Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):

Mr. Speaker, this motion implies complete endorsement of a draft bill which the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) laid on the table with the report. I was a member of this committee although for some time I was ill and unable to attend. I must say that I heartily commend not only the legal talent but the judicial attitude taken by the hon. member for Swift Current as chairman of this committee. But this report deals with certain fundamentals which, if accepted, I think would be prejudicial to the conduct of the democratic representative system which now prevails in this country

3868 COMMONS

Electoral Matters-Special Committee

Heretofore the Dominion Elections Act provided penalties for all corrupt acts which influenced or tended to influence the votes of electors, but candidates and their official agents were free to incur expenses in good faith for all purposes which were not deemed and declared by the Dominion Elections Act to be corrupt.

For example, expenses incurred in good faith to secure a proper revision of the voters' list in order to eliminate from the voters' list the names of those who were not duly qualified electors and to prevent illegal voting have always been a legitimate expense. Again, expenses incurred in good faith for necessary professional services actually performed for the purpose of preventing the illegal registration of voters and illegal voting and to secure the proper conduct of an election have always been deemed to be a legitimate expense. Again, expenses incurred for the fair cost of printing and advertising and for stenographic services and postage for communicating with and instructing electors, have always been deemed a legitimate expense. Again, expenses of public meetings at which addresses may be delivered to electors, including the hiring of halls and meeting places, advertising meetings and the expenses of broadcasting political addresses have up to the present time, always been regarded as a legitimate expense.

These and similar expenses were deemed to be not only legal but necessary for ensuring freedom of discussion which is the fundamental basis of democratic representative government. This form of government is possible only when free public discussion of public questions is not only permitted but encouraged so that the electors may be fully informed in relation to the political issues, upon which the verdict of the electors is sought when an appeal is made to the electors of the whole country or to the electors of any electoral district.

The Dominion Elections Act of 1938 was enacted after being reviewed by this same committee on electoral matters. Section 65 of that act, after defining in nine clauses every form of corrupt practice, states:

Provided always that the terms of this section shall not extend or be construed to extend to any money paid or agreed to be paid for or on account of any expenses legally payable and bona fide incurred at or concerning any election, and provided that the actual personal expenses of any candidate and his expenses for professional services actually performed and for the fair cost of printing and advertising and for halls or rooms for the holding of meetings shall be held to be expenses legally payable.

That is the law at the present time. You will note particularly, Mr. Speaker, that any expenses legally payable and bona fide incur-[Mr. Cahan.J

red at or concerning any election, including personal expenses of a candidate and his expenses for professional services actually performed, the fair cost of printing and advertising and for halls and rooms for the holding of meetings, are now declared to be expenses legally payable.

In addition to that, a candidate's personal expenses are defined by the act of 1938 in section 2, subsection 25, as follows:

(25) "personal expenses" as used herein with respect to the expenditure of any candidate in relation to the election at which he is a candidate, includes the reasonable travelling expenses of such candidate and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere for the purposes of and in i elation to such election, and all other expenses which, except as restrained by this act, he may in person lawfully incur and pay.

The words "except as restrained by this act" refer to provisions which compel the candidate to have certain election expenses paid by his official agent.

This proposed bill by clause 22 of section 62 as drafted provides:

(22) With the exception of personal expenses lawfully incurred by a candidate, no election expense shall be incurred or authorized by a candidate or by his official agent in respect of any candidature as a member to serve in the House of Commons of Canada in excess of a sum equal to twenty cents for each name on the official list of electors for the electoral district for the current election.

On ten different occasions I have been a candidate at dominion or provincial elections; two of those were federal elections for rural districts and two of the provincial elections were for rural districts, and my personal expenses in either of those four elections in rural districts never exceeded $1,000. The expenses in a rural constituency are postage, travelling about the constituency, and the hiring of halls. I do not know what the practice is now in rural constituencies, but I never was called upon to pay more than five or ten dollars for a hall or meeting place for one night in country districts-sufficient to pay the janitor's services and the light. In the country districts they were always glad to make either the school house or the community hall available for discussion. But in a city constituency it is very different indeed. I am not criticizing any party, I am not criticizing any person, and I trust that anything I may say will not be regarded as a reflection upon particular individuals.

I am dealing now with the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George in the city of Montreal.. I should think that probably St. Lawrence-St. George has a larger number of alien residents than almost any other district

Electoral Matters-Special Committee

in the island of Montreal or the province of Quebec. It is a great commercial centre; citizens of the United States and their families are resident there, and citizens of other foreign countries are engaged in commercial enterprises in the constituency. A very considerable number of aliens reside there who have never become naturalized Canadians.

My experience is that the present method of preparing the lists, by sending out enumerators who are engaged not for their knowledge of the law or their proficiency in deciding issues of naturalization and nationality, results in about four to five thousand names being returned by them of citizens who are not qualified to vote, either by nationality at birth, or by naturalization. So far as I am concerned I would not object very much to allowing these names to remain on the electoral list, because the majority of them or a great number of them are of reputable persons who would not attempt to vote at an election at which they know they are not qualified to vote. But leaving their names on the list, and assuming that they do not vote at the election, provides facilities for a crime to be perpetrated which is probably not peculiar to my constituency but certainly prevails there to a very considerable extent, the crime of impersonation. Leaving the names on the list allows those who engage in impersonation and in illegal voting of that description to appear at the polls and vote in the names of those who they know will not attend at the polls to vote.

But that is not the whole story. They attend and vote in the names of those properly qualified to vote, and in some cases the impersonation of women voters is the worst of the lot. I have known cases where eminent ladies in St. Lawrence-St. George have been impersonated by women gotten up to represent them, who appear at the polls early in the morning, and when the qualified electors appear they find that someone has voted in their name. Of course, the qualified elector may take the proper oath of identity and still vote, but women cannot often be prevailed upon to do that. Many business men coming to the poll and finding that others have voted in their names are so disgusted that they turn away and say, "If that is the way elections are conducted, I will have nothing to do with them."

I intend to give an illustration. Part of my constituency is a provincial constituency known as the St. Lawrence division. The provincial election of 1931 was held on August 24, 1931. The result of the vote appears in public documents which I have here, published by the officers of the provincial government. I wish

to note a few of the remarkable results achieved by the impersonators.

No. 48 was a polling subdivision with two polling stations. The station which contained names from A to L had 91 names on the list, and it was a closed list; no names could be added on election day, as is possible in the rural districts. With 91 names on the list, 96 polled their votes. In the station from L to Z, with 78 names on the list, 112 votes were polled. So that, taking the whole of polling division 48, with 169 names on a closed list 208 votes were polled.

In No. 69 there were two polling booths In one, from letter A to N, 81 names were on the list and 100 votes were polled; in the other, from O to Z, 52 names were on the list and 68 votes were polled. So that foi the whole polling division, with 133 names on the list, 168 votes were polled.

In No. 70 there were two booths. In the one with names from A to L there were <2 on the list and 75 votes polled; in the other, from M to Z, with 61 on the list, 62 votes were polled.

Or take No. 71, with two booths. In the one with names under letters A to M there were 70 on the list and 91 votes polled; from N to Z there were 68 on the list and 100 votes polled. So that in that polling division there were 138 names on the list and 191 votes polled.

In polling division 72 there were 99 names from A to K on the list and 121 votes polled; from L to Z there were 101 names on the list and 120 votes polled: in all, in that division there were 200 names on the list and 241 votes polled.

In No. 73, from A to L there were 105 on the list and 111 votes polled; from M ta Z. 96 on the list and 105 votes polled. So that in polling division 73, 201 were on the list and 216 votes polled.

That practice continued, because after the federal election of 1935 there was a general provincial election on November 25, 1935, and in the same electoral district I find these several remarkable incidents:

Polling division No. 5 Number on list

184 Number of votes polled 1906

191 2497

188 1898

128 1469

247 24811

192 22915

197 23717

207 21619

174 19893 ....

163 19427

230 254

Consider that in the general voting in the city of Montreal only 75 or at most 80 per

3S70

Electoral Matters-Special Committee

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry to have to

interrupt the hon. member, blit he has exhausted his time.

Go on.

Mr. SPEAKER:

With the unanimous

consent of the house.

Agreed.

Mr. CAHAN:

I will keep the house for

only a few moments. I am trying in restrained language to present the case which actually occurs. Now why should I not be allowed to hold public meetings, and as many, in my constituency as I deem necessary? I have no public hall in my constituency except halls which are attached to one or more of the churches. There is one-I do not know whether it is in my constituency, if not, it used to be when my constituency included a part of the ward of St. Louis; I refer to the Prince Arthur street hall where in the attic the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and labour unions and some others occasionally meet. But it is in an attic, and difficult of access, and women are afraid of it as a fire trap. For me to hold a public meeting in my constituency costs on an average at least S500. I have to hire one or more of the large dining rooms of the leading hotels, at a cost, if I remember correctly, of about $200. If I advertise that meeting in the city press, it costs at least $150 for advertising. If I have any broadcasting, it costs $150 more- in all, about $500 for a public meeting with a local broadcast so that all my constituents may hear me. Why should I not be allowed to make that expenditure? Why should I be put on the same plane as the candidate in a country constituency where such expenditures are not necessary except on a very moderate basis?

Therefore what I say now is that I shall vote against the motion of the hon. member for Swift Current, because to vote for that motion to my mind carries with it an approval of all that the bill attached to his report contains. And that bill must be read in conjunction with the main act as passed last session. I have stated the reasons why I cannot vote for it, why I must oppose it. When the bill comes before the house it must, I assume, be introduced by a member of the government. I trust that the government, before they approve the bill and introduce it as a government measure, will carefully consider the criticism which I have made and decide whether there may not be some amelioration of the distressing circumstances and conditions to which I have called attention. Personally I wish to impose no expenditure

upon any candidate. Any candidate is free not to make any such expenditures, but I am bound, if I am to prevent criminal practices in my constituency, to take measures to prevent such impersonation and fraud; I intend to do it to the extent that I may do so legally, and I do not think this parliament should preclude me from so doing.

I should like to suggest an amendment. I am simply going to read it now, to show the line along which I think the government should consider an amendment of this bill. It is a mere suggestion, not a motion. It is that clause 22 of section 62 be amended to read as follows:

22. With the exception of personal expenses lawfully incurred by a candidate during an election to an aggregate amount not exceeding one thousand dollars, and with the further exception of expenses incurred bona fide by or on behalf of an official agent, during or in connection with an election, in the preparation and revision of the list of electors and in preventing illegal voting, expenses for professional services actually performed, expenses for the fair cost of printing and advertising and for halls or rooms for the holding of meetings, and expenses for broadcasting political addresses by or on behalf of a candidate during an election, no election expense shall be incurred or authorized by a candidate or by his official agent, in respect of any candidature as a member to serve in the House of Commons of Canada, in excess of a sum equal to . . . cents for each name on the official list of electors for the electoral district for the current election.

What I wish is to restore in principle the exception made in the present existing act of 1938 whereby all these expenditures were declared to be legal unless it was clearly shown that they were made for corrupt or illegal purposes.

This motion to accept the report cannot pass except on a division, and if it shall pass on division I shall make no further objection now. Having stated my case to the government, I trust that before the bill is introduced its members will take into consideration the matters to which I have called attention.

Hon, C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health): May I join

with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in expressing the appreciation of, I am sure, all hon. members of the work carried on by the members of the electoral committee during the past four sessions. I do not know of any committee of this house that has laboured so long and so carefully in dealing with the various matters confided to it for consideration. The members of this committee have dealt with most complicated questions, matters which have been in controversy over a long period

Electoral Matters-Special Committee

of years, such as the alternative vote, proportional representation and compulsory registration and voting, and have made reports to this house which I believe will be studied and consulted for many years to come. After a careful study of all existing legislation, both in Canada and in other parts of the empire, the committee brought in last year an election act which in the opinion of, I believe, the vast majority of the members of this house is as complete an act as it would be possible to place on the statute book under any circumstances.

Our thanks, I think, are particularly due- and in this I join with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George-to the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). The work of a committee such as his involved the exercise of discretion, judgment, tact and diplomacy, all of which are possessed by the hon. member for Swift Current to a degree not surpassed by any hon. member of this house.

I think I should also say a word, in which I am sure hon. members in all parts of the house will concur, in regard to the counsel to the committee, Mr. Harry Butcher, a former colleague of ours. Mr. Butcher has devoted a great deal of time and energy to the study of these questions; and by way of digression, so far as my experience goes he is the only individual ever to be permitted to address secret caucuses of all the political parties represented in this house. Mr. Butcher, I understand, was allowed to give an explanation of the 1938 election act to the caucus of each political party in this chamber. I think that speaks well for him, and perhaps indicates that sometimes at least members of this house are not unduly imbued with the partisan spirit.

With respect to this suggested legislation, in some respects at least I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. The proposals do not meet with all the requirements I might have considered essential. The proposed bill perhaps may not be as radical as the measure which was presented to this house a year ago. In connection with some matters the recommendations are perhaps not sufficiently restrictive in the way of expenditure. But I suggest that the two main principles contained in this proposed legislation should commend themselves to the members of the house. The first is the limitation of the expenditure permitted by a candidate. The second is something new in our legislation, a recognition of the fact that in addition to the candidates in any given constituency there are certain organizations which have a vast influence in the issue of an election, namely, large political organizations;

and that those political organizations, in order to function, must have campaign funds. The country and parliament will at last recognize the legal existence of something at the very name of which we have hitherto shuddered. It is proposed by the committee in this legislation that we recognize campaign funds, that we regulate them and publicize them so that every person in the country may know the sources from which these funds come.

With respect to the first principle, dealing with the limitation of expenditure on the part of any candidate, almost every country in the world has some such provision in its election legislation. Great Britain has it; the United States has it; Ireland has it; Australia has it; New Zealand has it, and as far as I am aware many of the countries of Europe have it also. In many countries the limit is far lower than that proposed in this legislation. We have, I think, come to the almost unanimous conclusion that it is not right or fair that the wealth of a candidate should be a material factor in his election as a representative of the people. Ever since the franchise has been granted, ever since man has had the right to exercise the franchise, it has been restricted by extraneous factors of one kind or another. In the early days, as the house well knows, the right to vote was strictly limited to the propertied classes. Later there was intimidation of the voters by these same propertied classes, and in many instances an election was a foregone conclusion because the tenants were obliged, either by custom, by practice or by coercion, to vote for their landlords. Still later we ran into the question of undue influence, industrial, clerical and governmental; and now, in our modern days, we come across something which is almost a greater obstacle to the free choice of the people than any I have enumerated, namely the power of money. Given an election in which there is no very great public issue clearly defined, wherein the public are apt to be confused by the slogans of the various parties; given to any candidate the right to use unlimited money for propaganda, for the hiring of halls, for the employment of the genius of the modern advertising man and the pushful tactics of the modern high pressure salesman, all the eloquence of paid orators on the radio, a wealthy man is an extremely difficult man to defeat in a constituency, however just the cause of the other candidate may be. Therefore, I say there is justification for the limitation of expenditures in a constituency.

Mr. CAHAN:

Is it not true that there is no limitation so long as the expenditures are made by a national association or committee9

3874 COMMONS

Electoral Matters-Special Committee

Mr. POWER:

I am coming to that point. I am free to admit that the point raised by my hon. friend is a serious one. As yet I have not considered it, but I propose to deal with it in a moment. I am not aware as to whether the committee considered that matter. It strikes me that there would appear to be quite an anomaly at first sight in suggesting a limitation in a constituency and having none in connection with the national organization. Before leaving the matter of the local organization, I might suggest that to allow unlimited expenditures in a constituency, as is the case now, is unfair to the constituency and detrimental to the general interests of the country.

Then, with respect to campaign funds of a general party organization, I do not believe there is any question which has more thoroughly aroused public opinion in this country-over a long period of time, particularly in recent years, than the matter of campaign funds. But I believe public opinion has been unduly aroused; I am convinced that the immense campaign funds which are mentioned on all and sundry occasions exist only in the imaginations of those who mention them. Any-one who has been as close to political organization work as I have knows that there is nothing harder to get than campaign funds when they are most urgently required. But the opinion does exist that there are such funds. Whether or not that opinion is well founded, it is deeply implanted in the minds of a large majority of our people.

There is the further thought that these funds are used corruptly, however much they may be used legally. There is also the thought that those who subscribe are doing something detrimental to the public interest and harmful to the country as a whole. My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), the former leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and many prominent men have expressed the view in this house-I am not giving their exact words-that a man has as much right to subscribe to his political party fund as he has to subscribe to his church or to any other organization. In that view I heartily concur. But the public has a right to know where these funds come from. The public has a right to be able to trace the sources of the funds by- which propaganda is carried on behalf of a political party. Whether these subscriptions be large or small, there should be something on our statute books to force those who feel inclined to subscribe to have their names known to the public. I do not think I need labour this point any further. The matter has been discussed time and again

[Mr. Calian.l

and I think the people generally of this country approve of publicity being given to campaign funds.

That this publicity will dry up some of the sources of these funds, I do not deny, as I have stated already, but- I do believe that as long as these funds are hidden, as long as the exact size of funds is not known, then those who attach themselves to political parties, those who like elections in order that they may benefit in their own pockets, will be constantly pulling at the purse-strings of the various parties because of the belief that the funds are unlimited. The moment the amount of these funds is known to the public it will be possible to tell the hangers-on that they cannot get that which they desire. In other words, if we have less money, we will squander less.

Speaking purely from the standpoint of one who has taken part in elections and election organization, I believe what we need most in this country is the education of our people to the fact that campaign funds cannot be picked off trees, that it is a delusion to imagine that because a general election is on, millionaires will empty their pockets on behalf of one political party or another, and that all one has to do is to make the suggestion to a political party in order to have it indulge in the wildest form of extravagance; that things which would not be done in private business will be done because it is in the alleged interests of the party. We should educate our people, and we shall be obliged to educate them, to the belief that civic spirit, interest in their country, interest in their own particular locality and their own selves will do more for the good of the country than the expenditure of thousands on publicity and similar activities. We must tell them that if they staunchly and firmly believe in the political party which they support, they will support that party because of their principles and in order to put the party into power. If that is done I think they will soon come to the conclusion that there will be no reward at the end other than the ordinary reward of virtue.

A word with respect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. On many occasions my hon. friend has explained to this house the particular difficulties which exist in his constituency.

I do not think any member of this house, least of all myself, would contradict him in any way. If he believes that the state of disorder which he describes constantly exists, we have to take his word for it. But I fail to follow his argument when he states that because

Electoral Matters-Special Committee

there are among his electors, or among those who reside in his constituency, people who would take advantage of the law7 to perjure themselves or to commit criminal acts, this parliament should authorize the expenditure of money to an extent to permit him to set up a private army of his own to control this lawlessness. I took it from his observations this morning that he proposed to engage his own private constables. He complained of political patronage in the state engaging one constable, but with all my respect and even veneration for my hon. friend he would hardly be likely to make the general of his private army a member of another political party.

Mr. CAHAN:

Certainly he would not employ those who have voting qualifications in his own constituency and deprive them of the vote, or employ constables so as to influence them to vote in his favour. The point which my hon. friend leaves out of consideration, and the sole point which I emphasize, is that this government and this parliament should take means to prevent fraud and preserve order, or inevitably private parties will undertake it on their own account.

Mr. POWER:

To digress for a moment, to answer the last point made by my hon. friend, I would point out with all due respect that he was a member of a government for five years, and during that time the government introduced two bills dealing with elections, the Franchise Act and the Dominion Elections Act, and my hon. friend's advice on matters of this kind would doubtless have been listened to with the closest attention by his colleagues. Not only that, but the first of those two acts, the Franchise Act, which was passed in 1934, was amended at the request, I take it, of my hon. friend. He introduced what we thought was a little private bill of his own. I do not like to repeat my own jokes, but at that time I thought it was a bill for the relief of Charles IT Cahan.

Mr. CAHAN:

It was a relief from the criminal practices which were being carried on by the followers of my hon. friend. There is no doubt about it; it is admittedly so.

Mr. POWER:

While I hesitate to controvert the views expressed by my hon. friend, I have some recollection of that particular piece of legislation. The house will remember that in 1934 the Franchise Act was passed. It provided that there should be a closed list and a registration of electors every year. The registration duly took place in my hon. friend's constituency, as in every other constituency. In 1935 my hon. friend came to

this house with a bill which in effect asked parliament to reverse the decision of the chief justice of the superior court of the province of Quebec.

Mr. CAHAN:

That is not true, and I am perfectly prepared to deal with it in committee.

Mr. POWER:

I shall not ask my hon. friend to apologize. I have never in twenty-five years in parliament risen to a question of privilege to call anyone to order, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give me the same show, if I need it later in this discussion, that is given to every member. If this is going to be a private fight, let it be so. I say that my hon. friend introduced a bill the object of which was to change the decision of a judge, the chief justice, no less, of the superior court of the province of Quebec, Chief Justice Greenshields, his decision being that no one who was already on the electoral list could have his or her name struck off without due lawful proof being given that they had no right to vote. I have here the decision of the judge. My hon. friend's private army, after the enumeration had been made by the official enumerators, one from each political party, as provided for then and as is provided for now, checked over that list and decided that of about twenty-five or probably thirty thousand odd names on the list of electors in my hon. friend's constituency, five thousand were illegally on the list, and my hon. friend's friends proceeded to make affidavits that these persons had no right to vote. The registrar declared in fact that these electors' names should be taken off the list. The electors, as is the right of every citizen of Canada, and as is provided for by the act, appealed to the judge of the superior court of the province of Quebec.

Mr. CAHAN:

Will my hon. friend allow me a word? I do not think there was a case in which an individual elector appealed. A lawyer of the Liberal committee appeared and appealed on behalf of all of them, without showing any authority from individual electors to speak for them.

Mr. POWER:

I am very proud of that lawyer for the Liberal committee for undertaking to see that no injustice was done by disfranchising thousands of electors because they were not voting for my hon. friend.

Mr. CAHAN:

It was not an electoral disfranchisement.