Mr. CROTHERS:

You never contended that it ought to be abolished. I do not think that any hon. gentleman on the other side has ever suggested that the Government should not appoint a judge, one of the most important officers in the country. Have hon. gentlemen opposite ever contended that the Government should not appoint judges or senators by Order in Council? So that my hon. friends will see that patronage has not been abolished in toto, and there has never been any suggestion from either side o'f the House that it should be. This Government has exercised the power of appointing returning officers for fifty years. The Dominion Government, Liberal or Conservative as the case might be, has been responsible in the matter, and on the whole the system has worked perfectly satisfactorily. As my hon. friend, the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) has said, there has been only one case in the history of Canada where a man appointed returning officer for a constituency did not rise to the occasion and act honestly and with integrity between the two political parties, and that was in the case of West Elgin, the constituency which I have the honour to represent. That returning oflicer was appointed sheriff by the Liberal Government of Ontario, and he took an active part in defrauding the electors of that constituency of their choice of candidate to represent them in the legislature of the province of Ontario, and for that fraudulent conduct he was dismissed. So far as I know, from my own experience, that is the only instance in our history in which a returning officer failed to discharge his duties faithfully and well. Do we propose now, after the lapse of fifty years, to abolish a system that has worked exceedingly well? By whatever government, Liberal or Conservative, men have been appointed, there has been no question except, in that one case, of the intelligence and integrity of the appointee. What do my hon. friends say in substance? They say that the Dominion Government at Ottawa, either Liberal or Conservative, cannot be trusted to select a man to act as returning officer in any particular constituency, but we can implicitly trust a man named by the province of British Columbia, say. It is all right to appoint a sheriff nominated by the Government of Manitoba; it is all right to appoint a registrar of deeds appointed

by the Government of Nova Scotia or the Government of New Brunswick; but it is absolutely wrong for this Government to appoint any man. Any Provincial Government, no matter whether it be Liberal or Conservative, can safely be trusted to appoint a sheriff, a registrar of deed, a collector of customs, or a postmaster. They will all do; they are all intelligent; they are all honest. And there were three or four hon. gentlemen on the other side who took this view yesterday. The hon. member who moved the amendment said he knew a Conservative in Nova Scotia who had held a public office for forty-three years and who was a man of great intelligence and absolute integrity; and having served the public for forty-three years he was still a Conservative and an intelligent and honest man.

Mr. COPP:

There may be some question about his intelligence.

Mr. CROTHERS:

And the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) also spoke of a man whom he knew in Sherbrooke, another Conservative who was absolutely honest and of whose integrity there could be no question. Now, how absurd it is for our hon. friends to say that we cannot trust a man appointed by the Government of Canada, although for fifty years the Dominion Government has appointed men who have proved perfectly capable and whose characters have been absolutely irreproachable. It will never do, we are told, to have the Government at Ottawa appoint men, because no confidence could be placed in them; but we must appoint men who have been appointed by the Provincial Government. If we adopted the amendment we would absolutely abolish the safeguard which the people of Canada have in the responsibility that this Government owes to them. A sheriff may be guilty of incalculable fraud, a man may be elected under him who should never have been elected, and who is not the choice of the people. But the answer comes from this Government: We are not responsible; the Government of Nova Scotia, for instance, appointed him sheriff and under the statute of this House we made him returning officer Every one will see the absurdity of the position which we are asked to take.

Mr. COPP:

My hon. friend has talked about the responsibility of the Government. Well, this responsibility is purely mythical, as my hon. friend knows. Let us see what it really would amount to in practice. Suppose this amendment were 101

adopted and, in an election, a sheriff were appointed in any province in Canada as returning officer. Then let us suppose that our friends opposite were returned to power

we may do violence to our imagination to that extent for the sake of argument-and the hon. member, having come back to Parliament, finds that there is a charge that the sheriff had not conducted the election fairly and that there was reasonable ground fqr complaint agaiifst him. Somebody in this Parliament gets up and makes that charge. What answer would my hon. friend make? We would not have to stretch our imaginations very far to think of my hon friend getting up and saying: "We are responsible for it; that man was recommended to us as a proper, honest, straightforward man and we, in the best of good faith, appointed him as returning officer; he has made this mistake, or he has committed this error or crime, but we did the best we could and therefore we are not responsible." And they would not be responsible. What responsibility would attach to them? They would say: "We appointed what we believed to be tire best man but he turned out not to be a good man." Therefore what responsibility would attach to the Government?

Mr. BUREAU:

They would not take any responsibility anyway.

Mr. COPP:

There is no responsibility attaching to them anyway. When my hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General talks about the responsibility resting upon the Government for the selection of the returning officer, he knows as well as I do that the returning and other officers appointed for the purpose of carrying out the next general election will be selected on the recommendation of the Conservative or Unionist candidates. What responsibility attaches to this Government? What responsibility would there be if my hon. friends were returned to power and any question arose as to the proper conduct of a sheriff or any other officer who might be named for conducting the election? They would say: "We did the best we could." What is more liable to happen if my hon. friends appeal to the country than that they shall be sitting on this side of the House and they will say: "It does not make any difference to us whether we appointed the officers or not, you must take the responsibility for their conduct." When my hon. friend talks about the grave responsibility resting upon the Government in appointing these officers, he speaks of something which is a mere myth.

All we want is that proper officers shall be selected and if this amendment were adopted they -would be selected from the officials who are mentioned in the amendment. But in all probability it may not be adopted and my hon. friends will select the returning officers on the advice and recommendation of the Conservative candidates. That is not a fair and proper way to appoint these officials if we are going to do away with patronage. The Acting Solicitor General says that this system has worked well for a number of years. It may be so but when we are adopting a new Franchise Act if we can by making suggestions, in any way assist in getting a fair, reasonable and honest Franchise Act, it is our duty to make those suggestions and to give reasons for them. If this were reversed, if the Liberal party were in power and the time came for an election, I could in my constituency under this Act, if I were so minded, select returning officers and registrars in such a way that, I do not care who might be selected to oppose me, I could win the election. I want to say frankly that I believe that in New Brunswick and throughout the Dominion of Canada governments have not selected such men.

Would the hon. gentleman have any objection to the selection of the officers being left in the hands of the Dominion Alliance, the W.C.T.U. or such moral reform and temperance associations? These are people who, beyond doubt, are not politically appointed.

Mr. BUREAU:

Do you say that the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) represents them in Parliament?

Mr. COPP:

I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Mackie) would be in a position to suggest that the Dominion Alliance or the W.C.T.U. should select these officers because I do not think he has very much information in regard to the tenets and professions of these organizations. Therefore, I do not think it is worth while taking up the time of the House in discussing that question. These men would be selected by the Liberal or Conservative candidate and if they were so minded the system might result in the selection of men who would leave names off the list that ought to be on it and add names to the list that should not be there, and in that way we would not have a fair or honest election.

Mr. DAVIDSON:

Would my hon. friend have any objection to the appointment as ,

returning officer of some good, intelligent labour man in the city of Moncton?

Mr. COPP:

Not the slightest.

Mr. DAVIDSON:

Then why does he want to restrict the Governor in Council?

Mr. COPP:

Because I believe we would not get a labour man selected by the Government in the city of Moncton. We have not in the past had any labour men selected in the city of Moncton as returning officers and I do not think we have had any in the province of Nova Scotia.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO:

Would my hon. friend have any objection to enlarging the number of persons who might be selected by adding a returned soldier or a member of a city, town or county council or o>f a workingman's union? Is there any reason for excluding such persons from this list?

Mr. COPP:

There is no reason except

that the idea is to keep the selection of returning officers as closely as possible to the line of m n who are more or less responsible to the people so that they know and realize that when they are selected, whether by this 4 p.m. government or a Liberal government, or a local government for those different positions.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO:

By patronage.

Mr. COPP:

Does my hon. friend admit

that the Government are still carrying on patronage?

Mr. MIDDLEBRO:

My hon. friend perhaps does not know what I mean. A majority of the officials whom my hon. friend has mentioned have themselves been selected by patronage and what the hon. gentleman desires this House to do is to deprive the Government of the privilege of appointing any others who have been selected by patronage.

Mr. COPP:

My hon. friend is entirely

wrong.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO:

Why?