Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).

I just wish to point out that the only objection which appears to have been taken on the government side to the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo is that this resolution is an amendment to the resolution to go into Supply, and that this makes it impossible for the government to accept. That attitude was taken both by the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Congdon). The latter gentleman went further and expressed his approval of the general principles embodied in the resolution. I wish to point out that the government has accepted amendments to the motion to go into Committee of Supply. I myself moved such an amendment in 1905 on a motion by the Finance Minister to go into Committee of Supply, and my amendment was accepted by the government and adopted. Therefore the objection urged by the Minister of Finance

to the adoption of this resolution has no sound foundation.

Hon. W. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).

of nomination two weeks before the nomination for the general election. The writs for the late by-election were issued in Ottawa on the 22nd and were received by the returning officer, I believe, on the 27th, and there were 12 days between the nomination and the polling day. These 12 days were too short. If we had had a contest, it is absolutely certain that in respect to at least half a dozen of the most remote polling places, the ballot boxes would never have got there.

Mr. FOSTER.

Did they get there?

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

There was no poll. The election was by acclamation.

Mr. FOSTER.

Was any preparation made to get them there?

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

Yes, it is after all a simple matter of distance and transportation and distance. There nomination was held on February 8. The polling was by proclamation fixed for February 20, and the proclamation was sent to the remote polls by wire. There are polling places such as at Telegraph Creek, on the Skeena river, Aldermere, some 60 miles away, east of Hazelton on the Skeena river, and Cape Scott on Vancouver Island, where there is only monthly communication by steamer. It will be easily understood what our difficulties would be in getting ballot boxes after a nomination to those places within that time. I believe that twelve days is too short. However, the election was by acclamation, which was fortunate, because otherwise in a number of polling places the electors would have been disfranchised. Take Telegraph Creek where there are perhaps forty electors. The returning officer had three government steamers at Prince Rupert on nomination day for the purpose of hurrying the ballot boxes off for distribution to other places. We purposed having a steamer go to Wrangle. There were dog teams at Wrangle to take the boxes in to Telegraph Creek, and I was assured by gentlemen who knew the country and all the difficulties, that it was not possible to 'make the trip in less than eight or ten days, and if the conditions were unfavourable it could not be done in that time. To Atlin of course communication is much easier, but on the western coast of Vancouver Island there is only a weekly steamer in some parts and in the north a monthly steamer. In many polling places on the mainland, such as Bella Bella and Bella Coola, steamers call only once a month. In all these cases special arrangements would have to be made for the delivery of the ballot boxes. Aldermere is a polling place 60 miles east of Hazelton, and it would have been probably imposible if we had had an elec-Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

tion on February 20 to have delivered the boxes there in time. Thus it is necessary that the returning officer should give ample time to permit the ballot boxes to get to their destination in Comox-Atlin. I do not think that any member desires to have a postponed election. For my part I do not, and as a representative of the most difficult constituency in Canada in respect to transportation facilities I would be willing to support the proposition in the resolution if it can be shown to be practical to carry it out. _

I cannot say anything about Yale-Cari-boo. It is twice the size stated by my hon. friend, but I admit that the northern portion is still uninhabited. However, with the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific within a year or two it will be necessary to establish a number of polling places 200 or 300 miles farther north than we now have them. Even in respect to Yale-Cariboo, great difficulties would be met with in attempting to hold the election on the same day as the other elections. These arguments do not apply to Kootenay and I believe that in future the election in Kootenay could be held on the same day as the general election.

Mr. W. W. RUTAN (Prince Albert).

Mr. Speaker, as many references have been made to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I wish to explain the position there. I am in the same position as the hon. minister (Mr. Templeman), it would be impossible to hold the elections on the day of the general election unless the law was so amended that there would be a longer interval between nomination and election. I know that the returning officer in Prince Albert was willing and anxious to have the election in that constituency on the same day as the general election, but when he went' into details and found that we have polls 500 miles away from the City of Prince Albert which would have to be reached by dog train and boat and portages, he found it would be quite impossible. The original arrangement was to have the nomination on October 19 and the election on October 26. The nomination would close at two o'clock on October 19, and then all the ballots and the notices of election would have to be printed, the boxes prepared and the deputy returning officer and poll clerk would have to start out for the northern polls. We have polls at Beaver Lake, Cumberland House, Pas Mountain, Lac La Rounge, Montreal Lake and Pelican Narrows, all of which are from 250 miles to 500 miles distant. It took two days and two nights from noon on the nomination day to print a sufficient number of ballots to supply these polls. The officials then started on their trips and I do not think any hon. gentleman will contend that a man would have physical strength to make such trips as I have mentioned, and

hold the election within five days, as they would have to do to hold the election on the following Monday. These people living in the northern districts claim the same right of franchise as we do. Consequently it is unfair for any one to expect that the elections could be held on the same day and I do not believe our friends on the opposition are sincere in expecting this will be done under the circumstances. It was said by the opposition press that I had gone in with the returning officer to steal Prince Albert. I wish to assure hon. gentlemen in this House that that statement is untrue and utterly unfounded. I told the returning officer that if there was any way possible I would much prefer to have the election on the same day as in the rest of the Dominion, and as a proof of that desire, when the election was deferred, in place of having the nomination day after the election in the rest of the Dominion, it was placed on the day that the other elections were held so that we would not know anything about the result in the rest of the Dominion. Thus there was no chance of taking an unfair advantage of the necessary deferring of the election, as the news of the results in the rest of Canada could not reach these distant polls before the voting took place. It was used as an argument against me throughout the constituency that this was done for the purpose of gaining the election. It does not seem to me that this statement was sincere on the part of the opposition for the very reason that the great argument used by my opponents before notice of the deferring of the election was given, was that the government was about to be defeated, that the Conservative party would be returned to power. Consequently it seems to me that if there was any advantage to be gained by the deferring of the elections it was as great on one side as on the other, especially as the nomination was held before the result of the election in the rest of the Dominion could be known.

Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).

Representing a constituency in which there was a deferred election, I wish to say a few words. I feel that the ground has been thoroughly gone over, and that the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) have been very logical. I am pleased to see that all the members who havie followed him have agreed to the principle of the resolution that has been moved. Several speakers, while agreeing with the principle of the resolution, have given various reasons why, at this particular time, they should not support it. First, the Minister of Finance took the ground that to vote for this motion would be equivalent to voting want of confidence in the government and he pointed out that that had never been done.

Mr. FIELDING.

No, I did not say that.

Mr. GOODEVE.

He said it could not be done without a vote of want of confidence in the government. Now I desire to say that I have a record of a number of resolutions that have been moved by the opposition on going into Supply, and which were accepted by the government:

Amendments to supply adopted by government.

Votes and Proceedings, 1899, page 362, Tup-per, responsibility of political heads.

Votes and Proceedings, 1900, page 234, Russell, preferential trade.

Votes and Proceedings 1901, page 288, Davis, Canadian Pacific Railway test case.

Votes and Proceedings, 1902, page 421, Bou-rassa, embargo cattle.

Votes and Proceedings, 1903, page 125, Costi-gan, Home Rule.

Votes and Proceedings, 1905, page 782, Armstrong, cold storage.

Votes and Proceedings, 1905, page 954, Lake, civil servants and elections.

Votes and Proceedings, 1908, page , Borden, access to original documents.

In all these cases the amendments were accepted by the government, and in no case were they considered as motions of want of confidence in the government. That being apparently the only argument advanced by the Minister of Finance, I trust that he will now be able to accept this resolution and ask his supporters to accept it. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon), all his arguments were in favour of the principle of the resolution, his only complaint seemed to be that the Yukon was not included in this resolution. The explanation made by the mover of the resolution was that, not being familiar with the district of the Yukon, he thought it inadvisable to include it in the resolution. But I am sure that the member from the Yukon, agreeing as he does with the principle of the resolution, can vote with us on this question, and it would be an easy matter, when the Bill is drawn up, to include the Yukon. So much with regard to the arguments that have been Taised by our friends on the government side.

Again, the Minister of Inland Revenue, in referring to the district of Comox-Atlin, nointed out that the time at present fixed for the general election was not long enough for the constituency which he represented. But as was shown by the actual dates given by my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo, in the recent general election the actual time elapsing between the issuing of the writ and the polling day was 38 days, whereas in the by-election, as stated by the Minister of Inland Revenue, there were only 29 days. He himself stated that the writ was issued on the 22nd of January, was received by the returning officer on the 27th of January, and the nomination took

place on February 8. Now if we turn to the Elections Act, we find that it requires that the proclamation shall be posted eight clear days, not including the day of posting or the day of nomination, before the nomination can be held. If we had eight clear days to the day when the minister himself says the returning officer received the writ, namely on the 27th of January, you will see there was not sufficient time given, only two days were given. Again we find that in the Tecent 'campaign, if we may believe the public press, he himself stated that he was in favour of this very district of Comox-Atlin having no deferred elections; so he has practically pledged himself to our proposition.

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

I stated at Prince Rupert what I have stated here to-day. I pointed out the difficulties and the impossibility of holding the election in Comox-Atlin on the same day as the other elections.

Mr. GOODEVE.

I accept the hon. gentleman's correction, but I understand that he made the stipulation that it would be necessary to have further time if they were to have it on the same day. I want to point out that we can fairly ask for the support of members on both sides of the House, inasmuch as we are only asserting a principle ; the details can be worked out in a Bill when it comes up for consideration. Now in regard to my own district of Kootenay which I have the honour to represent, let me point out that the people on both sides of politics in that great district are strongly of the opinion that there should be no deferred election in that district. I can advance no better argument than the statement of the Liberal candidate himself in the recent election. When he was nominated some months before the general election, he stated in his address accepting the nomination of the convention, that on no account would there be a deferred election in the constituency of Kootenay. When interviewed by the press, he again Teiterated his opinion that the principle of deferred elections was vicious in principle and unfair in practice, and for that reason he assured the people of Kootenay that there would be no deferred election in that district. But he went further than that. When I was nominated by the Liberal-Conservative party in convention, the Liberal candidate wrote me a personal letter of congratulation, and again reiterated the statement he had made in public, that in no event would there be a deferred election in Kootenay, but they would fight it out in a fair field. But, Sir, what was the result? We find that notwithstanding the statement made by the Liberal candidate, both to his own party and through the press to the public, and again Mr. GOODEVE.

personally in writing to me over his own signature, as the campaign wore on, and there seemed to be in the minds of the people a general feeling that the government would not be supported, at least in the western provinces, and particularly in the district of Kootenay, his committee urged upon him over and over again the necessity of deferring the election. And what was the argument advanced by the committee for deferring the election? It was the argument that has been advanced by the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo in debating the evil of deferred elections, it was the argument that his only hope of carrying that seat was by deferring the election when, if the government should be returned to power, they would have the influence and the prestige of a victorious government to elect him. The result was that the attitude taken by his committee forced him to consent to deferring the election. In our campaign, both the Conservative press and myself on the public platform, gave the Liberal candidate credit for the attitude he had taken up at first. We felt that he had taken a statesmanlike and manly attitude in regard to this question, which was a burning one in that portion of the province. In every case where we spoke, and in every case through our daily papers, we gave him credit for that attitude. But the very first night when we had a meeting, and were both standing on the same platform, when we knew that the committee had urged upon him the necessity of deferring the election, I took occasion to express the opinion that they had taken an unfair advantage in the middle of the contest, in other words, that after they had agreed to certain conditions and we had accepted these conditions, it was not fair that they should then back out and place upon us a handicap. I may say that the audience agreed with me that the action of the committee was most unfair. Now I do not mention this matter for the purpose of ventilating any incidents of that campaign, but merely for the purpose of showing how unfairly deferred elections may be made to work against the opposition candidate. On that occasion the Liberal candidate asked my permission to address the audience, and he stated over and over again that as far as he was concerned he was still of the opinion that it was unfair and unjust to the district of Kootenay to defer the election, and he disclaimed any personal responsibility for it, and threw it all upon the government. He went further, and said on the day 1 was nominated that he had written down to those in authority at Ottawa and assured them that he had given his pledge that there would be no deferred election. On that ground he asked them that the writ be issued at the same time as the writs were issued for the general election.

When the writ did not come in time he

2853 MARCH 18, 1909 2854

telegraphed them again saying that his personal and public honour was pledged to having the election on the same day and urging them to forward the writ. He said that notwithstanding that the writ was not issued in time to enable him to have the election on the same day, the argument being that there was no opportunity, when, as a matter of fact, the government themselves held back this writ against his wishes in order that they might have the advantage in that particular constituency of a deferred election. What is the feeling of the people of British Columbia in regard to this matter? Let us look at it from two or three phases that have not been mentioned. We have in this House 221 representatives from every portion of the Dominion and out of these 221 representatives there are seven from British Columbia, one at least of the greater provinces of this country. Of these seven representatives we had no less than three deferred elections, or, in other words, three sevenths of the entire electorate of British Columbia were practically disfranchised by deferred elections. I say that it is no wonder that the people of British Columbia felt indignant at the treatment that they received at the hands of this government. It is no wonder that they felt that they would resent such an injustice to them and to their province. That is one of the chief causes that led to the opposition to the government. But, there is another question that, it seems to me, enters into this. I believe that in deferring the elections in these various districts there is committed an injury to each particular district in which these elections are held. Let me illustrate: In Kootenay, which I have the honour to represent, as you know, in addition to the great mining industries that we have there, we have, in recent years, learned that the great valleys surrounding our lakes are suitable for fruit culture. Boards of trade and individuals have spent large sums of money in advertising the natural resources of that particular portion ot British Columbia and of its adaptability to horticulture. They have sent these advertisements all over Canada, to the old country and to the United States. They have been advertising these resources and the chief argument thej have advanced in regard to them was thai not only were these districts capable of growing all kinds of fruit of the best quality but that they were also close to the _ mar ket, that they had good railway facilities which would enable them to reach theii natural market, the prairies to the, east Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta Under these circumstances they were offer in<* inducements to people to come in ther< and settle the land. What was done? Jus at the time when Canada was engaged n a general election, when every newspape 90} was devoting its front page and its editorial jolumns to the contest that was going on, just when the eyes of the mother country were focused upon the contest between the two great parties for the control of the affairs of this Dominion, it was announced that in certain portions of the province of British Columbia our means of communication were so backward that it was impossible to issue the writs and hold1 the elections on the same day as they were to be held in other parts of Canada. It did more harm *to the district of Kootenay and those portions of British Columbia in which we had deferred elections than will be offset by many years of hard work and a large expenditure of money. I do not hesitate to say that the people of these districts resented the position taken by the government with regard to these deferred elections. They felt that they had been dealt an unjust blow. They felt that all the work that had been done for years was undone by the position which these hon. gentlemen took with regard to this question. As to the position with regard to British Columbia I venture to say that it applies largely to other portions of the Dominion. In addition to the arguments which have been so logically advanced by my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) I can only add that we have been unfairly dealt with in regard to advertising the great natural resources of that part of the Dominion. The time has come when we must show to the world at large that we have such good means of communication that all portions of the Dominion can be reached by the writs within the statutory time. It is a very important matter and one that affects every one of us. The country has spent large sums of money in making known its resources to other parts of the world. You find that the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of the Interior have spent large sums of money with regard to immigration and agriculture, advertising the great natural resources of the country and sending out agents at great cost, and yet, just at the time when a general election comes on, just at a time when we have an opportunity of advertising Canada, certain sections of the country are picked out and are un-fairlv dealt with by having it announced to the world that they are in such a backward position with regard to transportation facilities that elections cannot be held within these districts at the same time as they are held in other portions of the Dominion. I do not intend to take up the time of the House any longer with regard to this question. I believe that it has been fairly dealt with and I can only say t that this is not a resolution that has any i party advantage or object in view. I think * we have shown that the time has arrived

Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).

Although not myself the representative of a constituency in which deferred elections are held, as there are three constituencies ln, "e province *n, which that principle is adopted, it may be neecssary for me to give mv opinion on the question which is under discussion. Last session, when the question of deferred elections in British Columbia was being considered, like mv [DOT] fmiend,the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman), I thought that it might be possible to provide for having the election m the Kootenay district on the day of the general election. But, I had very grave doubts from the knowledge I had *fbrtgard t? Yale-Cariboo whether that wouid be possible there. I was absolutely certain that without some very serious change in the General Elections Act which \vould involve every constituency in Canada, it would be utterly impossible to provide for the Comox-Atlin district as the hon. minister has described to the House From the days of confederation in Canada, and owing to its peculiar and extensive geographical conditions, it has been considered necessary, on the part of both parties, that deferred elections should be neld. In England, as m- hon. friend from Yale-Canboo (Mr. Burrell) said, with its Mr. GOODEVE. .

large centres of population, it has been considered necessary at certain periods to have deferred elections. The peculiar geographical conditions of Canada has necessitated all governments since confederation to defer the elections in certain constituencies.

Mr. BURRELL.

Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that I contended that geography had anything to do with deferred elections in England? Surely he knows that the elections are not held on the same day in England because of the basis of the franchise which gives a man the right to vote in several constituencies where he is qualified?

Mr. RALPH SMITH.

I was stating that the conditions in this country gave far more reason for deferring elections than do the conditions in_ England. At all events all political parties since confederation have followed the same policy in that respect. My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) based his whole argument against deferring elections on the beneficial results which he said would accrue to the candidate support-mg the party in power, but no stronger refutation of that argument can be found than the living presence of the hon. gentleman in this House. If the voters elect a man because he has charge of the flesh pots and can distribute them, and if a deferred election gives a government supporter great advantages in this respect, then the hon. gentleman would not represent the people of Yale-Cariboo in this House. The c ^ H^ritleman said he preferred the system of having the general elections on a fixed date which incidentally of course would mean that each parliament would be elected to sit for a specified and fixed term. Well that is a proposed change in the British constitution which I am not prepared to subscribe to.

Mr. BURRELL.

I did not say I preferred that system ; I merely said there were arguments in favo uf of it ;as there were arguments against it.

Mr. RALPH SMITH.

Under the principles of the British representative constitution which we have incorporated into the constitution of Canada, the people of this country can at any time they find good reason for doing so turn out the government in power. Seven days after they have voted to put a certain party in power, they may, under :thq elasticity of the British system turn that party out of power again; but, under the United States system, which is less democratic, they elect their representatives for four years, and for four years whether the policy of the Congress may be approved by the people or not, the men so elected remain at the head of the nation. I am entirely opposed' to that

system. Now, as to deferring elections, I agree that so far as it is possible we should hold all the elections in Canada on the same day. The hon. gentleman calls upon me to vote non-confidence in the government because they have, as all former Canadian governments have, deferred elections in certain constituencies Well, even supposing the government is wrong in that, surely we can find a remedy without voting against a good government which in other respects has done so much to advance the material interests of the people of this country. Even though I should disagree with the government in regard to one particular item in their policy, and that certainly not a very important one in comparison with others, I would be very loth indeed to Vote against them on all questions because I might disagree with them on one point. I believe this debate will have a tendency to influence this government, and all future governments, to reduce the number of deferred elections to the narrowest possible limit. I said a year ago in this House that I believed it was not necessary to defer the election in Kootenay. My hon. friend from that constituency (Mr. Goodeve) has told us that tbe government candidate denounced the provision for a deferred election and stated in his election address that he preferred that the election should be on the same day as the general elections and we are told that on account of the alleged unnecessary and unreasonable deferring of the election a great many of the voters in these British Columbia constituencies voted against the government. It is quite evident, if this be true, that the Liberal party had no political motive in having a deferred election. If the Liberals of these districts and the government candidates for these districts were against deferred elections, how can my hon. friend say that there was any political motive in holding the deferred election? I believe the people of these constituencies generally do think that provision could be made to have the elections on the same day. Personally, I think it would be very difficult in Yale-Cariboo; it may be possible in Kootenay; I think it is impossible in Comox-Atlin. I am convinced that there are geographical conditions because of which, unless there is a very radical change in the law, it will be impossible to apply the rule of simultaneous elections in some of the constituencies for some years to come.

Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (North Toronto).

' It certainly is interesting to note that two very intelligent men on the other side of the House, the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fielding), and Mr. Ralph Smith (Vancouver), could have persuaded themselves that they had convinced each other that this was a vote of want of confidence. If the hon. member for Vancouver

was convinced by the argument of the Minister of Finance that this was a vote of want of confidence, does he accept the necessary conclusion that every amendment to Supply is a vote of want of confidence and that to vote for such an amendment is to vote against the government?

Mr. RALPH SMITH.

I would ask the hon. member (Mr. Foster), in return, if it is possible for me to have my views expressed in the form of an amendment to this motion.

Mr. FOSTER.

That is not the point. The hon. member (Mr. Ralph Smith) said that one of his reasons for not wanting to vote for this resolution was that he does not want to turn out a good government, notwithstanding the fact that, so far as the proposal in that amendment is concerned, it ought to be carried out if possible. The Minister of Finance rather surprised me by making the statement in the categorical way he did. He not only said this was a vote of want of confidence, but that the only method by which a vote of want of confidence could be moved was by amendment to a motion for Supply. I do not think he really believes that.