The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three
o'clock.
NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES REPRESENTATION.
Mr. MARTIN moved for leave to introduce
Bill (No. 22) further to amend chapter seven
of the Revised Statutes of Canada, being
the " North-west Territories Representation
Act." He said: In introducing this Bill I
desire to make a few remarks, as the subject is one of very great importance indeed
to the Liberals of the North-west Territories. The Bill proposes to undo the legislation
enacted by the House in 1894, which
altered the North-west Territories Representation Act—that is, to undo it so far as
it
elects a change in regard to the voters'
lists. It will be remembered that in 1894
the hon. Minister of the Interior introduced
a Bill for the purpose of establishing vote
by ballot in the North-west Territories in
the coming general election. These provisions were, of course, supported on this
side of the House. There had been a good
deal of agitation in the North-west Territories in favour of the ballot, and, of
course, the Liberals were very strongly in
favour of extending to the North-west Ter
525 [JANUARY 23,1896] 526
ritories the law that was in force in other
parts of Canada. During the discussion of
that Bill the question of the voters' lists
came up in this chamber and the condition
of affairs in the North-west Territories was
thoroughly explained. The Bill did not seek
to alter matters at all with regard to the
voters' lists. The Bill was passed by this
House and sent to the Senate, and the
Senate did a very unusual thing, it undertook to make a most material change in the
law with regard to elections for this House.
I suppose that never before since Confederation did the Senate assume to do such a
thing as change the law with regard to
elections for members of the House of
Commons. But in this case they made a
most vital change, a change which simply
means that, at the coming general elections
the Government of the day have the power
to nominate and elect representatives of
the four constituencies in the North-west
Territories. That is to say, this amendment
makes it impossible for any opponent of the
Government to get his name upon the
voters' lists unless the officer appointed by
the Government is willing that his name
should be there. There is no opportunity
for the voter to learn whether his name is
upon the list or not unless it appears upon
the first preliminary list that is made up.
The amendments came back to the House
of Commons and were passed in this House
without any discussion or any explanation
whatever ; they were passed through in such
a silent and secret way that even the " Hansard " reporters did not discover that
they
had been before the House for consideration. I find that, according to the journals,
the Senate amendments to this Bill came
up for consideration on the 26th June, 1894,
and were agreed to without any amendment. In the "Hansard" of 26th June,
1894, there is no reference whatever to the
North-west Territories Representation Act,
and while, no doubt. the hon. Minister of
the Interior must have moved that the
House go into committee on these amendments, there is no record of it whatever. As
I say, the thing was done in such a way that there was not single member of the
House, unless he had some notice of it from
the Government, who knew anything of this
most vital, this most momentous change
having been made. I must say that I was
entirely ignorant of it, and I fancy that
no members of the House were aware of
it, apart from those coming from the Territories who had inspired this, and who had
taken this means of having it done, of having the amendments made in the Senate,
in a body that had nothing to do with this Â
question, taking good care that no explanation should be made of the matter in this
House, taking good care that no opportunity
should be given to members of this House
to show how outrageous the change was.
They no doubt knew that this was going
through the House, but I fancy, apart from
those few interested ones, and apart from
the members (if the Government, no member of this House had any idea that any
such change had been made. I myself
heard of it during the dying hours of last
session. It appeared that in making the
changes, the hon. Minister of the Interior
had overlooked some minor matters which
also required to be changed, and in 1895 he
brought in a Bill to correct those minor defects, and it was upon the discussion of
that
Bill, and in fact only after that Bill had passed its second reading, had gone through
committee, and was ready for the third reading, that some members on this side of
the
House discovered, upon looking into the
matter, that this vital change had been
made. A very strong appeal was made to
the Minister of the Interior not to force the
amendments through, but he paid no attention to that appeal, and he placed on the
statute-book the most outrageous piece of
legislation. Mr. Speaker, that has ever been
enacted by this House of Commons, and
I think in saying that I am saying a good
deal. However, I intend to prove every
word of it, because I say that the legislation is not any clearer or more definite
than
if the House had passed a section and
added it to the Northwest Territories Representation Act, providing that the Government
of the day should have the power
to nominate and elect for the four constituencies in the Territories, such men as
they
thought proper to represent those four constituencies. Now. in order to justify that
statement it will be necessary for me to
show, and I shall do so as briefly as I can,
just what the law was prior to 1894, and
what the law is to-day in regard to this
matter. Prior to 1894. there was a voters'
list in the Territories. But that voters' list
was really of no account, because on election day it was possible for any person
otherwise entitled to vote, to get his name
added to the voters' list by the deputy returning officer; and the only object as
explained by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) when we were discussing
that Bill in 1894, of having a
voters' list at all, was to save time, by preventing the necessity of swearing every
one
that came up, and to make it possible to
poll all the votes at a particular polling
division. Apart from that, the voters' list
was of no use whatever. I myself believed,
at that time that it did not matter at that
time particularly, because there was always
the right for a voter whose name had been
omitted from that list, to have his name
added to the list by the deputy returning
officer. Now, that list is prepared in this
way: Section 28 of the North-west Territories Representation Act, as amended by
chapter 10 of the Statutes of 1888, provides
that the Governor General in Council may
appoint enumerators for each polling
division, and if hedoes not do so, the returning otficer, with the assistance of any
527
[COMMONS] 528
justice of the peace. or notary public, and
two electors, is obliged to appoint these
enumerators. That is, instead of having, as
we have in the Dominion Franchise Act,
a revising officer for the whole constituency,
an enumerator is appointed for each polling
division when an election comes on. These
enumerators, of course. are only appointed
in case of an election, and they proceed to
their duties as soon as the proclamation is
issued for the election. Section 20 provides
that the enumerator, as soon as he is appointed, shall take an oath of office and
proceed to make the list. The enumerator
is appointed by the Government, and in
default of an appointment by the Government. the returning officer is obliged,
with the assistance of a justice of
the peace and two electors, to make the
appointment, so that there must be an
enumerator for every polling division. It
may be that an enumerator may act for
more than one polling division. Then he
goes on, by section 29, as amended in 1888,
and compiles the list. Then by section 30:
Each enumerator shall complete, date at his
place of residence, and sign the copies of the
voters' list, or lists, as aforesaid, eight days before the polling day ; two of the
said copies for
each polling division he shall forthwith post up
in two of the most. public places within such
polling division, and the other he retains for
revision.
Now, that section remains as it was. He
completes the list eight days before polling
day. and posts up two of these lists in two
of the most public places. Then section 31
is the section which provides for revision,
and I shall read that section to the House,
and ask what protection there is to any
one in a revision conducted under the provision of this section :
If any enumerator, at any time after posting
up any voters' list, and before the polling day,
is fully satisfied, from representations made to
him by any credible person, that the name of any
qualified voter has been omitted from the voters'
list of the polling division to which such voter
belongs, he shall add such name to the copy of
the list in his possession, below his own signature, and shall attest such addition
by his initials ; if the enumerator in like manner is fully
satisfied that there is on the list the name of
any person who is not qualified as a voter in such
polling division. he may draw erasing lines
through such name and write his own initials
opposite thereto in the column for remarks.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in this voters' list, that
is all the protection there is. Eight days.
before the election day this man completes    Â
a list. he posts it up in two places, and
then, by the Senate amendment, if at any
time up to within two days of the polling
day, that is six days after it is posted up.
and during those six days, he gets any
credible person to tell him that there is
a name that ought to be on the list, he
may put it on : and if any credible person
informs him that there is some name on
the list that ought to be struck off, he may
strike it off. That. Mr. Speaker, is all the
protection there is to the opponents of the
Government in these four constituencies, in
the case of an election. Eight days before
the election day the list is made, made by
a man appointed by the (Government. Anybody, Tom, Dick and Harry. the most disreputable
man in the community, if they like,
they can appoint. There is no restriction
as to whom they may appoint. They may
send in non-residents. the hon. Minister of
the Interior may take Some of the characters that the party keep down here—I do
not know that they have got so many up
there—they may send them into the, Territories, one for each polling division. and
ask them to make a list eight days before
election. That list may have four names
on it, it may have one name on it. possibly
he may not find a single Voter in the constituency, or it may have twenty names on
it; there is no limit. He is obliged to take
no application. No elector has the right
to go and make a statutory declaration and
have his name put upon the list. The
agent of the Government may conduct himself without the slightest restriction or limitation.
He can put on every Conservative.
This man goes into the polling division, and
he can go to the candidate and ask him:
Do you think you have any supporters in
polling division No. 5 ? If so, give
me the names of those supporters.
And having got the names of those
supporters. he puts them upon the list.
Then he posts it up eight days before
election day, and during six days an elector,
if he could not find out where the list was
posted up, because there was no means of
telling where it was posted, for all the Act
says is that it must be posted in two of the
most prominent places—and in many of the
polling divisions of the Territories there is
no polling place, except possibly a post office
and in some cases there is no place that
you could call the most public place except, at
the corner of a fence. according to the meaning of the Act—the elector could go and
ask
to have his name put on the list. But the
official can laugh. and say. "I will put
your name on the list ,' but he need not do
it. There is no means of finding out whether the name has been put on the list or
not until the man goes to vote on election
day, and if the name is not on the list,
there is no possible remedy. because after
the list is completed two days before polling
day, it is absolutely final. Section 46 of
the Act provides that every voter shall be entitled to vote whose name is on the voters'
list, and if a man is not on the list
he cannot vote. I should like to ask
politicians whom I see around me on both
Sides of the House if they would want
anything better—if they were prepared to
use it, but I do not suppose any hon. member of this House would do so, although
candidates to the next House might take
advantage of it—to use than a snap of that
529 [JANUARY 23, 1896] 530
kind with which to carry an election. It
simply means that the Government has the
power to nominate and elect those four members.
Mr. MILLS (Annapolis). That is taking a
leaf out of the practice of the local government in Nova Scotia, by which they disfranchised
electors.
Mr. MARTIN. On this side of the House
the Franchise Act of the Dominion has been
very much opposed. It has been opposed
for this reason, that we do not believe it,
is right for the Government to appoint an
otiicer of their own to make up the voters
list. But let me refer to the protection there
is under the Franchise Act so far as getting names on the list is concerned. Section
15 of the Act provides that the revising
officer shall on 1st August prepare to commence to make his list. He continues to
make up that list up to 1st October. I am
taking the Act as it is at present: it has
been changed in regard to time, but there
has always been an opportunity to add
names during the two months of September
and October, when the revising officer is
supposed to be in his office ready to take
applications, and in fact he is bound to take
them if they are properly sworn to and
placed before him. Every elector in the
constituency has the opportunity of knowing that, according to the law. on let August
—it was in 1894 when the general list was
made up—the revising officer in each constituency commences to prepare the list. On
1st October the list is closed. It. is
immediately printed. It is then posted
in various places; copies are sent to the
defeated candidate. to the sitting member.
to the different officials throughout the
constituency and every man can see, if he
will take the trouble to go over the list
and examine it, whether his name is on the
list. If he finds that his name is not on
that list, a reasonable delay is granted in
order that he may get his name placed
there, because after the list has been posted
the revising officer holds the court of revision. which must be held at least five
weeks after the closing of the list. Note
the difference in time. Weeks and months
in the one case; days. hours and minutes
in the other. Then any person whose name
is not there may put in his appeal. if he
gets it in within two weeks before the
day of revision. He goes there and
gives his evidence and after all these
proceedings have taken place the judge gives
notice that he will make up the list finally.
and both parties have a right to be present.
So far as time is concerned, an opportunity
is given, under the Dominion Franchise Act.
for both sides to be present and to find
out what is going on. These are not the
objections made by the. Liberals; the main
objection taken is to the great power exercised by these revising officers and their
appointment by the Government. But in
the Territories there is no protection of the
kind afforded by the Dominion Franchise
Act. There is nothing done until the election almost comes on, and the first the electors
know what is going on is eight days
before the day they are called on to vote.
Many of them may be away. you can never
count on having all the. electors in the
constituency during the eight days preceding
an election. But that is the only chance
given them. If they can find those two public places where the lists are posted—because
there is no provision for sending the lists
to any one, even to the defeated candidate,
and the people have no means of finding out
anything in regard to it, for the enumerator
has no office and there is no means of finding him—names may perhaps be added. But
the list may be made up in Toronto, so far
as the law is concerned. and indeed there
is nothing in the law to prevent the preparation of the whole list for the. Territories
in an office in this building. All that is necessary, so far as the Act is concerned.
is to
get some one to put up the lists in two places
in each polling division in the Territories.
But if that is not done, there is no penalty
for failing, to do it. Eight days before the
election the lists are stuck up, and then for
six days an elector (and the House will remember that polling divisions in the Northwest
are frequently larger than a county in
Ontario), if by some chance he learns that
the list has been posted in some place, may
travel fifteen or twenty miles. and he may
find that the list has been torn down in the
meantime. In fact. the enumerator himself
may tear it down immediately after he has
put it up, for there is nothing in the law to
prevent it. The list having been printed and
published throughout the constituency,
there is no possibility of the elector being
able to get his name placed there.
In this case what is the provision ? The
provision is that he could go and ask the
enumerator to have his name on ; that is all.
The enumerator is not bound to put his name
on, and if he does not put his name on the
unfortunate elector has no means whatever
of finding out that it has been left off; except that he goes on polling day, and
after
having driven again fifteen or twenty miles
he finds that this enumerator has obeyed
the instructions he received from those who
appointed him and has not put his name on
the list. Mr. Speaker, can it be imagined
that a Government boasting of their strength
as this Government has done during all
these years, deriding the Opposition for
their ill-success at the election, with a majority in the House at the time they passed
this Act of 55 or 60; can you imagine this
Government being reduced to the extremity
of passing an Act of Parliament for the
purpose of stealing from us four seats in
the North-west Territories, in a part of
Canada which has never yet returned a
Liberal to Parliament? The Minister of the
Interior had been up in that country and
531
[COMMONS] 532
he had driven through it. He found that the
prestige of the Government had gone, and
that the people there were only waiting
the opportunity of voting against the Government representatives, and so he came to
the conclusion that unless he passed some
Act of this kind, every member from the
North-west Territories would be a supporter
of the leader of the Opposition. But even
then you would have thought that the Government would have some honour and some
decency in the matter, and that if they
were prepared to pass an Act of this outrageous character they would have had at
least the decency to explain in the House
in a manly, straightforward way, that they
did intend to steal these constituencies and
give us an opportunity of discussing and
objecting to it. But, no ; the Minister introduces the Bill without a word. He puts
it
through the House and then he gets somebody in the Senate, a body which has nothing
to do with the matter, to sneak in
these amendments so vital and so important,
and he brings it back here and puts it
through without the slightest word of explanation. The hon. gentleman referred in
another debate to the Manitoba Act in regard to the elections. Let us look at the
Manitoba Act and see if there is anything
in it like this: That Act provides that the
voters' lists shall be made up from time to
time when the Government sees fit, and that
when the voters' lists are to be revised a
general proclamation is to issue appointing
a registration clerk for each electoral district in the province. That proclamation
fixes the day for the closing of the lists,
which day shall be not less than four weeks
from the date of the proclamation. During
these four weeks every elector has an opportunity of sending to that registration
clerk. a sworn declaration showing that he
is entitled to vote, and if the registration
clerk does not put upon the list every one
of those persons whd furnishes him with a
proper declaration, he is subject to a heavy
penalty. After the lists are closed they are
printed and circulated. Copies are sent to
defeated candidates at the previous election,
to the sitting members. to every mayor,
councillor, alderman and reeve in the' constituency and to every postmaster. They
are put up in every school house, and every
post office, and every municipal office, and
then there is a revision. A revising officer
is appointed who must be either a judge or
a barrister of at least three years standing.
These lists must be published and posted
up at least thirty days before the day appointed for the final court revision,
every one has an opportunity, just as they
have under the Dominion Franchise Act,
of putting in their appeals. as long as they
get them in five days before the day for
the final revision. Then an open court is
held, and after that the list is completed
and is published. Twenty-five copies are
sent to the defeated candidate, twenty-five
copies to the sitting member, and two copies
to every municipal officer in the province.
These are also posted up in the most public
way all over the province. Therefore, under
the Dominion Act and under the Manitoba
Act, which the hon. gentleman criticized
in another connection, there is the most
ample opportunity for every man to get his
name upon the list, unless some of the
officers commit a fraud. But, in the Northwest Territories, I say that there is no
opportunity, there is no possible chance of
a man getting his name upon the list unless
the enumerator is willing to put him
upon the list. Now. Mr. Speaker, it is well
known by the Government, and also, I think,
generally in this House, that the North-west
Assembly is composed very largely of Conservatives. I shall, with your permission,
Sir, read a resolution which that body passed upon this vcry subject; a subject, it
is
true, that was not particularly within their
jurisdiction, but a subject in which each
one of them was interested as a citizen of
the Dominion, and one in which they felt
there was such a strong public interest in
the Territories that they were justified in
passing this very forcible resolution in regard
to the matter. The following resolution was
moved by Mr. Insinger, and passed unanimously :—
Whereas under the " North-west Territories Representation Act" the requirements for
electors in the territories to be allowed to vote at
Dominion elections differ from the requirements for electors in the provinces, inasmuch
as they are not based on the provisions of the
" Electoral Franchise Act ;"
And whereas, though immediately before Dominion elections in the Territories lists
of voters
are to be made by enumerators appointed either
by the Governor in Council or by the returning officer, conjointly with any two justices
of
the peace, or with one justice of the peace and
a notary public, or with any one of them and
two electors of the electoral district, yet, till
the passing of the Acts to amend the Northwest Representation Act in the years 1894
and
1895, all electors having the qualifications of
such were allowed to vote independently of the
fact, if they were on such list of voters or not ;
And whereas in all elections in the Territories,
both territorial and Dominion, the principle of
allowing a voter's name to be put on the list.
up to the moment of voting prevailed up to
1894;Â
And whereas such principle was reailirmed by
the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories in their "Territories Elections
Ordinance " of 1894, in which, moreover, the assembly did not think it advisable to
make provisions for either voters' lists or lists of voters ;
And whereas experience at the general election
for the assembly held in the year 1894 showed
such system to be admirably adapted to the
needs of these sparsely-settled territories ;
And whereas by the Acts to amend the Northwest Representation Act, passed in the 57-58
year and 58-59 year, Victoria, the list of voters
made by enumerators will have the same force
as a voters' list prepared under the provisions
of the Electoral Franchise Act, and all such
persons as are not on such list of voters will
533 [JANUARY 23, 1896] 534
be excluded from the right to exercise the
franchise ;
And whereas such lists of voters do not offer the
same safeguards to the rights of electors as
do the voters" lists in the provinces, inasmuch
as
(1) They are necessarily hurriedly prepared
by enumerators between the time of the
receipt of the writ for election and a week
before the day of polling ;
(2) The time allowed to electors or their
agents to ascertain if their names are on
such list is, taken in connection with the
distances generally to be travelled in the
territories, and with the fact that no fixed
residences are appointed for such enumerators, insufficient for the purpose ;
(3) The enumerator is the absolute judge of
the right of an elector to be on such list,
and he can put on or strike off names till
within two days of the polling day without
notice from or to such electors ;
(4) There is no appeal from the decision of
the enumerator either to a revising officer?
or to a judge:
Therefore, in the opinion of this assembly, it is
desirable that the " North-west Territories Representation Act" be further amended
so as
to either adopt the system provided for in the
" Territories Election Ordinances," or to bring
into effect the provisions regarding voters'
lists of the " Electoral Franchise Act."
Among the members of the assembly who
supported that resolution, which recapitulates very well the different points which
I have alleged against this outrage, is Mr.
Haultain, who is the Premier of the Territories, and the nominated candidate on
the Government side for the constituency
of Alberta at the present time. In fact, it
was at his suggestion that it was proposed;
that the law should be re-enacted as it was
before. What the assembly ask for is one
of three things—first, that the law should
be re-enacted as it was before ; second. that
the Territories Franchise Act. should be
adopted ; third, that the Electoral Franchise
Act of the Dominion should be brought into force in the Territories. Of course, it;
is quite out of the question to attempt, at
this late day to bring into force the Dominion Franchise Act for the coming elections;
so that the recommendations of the
assembly narrow themselves down to thei
others—either to have their own Franchise
Act, or to have the old Act as it was. I
understand that it is suggested as an objection to the Act as it was passed that it
afforded more or less opportunity for;
fraudulent voting. Now, whether there was
opportunity for it, or not, I can say truthfully and I think the members from the
Territories will agree with me—that there
has not been, to any appreciable extent,
any fraud in elections there. There has
been no complaint on the floor of this House,
so far as I have heard, from members representing constituencies in the Territories,
of the law working in that direction. There
is no doubt that it is a very crude law. It
is certainly not a law that should be allowed to stand ; but the law that has been
sub
stituted for it will bear no comparison with
it whatever. If the Government came to
the conclusion that there was too much
opportunity for persons swearing falsely
that they were entitled to vote, they should,
in 1894, have applied the Dominion Franchise Act to the Territories. Not having
been prepared to do that, they cannot be
allowed to use this flimsy pretext for the
outrage they committed. I am glad to
notice that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) apparently takes the
same view of the Government's conduct as
I do, because he has also introduced a Bill
into this House, which has received its first
reading, in exactly the same direction as
mine. My Bill proposes to put the law back
as it was before, that is, to re-enact section
44 of chapter 7 -of the Revised Statutes,
which reads as follows :—
The deputy returning officer shall, while the
poll is open, it required by any elector whose
name is not on the voters' list, administer to
such elector oath number one in the said form
P; and such oath having been taken, the deputy returning officer shall at once cause
such
elector's name to be added to the voters' list,
with the word " sworn " written thereafter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know
from the hon. Minister of the Interior whether the Government committed this outrage
of their own accord, or whether they
were asked to do so by any member from
the Territories in the House at the present
time. We may take it for granted, that the
hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin) did not request or advise the Government to do so, because he comes here
and asks to have the same changes made
that I am asking for. I do not suppose
that the hon. member for East Assiniboia
(Mr. McDonald) would request the Government to make a change in this direction,
because he has been discarded by his party
in his constituency, and another man substituted for him as the candidate for the
coming election. So far as the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Davis) is concerned,
I am sure I am-quite safe in saying that
hon. gentleman would never be a party to
such a disgraceful attempt to steal constituencies. Then, the hon. member for
Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall) is the only
member left representing a North-west constituency. I do not know—I should imagine
that hon. gentleman would scarcely be
guilty of forwarding or asking for legislation the effect of which must be to give
him a most unfair advantage over his
opponent. The Government have always
expressed themselves as being confident
of the result of the elections in the Territories, and I would ask hon. members supporting
the Government from other provinces what they think of their expression of confidence
when they are reduced
to extremities such, as this. Will any one
believe that they have any confidence whatever in having the slightest particle of
a
535
[COMMONS] 536
chance in any one of these constituencies,
if they are obliged to put through this
House in such a secret way, without any
discussion or explanation, without any
chance of their opponents knowing what
they were doing, a Bill of this kind—an
Act which allows men nominated by themselves to go into a polling division and
make up once for all a list from which
they may exclude every likely opponent
from being a candidate, and from which
list there is no possible appeal. Why, Mr.
Speaker, I fancy that, outside of the Government, and outside of any member from
the Territories, if such can be found, who
has urged and supported legislation of this
kind, there is not on the other side of the
House a single member who will justify
and support the Government in keeping
upon the statute-book such an outrage as
this. This is the last session of this House;
it can only last a certain time ; and, so far
as I am concerned, if my voice does not
give out, I will certainly, so long as I am
able to speak, stand up here day after day
and protest against this iniquitous outrage,
and prevent, so far as my efforts can, the
Government getting on with any business
whatever until—
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman is
not in order ; he is threatening the House
with opposition.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Allow
me for one moment on a question of order
—it is always the rule that the redress of
grievances should precede supplies.
Mr. SPEAKER. I did not understand the
hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Martin) to
take that position. I understood him to
threaten that he would not allow the business of the House to go on unless this particular
statute to which he referred was
amended.
Mr. MARTIN. You certainly, Sir, understood me quite correctly, and as I find I
am out of order, I withdraw the threat ;
but I shall take every parliamentary means
in my power to compel the Government—
there is no use appealing to this Government, I have lost any idea of that kind ;
I do not think there is any use appealing
to their honour or patriotism or fairness—but
I say that I will use my right as a representative here of taking every parliamentary
and legitimate opportunity of insisting
that this wrong shall be made right before
this session is over. And I would like to
hear from the hon. Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Daly) any justification of this amendment which he put through this House
without the slightest explanation. I have
been in the Territories since last session,
after the people had learnt of this amendment. They had no knowledge of it before
last session. I have conversed with gentlemen there on both sides of politics, and
was requested by them to ask for this
change in the law, and I am satisfied that
the hon. Minister of the Interior has few,
if any, supporters in the Territories who
will justify him in this attempt to take
away from the people their right to vote.
If the hon. gentleman's policy is acceptable
to the people there, let him depend upon
that alone. Let him go before the people
with his policy ; let him give us the opportunity of getting our names on the list
;
let him give us the right to vote—and then
if he is supported by the people, all right ;
if he is condemned, let him take his condemnation. But let him not attempt to
get away from the votes of the people ;
let him not attempt to hide his iniquity in
a parliamentary election of members for
those four constituencies. It is an outrage
which has never been perpetrated even in
this House of Commons, and I am satisfied
it could not have been perpetrated here, if
the members had known what was suggested to them, and what was being enacted.
Mr. DALY. In answer to the very furious attack made by the hon. member for
Winnipeg (Mr. Martin), it seems to me that
it is well for the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to be put in possession of the facts,
and
not take for gospel what the hon. gentleman
has said. He has seen fit to impugn the
honour and patriotism of this Government,
and my own personal honour in this matter, not only as a member of the Government,
but as a member of the House, because he declared that I had sneaked
through this House a clause in the Bill
which came from the Senate. What are
the facts ? They are that in 1894 I introduced
into this House a Bill to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act. That
Bill went through this House and had its
third reading. I ask if the hon. gentleman
will find upon record that he took any part
in the discussion of that Bill, during its three
readings. He will find that he did not.
He will find that he did not give any attention to it.
Mr. DALY. Did you, or did you not read
the Bill ?
Mr. DALY. So we have the hon. gentleman on record that he did look at the Bill
and knew what it was when it went through
the Senate. The hon. gentleman has accused me of going to the Senate and getting
the members of that chamber to put in
this clause, and conniving with them in doing a wrong to the North-west Territories.
I tell the hon. gentleman and this House
that I never spoke to a Senator, or any
537 [JANUARY 23, 1896] 538
body else, with reference to this Bill after
it left this House and went to the Senate;
and I was just as ignorant as the hon. gentleman is that the clause was put in the
Bill by the Senate repealing clause 44 until the Bill came back to this House. When
the Bill came back here, I pointed out to
members of the North-west Territories the
changes made by the Senate, because there
was more than one change, and I was told
by these gentlemen that the changes had
been made at their solicitation.
Mr. MARTIN. Will the hon. gentleman
give the names ?
Mr. DALY. The hon. member for East
Assiniboia (Mr. McDonald) was the gentleman who informed me, and he told me the
reason was that in the last elections held
in the North-west Territories this clause 44
gave rise to the committal of perjury by a number of people, who had their
names put on the list without any right.
What does clause 44 say :
The deputy returning officer shall, while the
poll is open, if required by any elector whose
name is not on the voters' list, administer to
such elector oath number one in the said form
P ; and such oath having been taken, the deputy
returning officer shall at once cause such elector's name to be added to the voters'
list, with
the word " sworn " written thereafter.
I should like to know if that provision does
not admit of the statement made by the
hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Macdonald) to me that it opened the door for
wrong-doing ? The hon. gentleman told me
that in his own electoral division, there
were 150 names put on the list under the
provision of that clause, which would not
have been there if the men whose names
were on had not perjured themselves by
taking the oath. The hon. gentleman went
further. He did not only charge me with
having connived with some one in the Senate in order to have the clause added to
the Bill, but he said that the Bill was not
discussed in this House, and that it went
through silently and in an irregular manner.
Mr. DALY. I am talking about them.
The hon. gentleman said that there is nothing in the " Hansard " about this particular
amendment. He will not find in the
" Hansard" anything about the amendments to the Bill, but he will find them in
the Journals of the House. Look at the
Journals of the 26th June, 1894.
Mr. MARTIN. I said they were in the
Journal, but that there was no mention
in the " Hansard " about any discussion.
Mr. DALY. On page 349 of .the Journals
of. the House you will find, by a division that
took place in" the afternoon, that the hon.
member for Winnipeg was present when the
amendments went through, or that, if not
present, he ought to have been. He was in
the precincts of the House.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) Does the hon. gentleman say that on the page 349 of the
Journals of 1894 the particular amendment
to which my hon. friend objects is found ?
Mr. DALY. Yes; and I call the attention of the House to the proceedings that
took place on that day, so that we may
ascertain whether or not these amendments
were sneaked through or whether there was
anything irregular in the manner in which
these amendments that came from the Senate were put through this House. We find
that four petitions were presented: we find
that a Bill from the Senate, intituled " An
Act respecting the Speaker of the Senate,"
was, according to the Orders. read a third
time, &c., and then we find that the House,
according to order, proceeded to take into
consideration the amendments made by the
Senate to the Bill intituled " An Act further
to amend the North-west Territories Representation Act," and that the same were read
as follows. There was not one amendment
only. but half a dozen, and these were read to
the House in the usual way, and they were
passed through in the usual way. I want
to call the hon. gentleman's particular attention to the fact that they went through
in the afternoon, so that there was no excuse for his not knowing all about them.
He may be frequently absent during the
evening, but these were read in the afternoon, and, besides, they were on the Order
paper, so that the hon. gentleman has no
excuse for not knowing about them. And
they were on the Orders of the Day, so
that the hon. gentleman's attention was
called to the matter. Moreover, those
amendments were all spread out upon the
Journals of the House, as follows :—
Clause A.
Section eighteen of the said Act is hereby
amended by adding thereto the following subsection :—
" 3. The returning officer shall not receive the
nomination paper of any member of the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories.
Page 1, line 15.—After " Council " insert
clauses B, C and D.
Clause B .
Section thirty-one of the said Act is hereby
amended by adding after the word " and " in the
second line thereof the words " two days."
Clause C.
Section thirty-two of the said Act is hereby
amended by striking out the words " on the day "
in the fifth line thereot and replacing the sameÂ
by the words " two days."
Clause D.
Section thirty-three of the said Act is hereby
amended by leaving out all utter the word " division " in the sixth line thereof.
'
539
[COMMONS] 540
Page 2, line 6.—Atter " twenty " insert "section twenty-eight."
Page 2, line 11.—After " twenty " insert " two."
Page 2, line 22,—After " application " insert
" tor a recount or final addition."
Page 2, line 23.—Leave out from " Act " to
" shall" in line 24.
Page 2, line 26.—Aiter "Territories" insert
"and the application provided for by the subsection added to the said section by section
eleven of chapter nineteen of the Statutes of 1891,
shall be made to the said court in banco."
Page 3, line 28.—After " forty-one " insert
" forty-four."
This is the amendment the hon. gentleman objects to. These amendments
were agreed to by this House. Now,
Mr. Speaker, this was done in broad
daylight when, I presume, the hon. gentleman was in his seat in the House. The
Votes and Proceedings show that during that
afternoon or evening a division, took place,
and the hon. gentleman's name is recorded
in the division. So the hon. gentleman was
in the House or within the precincts of the
House when these proceedings took place.
Had the hon. gentleman paid the attention
to his legislative duties that he ought to
have paid, he would have known of these
amendments, for he had the same notice of
the amendments that I had. When these
amendments were made I went into them
to ascertain the eiifect of them, because, as
I said before, they were made without my
knowledge. When my attention was called
to the fact that section 44 was amended,
I went to the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. McDonald), who, I think, was the
only representative from the North-west Territories about at the time, to ascertain
what
the facts were, and he explained to me why
the amendment was made in the Senate.
So the hon. gentleman's charge that I was
responsible for that amendment falls to the
ground. That amendment was made by the
hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill in the
Senate on the advice of the representatives
in that chamber from the North-west Territories. I would be quite willing to leave
the matter there but the hon. gentleman
goes further. He seems to wish to make
a little cheap popularity by frequent claptrap discussions of this matter. The hon.
gentleman would give the members of this
House to understand that by that simple
amendment we have changed the position of
voters in the North-west Territories and
that the provisions he has read were new.
He seeks to impress the people with
same idea, for in an interview with the
hon. gentleman in the Winnipeg " Tribune,"
which was sent to me, the impression is
conveyed that there is something new about
it. Why, Sir, the Act the hon. gentleman
has quoted is one of the Acts of 49 Victoria.
Ten years ago thatAct was passed in this
House. So if any injustice was inflicted
upon the people of the North-west Territories, it was inflicted upon them by the
House of Parliament of which many hon.
gentlemen still in the House were members.
Mr. DALY. I do not know; I have not
looked up the debates of the House of that
time. At all events this is the law. Since
then two elections have been held, and I
fail to find that any of the charges made by
the hon. gentleman have been borne out.
I fail to find that either the newspapers or
candidates in the elections have complained
about the way the enumerations were made
up. I was through that country in an election campaign in 1887. 1 saw those lists
there, prepared, as they were, under the
statute and I never heard any complaints,
and we were associated day after day with
gentlemen representing the Opposition. No
discussion at all took place in reference to
the way the lists were being made up.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). They were made
up to the day of the election, which cannot
be done now.
Mr. DALY. The hon. gentleman is mistaken. The hon. member for Winnipeg says
that under the amendment, if names are not
on the list two days before the election they
cannot be got on at all. Under the old law
persons could swear in their names on the
day of the election. That is the real charge.
If he rested the charge there, I would be
satisfied. But he goes further and makes
the charge against the Government that we
are seeking to disfranchise the electors of
the North-west Territories by a law that
he would give us to understand was passed
in 1894 or 1895. But the enumeration lists
are made up under a law passed ten years
ago. What are its provisions ? They were
made to suit the peculiar conditions and
requirements of the North-west Territories.
It was well understood by Parliament that
it would not do to apply the provisions of
the Franchise Act to the North-west Territories. The most suitable law under the
circumstances was passed. In discussing
the provisions of the Act the hon. gentleman
sneers at the idea of the Governor General
appointing the enumerators, and says that
disreputable men might be appointed, that
disreputable men might be sent up from
here. I think the hon. gentleman reflects
severely upon the people of the North-west
Territories. Does the hon. gentleman give
us to understand by the charge he makes
that disreputable men prepared the lists
for the late local elections in Manitoba, I
do not think that the hon. gentleman
would like to admit that the men who
prepared the lists in North Winnipeg and
Brandon City and North Brandon were
disreputable men. Yet I produced evidence the other day to show that hundreds
of men were disfranchised by their names
being left off the lists. In this case the
Governor General will do just as he has
done in the pasts—he will appoint men fit
for the position.
541 [JANUARY 23, 1896] 542
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). He will appoint
men whom he is advised to appoint.
Mr. DALY. Who advises the Attorney
General at Winnipeg to appoint the enumerators under the Manitoba Franchise
Act ? Do they appoint any person opposed
to the Government or do they appoint their
own friends ? I do not wish the House to
understand that we are going to appoint
Grit enumerators; I do not think the hon.
gentleman expects us to do so. But we
will appoint men capable of performing the
duties assigned to them. I wish to call attention to the fact that these enumerators
have to take an oath and have to prepare
their lists under the sanction of that oath.
If the hon. gentleman could produce evidence that, in the elections of 1887 and 1891
enumerators were appointed who proved derelict in their duty, if he could show that
people were disfranchised as he has given
the House to understand, there might be
something in his argument. But I defy
him to produce the slightest proof that any
person has complained, directly or indirectly.
of the preparation of the lists in 1887 and
and 1891. The hon. gentleman does not
give the same credit that I do to his political allies in the North-west Territories.
He has had no experience of those gentlemen. I want him to understand that they
are alive and that they have their organizations. I speak of what I know.
Mr. MARTIN. It did not make the slightest difference in 1887 and 1891, because they
could get their names on the lists on election day.
Mr. DALY. Why, Sir, I have been engaged
in contests up there, and I do not think
the hon. gentleman took part inthem. and
it seems to me that no man ever fought harder to get their names upon the list and
to
elect their candidate than did our Grit
friends in Eastern and Western Assiniboia,
and the other constituencies. This Act. as
it is now amended. does not give any advantage to the supporters of the Government
as against those who are opposed to
the Government, because the enumerator is
bound to take their names. The only conclusion I can arrive at. when hon. gentlemen
say, "Oh, oh" is that they have a different experience in preparing the lists to what
I have. Are we to understand that those
gentlemen know about how those lists are
prepared, and that they do not do the square
thing when. they prepare the lists ?—because
that is the inference I draw from the remarks made by the hon. gentleman. I take
it that a man who is sworn to do his duty,
will do it, and any opponent of this Government, has under the provisions of the
Act, the very some chance of getting his
name upon the list as does any person who
is a supporter of this Government. Now, Sir,
the hon. gentleman sneered at the enumerators that would be appointed by the Governor
General in Council, and shortly after
wards he came round and said that of
course he could not object to the Governor
General appointing the friends of the Government. Well, all that the Act presumes
is that the Governor General shall appoint
men who are fit to make up those. lists.
Now what does all this amount to ? It
amounts simply to this, as I said before, that the conditions of that country are
not such as to admit of our extending to it
the provisions of the Franchise Act. In
1894 I introduced a Bill into this House for
the purpose of extending the ballot to the
North-west Territories, and in that Bill certain changes had to be made in the Northwest
Territories Representation Act, but
those changes did not affect materially the
mode of the preparation of those lists, other
than the amendment which was made in
the Senate in repealing clause 44. I think
the hon. gentleman will have to make out
a considerably stronger case than he has
made to-day to prove to this House that
any electors in that country will be affected in the slightest degree by the changes
that have been made in the Act, because
so far as the appointment of enumerators
is concerned, and so far as the preparation
of the lists is concerned, they will be prepared as they were in 1887, and as they
were in 1891, and prepared under legislation
that was passed in this House some ten
years ago. So how could the hon. gentleman. or how can the legislative assembly.
in the petition.the hon. gentleman read,
say that by the Act that was passed last session or the session before, we seek to
disfranchise by wholesale the electors of the Northwest Territories ? Sir, the hon.
gentleman
threatened, but he had to withdraw the
threat, that he was going to keep this House
here until such time as he accomplished his
purpose. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that we do not fear his threats.
We are just as desirous of giving to the
people of the North-west Territories a full
franchise as he is. The hon. gentleman
says that I went through that country and
saw the people, and in consequence of my
visit I came to the conclusion that if the
provisions of the law remained as they were
we could not expect to get the same representation. I want to tell the hon. gentleman
that I do not fear the verdict of
the electors of the North-west Territories.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) You do not show
any signs of it.
Mr. DALY. I do not show any signs of
it'in the slightest degree. I want to say to
the hon. gentleman that remarks such. as
his are very stale. We heard in 1887 that
the whole North-west representation was
going to be opposed to this Government ; we
heard in 1891 that the whole North-west
representation would go against this Government. But as the North-west people did
in 1887, and as they did in 1891, the Northwest people will do in 1896, and the hon.
543
[COMMONS] 544
gentleman will find that we will have a
solid representation here supporting the policy of this Government the same as we
had
in 1891 and 1887.
Mr. DALY. Well, for the Government of
the grand old Conservative party, not a Government of the hon. gentlemen opposite,
because I am sure the hon. gentleman will
be a considerable number of years older
before he sits upon the Treasury benches,
notwithstanding his own inclination to get
there. Now, Sir, I say to the hon. gentleman that the charge he made against me
that this amendment was made by my conniving with the Senate, I have proved to
be untrue. More than that, I had no thought
or idea, when agreeing to the amendment
that was made in the Senate, that it would
affect in the slightest degree the franchise
of the electors of the North-west Territories ;
more than that, the thought never occurred to
me, and has never occurred to me, nor will
it ever occur to me, until the last ballot is
cast, that the North-west Territories will
give any different verdict from the one
they gave in the elections in 1887 and 1891.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). My hon. friend
from Winnipeg (Mr. Martin) has pointed out,
in the speech which he addressed to the
House, the very serious objections that lie
against the law as it stands at this moment.
He has also pointed out the possibility of
disfranchising a very large number of the
electors of the North-west Territories under
the provisions of the law as it is. What defence or answer has the Minister made to
that ? Why, the hon. Minister says that
the law as it stood before these objectionable amendments were made, worked satisfactorily,
and he gives that statement as an
answer to the argument of my hon. friend
that the law was changed for the worse.
Mr. DALY. I said with the one exception.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Well, the hon. gentleman did not say that he was prepared
to take away that exception, the hon. gentleman did not say that he was prepared to
remove any of the objections which the
hon. member for Winnipeg made to the law
as it at present stands. The hon. gentleman
did not say one word that can be regarded
as an argument in defence of the amendments that were made in 1894 in the Senate,
and which were allowed to stand in his
measure of last session. Sir, if he looks at
the facts as they are stated, what do they
disclose ? In the first place, the very objectionable condition of things exists,
which
the hon. gentleman says is to continue, that
the Government, who stand as one of the
parties on trial at an election, are to be
the persons who are to appoint all the officers, who are to create the machinery under
which their trial is to take place. Sir,
there is no analogy between the condition
of things that exists in Ontario and the condition of things that exists in the Northwest
Territories. The hon. gentleman said
that we appointed Grits to office where an
opportunity occurs. Why, Sir, has the Government of Ontario—and I take that as an
illustration—provided for the appointment
of their own friends under the Franchise Act for the preparation of the
voters' list ? Has the Government of Ontario provided for the appointment of the
returning officers who are to hold the elections, when those elections take place
in that province ? No, Sir, the Government of Ontario provided by statute that
certain officers, some of whom may be their
friends and some of whom may be their
opponents, are the persons under whose
authority and responsibility the elections
are to be held ; but they also provided that
the preparation of the voters' lists shall be
in the hands of the municipality, the members of which are elected by the peopIe
who represent both parties, and the final
appeal is to the county judge, that is, when
a new appointment takes place. by the Government who sit here. Now, look at the
condition of things in the North-west. The
hon. gentleman says that they take care to
appoint no Grits, and he says His Excellency makes the appointments, and therefore
they will be proper appointments. Sir, the
hon. gentleman might as well refer to the
Lieutenant-Governor as a conclusive answer
to the character of appointments everywhere. His Excellency, it is true, makes
those appointments, but he does not choose
the men. The men are chosen by the hon.
gentlemen ; they are named by the hon.
gentlemen, and it is upon their responsibility thatthe appoinnments are made. The
hon. gentleman may appoint in the Northwest, as he or his friends have done elsewhere,
bankrupts to office in elections, where
it is known that if improper conduct takes
place, no prosecution can be successfully
had against them. That is the position
which the hon. gentleman and his friends
have practically taken, and he has referred
us to His Excellency, whose name ought
never to have ben dragged into a discussion
in this House, as a guarantee that the appointments will be all right and proper.
Mr. DALY. I rise to an explanation. I do
not see why the hon. gentleman should state
that I brought His Excellency's name into
this discussion. I mentioned the name of
the Governor General as given in the Act,
and a child understands that it means the
Governor General in Council. I never mentioned the name of His Excellency.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The hon. gentleman will see, when he reads the report of
his speech, that I am not misrepresenting
him, and that I am not stating what he
did not say on this occasion. What is the
objection made by my hon. friend ? It is,
545 [JANUARY 23, 1896] 546
that by the alteration of the law it placed
in the hands of the enumerator or revising
officer, where there is one, power to disfranchise a portion of the population. Under
the
law, as cited, if a man's name is excised
improperly, he could, go before the enumerator on the day of polling, he could swear
that he was entitled to have his name on
the list, he could have it placed on the list
by the enumerator, and he could thereafter record his vote. Can he do that to-day
? If his name is left off the list, or
struck off the list, can he go and vote ?
Everybody knows that he cannot do so.
And the hon. gentlemen, by changes made
by the Senate in a law affecting this House,
know the position of the matter is this :
that the party stands in a wholly different
position from that which he occupied before.
Why, an unscrupulous enumerator or an unscrupulous revising officer would not undertake
to excise a name from the list, or leave
it out after promising to place it there, if
he thought that the party on the day of
election would find a fraud had been practised, and he could still have his name
placed on the list and still record his vote.
There would be no motive under that provision of the Act for improper and fraudulent
conduct. But does it stand so today ; is that the position of the question at this
moment? No. If a revising officer
or an enumerator leaves a name off the list,
and tells the party that he is entitled to
vote, and that he will place his name on the
list, and the man goes to the poll and finds
his name not there, is he entitled to have
his name on the list and have it then and
there recorded ? No. He will be told that
he should have come and had his name added two days before. The opportunity is taken
away ; the temptation to fraud is created for
the first time, and the list will be not only
improperly made but it will be full of
defects, and errors, and omissions, which
cannot be corrected. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Daly) has said the position of the
North-west is peculiar, and that he cannot
apply there the law as it exists in the older
provinces of the Dominion. I do not dispute that such may be the case. It may
be necessary to make special provision for
the conditions existing in the Territories ;
but those should be rational conditions. and
they should be such as to secure the rights
and privileges of the electors, and not be
framed for the purpose of taking them away.
That is the condition of things now existing. Men will lose their right to vote—the
number of voters will be diminished. On
whose representation are enumerators or
revising officers appointed ? Upon the representation of the candidates which support
the Administration, upon the representation
of gentlemen who for the time being are
sitting in this House, in so far as they become candidates again. Is not every officer
so appointed friendly to them, and though
the emolument may be small, nevertheless in
that country it may be important, and be
sufficient to place these officers under obligations to these men. Will they not undertake
to promote their interest ? Will they not feel
that in looking after friends of the candidates and neglecting applications made by
opponents, they are not doing an improper
act ? They may feel it is none of their business to see that names of persons hostile
to the Administration are placed on the list.
Was the condition of things such that
the list would be full and fair, and
the election an honest and free expression of public opinion ? At all
events, the evil has been enormously
aggravated. Under the pretense of having
an innocent provision added to the law,
serious injustice has been done to a large
section of the population, and power is given
to effect serious frauds against which no
remedy can be applied. You may prosecute
a man elsewhere, if he has property which
you can seize or reach, for the misconduct,
but where you require no security of any
kind, where you attach no penalties of any
sort, the House should be specially careful
to guard the interests, rights and privileges
of the electors of the North-west ; but you
destroy every guard, you throw down every
barrier that stands as an obstacle to fraud
and wrong-doing, and the result is that hon.
gentlemen opposite have created a state
of things under the law that will prevent a
free and full expression of the opinion of
the electors in that country. That is a condition that should not exist. It is not
creditable to this House if it permits it to stand ;
and it was an indignity to this House, that
such matters which specially concerned its
own rights and privileges and the representation of the people there should have been
dealt with primarily in the Senate and not
in this House of Commons. It is clear to
any one who takes the trouble to look at
the law that the law is seriously defective,
that the amendment suggested by the hon.
member for Winnipeg (Mr. Martin) should
be made, and that full opportunity should
be given to have as full and complete a
voters' list in that country as can be prepared under the circumstances, and that
an
honest and fair opportunity should be given
to the people to elect those candidates whom
they prefer.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) I think the importance of the subject is such as to justify me
in calling the attention of the House to it
for a few moments longer, although I am
free to admit that the hon. gentleman who
has just preceded me (Mr. Mills) has presented it quite as forcibly as I can hope
to
do, and I only plead as an excuse for my
observations the great importance and serious character of the Bill before the House.
I am absolutely certain in my own mind
that if hon. gentlemen on both sides of the
House would give time and attention to the
question before it for a few moments, they
547
[COMMONS] 548
would all agree that injustice has been done.
I am not going to discuss the ancillary point,
as to whether the Minister of the Interior
was or was not responsible for the change
made. He said he was not, and we accept
his denial. We start out with the fact that
an Act was passed ten years ago for the
preparation of voters' lists in the Northwest Territories. The circumstances of the
country are exceptional, and every hon.
member will at once recognize that it was
rather a crude scheme which was proposed
and suggested, but still it was one which
practically worked pretty well. The Minister of the Interior pledges his own experience
in the House and his responsibility
as a Minister, that the Act passed ten years
ago worked passably well in two elections
and that he for one never heard any complaint about it.
Mr. DALY. About the preparation of the
lists.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) The House will
understand that my hon. friend (Mr.
Martin) is simply seeking to put the Act in
the same position as it was when the Minister of the Interior said it worked so well.
The Act vests arbitrary and extraordinary
powers in the enumerators. An opportunity
is given to those persons whose names are
omitted, or to those who think names are
improperly on, to go to that enumerator
and to have the omitted names put on or the
wrong names taken eoff. There is large room
even there for arbitrary and improper conduct on the part of the enumerator. There
is large room for partiality and bias and
prejudices to exhibit themselves. There is
room there to make a list which may favour
one side much more than the other. But,
there was a clause inserted in the Act as
it existed before the amendment which was
intended to prevent, if possible, and to overcome that evil. That clause was, that
if anybody was improperly struck off the list
who was a duly qualified voter he could
on election day take the oath that he was
qualified, and be entitled to vote, even if
a partisan enumerator left him off.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) My hon. friend (Mr.
Sproule) is right, but the hon. gentleman
will see that the Electoral Franchise Act
of the rest of Canada was not applied to the
Territories, that a special law was made
for these Territories alone, and that that
law as it formerly existed, while vesting
extraordinary powers in the enumerator,
had one security to the qualified voter,
namely, that if his name was by accident
or design omitted he could on election day
vote on taking the oath. Now, why was
that provision struck out ? The Government
did not advise that it should be struck out ;
nor did the Government bring a Bill to this
House and ask that it should be struck out.
It was not discussed in the House of Commons, but an amendment—not setting out
what the object of the amendment was—but
simply mentioning among the clauses that
were to be repealed " clause 4 " was inserted by the Senate. No human being unless
he followed the legislation of this House
most closely, would ever discover what the
object of that was. He would have to get
the original North-west Territories Representation Act, and the amendment, and read
over section 44 to see what the clause was,
which they were seeking to eliminate from
the Act. Who asked the Senate to do that ?
Was there a petition from any one in the
Northwest Territories ; there was none presented to this House. What right has the
Senate—legal and technical right it may
have had—to amend Bills passed by this
House providing for the representation of
members here ? I submit it is not fair that
Bills which pass this House providing for
representation in this House, should be
amended in the Senate ; unless it is on occasions where some important omissions
have been made and they are solicited to do
so by the Government or by some person
promoting the Bill. This amendment was
slid in and no one knew anything about it.
But we need not discuss bygones here
to-day. The question is: That a great evil
having been committed are we prepared to
remedy it ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Daly)
asks us to assume that all the enumerators
will do even-handed justice. He knows
well, and every member of this House
knows, that of the two or three hundred
revisers appointed to revise the lists
throughout Canada, with all the security
given by the fact that many of them are
judges and lawyers, it takes an immense
deal of time and money to make even an
approximately accurate list. In the Northwest Territories you have no revision at
all,
but suddenly, after the writ is out the
enumerator is asked to make a list. He
posts that list. One of his friends goes to
him and asks that his name should be put
on, and he can arbitrarily refuse to do it
if he likes, or he may tell the man he will
do it and when the man turns his back,
he does not do it. There is no security to
the voter. There is no court held, no means
of compelling the enumerator to put it on.
The one and only safeguard the electors
had was, that if their names were omitted
by the enumerator, they could go to the polls
on election day and by pledging their oaths
exercise their right to vote. The Minister
of the Interior says that that provision
worked admirably well, and he challenges
criticism upon the practical working of that
Act. I am willing to accept his statement
that the Act as it did stand worked practically fairly well, but what we are seeking
to do now is to put back that safeguard
and put the Act where it was before the
Senate foolishly amended it, we propose to
restore the security to the electors which they
549 [JANUARY 23, 1896] 550
formerly had, and which they are now
deprived of. If hon. gentlemen find that the
Bill proposed by my hon. friend (Mr.
Martin) has the unanimous endorsement of
the North-west Assembly, then I say the
last vestige of opposition to the proposal
should vanish. Why, Sir, I hold in my
hands a resolution which was moved in the
North-west Assembly by Mr. lnsinger,
which after reciting all the circumstances
calls attention to the fact that this Act.
passed in 1894, practically made the voters'
lists final as fixed by the enumerators and
excluded from the right of the franchise
every man whose name was not on that
list two days before the election. The resolution gives the following reasons why
the
Act as it now stands does not offer
same safeguard to the rights of electors,
as the voters' lists in the provinces do. It
says :
And whereas such lists of voters do not offer the
same safeguards to the rights of electors as do
the voters in the provinces, inasmuch as,-
(1) They are necessarily hurriedly prepared
by enumerators between the time of the
receipt of the writ for election and a week
before the day of polling ;
(2) The time allowed to electors or their
agents to ascertain if their names are on
such list is, taken in cennection with the
distances generally to be travelled in the
Territories, and with the fact that no fixed
residences are appointed for such enumerators, insufficient for the purpose ;
(3) The enumerator is absolute judge of the
right of an elector to be on such list, and
he can put on or strike off names till within two days of the polling day, without
notice from or to such electors ;
(4) There is no appeal from the decision of
the enumerator, either to a revising officer
or to a judge.
After giving these cogent and to my mind
unanswerable reasons why the amendment
made by the Senate is an unfortunate
amendment which should be rectified at the
earliest possible moment, the resolution
winds up with the following :—
Therefore, in the opinion of this assembly it is
desirable that the " North-west Territories Representation Act " be further amended
so as to
either adopt the system provided for in the
"Territories Election Ordinances," or to bring
into effect the provisions regarding voters' lists
in the " Electoral Franchise Act."
That system of enabling a man to vote on
election day by pledging his oath when his
right to vote is challenged prevails in other
provinces outside of the North-west Territory. In the province from which I come,
in all the local elections, if the right to vote
of any duly qualified elector is challenged,
he can, by taking the necessary oath, poll
his vote, and it has been found to work
practically very well. The neighbours all
around know whether the man is qualified
or not and if he perjures himself he can be
punished. In this case, Sir, you have the
whole North-west Assembly, irrespective of
politics, invoking the aid of this House to
restore to the electors of the North-west the
rights and privileges which they possessed
before the Senate amendments took them
away. My hon. friend (Mr. Martin) has
proposed a Bill to carry out that wish. I
was glad to hear from the remarks of the
Minister of the Interior, that he has not
yet made up his mind to oppose the Bill of
my hon. friend (Mr. Martin), that he has
not made up his mind yet. that he will
not restore to the electors the privileges
and rights which they possessed before.
It boots not, Sir, to cite the fact that in
Manitoba, as the hon. gentleman said, or
in Nova Scotia, as another hon. gentleman
said, there are evils existing in the electoral
laws. We have nothing to do with that.
If wrong was done elsewhere, it does not
justify wrong being done here ; two wrongs
do not make a right. We are dealing with
the fact that a grievous wrong has been
committed- wrong capable of being used
by improper officers to such an extent as
to almost disfranchise a majority of the
electors in any one district. It is a wrong
that would not be tolerated in any part of
Canada outside of the North-west Territories, and, if I know the men there, from
what I have seen of them, they are not the
men to tolerate it, either ; and when we
have the whole North-west Assembly entering a public protest against that wrong,
and asking Parliament to remedy it, I say
that it is time that we should rise to the
occasion, irrespective of party feeling or
party affiliation, and determine that the
wrong shall be rectified at the first opportunity. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr.
Martin) was called to order for threatening
to obstruct the business of this House unless this were done. His words were
stronger than the rules of the House justified, but nobody doubts that the action
he
proposed to take would have been justified
by the facts. Is it not absolutely intolerable that four districts which send members
to this House should be absolutely and
entirely in the hands of the nominees of
the Government ? Why, Sir, the fact only
needs to be mentioned to excite horror,
surprise and indignation ; and I am satisfied that hon. members, if they calmly and
coolly consider the matter, will repeal the
ill-advised action of the Senate, and place
the electors of the North-west in exactly
the same position they were in before the
Act of 1894 was passed.
Mr. DAVIN. Mr. Speaker, some days before the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr.
Martin) arrived here, and before I had any
knowledge that he intended to move in this
matter, I went to the Clerk and gave him a
sketch of a Bill dealing with this matter ;
and as soon as he told me that the Bill
was prepared, I gave notice that, I would
move for leave to introduce it. I think,
Sir, that a great deal more has been made
of this than there was any reason for.
551
[COMMONS] 552
Mr. MULOCK. What direction does your Bill move in ?
Mr. DAVIN. It moves in the direction of repealing the legislation of 1894 and 1895, and reviving
the legislation of 1886. My hon. friend from Winnipeg was most unjust in the strong
attack, as it seems to me it may be called, which he made on my hon. friend the Minister
of the Interior. If ever a man was innocent, my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior
was innocent of introducing this clause. After I have calmly laid before the House
what the law was, and how the change came about, I rather think the House will see
that a great deal more has been made of this matter than was necessary. My hon. friend
the Minister of the Interior was quite right in saying that in 1887 and in 1891, the
law, as it was passed in 1886, worked well. In my own constituency I did not hear
a single complaint against the working of that law. But that was not the case in some
other constituencies. In the constituency of my hon. friend from Eastern Assiniboia
(Mr. McDonald), I have been told by him and by others, 107 names were sworn on the
list improperly. In 1894 certain gentlemen from the North-west who took an interest
in politics, and were strongly impressed that a wrong had been done by those unscrupulous
persons swearing themselves on the list, urged that a change should be made in the
direction which the reform of the law took in 1894 ; and an amendment to that effect
was placed in my hands when the Bill of 1894 was passing through the House. I read
the amendment at that time, and while I did not take such a strong view of it as is
taken by hon. gentlemen who have spoken to-day, I came to the conclusion that it was
undesirable to make such a change, and I did not move in the matter. I know I never
brought it to the attention of the Minister of the Interior. That is all I know about
it. When the Bill came down, it appeared that those gentlemen who were interested
in the matter had moved in it in the Senate, and the change had been made there. Now,
Sir, the change that was made is simply this—that instead of a man having the power
to go on the day of election and make an affidavit that he has the qualification entitling
him to vote, he can have his name put on that list up to two days before the election,
by appealing to the enumerator, should it prove not to be there.
Mr. MARTIN. I beg pardon. There is no such provision. It is quite impossible to get his name
on the list unless the enumerator is willing to put it there.
Mr. DAVIN. I think my hon. friend is wrong. Up to two days before the election he can appeal
to the enumerator, and have his name put on the list.
Mr. DAVIN. My hon. friend does not understand the men in the North-west Territories. No enumerator
there would behave in that manner. I quite agree that a critic, looking at the legislation
as it is, might very properly see ground for alarm ; but, knowing as I do the districts
and the people, and the public criticism under which the enumerators would act, I
do not apprehend any such dangers as the hon. member for Queen's (Mr. Davies) and
the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) anticipate ; if I did, I would have moved
in this matter before. But, Sir, there are persons in the Territories who do think
there is some danger, and I grant you that a check on the enumerator has been taken
away. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to think that it is not worth debating
in this House for five minutes. I do not believe that the change which my Bill and
that of the hon. member for Winnipeg contemplate will affect a single vote in any
constituency. But if there is any feeling on the eve of election amongst any portion
of the community—I do not care what side of politics they belong to—that a check on
the enumerator had been taken away and that somehow the elector was put in a worse
position than he was in before it is not a matter we should quarrel about in this
House, and the best way is to get rid of all cause for alarm.
Mr. MULOCK. I congratulate the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) on the tone of his
remarks, and I only rise now to supplement something that fell from the lips of the
hon. member for Queen's, P.E.I. (Mr. Davies), and I would ask the attention of the
Hon. Minister of the Interior for one minute. It appears that the Bill complained
of was passed through this House without much, if any, publicity. I think we may admit
that its conditions were not known to the public intended to be affected.
Mr. DALY. Is the hon. gentleman referring to the Bill or to the Senate amendments ?
Mr. MULOCK. I am speaking of what became of the Senate amendments.
Mr. DALY. They came down in the day time and were discussed in the day time.
Mr. MULOCK. I am not referring to anything which occurred in the House. What I say is that the
people of the Northwest Territories learned nothing of this proposition until it was
incorporated in the statutes, and we have evidence now that the people of the Territories
are in favour of a return to the old law, or, at all event, against the continuance
of the present law. The opinion in the North-west Territories is against the law of
1895. That is proved by the unanimous resolution of the North-west Territories legislature,
and also by the remarks of my hon. friend from
553 [JANUARY 23, 1896] 554
West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). It is probable also that if other hon. gentlemen representing
the Territories were to give the results of their knowledge of public opinion, they
would corroborate what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg.
My hon. friend from Queen's has suggested that. under the circumstances, it is the
duty of the Minister of the Interior to place
no opposition in the way of the measure
proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg. I go further. I think it is his positive
duty—not a merely negative one—to make
this a Government Bill. It was through
the Bill which the Minister of the Interior
introduced that the law get tangled up as
it is, and it is his duty, as a member of
the Government, to adopt this proposed legislation with the view of having the law
framed so as to meet public opinion in the
North-west Territories. We all know that
a private member can scarcely expect to
get a public Bill through this House, and
I would venture to say that despite all a;
member can do. there is not the slightest;
chance of a public measure introduced by
the hon. member for Winnipeg, or, for the
matter of that, by the hon. member for
West Assiniboia. becoming law. The only
way by which this wrong can be redressed
is by action on the part of the Government,
and I therefore rise to suggest to the Minister of the interior that it is the duty
of
the Government to undo their mistake by
seeing that the proper safeguards are secured to the electorate before the election
of
1896 comes on. If they do less than that,
they will fail to do an imperative duty devolving on them. This discussion, this
waste of public time, occasioned by hasty
legislation, is an illustration of the manner
in which, of late years, important measures
affecting Parliament and affecting the public has been allowed to go through this
House. We have seen, every session, important legislation put through at the last
days of the session when there was scarcely a quorum present. We have seen millions
of dollars voted away on bonuses. We have
seen most impor ant pieces of legislatioug
put on the statute-book when but a small
percentage of the people's representatives
were here in Parliament.
Mr. MULOCK. I admit that, but the circumstances are such that many hon. gentlemen find it impossible
to remain there. I
was not one of the absent, because I took
exception, in 1895, to the very clause which
has been the subject of discussion to-day.
Mr. DALY. I want. to relieve the hon.
gentleman from any responsibility on his
part, and other hon. gentlemen on that side
from any responsibility on their part,
through absence from the House. These
amendments were agreed to one month before the session closed. The session did not
close until the latter portion of July,
and these amendments were agreed to in June, one month before the session expired,
and, according to the records of the House, every member of the Opposition must have
been present, because they all voted on a division. There was, therefore, no snap
division by the House.
Mr. DALY. I do not know. It is for you
to explain that.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) The hon. gentleman never explained.
Mr. DALY. I had not the opportunity.
I do not know that I was in the House
when the Bill went through.
Mr. DAVIN. I spoke to Sir John Thompson on the subject, who had charge of the
Bill.
Mr. DALY. I was absent from the House
at the time.
Mr. MULOCK. No; the hon. gentleman
was in the House and took part in putting
through the amendments from the Senate.
This House prorogued on the 22nd July,
and the Bill was put through on the 26th
June, that is twenty-three days before prorogation. The hon. gentleman will remember
that the session of last year was called
at probably the most inconvenient period
that could have been selected. It was called at a time when we should have been
preroguing instead of convening. In the
month of June, the attendance was slim,
and the early part of July there were many
days when scarcely a quorum was present.
Towards the close, there were times when
there were not over twenty members present out of the two hundred. While there
was not such a limited attendance when
these amendments were passed, still, the
attendance was very small, indeed, and the
law which got embodied on the statute-
book had not the sanction of the majority
of the people's representatives in Parliament. It was unknown to the people who
were to be affected. and certainly a most
irresistible case has been made out for the
repeal of this measure.
Mr. MARTIN. I desire to say a few
words in reply to what has fallen from the
hon. Minister of the Interior, because he
resents the suggestion which I made that
he is to blame for the law as it now stands.
If only such matters as occurred in 1894
were in issue. I would be quite prepared to
accept his statement ; but my charges
against him were not based on wnat happened in 1894 alone, but upon the fact that
this amendment was brought to his attention last session, in 1895, when he was asked
to make this wrong right. He himself
was then obliged to introduce a second Bill to this House in order to correct some
trifling errors in his Bill of 1894, because,
555
[COMMONS] 556
strange to say, the Bill of 1894, while providing that no one could get his name upon
the list on election day, provided that
notices should be stuck up in the polling
division notifying the electors that they
could apply to have their names put upon
the voters' lists, even on the last day, so
that the hon. gentleman was obliged, on
account of this inconsistency and error
in his 1894 Act, to come again in 1895
and ask to have the change made.
It was only when the Bill came up for
discussion, and only upon the third reading
of it, that members on this side learned of
the change that was made in 1894. And a
very strong appeal was then made by the
hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) to
the Minister of the Interior to right the outrage that had been perpetrated. More
than
that, I went to the hon. Minister in his seat
and discussed the matter with him and urged
him very strongly, as a matter of fair-play
to the Liberals in the Territories, not to insist upon this change in the old law.
But he
took a firm stand, and said it was the policy
of the Government to insist upon the Act
as it had been amended. So I think the
hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin) was not justified in finding fault
with me for putting the case against the
hon. Minister as I did. The hon. Minister
assumed the responsibility of the change at
that time, and he defends it today. And
for what purpose ? What other purpose can
there be than that I suggest ? It is admitted, it must be admitted by everybody
who considers the matter, that, under the
law as it is at present, it is possible for the
most gigantic frauds to be perpetrated in
these elections. As I have said, it is possible for the Government to elect every
member for the North-west: Territories in the
next general election, through the operation
of this changed law. The hon. Minister, of
course. repudiates the suggestion that he intends to do any such thing. If he has
no
such intention, why, then, does he take the
power to do it ? He offers only one reason
and that is that, in 1891, under the old law,
certain frauds were perpetrated. If that is
all, let him make some change which will
right the wrong he speaks of, without taking
the power to inflict this great wrong upon
us. Surely, he can remedy one without
causing the other. Let the hon. Minister
take any course he likes, but I am going to
protest, as I said before, against the Government taking into their hands the power
they
have under this Act. And I hold the hon.
Minister of the Interior wholly responsible
for it. I think I was quite justified, after
the stand he took in 1895, in assuming, as l
did, that his action in 1894 was taken advisedly, so that the House would not understand
the change proposed. He says that
the amendments were made in the Senate
without his knowledge. I accept his word
upon that point. But, when those amendments came before the House, surely, as a
matter of fair-play, he should have explained to the House what the changes
were. He stated that he had explained
the changes to members from the Northwest Territories, but, when I pressed him
for the name of any hon. member to whom
he had explained these changes. the only
name he could give was that of the hon.
member for East Assinobia (Mr. McDonald), who has not had a word to say in defence
of the changes then made. I could
not believe that the hon. member for East Assiniboia would suggest this change. For
what interest could he have in the elections?
As I said before, he has been discarded by
his party, he is of no further use to them.
He made a very vigorous fight for the nomination, but he failed. Now, if it be true
that, before these changes, outrages in the
way of men falsely swearing their names
upon the lists. is it not an astonishing fact
to find that the legislative assembly of the
North-west Territories, in their local elections adhere to the system we have abandoned?
Under the law of the Territories any
person can get his name on the list by going
on election day and swearing that he is a
British subject and is otherwise entitled to
vote, just as, prior to 1894, a person could do
in Dominion elections. It is hardly necessary for me to refer again to the absurd
and
childish argument of the Minister of the Interior in support of his plea that this
change
would do no harm. His argument was that
the old law worked well, and. therefore. the
new law would work well. The hon. gentleman must surely think there is neither sense
nor reason in this House. In effect. he says
that there is no difference between a list
that means nothing and a list that is final
and binding. When a list is made up which
binds nobody, who cares what becomes of
it or how it is made up. But if in the meantime, you change the law so that the list,
instead of being, as the hon. member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) says, a mere
list for convenience, to save time on election day, and make that list final and binding,
surely you effect a complete change.
You could perpetrate any fraud you liked in
1887 or 1891 in keeping men's names off the
prepared lists. and we did not need to care,
because we had privileges under the Act
which countervailed all that wrong. But, if
you attempt to perpetrate a fraud in 1896
which the Act gives you the power to perpetrate, we have no protection. The only
course of safety is to have this vile iniquity
purged from the statute-book. The hon.
member for North York (Mr. Mulock) says
this Bill cannot pass. Well, Mr. Speaker, I
hope it will pass. The hon. member for
North York appeals to the Government in
favour of the Bill. We tried that in 1895.
But in 1895, unfortunately, when we first
learned of this wrong, the Government business was done, and we had no chance of
emphasizing our appeal effectually. We are
in a different position at this time, Mr.
557 [JANUARY 23, 1896] 558
Speaker. I do not care whether my hon. Â Â Â Â
friend's (Mr. Davin's) Bill passes or whether
my Bill passes; but I ask and demand of
the Government of the day the righting of
this wrong. As I have already said, if they
have no intention of doing us this wrong,
let them relinquish the power to do it. I
make the demand at the instance of the people of the North-west Territories. They
are
alarmed about this matter, and they have
shown their alarm in the clearest possible
way by a resolution passed by an assembly
which, as I said before, is composed largely
of Conservatives. The hon. member for
West Assiniboia will agree with me in that.
It is true that, among the members of that
assembly, are the Liberal candidate for
Alberta and some other Liberals. But
I know a great many of them, and I
think I am quite correct in saying that there
is a considerable majority who are supporters of the present Government. Mr.
Haultain, as I said before, the Premier, is
the Government candidate in Alberta; and
these gentlemen with. one voice have condemned this outrage in language as strong
and as clear as any that I have used to-day.
They have pointed out the possibility of
great wrong being done. and they have
asked to have the law changed back into
its old form, or else into their local Fran'chise Act, but it makes no difference
for the
purpose of the people which is done. I may
say that I got a letter this day from a member of the legislative assembly urging
me
not to overlook this matter, to be sure and
bring it up, and endeavour if possible to
have the wrong made right. I again say
that if this House does not at this session
change that law, the prediction of the hon.
Minister of the Interior will, no doubt, be
fulfilled. in the elections which will take
place in 1896, and there will. no doubt. be
four members returned supporting the Conservative party in the North-west Territories.
I have no doubt about it, it is too
clear for argument. I do not think that the
Liberals would put up candidates, I do not
think we will be able to find four men
foolish enough to risk $200 under circumstances such as these. The Conservatives
will get every seat, and possibly by acclamation. But, Mr. Speaker, if they will give
us a fair chance up there, if they will repeal this iniquity and give us an equal
chance with them in the election, I think
the issue will be different. I may be right
in my prediction that we will get the four
seats, or the Minister of the Interior may
beright in his. But there will be some equal
chance for us, there will be some Opportunity for a fight; whereas under this Act
we have no chance and no opportunity.
As I said before, it will be entirely useless
for us to attempt to fight under the circumstances. Therefore, it is my duty, as the
only representative of Liberal opinions, or
the nearest representative to the Territories
of Liberal opinions, to demand in this House
that a change be made. While the hon. Minister of the Interior may take thestand,
and his colleagues may support him in it,
that he is going to take into his hands this
enormous power for fraud, I doubt very
much whether the members in this House
supporting the Government on their general
policy, will support them in any such outrageous proceeding as this. If there is any
possibility, under the rules of the House, of
bringing the matter to a vote, I shall certainly obtain a vote of the members upon
this question. I hope when the occasion
comes hon. members will see that the people
of these four constituencies in the Territories
have a fair chance to go to the polls and
deposit their ballots, whether they happen
to be in favour of or against the Government of the day.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I am
not going to prolong the discussion which
my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Martin)
has initiated, although I feel bound to say
that I have failed to hear one single argument from the other side of the House in
the slightest degree justifying the assumption of the monstrous power—and I use the
word advisedly—which the Government
have, without the real knowledge of the
House, taken to themselves. The thing
smacks of fraud of the grossest possible
description. But what I want chiefly to
call the attention of the House to, is this:
As I understand it, this confusion has arisen,
or the ignorance of the House has been
caused, in no small degree, by the very
mischievous practice which prevails in our
legislation of repealing a clause by number,
without giving full details of the clause that
is repealed. I have over and over again
protested against that practice in this House.
I hold that it is the most slovenly possible
legislation, when we are dealing with important subjects like this, to say you repeal
such and such a clause, number so and so,
of such and such an Act. Not one man out
of fifty in the House knows anything about
the matter in general when; it is introduced
in that fashion, still less, when it is introduced in the shape of an amendment from
the Senate. Such a practice ought to be
prohibited. I think, by a rule of this House ;
at any rate, the Government in particular
ought to be exceedingly cautious not to allow
any legislation which passes through their
hands, to be conducted in such an exceedingly slipshod fashion. I hope and trust that
my hon. friends will get an opportunity of
testing the sense of the House on this
question, because I myself am of the opinion that if this thing had been fairly presented
to the House, the members on both
sides would have refused to accord to the
nominees of the Government any such power
as that which appears to be given to them;
and I trust that my hon. friend will take
exceedingly good care that a test vote be
559
[COMMONS] 560
obtained on this subject before we are much
older.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first
time.
This individual participated in:
