Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

If I understood the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) aright there will be no legislation as a result of the industrial conference held last year or as a result of the work of the International Labour Conference at Washington?

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I do not think I stated that there would be no further legislation. _ I simply gave a forecast of the legislation as it appears probable and possible at the present time. I did not cut off all possibility of other legislation.

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):

I

would like to ask my right hon. friend the leader of the Government ('Sir George Foster) whether, with a view to healing the wounds of war, and having regard to the fact that it is eighteen months since the Armstice was signed, the Government are giving any consideration to the question of granting a general amnesty to political prisoners?

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I did not catch the question exactly of my hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) but even if I had I think I would take the course of looking at his question as it appears in Hansard and give him an answer to-morrow.

Mr. BUREAU:

I desire to say a few

words in support of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and to answer a few of the statements made in the House against it. The hon. the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) says "you ought to give me a reason why this amendment should be adopted; this is the old system which has been tried and proved effective." I beg to differ from my hon. friend; it is not the old system; it is absolutely a new system. Under the old Act we followed the municipal lists. That had been the custom in the province of Quebec but it was not followed in 1917. When the minister says that this is the old system that we are proposing to re-enact, I say "yes" and "no." You are giving the Governor in Council power to appoint registrars which he had heretofore, but the conditions are not the same. In 1917 the officers who were appointed in the province of Quebec were as a rule strangers.

Before 1917 the returning officer was obliged to accept the list prepared by the municipal authorities, and he had no power, as he will have under this Act, to appoint any one he saw fit to prepare the list. Under this Act we have absolutely no basis to work on in preparing the lists. Registration is a new system entirely and has not been tried. In reply to the argument that was made in support of this amendment that these officials had a standing in the community and were under bond, it was said that they were not under bond to this Government. I do not think there was any force in that reply. If a man holding a public office is under bond, he certainly will not do any crooked work or anything to destroy the confidence of his bondsman.

or to jeopardize the renewal of his bonds so that he may remain in office.

Another reason why these officials would make good returning officers is that they will continue ip hold their respective offices after the election is over. They have to have regard to their good name and reputation in the community. On the other hand, a man who holds office for only twenty or thirty days will not be as careful as the man who will continue to hold a public office for years to come. It is not only the question of patronage that is involved here. This is a Bill dealing with the suffrage, which I think is the greatest privilege of the subject. I have heard the Acting Prime Minister make speeches to the effect that we ought not to distrust one another, but ought to get closer together and have more confidence in one another. The Minister of Militia in introducing this Bill said that it was framed to give a fair deal to every one. Now we all know that faith in our parliamentary institutions has been pretty well shaken throughout this country. I* will not go into the merits or demerits of the question and discuss whether it is well founded or not, as there will be other opportunities later on. I am now simply stating a fact of which every one is aware. At a time like this when there is so much unrest throughout the country, we should seize this opportunity to show that we are willing to re-establish conditions as they were before, and to endeavour to restore confidence in parliamentary institutions.

Some one has remarked that this is a Bill for the whole of Canada. That is nothing new; we all know that, but we must not forget that this Bill which was made for the whole of Canada was at the same time made for every province and every part of Canada, and I say that if you wish to restore conditions in this country as closely as possible to normal you must try and get back to the conditions that existed before 1917. Heretofore in the province of Quebec-I am not speaking for the other provinces because I do not know how conditions are there; in the West they may prefer to start with no foundation for a list and may want registration-but in my province the classes of officials enumerated in the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) as well as some who are not there enumerated are the ones who have acted as returning officers. Everybody knows these men, and has confidence in them. It is not much use for the Government to say: Show us a case where an appointee of the Government has been derelict in his duty

as returning officer. We are more concerned with trying to re-establish harmony and peace in this country, and if the Government are sincere when they say they are willing to make every effort to that end, let us continue the system which existed in the different provinces prior to 1917, so that the people of this country will really see they are trying to get back to the old conditions that prevailed in this country.

I would suggest that the amendment be extended to include prothonotaries, and that the following words be added to the amendment, " when in any province these officers were formerly appointed as such registrars."

I should like to hear if there is any objection to that. Why not let us return to the old system that prevailed prior to 1917? The minister admits that this old system has proved effective, but judging by events it is not likely that the old system will be followed. In 1917, for instance, those who had been accustomed to acting as returning officers were discarded and new ones were oppointed. I cannot complain with regard to my own case because I was elected by acclamation. I have no complaint to make against the lists in my own case, but the man who was appointed returning officer for my constituency, although a good man, did not have the standing in the community that the public official had who was appointed in 1911 and who was a prothonotary of the Superior Court.

I hope that the minister will see his way clear to accept my suggestion, and have the clause amended so that the practice that prevailed in the different provinces before 1917 shall continue to prevail.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

My hon. friend dwells

upon the question of returning to the practice which prevailed before 1917. We have not departed from the old system. This section is the one which was in the Act prior to 1917. My hon. friend knows that during the whole term of the Government of which he was a member this section was in the Act.

Mr. BUREAU:

I know.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

We are not changing

anything in that respect, so I think his plea that we return to the former system has no force, because we have not changed the former system, but propose to continue it. What the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) proposes is that we depart from the former system and limit the choice of the Governor in Council in making appointments to the position of returning officer to certain classes of officials. I ex-

plained my position and that of the Government on tne second reading of the Bill, and my hon. friend says that he heard my statement on that occasion. I see no reason for departing from the system that prevailed in this country prior to 1917. It was a good system and worked well, and nobody has been able to demonstrate in this House that there was any wrongdoing under it. There may have been isolated cases-I think one or two have been mentioned-but the system worked well. Then why depart from it? I can well understand that my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) would be quite content to have the returning officers in the province of Quebec appointed from a specially selected list of officials, almost all of whom would be appointees of the Government, of the province of Quebec, of which he is a supporter. So it might be in Nova Scotia; so for many years it was in Ontario under the old Liberal regime in that province. There was a time when every registrar and sheriff in Ontario with, I think, three exceptions, were appointees of the Government in power. I do not think that was a very fair system for the Conservative party of that day, but it was the system adopted by the Liberal Government then in power, and the only single case of wrong-doing by a returning officer under that system was by a sheriff. In the Dominion it never was the system. I know that in practice these officials are frequently appointed, and probably in the last election the majority of the returning officers in some of the provinces were sheriffs and registrars. Under this Bill the Government is not precluded from appointing such men, but its choice is left free and absolute. The system in the past has worked so satisfactorily that I think it might well be trusted in the future.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I was hoping that after a few days' Tecess my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) would be disposed to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). He said that this Bill would be a model in fairness, and that he would be quite willing to accept suggestions from all sides of the House to make it so. This amendment is a suggestion which my hon. friend must see that we on this side of the House believe will improve the Bill.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I said I would be willing to accept suggestions which in the opinion of the House would improve the measure -not in the opinion of my hon. friends.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The opinion of my hon. friend and of most of his supporters is not a guarantee of impartiality and fairness. One reason why we desire to change the system which has prevailed in the past is that by this legislation .we are going to give wide, almost unlimited power to returning officers-powers which they did not posses under the old law. They are empowered to appoint the men who are to prepare the lists upon which members will in future be returned to this House of Commons-in a word, they are given discretionary powers of the most 'arbitrary nature; and it is for that reason we insist upon a guarantee of fairness and impartiality on the part of those men.

My hon. friends on the other side of the House say that the fact that those men are public officials is not a guarantee that they will be impartial. Well, to use an expression of my right hon. friend the leader of the House, "they will have the glare of public opinion upon them;" and as they are holding public positions of a ^responsible character, we feel we would be dealt with more fairly by those men than by men nominated by members of Parliament prior to their election.

My hon. friends opposite said the other day-all of them except the right hon. the leader of the House-that under the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's the returning officers would be the creatures of the various Provincial Governments-which at the present time are all Liberal Governments. Well, the right hon. the leader of the House himself s'aid afterwards that with the Bill as it is there would be nothing to prevent the Government appointing some of their own partisan friends.

The hon. Acting Solicitor General has just said that we in the province of Quebec would like this amendment adopted because under it we would have as returning officers men appointed by the Provincial Government, which at present is a Liberal Government. Let me tell him that in my former county of Kamouraska the returning officer for the provincial elections had to be the registrar, and he happened to be a life-long Conservative who had been appointed by the Conservative party; but he was always a good returning officer. When it came to the federal elections the returning officer had to be appointed upon the recommendation of the member, and of course I myself saw that a friend of mine was appointed every time. The registrar was a good man and gave satisfaction, al-

though I felt that it was awkward to have the provincial elections in Kamouraska conducted by a Conservative. But he always gave satisfaction, . being absolutely fair and impartial, and the system worked well. In the adjoining- county of Temis-couata in the same district the registrar is also a good Conservative, and he too has always given satisfaction; and the same remarks apply to the prothonotary of the court. All these instances go to show that my hon. friend is wrong when he says that all the men who would be appointed under the amendment would be friends of the Liberal party.

My hon. friend says that in the past no wrong has been perpetrated under the old system, but that is simply because we have not stated everything that has happened. Let me tell my hon. friend that In the county of Kamouraska which I represented until a few months ago, we had a glaring instance of wrong-doing, and if any hon. member cares to look at the Parliamentary Guide he will see that in a certain year there was no election but very serious riots occurred. This is the explanation: The returning officer took upon himself to disfranchise three of the Liberal parishes of the county. Thereupon the good people of Kamouraska took justice into their own hands and prevented any official proclamation, so there was no election. '

Now, why not accept this amendment? It has been the policy of some of the provinces since Confederation to follow the practice proposed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, those provinces having been more progressive than the Dominion in that respect. And if the example of Quebec is a bad precedent in this House, I can quote a better one. I have under my hand the British law with regard to the election of members to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. The present Bill shows that many of the sections of the British law have been adopted by my hon. friend. Why did he not adopt the section of the British law in regard to the appointment of returning officers? The section I refer to is number 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and is in this form:

The returning officer at a parliamentary election (other than a university election) shall, notwithstanding anything in any other Act, he:-

(1) In the case of a parliamentary county which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the sheriff;

(2) In the case of a parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, a county of a city or town having a sheriff, the sheriff, and in the case of the city of London, the sheriffs;

(3) In the case of a parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough (not being a county of a city or town having a sheriff), or one metropolitan borough, or one urban district, the mayor or chairman of the council, as the case requires ; and

(4) In any other case, such sheriff, mayor, or chairman, as may be designated for the purpose by the Local Government Board.

That same system which has been found thoroughly satisfactory in the United Kingdom we wish to have adopted in this country. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are giving unlimited powers to these returning officers, and it is essential that we have a guarantee of their fairness and impartiality.

Mr. EDWARDS:

The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has stated that there is prevalent in this country at the present time a certain amount of distrust of our parliamentary institutions. I cannot imagine how we are going to lessen that distrust by insisting on appointing as returning officers the creatures or officials of a parliamentary institution. If the public have a distrust of parliamentary institutions it is reasonable to suppose that this distruct may be carried to officials who have been appointed by the various Provincial Governments. It would seem to be the part of wisdom to show our trust and confidence in the people by saying that they are eligible to be appointed as returning officers. The hon. member (Mr. Bureau) argued that we should again adopt the system which prevailed prior to 1917. Hon. gentlemen opposite were responsible for the appointment of returning officers in the election of 1911. The member for Shelburne and (Queen's (Mr. Fielding), a very important and prominent member of the Government of that day, and the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), also a member of that Government, had the say as to the appointment of returning officers. Now, what was the custom which prevailed in the election of 1911? There were 215 constituencies. The member for Shelburne and Queen's, (knowing the exceptional value of registrars and sheriffs when acting in the capacity of returning officers, saw to it that all the returning officers in the seventeen constituencies in Nova Scotia were sheriffs, appointees of a Liberal Government which had been in power in that

province for thirty or forty years. He saw to it that the idea which he now wishes to prevail was at that time carried out to the letter in Nova Scotia. That was a fine thing in Nova Scotia, and he wants to do the same thing in that province in future elections. But did he follow that up in other provinces? When he came to Ontario, did he see to it that all returning officers were registrars or sheriffs? Not at all; only twelve or thirteen out of the eighty-six returning officers in Ontario were sheriffs or registrars. A comparatively small number of sheriffs or registrars were appointed as returning officers in the province of Quebec. When he came to Manitoba he had not sufficient confidence in one single registrar or sheriff to appoint him returning officer. He went on to Saskatchewan, and he found none there; he went to Alberta, and he found none there. Why did the hon. gentleman not carry out his idea in 1911 throughout the whole .if Canada? Out of 215 constituencies he appointed only 50 registrars and sheriffs to act as returning officers in that election. But now a change has come over the spirit, of his. dreams; he has a lack of confidence in any person who may be appointed returning officer except under the plan which he proposes. My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) says that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Government from appointing their own partisans as returning officers. Was there anything in the past to prevent the 'Government of which my lion friend (Mr. Fielding) and the leader of the Opposition were members from appointing their partisans? Did they appoint partisans? In 1908 and in 1911 they appointed in my county men who were not sheriffs or registrars, men who were good, strong supporters of the Liberal party. I have not a word of fault to find with the way that these gentlemen conducted the election. As a matter of fact, I have never heard the conduct of a returning officer appointed to act in any election in the county of Frontenac called in question. The record of the men who have been appointed as returning officers, whether they were sheriffs, registrars or persons of any other calling, is such as to justify our confidence in those who may act in the future.

The member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), having asserted that there was nothing to prevent the Government from appointing their own partisans as returning officers, proceeded to ask us to support an amendment which would force the Government to appoint partisans of hon.

gentlemen opposite. It obliges the Government to appoint as returning officers men who have been appointed to their present offices because of their strong political leanings. Though he thinks that there is a possibility of the Government's appointing partisans under the Bill as brought down, he wants to put down in black and white a provision which will force the Government to appoint men who are partisans; to appoint sheriffs and registrars who were appointed to those offices simply because they were strong party men. Well, I do not know why hon. gentlemen opposite should show such a sudden distrust of the people generally. Registrars and sheriffs are not the only people who are competent to do this work; there are many people just as capable and just as honest as they are.

I repeat that our experience has been such as to give us confidence in the Government's appointing these returning officers. The Government have to be responsible for these officers and for the way in which they carry on their work. Let me suppose a case. A man is appointed by a certain party to the position of sheriff or registrar because he is a strong partisan, because he has worked for - that party. He is appointed returning officer, and as such he sees fit to play the party game and to conduct an election unfairly, dishonestly and dishonourably. To whom is he responsible? He snaps his fingers in the face of the Government at Ottawa. He says: I do not hold my appointment from you; I hold it from the Government of the province in which I live. They think I am all right, and I have enough friends supporting that Government to see that I retain my office, notwithstanding any misconduct on my part in connection with the election. Of course, if hon. gentlemen opposite were in power they would have control of the officials to be appointed as returning officers, and they would be all right. There is, I believe, in every province a government which is in sympathy with hon. gentlemen opposite. In some provinces they have held office for a long time, and it was only natural for them to appoint their favourites, those who were strong supporters of their party, to such positions as that of registrar and sheriff. But if you want to be fair;if you want to show that you trust the people, you cannot do it by adopting this amendment and deliberately asserting that only certain people are fit to be trusted with the carrying on of an election.

That the rest of the people are not fit to be trusted is, in plainwords, what this am-

endment means, and I object to that. In my part of the country no fault has been found with the old system of appointing men who do not hold government positions. The elections have been conducted with fairness to both parties in the past, and I believe they will be conducted with less likelihood of exhibitions of partyism than they will be if the amendment of my hon. friend is adopted.

Mr. CANNON:

It would be rather surprising to see how strenuously the amendment moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) is opposed on the Government side, if we did not consider the real meaning of the clause which is under the consideration of this committee at present. Clause 22 reads:

The Chief Electoral Officer shall address each writ of election and transmit it (by mail unless the Governor General in Council otherwise directs, in which case he shall transmit as so directed) to the person appointed by the Governor General id Council to be, and such person shall be, returning officer for the electoral district therein stated; but if such person refuses, or is unable, because of disqualification or other cause, to act, another may be appointed in his stead.

By clause 22, the Governor General in Council, or, in plain English, the Government in power at the time receives from this Parliament authority to appoint a returning officer in every electoral district in the Dominion of Canada. To know exactly what the appointment of a returning officer in each electoral district carries with it, clause 22 must be read, interpreted and considered in conjunction with other clauses of the Bill. A returning officer receives, according to this legislation, exceptionally large powers. First of all, according to clause 23, a returning officer receives the power of appointing under his hand and seal an election clerk. According to clause 25, a returning officer receives the power of appointing a deputy returning officer for each polling division in his electoral district. According to schedule A to clause 32, a returning officer has the power of appointing a registrar for each polling division in his electoral district. The word "registrar" is, I understand, used by the Government in this Bill as a means of camouflaging what the position really is. The eumerators appointed under the old law have left such a bad reputation in Canada since the election of 1917 that the Government, although they have decided to keep these people in office, have also decided to change their names or their faces, and they appear in this legislation under the more

polite term of registrar. When you read those four clauses, what is the real significance of clause 22? It is, first, that the Government have it in their power to appoint, according to the mode of election in existence at the present time in Canada, 235 officials throughout the Dominion as returning officers, one in each constituency. Secondly, these returning officers will be partisans, being appointed directly by the Government. Each returning officer, in turn, win appoint an election clerk in his electoral district, so that you have 235 more officials, 235 partisans appointed directly by the Government. That makes 470 partisans appointed by the Government at the time of an election. But this is not all. Each returning officer chooses a man in each polling division in his electoral district to act as deputy returning officer. We can safely say that there is an average of fifty polling divisions in each constituency in 'Canada, so that multiplying 235 by 50, you have roughly speaking 12,000 partisans appointed by this Government as deputy returning officers and paid for the work they do. Each returning officer is also empowered to appoint one registrar in each polling division in his electoral district, so that again multiplying 235 by an average of 50, you have another 12,000 partisans appointed by ' the Government. Thus, adding 470 and twice 12,000, you have pretty nearly 25,000 partisans appointed by the Government at the time of an election.

If you examine the law, you will find that it goes further. If there are more hungry souls about a constituency, if there are more starving stomachs around the Government candidate, according to this legislation, a returning officer may make application to the central returning officer, and the number of registrars may be doubled. Thus, instead of having one registrar in each constituency, we may have one registrar and one assistant or even two assistant registrars. Not only have we the deputy returning officers, the election clerks, the registrars, we have the constables, two constables for each polling division or 100 per electoral district, or say 23,000 jobs to give at election time. Is that fair?

Mr. H. A. MACKIE:

When the Liberal Government was in power and you appointed these officials at that time, was that fair?

Mr. CANNON:

When the great-greatgrandfather of the hon. member used to go naked, was he right or wrong?

Mr. H. A. M'AOKIE : If the hon. gentleman wishes me to reply to that, I might reply by putting the same question to him.

Mr. CANNON:

And I would reply by saying that I have improved on him now that I am dressed. The question is not- What has been done in the past? The question is-What shall we do? And the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to the effect that Liberal Govefn-

4 p.m. ments in the past used to do this or do that, does not apply any more. This law introduces into this country a new electoral system, as I have proved. Before 1917, we had no registrars in our province. We did not have the system which enables a government candidate to appoint hundreds of his friends to Government jobs during an election. This is a new system, and having to consider a new system I say we should adopt new methods. The minister says, "Give us a fair suggestion and we shall accept it;" but I say, in view of the fact that this law empowers the Government to make over fifty thousand appointments throughout Canada at the time of an election, that new guarantees of fairness and new guarantees of justice ought to be given not only to this House but to the people of the country at large. And, Mr. Chairman, when we demand securities of fair play we speak in the light of bitter experience. We know how this Government made use of the privileges and powers given them by the last electoral law. For many months in the course of the year 1917 their supporters lent their aid to the perpetration of the worst political debauchery that has ever been known in the annals of this country. The people were bribed right and left; they were threatened to be put into jail; and this Government did not even have the decency to leave to the soldiers, who were fighting our battles overseas, the freedom to decide voluntarily for whom they would cast their votes. This is the sort of Government we have before us, and naturally the past record of a Government is nothing but the record of individuals. When a judge has to deal with a man who comes before him charged with a second offence he is more severe than he would be with a first offender. The Prime Minister of this country (Bight Hon. Sir Bobert Borden), has tried to hide the stains on the Canadian escutcheon. He has tried to cover up all these wounds and horrors by enshrining the record of the Gov-

ernment in the Union Jack and saying "We had to do it to win the war." But there is another case more in point to show that we cannot trust the present Government when an election is about to take place. We have the case of the Yukon Territory, where this Government, in absolute cold blood, forced their partisan to deprive an elected member of his mandate because he was not one of their supporters. In the face of all these facts, Mr. Chairman, we the Opposition, representing not only our constituencies but the whole country, have th'e right-nay, the duty-to exact from the Ministry the greatest amount of security for fairness and justice in the future.

The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) says he is not surprised that the Opposition should support the amendment, because it means that provincial appointees will get positions. I should like that hon. member, and all hon. members on the other side, to read the amendment first and discuss it afterwards. When the hon. member says that this amendment carries with it the appointment of provincial officials he gives us only half the truth. If this amendment were embodied in the law the Government could appoint officials who would hold their offices from the Federal Government, and that throughout the coun-' try. I am not saying anything new.