1. 5,500 warrants issued by the Minister of Militia and Defence.

2. 4,993 land certificates issued by the Minister of the Interior, of which 230 have been located on homestead land, up to the last returns received in the department from the land agencies.

Mr. FOSTER.

Might I call the attention of the Finance Minister to question No. 9, and ask him if he can have that facilitated so that we can get the answer tomorrow, if possible?

Mr. FIELDING.

I will see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries later in the day on that subject.

FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.

Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).

I beg to move in amendment

That all the words after ' that' be struck out, and the following words be substituted therefor:

This House is of opinion that for the purpose of enabling the electors to exercise the full rights and privileges of their franchise, the general elections should be held on the same day throughout all the provinces of Canada.

In introducing this subject dealing with deferred elections in Canada, I do so be-

cause I have had it impressed upon me that it is a duty I owe to my constituents, and I believe in a larger sense to a considerable portion of the people of Canada. I am endeavouring to introduce the question in such a way as that it will not mean in any sense a want of confidence in the government. In its broadest aspects I need not say that the matter is hardly controversial, the amendment simply enunciating a principle the soundness of which will be admitted by both sides of this House, and which I trust the government will be able to see their way to accept. In dealing with the question of the franchise we are dealing with a matter which is vital to the whole system of democratic and representative government. Underlying all democratic government is the basic principle that the source of political power is the people. It is true that this principle has been weakened, or distorted, in practically working oat the transfer of power from the people to the delegates or representatives who finally wield that power. The process is very imperfect in most communities; and in passing I am free to confess that if the system of transferring such power were adopted which was recently so ably expounded in this House in a scheme of proportional representation, it might achieve far more satisfactory results than those we obtain under our present system, it would greatly strengthen the personnel both of the government and of the assembly, and would form a more faithful reflex of popular opinion. But sir, imperfect as our present methods may be, and imperfect as the results we want to achieve may be, yet in a very real sense the basis of political power is the suffrage, and anything therefore which touches the character of the suffrage, or the franchise, and its exercise demands, and I think will receive the thoughtful consideration of this House. Many hon. members who are present, representing as they do the people in the parliament of Canada, are doubtless familiar with the long struggles for constitutional power and for a more faithful expression of the public will, which took place in Great Britain for hundreds of years, and which is yielding to-day such beneficent and far reaching results. Gradually the scope of the franchise has been extended and widened. Many timorous people fear the results of its development, but they have got to adjust and reconcile themselves to the great movement which is leading, in nearly all cases, to a government by the people and for the people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my belief, not only in the value of the franchise, but in the necessity of every man exercising his franchise in the true spirit, is the reason for introducing this amendment to-day. To my mind the time has arrived for the abolition of deferred elections throughout Canada. Nor do I believe, to use the words of the amend-Mr. BURRELL.

ment, that the full rights and privileges of the franchise can be exercised or enjoyed by many thousands of people who are no* permitted to take part, who are not per mitted to raise their voice in helping to decide the great issues before the country in a general election. Under the attendant circumstances of a deferred election the franchise is crippled, is robbed of half its value, and by so depreciating its worth we are doing something we have no right to do, namely, we are lessening and weakening the interest which thousands of Canadians have to-day in the public affairs of the country.

Now the suffrage has been defined by one authority as a ' voice given in deciding a controverted question, or in the choice of a man for an office of trust.' By another high authority the subject has been defined as follows:

A voice or an opinion of a person in some matter which is commonly to be determined by a majority of the voices or opinions of persons who are empowered to give it.

Judge McCreary, in his treatise on the American law of elections, remarks:

In the United States the object of the suffrage is twofold: first, to select representatives of the people for their government; and secondly, to determine the will of the people upon such questions as may be submitted to them.

Now Sir, it will be noticed that in each of these definitions it is conceded that the one great value, the one great power of the suffrage, is that its exercise may enable the holder to perform a duty, and to perform his share in deciding great controverted questions. I am not taking the ground in this argument that in a vast and sparsely settled country like Canada all deferred elections in the past have been totally unjustifiable, but I am taking the ground, and I want frankly to express to this House the ' conviction, that in so far as their having any voice in deciding the great controverted questions before the country, the 30,000 or 40,000 electors in the constituencies where the elections have been deferred, have been, I may say, absolutely, disfranchised.

Now let me give you an illustration. I had the honour, and the very arduous task, of contesting an election in Yale-Cariboo, B. C., in 1904. The great question at that time before the country was, as hon. gentlemen all know, the Grand Trunk Pacific project as put forth by the government. For six months I had to campaign through the whole of that country, and campaign practically on the great issues concerned in that one great transportation problem. But towards the close of that campaign I found that I was out-manoeuvred by the government postponing the election, because when the general elections

came round, that whole question was settled and the government was sustained by a majority of something like 66. Absolutely nothing more was to be said. For three weeks I had to face the people in that constituency practically with no programme at all, because this great question having been settled, there was a grievous lack of interest throughout the constituency, and certainly the voice of the people so far as that great question was concerned, was absolutely stifled. It means, practically, disfranchisement and it certainly also means apathy on the part of a large number of electors. It is injurious to the welfare of the state and it is an injustice to the individuals who compose the state. It is necessary that elections should, if possible, be held on the same day, and I think I can demonstrate to this House that it is possible to hold them on the same day. and that there are no sufficient reasons why elections should be deferred in a country like this.

It may be retorted by some hon. gentlemen that election to the mother of parliaments in England are not all held on the same day. I need only point out in reply that the history and traditions of that country are entirely different, that the members are not concerned in appropriations for great public works, and that for a variety of reasons which I might point out, the case of England is not analogous in any way to that of this country. I have had the opportunity of discussing this question with public men of various shades of opinion in the old country, and I have found that there is a steadily increasing sentiment that they are coming to the point of one man one vote, and that elections should all be held on the same day. But let me turn from general argument to particular cases. I do not propose to deal with the question as it affects the province of Quebec as others are more familiar with that great province than I am, although I believe that the conditions attendant upon the postponement of elections are the same and that the same arguments will apply with equal strength to Quebec as to British Columbia. But I want to refer particularly to my own province and to deal with the various arguments advanced for the postponement of elections in that province. In 1904 there was the creation of a number of constituencies by the subdivision of larger constituencies. At that time Mr. Fitzpatrick was the Minister of Justice and he discussed the question of deferred elections. He proposed to defer the elections in a number of constituencies not only in British Columbia but elsewhere. The old constituency of Burrard was to be divided into Vancouver and Comox-Atlin. The constituency of Yale-Cariboo-Kootena.v was to be divided into Kootenay and Yale-Cariboo. In Ontario the constituency of 891

Algoma was to be divided into east and west Algoma and there was also the question of the constituency of Nipissing. In dealing with the arguments which were advanced at that time, arguments that were chiefly founded upon the impossibility of reaching all parts of these ridings in the statutory time to enable the elections to be held on the same day as the elections in other constituencies, Mr. Fitzpatrick spoke as follows and this seems to have been the whole force of his argument:

Why should any group of men be deprived of their right to vote? Is it not fair to say that if the conditions existing at the time the elections are held are such that any important group in the community may be deprived of the right to vote that the returning officer shall have power to postpone the election in order to give them the right to vote?

The hon. leader of the opposition at that time, and also at a later date, made some observations and I will quote his exact words:

There should be very strong, in fact, imperative necessity before any election is postponed.

With this I think we shall all agree.

He was referring to the province of Ontario, and he added that provincial elections were held on the same day in those ridings and that was a cogent reason for not postponing the federal election. Fortunately there were in the House at that time not only Liberals but Conservatives who were strongly interested in these Ontario constituencies. They knew their exact conditions, they were anxious to ensure the full value of the franchise to every elector and they put up all the arguments they could and showed the minister exactly what the conditions were. The result was that the minister dropped one after another of his proposals first in East and West Algoma, and then in Nipissing, conceding that the principle was right to hold the elections on the same day, if the conditions made it possible. I shall turn now to British Columbia and I shall quote his words again. The Minister of Justice said:

As to the province of British Columbia I would ask the members from that province tc explain the conditions there.

Unfortunately, there was in the House at that time no one familiar with British Columbia, or with British Columbia conditions, except the Liberal members and, Sir, I am absolutely within the truth when I say that in the case of my own constituency especially the reasons put forth during that debate were inspired by the knowledge that my opponent wanted a deferred election because he recognized the impossibility of winning in a fair and even fight. It was an

by-election, the result of which was that the Minister of Inland Revenue obtained a seat which he now occupies, there was no knowledge of an election to be held. There was complete darkness on the subject so far as the formation of public opinion went. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that there was not a certain amount of knowledge as between my hon. friend (Mr. Templeman) and the gentleman who resigned his seat that he might take it and also a few of their faithful friends. But, so far as the great public was concerned, there was no knowledge of an election coming on in that constituency, and I believe it was a matter of some doubt as to which constituency would be the best hunting ground for my hon. friend. This makes it all the more reasonable and natural and necessary that the election in this great district of Comox-Atlin, which district was so graphically described by Mr. Macpherson, should have all the notice that could possibly be given. But what happens? Let me turn to a series of questions I asked the government on the subject of the Comox-Atlin election. I refer to ' Hansard ' of February 8, where it will be found that I put these questions:

On what date was the writ issued for the vacancy in Comox-Atlin?

What date was fixed for nomination and what date for polling day?

Who is the returning officer, and where does he reside?

Was such returning officer advised of his appointment by telegram?

Was he by telegram instructed to prepare the proclamation before the writ coull reach him? If so, by what minister or official was the communication sent?

The answers I got to these questions were these:-That the writ was issued on 22nd of January, 1909; that the returning officer fixed the date for nomination and election, and the government therefore had nothing to do with it. (Of course, it is certain, that the Minister of Inland Revenue-Mr. Templeman-would have a good deal to do with it), and that neither the Secretary of State, nor Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, nor anybody in authority had sent instructions by telegram. Now, let us examine this statement for a moment. The nomination in Comox-Atlin took place on Feb-bruary 8, and election day was fixed for February 20. So, from the time the writ was issued in Ottawa until the date of election there was a total of 29 days, or nine days less than the time allowed for the general elections. We are told by Mr. Macpherson, as I have pointed out, that this is the most difficult of all constituencies, that one would need a flying machine to reach speedily these places where some of the voters reside. Now, it seems to me the government must take one horn of the dilemma or the other. They have either Mr. BURRELL.

proven by their action in this case that it is possible to hold all elections on the same day, or they have deliberately in the case of Comox-Atlin, disfranchised absolutely those whom the Minister of Justice described as groups of men whom it would not be right to deprive of their vote. Now, one further word in connection with this answer given by the government. The Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) said that no telegram had been sent 'by the Secretary of State or by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, or, so far as I am aware, by anybody in authority.' Let us see, for a moment, how this thing works out. I have maintained, and still maintain, that, if any doubt were shown to exist of the possibility of holding the election in any constituency in British Columbia on the same day as in the rest of Canada, by sending out the writ by wire you would save practically seven days. However, we were told that this was not done. I am going to try to see what happened in Comox-Atlin. The writ was issued on January 22. It would take, as every one knows, at least seven days, and I am not sure but that, as the returning officer resides in Prince Rupert, it would take more for the writ to reach him. Even if he had come to some nearer point he would not receive the writ until January 29. He had fixed the date of nomination on February 8. But section 87 of the Dominion Elections Act provides:

Such proclamation shall be posted up in all the electoral districts at least eight days before the day fixed for the nomination of candidates, neither the last day of posting it up nor the day of nomination being reckoned.

That is, the proclamation would have to be posted up in Comox-Atlin on January 29. But the writ was issued on January 22, and if no telegram was sent, as we have been told, it would reach the returning officer only on the 29th, and he had no time to prepare the proclamation and send it out all over Comox-Atlin. We are driven by the logic of the facts to the conclusion that the gentlemen concerned did send that writ by wire, in spite of their statements.

I wish to deal for a moment with another aspect of the question of deferred elections I have already said that the case of England is different from that of this country, and it certainly is. To some extent, in a new country like Canada, a country in the making, a country which deserves and demands incessantly enormous appropriations for public works, we can understand that any great appropriations that the government will promise must necessarily have great weight in influencing constituencies, if the people are convinced that those who make the promises have the power to perform. This is appealed to by all parties; whatever party is in power gets into the habit of promising certain things. In the general election, there is some degree of

uncertainty whether the party promising will have the power to perform. But in a deferred election such as that of 1904 and 1908, when the government was returned by a substantial majority, appeals making these promises, when made by those in power and able to perform were made with almost irresistible force to the minds of people in a new country. Take as an illustration the election of 1904 went to show that every man who desires the growth of this country on progressive lines should favour the abolition of all deferred elections. In 1904, the present government was returned by a majority, if I remember right, of 66. Elections had been held in British Columbia, and all had gone Liberal. Other elections were deferred. For the last three weeks in that campaign, almost singlehanded, I was confronted by about fifteen of the most prominent Liberals in the west. My ammunition, the Grand Trunk Pacific matter, had gone, and I simply had to appeal to the manhood of the electors, to the danger of big majorities-an appeal which after all had some foundation in reason as we have since found out-and ask them to judge the election on its merits. With what argument was I met? Simply with the big stick argument. On my platform, in my own town of Grand Forks, we had some very distinguished gentlemen. We had Mr. W. W. B. Mclnnis, late Governor of the Yukon and later the defeated candidate in Vancouver, who thundered against the folly of electing a man who was going to Ottawa to oppose the government and who consequently could get his constituency nothing, when they might elect a man who could get them everything they wanted. We had there also another distinguished gentleman, the Minister of Inland Revenue, Mr. Templeman, who was kind enough to say nothing to me personally, except what was pleasant. He said I was a very decent fellow, but he nullified that admission by asking: What is the use of sending him to Ottawa if you want the needs of your district attended to? So effective was that argument with a, great many people-and one is not inclined to condemn them altogether-in my own town -so effective was the argument expressed with all the earnestness and the eloquence of the hon. minister and the propspect he held out that they were going to get a new pest office and a lot of otheT things if they only elected the government candidate - that the opposition candidate was left behind. But what have the people got after their four years' waiting? All they have got is a post office site, and they got that six days before my election last November The argument used over and over again with deadly, crushing effect-and used not only by speakers who might not be considered responsible men, but also by prominent public men, was that politics were only to be used for what could be got out

of them. Their motto was that expressed in the familiar words of Hosea Biglow.

It ain't by principles or men My prudent course is steadied;

I scent which pays the best and then Go into it bald-headed.

When our friends went over to the neighbouring riding of Greenwood we had there most extraordinary exhibitions. Again the Minister of Inland Revenue went on the platform and among the things he said- he will correct me if I am wrong-was this, that if the people saw fit-and he was sure they would-to return a supporter of the government, in the person of Mr. Ross, he, the minister, would probably consent to come and spend three weeks at Greenwood and give the people during that time the light of his countenance.

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

My hon. friend's last statement as to what I said was no doubt a jest. But a moment ago he said that at some place in his constituency I had pointed out to the electors that it was useless to send my good friend to Ottawa because he could not get anything for the people. I challenge him to produce any evidence that in any one of the meetings in his constituency at which I was present I ever uttered such a sentiment.

Mr. BURRELL.

Of course if my hon. friend assures me of that, I have, in a parliamentary sense, to accept his assurance. But I want emphatically to say that I am not quoting my own personal friends, but from friends of the hon. gentleman in Grand Forks.

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

I am astounded. I was never in Grand Forks at a public meeting.

Mr. BURRELL.

Does the hon. gentleman say he was not in Grand Forks ?

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

I have not been in Grand Forks since I passed through going to the west with my deputy minister, visiting some of the mines, and no public meeting was held then.

Mr. BURRELL.

My hon. friend will pardon me when I suggest that I am speaking of 1904.

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

I beg pardon.

Mr. BURRELL.

I hope my hon. friend will understand that I do not want to strike a single blow below the belt in anything I say. I specifically stated that I referred to 1904, when I am convinced the hon. gentleman did go on the platform and take the line of argument to which. I have drawn attention. The remark I made about his paying a three weeks' visit to Greenwood may be dismissed as a light matter, but he certainly did go on the platform at Grand Forks and other portions of my constitu-

ency and deal in that line of argument. Let me quote here what my opponent did say on the platform at Greenwood two nights before the election. I do not like to refer to him, as he is absent, in any way. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Nothing but good of the dead, and of course, Mr. Ross is politically dead; and if I refer to what he said, it is because it vindicates my line of argument. I was on the platform at Greenwood, at a meeting of my own and extended to my opponent every courtesy and opportunity to speak. To my amazement he took the direct line of argument and said, in so many words that if the people wanted to get anything for their constituency, public works or anything of that kind, they could not get it by sending an opponent of the government to Ottawa, but should elect a man who supported the government. And I told Mr. Ross then that while I had heard that kind of doctrine occasionally spoken in private, that was the first time I had heard a man brazen enough to go on the platform and pTeach it in public. If my hon. friend (Mr. Templeman) had gone through so bitter, exhaustive and up-hill campaign as I had to go through in 1904, he would have felt sympathy for any man placed in the position in which I was; and in spite of every one of the influences attendant upon a deferred election, the majority after all against me was only 161. I am glad now to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the loyal and unselfish efforts of those men all over my own constituency, who had absolutely nothing to gain but who felt that thy had a duty to perform and supported our cause to the last hour.

Let me refer again to the recent deferred election when we had the powerful influences of the government brought to bear against the man unfortunate enough to face a deferred election. We had in 1908, my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Templeman) speaking on the platform in my constituency, but the people did not attach so much weight to his speeches this time for an obvious reason. We had some other very distinguised gentlemen of the party opposite on the stump there. We had the Hon. Walter Scott, premier of Saskatchewan, my distinguished friend the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Oliver, other gentlemen from Alberta and a great many prominent men from British Columbia, who all concentrated their efforts to secure my defeat and the defeat of the other Conservative candidates.

Now. take the case of the Minister of the Interior-and again I, of course, dissociate myself from anything personal in these remarks, I am simply dealing with these matters with reference to the principle at stake. I am sure the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) will not deny being present at that meeting and saying Mr. BURRELL.

such things, because I have here a copy of the the ' Inland Sentinel,' published at Kamloops on October 30, 1908. This paper is a recognized organ of the Liberal party in the interior or at all events in the Kamloops district. This copy contains a very careful report of the speech of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) from which I shall read an extract. The minister spoke as follows:

The people of Canada had said at the elections just held that they favoured the Liberal policy of development. That question is settled; the Liberals are in power and whichever way the people of Tale-Cariboo may go will not affect that fact. But the people of Yale-Cariboo now have to decide whether they favour western development. If they do they will vote for Mr. Ross; if they do not want western development then, of course, they will vote for Mr. Burrell and the government will be guided by the opinion so expressed. He pointed out that the influence of a member of parliament is measured-[DOT]

I am sure that members on both sides ought to sit up and take notice of this doctrine,

-by the vote he receives and the larger the majority given a member, the greater is his measure of influence in obtaining concessions from the government.

If I may apply that remark in its very broadest sense, then I trust the Minister of the Interior will remember how large my own majority was.

But upon that speech a leading article is based in this same paper. This article reads in part:

So far as deciding whether Liberals or Conservatives shall govern: the elections, the fight in Canada is finished and the people of the country have voiced their desire for a continuance of the policy of the Laurier administration. The fight in Yale-Cariboo is still on and will not be over until November 12. The question before the electors of this district is this: Now that the Dominion has placed the Liberals in power again, will the interests of Yale-Cariboo be best served by sending to Ottawa as its representative a man opposed to the government or a man friendly and whom the government regard with friendly eyes? There are many public works needed in this great district; who is most likely to get from the government the necessary appropriations to carry out these works? Will the opinion of Mr. Burrell be more likely to prevail with the government as against that of Mr. Ross? After all, that is the question the people of this district have to answer. If they wish to have the government carry on works in this district necessitating large expenditures, they can best show that desire by returning Mr. Ross at the head of the poll by the largest possible majority.

That is the way the matter is looked at out there. We now come to the Vernon district. I have here the semi-weekly ' Okanagan,' the Liberal organ in the great Okanagan country, dated November 4. It

contains a report of a speech of the minister in that city. Here is a phrase.

Western Canada has been the great work of the government; and to a great extent, this good city of Vernon and the beautiful settlements throughout the Okanagan valley are evidences of the success of the government's policy in the last 12 years.

If one had time it would be easy to show that for every inch of development in that valley due to the guidance or assistance of this government, there are a good many feet of development due to the assistance of the provincial government. However, I wish to deal with a leading article in this newspaper, which says in part:

Mr. Ross has, however, kept before his mind the highest, the best ideals of his duty to his constituents as a whole, and to say he has been pre-eminently successful in pressing upon the government the rights of this immense constituency, is doing him scant justice. . . During the years of Conservativs rule, practically nothing was done for this constituency in general or the Okanagan district in particular. Now we have an excellent telephone service to almost every part of the district.

I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will be glad to know that because there seemed to be some doubt some time ago as to whether there was a government telephone in existence. This particular government telephone service was put into operation just prior to my election campaign of 1904, and achieved the results intended. There were also very busy operations in the extension of this system just prior to the election of 1908. The article proceeds:

The mail service has been improved a hundred per cent. Bublio buildings in keeping with the growth and importance of Vernon and other towns are being built.

I shall deal with that remark and sbow what bearing it has on this whole question of deferred elections. The paper claimed and my opponent claimed that the government was doing a great deal for this particular constituency. It had waited, it had the promise of this public building, although this article assumes that the building was being constructed. I have here another copy of this same paper dated October 21.

This town has a population of 3,500 and a customs revenue of $35,000. It had waited for a public building for a long time and then on October 21, there appeared an advertisement calling for tenders for a public building. A remarkable thing is that the tender dated at Ottawa, October 20, 1908, asking for tenders for the construction of a public building at Vernon appears in this British Columbia paper the next day. The full tender and a beautiful cut of the building are published. There are also references to the advertisement. I call to

your attention the picture of this magnificent building for which tenders were called shortly prior to my election. The article is headed in large type.

Tenders are wanted for new post office. Will cost between $30,000 and $40,000.

As will be seen by advertisement in another column, the Department of Public Works is calling for tenders for the new post office and customs house to be erected in this city. . . The new structure will be three stories In height, and will be of brick with stone facings. It is estimated that it will cost when completed between $30,000 and $40,000 and will be a credit to our city. One thing is certain, it will be much superior to any public building in Vernon if not in the interior.

The ' Okanagan ' has obtained a photograph of this latest evidence of the progressiveness of the Laurier administration, which is reproduced below. The people of Vernon should know who to thank for this handsome structure. By dint of hard work and by constantly representing to the department the needs in the city of a building of this kind, our representative in the last Dominion parliament, Mr. Duncan Ross, succeeded in having provisions made whereby the same could be erected during the coming year.

They wind up by saying:

It will be a credit to our beautiful city, to

the government which built it and to Mr. Duncan Ross, our representative, who, by his untiring efforts secured the same for us. This is only one of his many good works for his district, and he is deserving of the thanks of the community.

You can understand that when one is fighting the battle of his party on the questions of the day, in so far as he can in a deferred election, to encounter something of that kind does infuse a certain amount of bitterness into a man. He thinks it is reasonable to ask his opponents to conduct a fair fight. I do not think that sort of thing is justified and the extraordinary thing is that although we have this as an evidence of the latest phase of the progressiveness of the Laurier administration, and although the promise was not repudiated, yet, in spite of all, after the elections are over, lo and behold there was no magnificent structure, there was no post office at all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I may point out that all this appeal had no effect so far as my opponent's wishes went, and for various reasons. One of the reasons why my opponent was not returned to this House was the reason which is the basis of my whole argument, namely, that the people of the western constituencies, regardless of party shades of opinion, had absolutely no use for deferred elections; they did not believe they were justified by conditions, and they did' not believe they were justified by the facts, but they did believe that fair-play and a fair fight should be given, and should be the practice adopted by the government.

Now I want particularly to appeal to the Prime Minister, who from indisposition, I regret is not in his seat to-day, because I know that the Prime Minister, and I believe the other ministers as well, are not opposed to holding the elections on the same day if they knew there are no reasons for deferring them. The Prime Minister has certainly expressed that view. I have shown that in the case of Comox-Atlin not only was there no necessity for deferring the election more than 12 days after the nomination, but the government have cut the ground from under their own feet by doing it in less time than was given in the general election. I see no valid objection indeed to a longer time being given to the whole country, a period say, of six weeks after the issue of the writs before the general election. I believe then that not only could all the elections be held on the same day in all the provinces, but that the election could be held in the Yukon on the same day as well-but on that point my hon. friend representing the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) can speak with better authority. One of the objections raised to having a longer period before elections is that the country is too long a time unsettled. I would ask if there is any valid objection to such a proposition? After all, we in the larger constituencies who have to campaign something like four, or five, or even six months, cannot quite sympathize with that view. There is a great deal to be said in favour of a fixed term for holding elections, such as they have in the United States. Although a fixed term would perhaps involve quite a constitutional change, I believe that if we adopted a fixed term it would do away, as it does in the United States, with a great many of the evils to which I have referred. Of course hon. gentlemen opposite will retort to that argument that the form of the elections would not be so representative, the form of government would not be so representative as is ours, and they will argue that on any great question in the United States a fixed term for the elections does not allow so well for any rapid change in public sentiment. It is all very well to argue that way, it is right in theory, but how does it work out in practice? I may say that in many parts pf Canada, although the theory is that our government being able to appeal to the country at any time is therefore more representative than it would be if elected at a fixed period, the custom is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Let me give you two instances. If there was ever a case in the political history of Canada where, if this government was to be a reflex of popular opinion or wished to ascertain the public pulse and the public sentiment on big questions, and that therefore they were justified and compelled, in virtue of being a representative govern-Mr. BURRELL.

ment, to find out what that sentiment was- if, I say, there were ever any occasions in which that theory should have been put into practice, it was on two notable occasions, when, in fact, it was entirely ignored, one was the Autonomy Bill, in regard to which the voice of the people was never heard until afterwards, and the next was this very question of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We know very well that that great measure was never referred to the people. It was brought up in the third session, and then there was another short session for the purpose of ratifying better terms for the company, but in neither case was the question referred to the people at all, until after the measure was passed, and when the people would have been placed in the position of repudiating a contract entered into by the government.

In quoting these two instances I am free to admit, that the argument will apply to all political parties alike, in greater or in less degree, and that unfortunately at these times statesmanship is merged in political opportunism, and is trying to get snap verdicts, because unfortunately those are times when all are for the party and none are for the state. Now I would like this point to be seriously considered. We in the larger constituencies are kept necessarily in an unsettled state for a very long time, some of us for months. As a matter of fact, the country generally knows fairly well that, an election is coming on. If I wanted to give you proof that the country does know that elections are coming on, I need only read a portion of a letter that I have in my hands which was written by the Prime Minister of this country to my opponent as long ago as the 21st of March, although the elections did not come on until October 26. This letter I may say was written to the secretary of the Liberal Association of Yale-Cariboo, and this is the tenor of it:

Ottawa, 21st March, 1908.

My Dear Sir,-I understand that a convention is called for the purpose of selecting a Liberal candidate in the district of Yale-Cariboo. It is an encouraging sign to see that the Liberals in your district are thus getting ready for the contest. The loyalty and enthusiasm of the Liberals of the west have always been an inspiration and an encouragement, and I feel sure that my friends in Yale-Cariboo will see that so far as they are concerned there will be no breaks in the ranks of the solid seven from British Columbia.

The result was a somewhat ironical comment on the letter. It winds up:

It is not for me to interfere in the choice of the electors; that is a matter as to which they must be left absolutely untrammelled. If I may, however, be permitted to express a wish, I can assure you that no man could be more acceptable to myself and to the Liberal members of the House of Commons than our

friend Duncan Ross, the gallant sitting member. .

Yours very sincerely,