Mr. MacINNIS:

If they are awkward questions!

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order. It is the privilege of the minister to make his statement uninterrupted.

Mr. McLARTY:

As I have said, another

suggestion received was to the effect that no lists of any kind be used but that every voter take an oath in the polling station before being allowed to vote. It was felt that there were two serious objections to this course.

In the first place, it was believed that a procedure of that kind would be strongly resented by very many voters who by this method would consider themselves as challenged at the poll.

In the second place, such a procedure would very materially slow up the taking of the vote and would probably necessitate almost

doubling the number of polling stations to be used. The increased cost of these additional polling stations would amount to almost as much as the preparation of the lists themselves.

After consideration, therefore, it has been decided to prepare a complete new list of voters in each polling division. These lists will be compiled by enumerators who will secure the necessary information. When prepared by the enumerators, these lists will neither be revised nor printed, and will constitute the 'official lists of voters to be used at the polls.

But in order to avoid the revision of the list and so that each qualified voter has an opportunity of exercising his franchise at the plebiscite, the vouching provisions of the elections act, restricted under the act to rural polling divisions, will be made applicable to both urban and rural polling divisions.

This will mean that where the name of a qualified voter has been inadvertently omitted by the enumerator from his list, such voter will be allowed to vote on polling day upon taking the required oath and upon being vouched for by a voter of the same polling division, whose name appears on the official list of voters as prepared by the enumerator.

In order that this vouching provision will not be made use of illegally, penalties will be specially provided in the bill.

In recommending the use of what are known as open lists, three considerations have been given weight.

In the first place, it was felt that this method would provide the best opportunity for every person entitled to vote to do so.

In the second place, by avoiding the delay ordinarily necessitated by revision, it is estimated that there will be a saving of at least one week and possibly more in the taking of the vote.

In the third place, it will prove to be less expensive, and it is estimated that a saving of about $200,000 will be effected by the use of the open lists in preference to the closed ones.

Might I state that this provision, as any other provision in the bill, will not be as immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians, but will be capable of such changes and amendments as the committee to which it is submitted may deem desirable.

I should now like to deal with the time required for taking the vote.

The chief electoral officer has prepared a memorandum setting out the minimum time required for the taking of the plebiscite, and since it is somewhat detailed, I believe it would be of advantage to read the memorandum prepared on that subject:

Plebiscite Act-Mr. McLarty

The minimum time required for the taking of a plebiscite, from the day that I am authorized to proceed with the printing of the necessary material to polling day, is ten weeks. This period may be divided into two sections.

For the first section, a period of six weeks is required for the preparatory work and I find it difficult to break down this section step by step as it consists of the period required for the printing of the necessary material, the shipping of this material to the various returning officers and its distribution by the returning officers to the enumerators appointed to prepare the lists of voters in each polling division.

I do not see how it could be possible to get the necessary enumeration material printed and transmit the same to every returning officer in a shorter period than five weeks. This would allow one week to the returning officers to make their distribution to the enumerators.

To obtain this result it would be necessary that my requisitions be given priority by the king's printer.

For the second section, a period of four weeks has been fixed in the proposed regulations; the day fixed for the commencement of enumeration in urban and rural polling divisions being the 28th day before polling day. As at the last general election the enumerators are allowed six days to complete their house-to-house visitations and three days to make the necessary number of copies of their list of voters, which in most cases must be written by hand. The lists are then transmitted to the returning officer who must in turn divide the lists for polling divisions containing more than 350 names, certify each part of the list so divided, and affix to each sheet of the enumerators' lists an impression with a rubber stamp designating that it is the official list to be used at the poll, then transmit the official list to the deputy returning officers with the ballot papers and other documents.

It is felt, especially in sparsely settled districts, that this preparation of the list by the enumerators, the sending of such list to the returning officer, the preparation of the list for the poll by the returning officer and its transmission to the deputy returning officer in the ballot box could not be accomplished in a shorter period than four weeks. It is true that the period between the date of the issue of the writs and polling day at the last general election was approximately eight weeks, but in that connection I wdsh to point out that on the day of the issue of the writs every rural enumerator had already received from the returning officer a complete set of enumerator's supplies with his instructions. After the writs had been issued all that was necessary for the returning officer to do was to complete the official appointments of the enumerators and transmit same to them with advice stating the days upon which the various operations had to be performed. Moreover, the remainder of the material required for a general election, consisting of some 300 printing jobs, was completed at the date of the issue of the writs and ready to be sent forwar.d.

Furthermore, consideration must be given to the time required to prepare ballot papers, regulations and instructions for the special returning officers, and other officials who will conduct the taking of the vote by Canadian service voters in Canada, in the United Kingdom, in Newfoundland, et cetera. The printing of this material and its transmission to the

United Kingdom et cetera will take quite a period of time. This material should be received by the special returning officer in London at least three weeks before polling day, since the voting starts twelve days before that day.

I should like now to deal with the estimated cost of the plebiscite. It is estimated that the cost of the plebiscite will be SI,500,000. It is not anticipated that this figure will be in any way exceeded, and it is possible that it will be somewhat reduced.

The suggestion has been made that we should endeavour to use voluntary workers in this connection. It would, however, be unwise to assume that the plebiscite could be carried on in all districts on a voluntary basis and, for this reason, in budgeting the cost it is necessary to assume that payment will be required for all services to be rendered.

The amount so stated will be required if everyone necessary for taking the plebiscite requires to be paid for his or her services.

On the other hand, it is the hope of the government that a large number will undertake the work without remuneration, and, if this hope is realized, it will result in a considerable reduction in the amount of this expenditure.

I have endeavoured to place before this committee 'the general principles which have been followed in the framing of the measure, and the general procedure which will be followed in the taking of the vote. I believe that the bill itself is the best guarantee of the desire of the government that people in every electoral district of Canada and those enrolled in military service will have that opportunity, which only a democratic form of government provides, of expressing freely his or her wish upon the issue which is involved.

The bill is one which is so just and fair that, bearing in mind 'the fact that the holding of a plebiscite has been already decided by this house, and irrespective of opinion held as to the desirability of holding one, all parties and groups can agree upon it.

Might I point out, however, that the measure is not unchangeable in form and immutable in its terms. If, in the course of its consideration, it can be shown, on the one hand, that the bill is too broad or, on the other, too narrow, every consideration will be given to the suggestions thus made.

The important point for this committee to remember is that this bill, when finally passed, will be evidence-and conclusive evidence- that the parliament of Canada, notwi'thstand^ ing that the clouds may be threatening and the skies black, has kept faith with the people of this country.

754 COMMONS

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) ,

At a time when we are fighting to maintain the democratic way of life throughout the world, let us endeavour in every way to maintain it in our own country.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

This is not a very good time to start an extended debate on a matter of this kind. I do not propose to debate the measure at length, but, there are some observations which I desire to make with respect to this resolution. The proposal to which the resolution seeks to give effect has already of course been the subject of a lengthy debate in this house, and personally I see no great advantage to be gained by entering into a long discussion of the principle involved.

I have not changed my view with respect to this plebiscite. To me it is just as objectionable as when it was first announced. I am still convinced that it is an unworthy evasion of a responsibility which properly belongs to this house. I am still convinced that the importation of this practice into our parliamentary system is inconsistent with the principles of responsible government. The Secretary of State said that it was unique in the history of parliamentary institutions, or rather that the legislation proposed was unique in the history-

Mr. McLARTY:

I wonder if my hon. friend will allow me to correct him on that. When I began my remarks I said that the position was unique in one respect, namely, that the general resolution which would ordinarily be discussed on this motion had already been discussed in the debate on the speech from the throne.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Then I misapprehended the purport of 'the minister's statement. I stand corrected, and I am obliged to him for the correction, but I would say this, that a government asking to be released from a position which it voluntarily took, without being asked to do so by the people of the country, is unique in the history of Canada- absolutely unique. In this connection I want to quote a paragraph that has come to my attention in a periodical with which I think all hon. members are familiar. I am quoting from Maclean's magazine of February 15 under the caption "Backstage at Ottawa, by the Man with a Notebook." I think most of us have read these articles from time to time. This is what he says:

In the whole long history of British government, in all the story of democratic government, there has been nothing like this.

Democratic governments-though not British governments-have taken both plebiscites and' referendums; plebiscites to give them direction before legislation was passed-with the verdict not binding-referendums to approve or reject

[Mr. McLarty.l

legislation already passed. Nowhere in democratic government has there been a case where the leader of a government, whether in peace or war, has taken a plebiscite to release himself from a pledge.

That is true. Never in the whole history of parliamentary government have the people of the country been confronted with a proposal to release a leader of a government from a pledge of this or any other kind, a pledge which, as I stated on a previous occasion, was self-imposed and which I assert was not an issue in the last general election.

In the course of his remarks the Secretary of State made the assertion that this was not the first plebiscite bill to be found upon the statute books of this country. I recall that some forty-three years ago the then leader of the government, Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in order to stall off a proposal which was then being pressed upon him by the temperance and prohibition forces, did hold a plebiscite on the question of the sale of intoxicating liquor in Canada. I was a boy in 1898 but I remember the occasion well, and I remember the anxiety everyone felt as to what would be the result of the plebiscite. I recall, too, that the temperance people fathered the affirmative, and the brewers and distillers fathered the negative-fathered it pretty well, I think.

Mr. POWER:

Look at the results-not the brewers and distillers; but there were a great many wet votes.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

In your province, yes. The liquor interests were pretty well out opposing the plebiscite. That was their right; I am not questioning it, nor am I making any attack on the liquor interests of this country. I am merely reciting a matter of history. But this is the point: on that plebiscite the people voted by a substantial majority to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor.

Mr. POWER:

Thirteen thousand.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Yes, the people of my hon. friend's province voted overwhelmingly against it, but the great mass of the electorate in every other province, I think, voted for the principle. Sir Wilfrid refused to act, on the theory that the majority was not sufficiently decisive. That is my recollection. I have not looked up the debates; I did not think it necessary. I should not have referred to it at all had not the Secretary of State himself said that there was a precedent for a plebiscite. But Sir Wilfrid did not act, on the theory, as I recall it, that there was too nice a balance among the electorate. I think that is a fair statement of the position.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)

A great number did not vote.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Many did not vote, and there will be many who will not vote in this plebiscite; make no mistake about that.

That brings me to the consideration of this question: if upon this plebiscite the result is inconclusive, what will the Prime Minister do?

Stall a while.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

"Stall" is not a nice word to use; it is a slang word and I am not going to use it. But I have no doubt that if the result is indecisive the Prime Minister \Vill do nothing unless the ministers who sit around him and beside him and who want to do something compel him to do something. If the exhibition we had from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) the other day is an indication, I am not at all sure that party loyalty and partisan considerations will not outweigh principle with hon. members on the treasury benches. I am afraid it will.

Why is this plebiscite being taken? Perhaps I should not rehash that whole story again, especially when it is so near six o'clock. But without doubt this plebiscite is being taken to save the face of the ministry. Has it a single element of courage about it? Silence gives consent.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

We are just being courteous.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Well, the

minister usually is very courteous. I should thank him. But I am not quite so sure that that is the reason for his silence. If the result is indecisive, I ask, what is the ministry to do? Will they tell the house and the country? That is one of the first considerations. Someone should answer that question before this debate closes.

Mr. KIRK:

You should go out and make it decisive.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Does the

hon. member say that it is any responsibility of mine to go out and ask the people to vote for this plebiscite?

It is everybody's.

Mr. HANSON (York-SunbupO : It is not

my baby. On a matter of principle I prefer the direct approach rather than the indirect approach of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am prepared to stake my political life on any matter of principle, while hon. gentlemen opposite are seeking to hide and save their political skins behind a subterfuge, tp do by the backdoor method something they do not

dare to do at the front door. On the one hand their followers, like the premier of Quebec-I am not so sure about the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent); but at all events his political godfather the premier of Quebec-told the people of Quebec in the recent by-elections that the Prime Minister of this country had always been against conscription and always would be and there would be no compulsory military service-

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

He did not say that.