anything else I know of. There is no question that the conditions under which our people live have more to do than anything else with both their health and their mental capacity. I feel that pretty strongly.
In order to explain a little more fully what is in the bill, which is a very short one and which I am sure will be quite satisfactory to my right hon. friend, I note on page 378 of the report of the committee, paragraph 6, which reads:	[DOT]
The magnitude of the task involved in any program designed to eliminate in its entirety the housing problem in Canada is fully realized and appreciated; that such a program would involve intensive, continuous application and effort over a period of years is manifest: but that the initiation of such is imperative is obvious from even the necessarily limited inquiry into prevailing housing conditions in which it has been your committee's privilege to engage.



IS. 1935

[Stage Direction]
Housing Commission
The purpose of the bill is twofold. In the first place it is proposed that this inquiry which has been carried on by the special committee should be continued under the authority of the economic council which was set up by law during the present session. That is to say, they are to go into the matter more fully. The bill does not provide for any slum clearance, but it provides that inquiry shall be made also into that problem as well as into all other matters cognate to the question of housing. I trust the committee will drop any idea of a commission. We simply provide that a sum of money shall be made available under the control of the Minister of Finance to assist in these building operations.
Ross Wilfred Gray: Is any sum mentioned?


George Halsey Perley: There is a sum
mentioned. I may say for the information of the committee that the sum we propose to put at the disposal of the Minister of Finance for this purpose is $10,000,000, and the idea we have in mind is that twenty per cent of the construction costs will be provided by the government out of this fund, so that we hope the result will be a program of construction which will amount to $50,000,000 in order to start this very necessary program of housing particularly of the class required by the low paid man.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not quite get the last
part of the hon. gentleman's speech; it was rather difficult to hear. Do I understand that according to the bill it is the intention of the government to provide merely twenty per cent towards the cost of construction?


George Halsey Perley: The proposal is
that we should provide twenty per cent towards the cost of construction. Perhaps I had better leave this point until we get into the bill because I do not want to enter at the moment into a discussion of it; I shall be glad, however, to do so at the proper time.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is to give fictitious
prosperity over a very short period to a few of the unemployed in the building trades. We have already had some experience in connection with public works done under a tripartite scheme, federal, provincial and municipal. It proved to be such a failure that a year afterward the government returned to direct relief. For instance, when first a sum of $20,000,000 was voted by the house for the relief of unemployment when there was practically none, one expected that sum of money would be spent on a construction program. Only a fraction of it, however, was spent for
that purpose during that fiscal year. A large portion of it was spent for direct relief. It was just a preliminary at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was not seriously considering the problem of unemployment except in his mind and on his lips when he was speaking to the country. He did not fully realize how disastrous his policies had been until after the return of the late Senator Robertson, then Minister of Labour, from his trip to the west. Then they decided to do something. In that year they spent $42,000,000, largely on a construction program. But what was the benefit of that to the labouring man and those in the building trades? Each one worked not more than twenty days and a fraction on the average. It was a failure, so much so that the next year the government came back with a direct relief policy, which has been 'maintained since, in spite of the fact that there still ring in my ears the words uttered by the Prime Minister during the special session of 1930, "Those men do not want charity, they want work." Following the failure of his work policy he turned to direct relief, and after the failure of the direct relief policy he now comes back to the works policy, forgetting for the time, in view of the coming elections, that it has been a complete failure under his own government.
This is a true picture of what has happened in this country under the administration of this government. But there is more to it. The right hon. gentleman has forgotten the most important factor in the construction business. He has forgotten that the spends ing power of the individual means more to the construction industry than all that any government can do, and he has started by destroying public confidence in the country since he was elected leader of his party at the Winnipeg convention in 1927. He said that things were going wrong, that the country was not on a sound financial basis, and talked about speculation and all that. We know the inside story about speculation on the fall, and- some day I shall tell it to the house. But when times were good he said times were bad, and now that times are so bad he boasts they are good, but nobody believes him, and rightly so. He has underestimated! the importance of the spending power of the common individual, of all those thrifty people who have money laid aside to build when times are prosperous. Some have a thousand dollars in the bank for that purpose, others have two thousand dollars, others have five thousand, but how can they spepd that money when they are so uncertain about
Housing Commission

the future of this country, about their own future, and when confidence has been replaced in every home by anxiety for the morrow? Now the Prime Minister is trying to rejuvenate this country by this building policy. He is the architect, the nomad architect, who plans all sorts of things, all sorts of palliatives to make people forget that they have not the means of life, that they have not all a palatial suite in the Chateau Laurier. He says "Let us destroy slums." Another mistake he made which did not affect him was that tripartite plan of 1930, imposing the burden on the provinces and the municipalities. He forgot- naturally he was not interested in the matter -that the obligations imposed on the municipalities had to be met by the taxpayers, the owners of immovable property in the municipality. He said: "Things are bad; I will save this country; I will end unemployment." When he said that, people were under the impression that he alone was to do it. But then he imposed this heavy burden upon the provinces; he imposed a heavy burden on the municipalities. That burden on the municipalities was not merely on the shoulders of the community; it had to be met by private property owners in these municipalities, and these were unable to pay their taxes. And now, sir, what do we see? In 1931, when he came with his building program, the municipalities were already unable to meet the liabilities imposed upon them by the legislation of 1930. His great error of judgment was when he said that an expenditure of $20,000,000 by this government would result in an outlay of S75,000,000. He meant that the expenditure by the provinces and the municipalities would be more than the amount paid by the federal government, which was absurd. He said that by this government contributing $20,000,000 the provinces and municipalities would spend $55,000,000. Imagine that, sir. There should have been a great outburst of laughter when such an incredible thing was said by a so-called sensible man. In 1931 the provinces were unable to meet their obligations, and in order to enable them to pursue that silly building scheme the government had to lend money to the provinces with which to meet their own obligations. Loans were made to several provinces, why?


The CHAIRMAN:: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that we are considering a housing resolution?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, and I speak of building and construction.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Of houses, please.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, and what I say is perfectly relevant because I show that the previous construction policy of the government has been entirely wrong, and I show the mistakes that have been made in the past. The Prime Minister has said that this is no time to look at the past. I hope, sir, that in your fairness you will allow me to continue to speak of the past in order that the future may not be a failure as the past has been. And I will tell you more than that, sir, that the municipalities themselves were so burdened by that policy that some of them had to pay ten, twenty, thirty, fifty per cent-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The municipalities have nothing whatever to do with this. Will the hon. member please discuss the resolution?


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir; I am through with that point.
Now let us look at another most important point, the destruction of public confidence. The government now has a housing policy. There are few people in this country who do not live under a roof. What do they want? They want to be able to earn their livelihood; they want to be able to dress themselves decently and properly; they want to have enough fuel to heat their homes in the winter time, and they want to eat three meals a day. That is what they want. A housing scheme is an important thing, but the most important thing to do, sir, is to give work to the unemployed. The members of the government say this will relieve unemployment; I just heard the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) make that statement. Probably that is so, but how many days on the average will they work? My remarks are strictly to the point, because the people who own immovable property in this country have been ruined by the burden of taxation imposed upon them due to the policies of this government, so they cannot build new houses. There are many fathers who had some money laid aside with which they hoped to establish their children in trades and build houses for them. Their children, who had employment in 1930, who left the old homestead for the city and found jobs, who married there and were living well until this government imposed their incredible policies, have lost their jobs now and have had to go back to their fathers in the country, not alone but with their wives and children, and the fathers, who are unable to sell their products, have to look after all those people.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Please stay with the housing resolution.

Housing Commission


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. This is why the fathers cannot build houses to shelter their children, who were unable to pay their rent in the cities. They said, " Well, we have no money left. We cannot sell our products. We are sorry you have to live in slums and we are sorry you must come, but we cannot afford to pay high rents for you in the cities." This is strictly relevant to the housing scheme. Take the farmer's son who left the old homestead in times of prosperity, when the Liberal government was in power, and looked for a job as a mechanic. As soon as he was promised a better job by the right hon. leader of the government-I mean the government, which will not last long, thank God-he thought of better times. But, sir, all that fell down; he was set back and then he lost his job and now the father has to look after him and his family. If we build wonderful apartment houses such as they have in Vienna, in Russia, and in Germany, and the men who are supposed to live there cannot find jobs, what is the advantage in building these houses for the workingmen?
I am strongly in favour of the clearance of slums; I am in favour of a good housing scheme, but the best housing scheme we can have is one that will be looked after by the private individual who is interested in receiving full value for the money he spends, and one which gives no chance to grafters who are after contracts in order to put up cardboard houses in the cities and charge the government the prices of stone walls. That has happened before. What will happen under this scheme? We will have flat contracts, and the people will be bled.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The question is simply whether it is advisable to formulate a housing scheme. The bill is not now being discussed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am discussing the principle of the matter w'hich is contained in this resolution.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The principle of the bill is not even under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was not discussing the bill. How can a labouring man pay rent of $25 a month when he does not work? What has become of the promise of the right hon. gentleman to give work to everyone? He said, "I will give you not charity but work." Where is it? He says he has fulfilled all his promises. If there are slums in the cities it is because men who had work in 1930 are unemployed now, and they cannot look after the repairs to the houses in which they live. This is the principal reason for the slums in the cities; this is why the houses are not 92582-240
painted as they should be, and are not looked after. This is why there are broken windows and so on.
Sir, it is a very sad thing. How will this money be paid? The right hon. member for Argenteuil mentioned-perhaps it was a slip- the sum of $10,000,000. What are we to spend that for? That $10,000,000 will be spent to feed parasites on that commission. Why have the government decided on a policy of housing before knowing the number of unemployed in each building trade in the Canadian cities and municipalities from coast to coast? The information has been given by a private member, but may I ask the right hon. member for Argenteuil how many plumbers, how many carpenters, how many bricklayers, how many joiners and how many painters in the city of Halifax will find work under this scheme? How many will be looked after? Then we come to that proud city in New Brunswick, the native province of the right hon. Prime Minister; I refer to the city of Saint John, and I would ask the same information in connection with that city. I would ask the same information in connection with every city in the nine provinces of Canada. The government did not know, until they were told by a private member, the occupations of the unemployed of this country, but surely now they must be in a position to tell this committee how many men they will look after in the building trades? Can they answer? No, sir, they cannot. Why? Because theirs is a half baked policy; that is all there is to it. It is a policy of mirage-m-i-r-a-g-e-and fake. Then they will say to the people, "Look at the skyscrapers we have built." To shelter all the unemployed who have lost their jobs since 1930 we would have to have a skyscraper as high as Jacob's ladder. What a skyscraper would be needed to shelter all the unemployed who have lost their jobs because of the policy of this government! Do hon. members think for one moment that I will take the trouble to read and to discuss the bill arising from this resolution, and to say here must be a comma and here must be a period and here must be a semicolon? I do not believe in this policy, and I make that statement once and for all. I am against all those policies, because I have had an opportunity to study much of the legislation that has been passed. It is half baked, it is useless; the country is going to the dogs and it is time to stop it.
Hon. members on this side have made this suggestion to the government: Why not publish the telephone directories of every city in Canada in the statute books, so that we

Housing Commission

may have huge books at the end of the year? The government do not want peace, order and good government, but they do want ream upon ream of paper in the statute books. With that burden on their backs they will tell the people, "Here we are, with this great legislation that will save you." Surely they will never be bold enough to tell the Canadian people that the legislation passed by this government would save them. That would not be true. "This is not the time to look to the past," states the right hon. gentleman opposite. "Let us look to the future; let us look for spiritual values; let us look for wider hope"-and still the people do not laugh. I cannot understand it. I do not know why the people take it seriously, because the government is not serious. It is election propaganda, that is all there is to it. I am strongly opposed to the policy of this government because up to now every step it has taken has been a complete failure. The past is the best guarantee for the future, and judging by its past the future of this government is rather dark.
I have said enough for the moment, but I shall have something further to say at a later time. I say most earnestly, sir, that I cannot' accept policies of this kind until they are based upon facts. The government have ignored the facts purposely in order to leave us in a false paradise. It is superfluous to add that that is a great mistake. Sir, no person is a better friend of the labouring man than the one who now addresses you. He has shown it on many occasions since he has been a member of this chamber, but he refuses categorically to let the labouring man be deceived by any false hopes, and it is for that reason that upon this occasion he voices his strong objection to the resolution.


Thomas Langton Church: 
Mr. ELLIOTT:: I do not wish to suggest
any curtailment of the discussion but it does seem to me that perhaps we could 9pend the time of the committee to better advantage if we were in possession of the bill and knew something more of what the government's proposals are as outlined therein. I must say that I cannot entirely agree with the speaker who has just taken his seat (Mr. Church) because I would not like to see this housing scheme carried out after the manner of the 1919 act, which was not a great success, I think. However, as I say, I do not believe there is any great advantage in spending time upon conjectures as to what the bill may contain. I suggest that we get it before the
3782	COMMONS
Trade and Industry Commission
committee as soon as we can so that the house may have an opportunity of giving this very important problem the careful attention it deserves.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concujred in. Sir George Perley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 112, to assist the construction of houses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. 86, to establish a dominion trade and industry commission-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 28-Publication of certain reports.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was before the house yesterday the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) requested some information with respect to the fines collected under the Weights and Measures Act. I find that for the period 1919 to 1935 a total of $4,22650 was collected in fines.


John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister give the amounts by years?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; 191920, $2,320; 1920-21, $140; 1921-22, $65; 1922-23, $132; 1923-24, $230; 1924-25, $115; 1925-26, $160; 1926-27, $199.55; 1927-28, $115; 1928-29, $37; 1929-30, $162; 1930-31, $325; 1931-32, $105; 1932-33, $35;	1933-34, $35; 1934-35,

When the bill was last before the house the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) made a suggestion with respect to the publication of reports under section 28. I have the following amendment to propose, that section 28 be amended by adding thereto as subsection 3 the following:
In the case of any agreement or proposed agreement for the control andt regulation of prices or production the commission shall in such manner as seems desirable make the same public and shall fix a date at least fifteen days from the date of publication aforesaid for hearing representations by any interested person whether producers, consumers or others.
I think that ought to suit the hon. member for Weyburn.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1 move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That means that the publication will take place before the recommendation is passed on to council for approval?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before action is taken by the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: With the consent of the committee I wish to revert to sections 18 and 19, with respect to "Canada standard." It has been brought to my attention that under the British standards act, or whatever the name of the imperial act is, where they set up the British standard such as is contemplated in section 18 they leave the alternative of using either the words "British standard" or the initials "B.S." It is suggested that in addition to the words "Canada standard" we should have the initials "C.S." I would therefore move that section 18 be amended by adding in the third line, after the words "Canada standard," the initials "C.S." And the same with respect to section 19. In line 18, after the words "Canada standard," there should be the initials "C.S.", and again in line 32 and in line 35 there should be the same change.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the preamble.
John Campbell Elliott: Could the minister give the committee any statement as to the results? I see there is quite a difference in the amount of fines levied in the last year and I should like to know what effect prosecution has had with regard to the prevention of short weights.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am informed by the director of weights and measures that it is having a very salutary effect and we are asking for more inspectors and more money to enforce the law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that
the preamble makes special mention of the passing of a resolution on the second day of February, 1934, that a select special committee 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 and the prices paid by the consumers. No mention is made in the preamble of a similar resolution introduced a year or two before by the hon. member for Assiniboia

Unemployment Insurance
(Mr. Mackenzie). It may not suit the government's purpose to include it in the preamble but as it originated the idea some mention should be made of that fact somewhere in the records of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is all on the records
now.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 8, to establish an employment and social insurance commission, to provide for a national employment service, for insurance against unemployment, for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto.
He said:	In the votes and proceedings of
May 31 there was a statement in detail of the amendments. Those who have Bill No. 8 before them will observe that the amendments in section 2 are to fix the period of twenty-four hours under the definition of "day"; to add the words "of the commission," and also to state in writing the words "twenty" and "twenty-four" rather than to leave them in the form of figures. In the remaining part of section 2 the same course has been adopted by the Senate. There is nothing material there. In section 4, subsection 6, there were added the words, "and with the approval of the governor in council, real property." It was provided in the original bill that the commission might acquire real and personal property but it is provided now that they may not acquire real property except with the approval of the governor in council. In section 5, subsection 3, there were added at the end the words "during such absence or incapacity." That is with respect to the appointment by the governor in council of a temporary commissioner who should hold office only during the absence or incapacity of any commissioner. With respect to section 6 there was added a provision regarding residence within the city of Ottawa or within ten miles thereof -that is as to the commission. Section 8 is amended by adding after the word "may" in the first line "subject to the approval of the governor in council." In section 12, in the third line, after the word "and," there are added the words "to the extent the commission considers necessary." In subsection 2 of section 12 the words "render any person
liable" in line 42 are struck out. In line 44 the words "three months" are changed to the words "one month," and in line 43, after the word "conviction," the words "render liable any person in default" are inserted. That phraseology was adopted in the act as a whole.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The penalty is reduced from three months to one month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. In section 16 the whole of clause (a), subsection 1 has been struck out, and (b) becomes (a) and (c) becomes (b). The bill by section 16 provided for exemption:
Where any employed person proves that he is either:-
(a) in receipt of any pension or income of the annual value of $365 or upwards, which does not depend on his personal exertions; or-
That is struck out. At the end of section 17, subsection 1, dealing with contributions, there are added after the word "provided" the words "or otherwise as may be prescribed by the commission." That is to give the commission power to deal with contributions by "employers of those persons, which contributions shall be paid by means of revenue stamps as hereinafter provided or otherwise as may be prescribed by the commission."
In section 18, line 41, after the word "stamps" are inserted the words "and the devices for impressing the same." That is merely an amplification of the section. In section 19, lines 19 and 20, after the words "provisions of this act," there are inserted the words "including part II of the third schedule thereof."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the effect of that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 19 will now read:
Every person who being insured under this act is unemployed and in whose case the conditions laid down by this act (in this act referred to as "statutory conditions") are fulfilled. shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this act (including part II of the third schedule thereof).
Then in line 22, just at the end of the line after the word "under" are inserted the words "part I of." The clause reads: "under the third schedule," and the senate have made it read "under part I of the third schedule."
In section 20, line 32, the word "unemployed" is struck out and after the word "days" are inserted the words "of unemployment" so that the section would read: "exclusive of any days of unemployment." That is better than the mere use of the word "unemployed." I think that is an improvement. Again in section 20, subsection 5 of the printed bill, that is the one referring to period of disqualification
Unemployment Insurance

Dot to count in continuous period of unemployment unless due to disease or disablement, has been struck out, and a new subsection is added which I am bound to say is an improvement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is there any change in principle in the amendment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not. I will read it.
(5) Any period during which a person-
(i)	fails to fulfil the second or third statutory condition, or
(ii) is, under the provisions of this act, disqualified for receiving benefit, or
(iii) is, under the provisions of this act, deemed not to be unemployed, shall be excluded in the computation of continuous periods of unemployment unless that person proves that the failure to fulfil the said statutory conditions or the disqualification for receiving benefit was due to incapacity for work arising from some definite disease or bodily or mental disablement.
The general principle of it I think may be said to be maintained.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is just put into three groups, one, two and three?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. In the same section on page 12, line 13, the word "good" preceding the word "employer" has been struck out and the words "reasonable and fair" substituted therefor. I think that is a definite improvement. The term "good" as applied to an employer is not as apt a description as the term "reasonable and fair." In line 23 of the proviso the same change is made. Those are all the changes at that point.
In the last paragraphs of the last subclause of section 20, that is on page 13, line 2, after the word "shift" are inserted the words "in the occupation or," so that it reads:
On any day which is recognized as a holiday for his grade or class or shift in the occupation or at the factory, workshop or other premises at which he is employed.
The same change is made after the word "shift" in line 7, and the words "or place" in line 8 are struck out.
There are no changes in the succeeding sections 21, 22, 23 and 24. In section 25 the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection 1 is struck out and after the word "them" in paragraph (d) of subsection 1, the word "and" is added. Paragraph (e) is then added as follows:
(e) persons W'ho by custom of their occupation, trade or industry or pursuant to their agreement with an employer or paid, in whole or in part, by the piece or on a basis other than that of time.
That is to cover the piece goods worker.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
broadens the scope of the section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Then in line 30,
after the words "respect to" are inserted the words "contributions and the payment thereof and with respect to," so that it reads:
With respect to contributions and the payment thereof and with respect to the receipt of benefit.
That makes it clearer. Section 28 on page 18 is amended by adding after the word "division" in the first line of the section, the words "established under section 11 of this act," so that it reads:
The commission may in each regional division established under section 11 of this act-
And so forth. Then in the fourth line of this section between the word "each" and the word "regional" is inserted the word "such," and in the next line the words "established under section 11 of this act" have been struck out. In other words, the words "established under section 11 of this act" have been given their true meaning by being removed from the second line of subsection 2.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did the senate not make an amendment to section 27?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did I not read that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The proviso in lines 25 to 28 is struck out. That is a departure from the principle adopted by the house. It is one striking example of it, and there is another departure. There is no appeal now granted by reference to the exchequer court; the decision of the commission is final. It will be remembered that the question was discussed in this chamber, and after hearing the representations made to the select committee in the senate, the senate adopted the view that there should be no appeal, that the matter should be decided by the commission.
I have dealt with section 28. There is no change in section 29, or in section 30, which is a long one. In section 31 however there are some changes. In line 35 on page 21 between the words "be" and "liable" are added these words, "guilty of an offence against this act and," which of course is a very proper addition. The same addition is made in line 47 between the words "shall" and "for." In subsection 3 of section 31, after the word "shall" in the eighth line and before the word "for" are added the same words.

Unemployment Insurance
Then there are no changes until you get to section 34 at the top of page 24, when the same words are added in the second line after the word "shall."
In section 35 after the word "stamps" in the fourteenth line on page 24, and before the word "including," are added these words; "and all contributions, if any, paid otherwise than by means of such stamps." That is, the revenue received from the sale of stamps or payments that may be made in other forms than that, may be included in the fund.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By regulation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Shall be included in the fund.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But regulations will be drawn up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. In subsection 4 of section 35 referring to investment of fund, in lines 32 and 33 on page 24 the words "or any province of Canada" are struck out. That is a change in terms from what was decided by this chamber; for it provides that the fund may be invested in obligations payable in Canadian currency of or guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada. It eliminates provincial investments.
At the top of page 25 the whole of subsection 7 of section 35 is struck out and the following new subsection is substituted:
(7) The commission may open and maintain deposit accounts with chartered banks, including the savings banks named in chapter fourteen, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and any balance maintained in any such bank shall form part of the fund.
Then there is a new subclause 8, which
reads:
"(8) No such bank, nor the Bank of Canada, shall be entitled to charge any exchange on or fee for cashing any cheque, as defined by the Special War Revenue Act, issued by the commission, and the provisions of section forty-four of that act shall not apply to such cheques."
It will be recalled that in the province of Quebec there are special forms of savings bank, notably the Montreal City and District savings bank. This amendment makes it possible for funds to be deposited in those banks. Then subclauses 8 and 9 are now numbered 9 and 10; and after the word "done" in the next to the last line in subsection 9, at the end of the eighth line the words "by it" are added, making it read; "required to be done by it under the provisions of this section."
In section 37, line 27, before the word "vacancy," the last word in the line, is added the word "casual," so that it reads "to fill a
casual vacancy. In subsection 9 the first four words are struck out and the English is improved by making it read "the commission shall make available to the committee such information___"
The regulations section is not changed.
Sections 39 to 48 inclusive are not changed. But in the schedules slight changes have been made. It will be remembered that in clause (c) of the excepted employments some question arose as to saw mills. The section as it originally read was as follows, "employment in lumbering and logging." It has now been amended to read:
employment in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such saw mills, planing mills and shingle mills as are reasonably continuous in their operations.


Mr. NEILL:: It does not take in lumbering; it still exempts lumbering?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Totally? It does not make the same provision as to "reasonably continuous"; that applies only to the mills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read that to mean
that there is a specific exception in respect of lumbering and logging, "exclusive of such saw mills, planing mills and shingle mills as are reasonably continuous in their operations."


Alan Webster Neill: But why should not the words be put in, "employment in lumbering and logging that are reasonably continuous"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The draftsman in the
other chamber took it that the conclusion at which the senate had arrived was that the excepted employments included lumbering and logging, but that was to be exclusive of such saw mills, planing mills and shingle mills as are reasonably continuous in their operations.


Alan Webster Neill: But does the Prime Minister agree with that? Should not that "reasonably continuous" apply to logging as well as to saw mills?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would put a somewhat different construction upon it from that at which they had arrived. It is in part II Of the schedule, page 31 of the bill. The excepted employments are: "(c) employment in lumbering and logging."


Alan Webster Neill: That is what I am objecting to. Why did they not make the same exception as to lumbering and logging as they did in the case of shingle and planing mills? If lumbering is reasonably continuous, why was it not put in that exception to the exception, as you might call it?
Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know why. I can only say this is the conclusion at which they did arrive.


Wilfred Hanbury: Would the Prime Minister give his interpretation of that again?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Part II of the bill mentions the excepted employments, that is the employments to which this system does not apply. The first was employment in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; the second employment in fishing, and the third employment in lumbering and logging. But the amendment does not make that universally applicable; it provides that it shall not apply to such saw mills, planing mills and shingle mills as are reasonaby continuous in their operation.


Wilfred Hanbury: But that would not.
include logging in British Columbia. In a large part of British Columbia logging is conducted twelve months in the year. I assume from that interpretation that that logging is excepted, but saw milling is not. I cannot understand that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only reporting it just as it is. It will be remembered that some discussion took place in this chamber with respect to lumbering and logging and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury), as well as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) made some reference to it. Representations made in the committee resulted in its being put in this form.
The next change, however, is a departure from the principle agreed upon by this chamber. It will be recalled that when I was dealing with the bill I pointed out that banking, mortgage, loan, trust and insurance and other financial businesses were excepted from the operation of the bill. After hearing the representations made these were taken out of the excepted class and the statute applies to them. I am bound to say that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) thought this should be done originally, if I remember correctly.
Then at page 33 are added the following words:
Employment in which persons are employed and paid for playing any game.
We are now dealing with the excepted employments. The last one is (r) and this is added as (s), so far as I can see.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does that include members of parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Judging from what we have listened to this evening, the hon. member might conclude that.
[Mr. Neill.3
At page 33, part II, entitled " Rules as to payments and recovery of contributions paid by employers on behalf of employed persons," at the beginning of the section these words are added: "subject to section 25 of this act."


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the difference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will remember that there is a long list of persons excepted, including special classes of casual and seasonal workers, and in order to make it beyond peradventure they put in the words " subject to section 25." Had I been writing it I should have said " subject to the provisions of section 25."
Then we come to paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 34, which they have entirely rewritten, and if I may I will read them to the house because I think they have in some respects improved the expression of the intention of parliament:
3.	Where the employed person receives any wages or other pecuniary remuneration from the employer, the amount of any contribution paid by the employer on behalf of the employed person shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any act or any contract to the contrary, be recoverable by means of deductions from the wages of that person or from any other remuneration due from the employer to that person and not otherwise: Provided that no such deduction may be made-
(a)	from any wages or remuneration other than such as are paid in respect of the period or part of the period for which the contribution is payable; or
(b)	in excess of the sum which represents the amount of the contributions for the period (if that period is longer than a week) in respect of which the wages or other remuneration are paid.
If hon. members have been following paragraph 3 in these rules as to payment I think they will agree that perhaps that puts it a little more clearly than it was in the original bill. Paragraph 4 reads as follows:
4. Where the employed person does not receive any wages or other pecuniary remuneration from the employer, but receives such remuneration from some other person, the amount of any contribution paid by the employer on behalf of the employed person shall (without prejudice to any other means of recovery) be recoverable summarily as a civil debt, if proceedings for the purpose are instituted within three months from the date on which the contribution was payable.
There is no substantial change, but I think it is put more clearly. Paragraph 10 on page 35 is amended to read as follows:
Subject to section 25 of this act, for the purposes of this schedule, the expression "calendar week" means the period from twelve o'clock in the afternoon on one Sunday to twelve o'clock in the afternoon on the following Sunday.

Juvenile Delinquents Act
There are no other amendments made by the senate. Of the two changes to which I have directed attention in principle the last one is important; I do not think the other is very material. The rest are textual changes intended to make clear the meaning of the act, and I believe no question should arise with respect to them.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, there is of *course the question that was discussed originally here, and at the end of the discussion we left it in the form in which it was, believing that the commission might be able to deal with the matter as it should be dealt with in the light of changing conditions existing in one part of the country sis compared with another part, with respect to lumbering and logging. The senate have added that this exception shall not apply where there has been a reasonably continuous operation of the mills that have to do with products derived from lumbering and logging operations. The change bringing in the banks and mortgage companies was long considered and much debated, I understand, but in the end the change was made and they are now included within the purview of the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to ask a question in connection with section 10. Is it proper draftsmanship to say twelve o'clock in the afternoon? Should it not be twelve o'clock noon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I saw that I asked *myself at once whether twelve o'clock in the afternoon was good, because twelve o'clock is twelve o'clock noon and it is not twelve o'clock in the afternoon until one minute later. From twelve o'clock noon to the same hour the next day I think would be more accurate, but I understand there is some authority for saying twelve o'clock in the afternoon.


Alan Webster Neill: Once more I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that when this matter was discussed before I think he gave the assurance that this question of the continuous nature of employment in lumbering and logging would be considered or dealt with under some other section of the act, possibly the regulations, but as the amendment reads now it will prohibit any action being taken under the regulations because it distinctly states what are to be the exemptions, and that would seem to preclude the possibility of any regulation bringing lumbering within the operations of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not care to express a definite opinion on that point, but I do not
think there has been any curtailment of the powers of the commission to deal with the situation, by virtue of the changed language. Originally the language was "exclusive of the saw mill, planing mill and shingle mill industries" and in order that the question of the continuous character of their operations might be brought to the attention of the commission the senate has provided that they must be reasonably continuous in their operations, instead of treating them as industries that should be taken to be continuous. I do not think it changes the general sense of the provision as it left this house, but my opinion is no more valuable than that of the hon. gentleman in that regard.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: When this bill was before the house in the first instance I brought up the question of part time employees in the coal mines, of whom I have a considerable number in my constituency. Certain amendments have been' made to section 7 to include part time employees, and I wonder just how those amendments will affect those coal miners who are employed as such for say twenty weeks in the year, and who for the rest of the time work on farms or at other occupations. Will they be included under this bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not care to venture a definite opinion about a matter of that sort. The language of the section I think makes it probable-I will go only that far-within the powers of the commission to deal with that matter. I would not care to anticipate an opinion and express a definite view on the point. When the hon. member for Assiniboia spoke I was just going to say that section 7 has not been changed so far as those powers are concerned. I should think the powers of the commission have not been abridged or lessened as compared to what they were when the bill left this chamber.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 106 to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Summary trials.
Ross Wilfred Gray: Would the minister explain the reason for the change?


Hugh Guthrie: The amendments proposed in this bill were requested by the various
Criminal Code Amendment

children's aid societies and similar organizations throughout Canada. They are not very important amendments, but the societies are anxious that they be carried into the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 107 to amend the criminal code. .
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Irrebuttable presumption.
Ross Wilfred Gray: This clause apparently adds at the beginning of subsection 3 the words " it shall be an irrebuttable presumption." I think the house is always loath to add sections to the criminal code or to any statute providing for an " irrebuttable presumption," unless there is very good reason for doing so.


Hugh Guthrie: This is another amendment requested by the children's aid societies of Canada. The words we propose to add to the section now in the criminal code are as follows:
It shall be an irrebuttable presumption in any prosecution under subsection 2 of this section, that the child was in danger of being or becoming immoral, its morals injuriously affected and its home rendered an unfit place for it to be in, upon proof that the person accused did in fact, in the home of such child, participate in adultery, in sexual immorality, in habitual drunkenness or in any other form of vice.
We have to prove, first, that the act was committed, and the irrebuttable presumption is that the child was thereby affected. Then there is this saving clause:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of two persons who are not married to each other but are living together as man and wife and reputed to be man and wife, and where the child so affected is the child of the two persons so living together.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is this clause added because
of some adverse decision?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it arises from the
complaint of children's aid societies about the section as it now stands, which is printed in the explanatory notes. That section is as follows:
In any prosecution under subsection 2 of this section, where the circumstances are such, as in the opinion of the court, to render it likely


And so on. That is the present section. The section would now read that in the event of immorality being proved there must be an irrebuttable presumption that the child was thereby affected.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (for the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 110, bo authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that the Minister of Finance promised certain information to the house on second reading. Perhaps the minister would give us that information later.
Sir GEOiRGE PERLEY:	I	shall attend
to that, and try to get the information.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When
the estimates are under consideration?


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed'.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Wednesday, June 19, 1935