I would draw the hou. gentleman's attention to the fact that if he will look at the Election Act he will see that the heading of form U is exactly the same as schedule T. It is not intended to be the same.
That would put the province of Manitoba in the list of provinces where the officials, required for the making of the lists, will be appointed by the Federal government, because, in Manitoba, under the new Act, the lists are only made when the Lieutenant-Governor in Council so determines. They are not made at regualr intervals.
We have had an experiment of this Franchise Act. We have surrendered a great privilege that belongs to the Dominion parliament, and it has not worked out well. The sooner we come back to the old system, adopt a Dominion franchise, make our own list and appoint our own officers, the sooner will we get a better election law. The system has broken down. This surrender to the provincial authorities has been a failure, and I enter my protest against it here and now. I would like that we should go back to the Dominion franchise and be independent of these changes of law that seem to be going on in every province of this Dominion.
Before I ask the committee to rise, I would propose certain amendments to meet the objections of the hon. member for Halton in respect to the affidavit required to be taken by a voter whose name is not on the list. These are just for the purpose of being considered.
5a. Subsection 5 of section 64 of the said Act is hereby repealed and the following substituted
' 5. If his name has been omitted from the list of voters on account only of some disqualifying provision of the provincial law specified in section 6 of the Franchise Act, 1898, as amended, he shall, if not otherwise disqualified under the provisions of this Act, be entitled to vote upon
his taking or offering to take the oath in the form T, in addition to any oath which he might have been required to take if his name had been on the list, so far as such last mentioned oath is applicable.'
10a. Form T of schedule 1 to the said Act is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor :-
' T-(Section 64.)
* Oath of qualification of voter whose name is omitted on account of provincial disqualification.
' You swear (or solemnly affirm) that you are legally qualified to vote at this election, and that you verily believe that your name was omitted from the list of voters by reason of your being (here name the office, the holding of which, or the capacity in the public service of Canada or the province, the employment in which, or the profession, calling, employment or occupation, the belonging to or engagement in which, or the class of persons, the belonging to which disqualified or disqualifies the voter from having his name on the list or from voting at a provincial election), at the time such list was prepared and for no other reason. So help you God.'
I would remind the hon. gentleman that it goes farther than that. It includes the classes of persons who are disqualified, not only that he belongs to a class of persons described, but a class of persons who are not described.
This will enable the returning officer to put in the blank the particular cause of disqualification applicable to the voter. The instructions are to the returning officer to name the particular source of disqualification, and the different causes of disqualification are given so that he will know the particular one to pick out.
6a. Section 7 of said section 64 is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor :
' 7. From any oath which any such person offering his vote at such election may be required to take there shall be omitted any statements as to residence which cannot, by reason of such change of residence as Is mentioned in the next preceding subsection, truthfully make, and instead of such statements, the following paragraph may be added to such oath :-
' That you have resided in the (city or town) of of which this polling division is
a part continuously from the said day of 19 , (insert here the day
of the first sitting held for registration of manhood suffrage voters, and if the voter has been temporarily absent for any of the purposes allowed by law, insert the words following: 'except occasionally or temporarily in the prosecution of your occupation as, mentioning, as the case may be, a lumberman or mariner or fisherman or in attendance es a student in an institution of learning in the Dominion of Canada (naming the institution), and that you are now actually a
resident of and domiciled in the said (city or town).'
May I ask the lion. Solicitor General if he will be willing to consider any amendment that may properly be drawn up to bring in the new clauses that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) was suggesting in the Bill which lie proposes. I quite agree with the hon. Solicitor General, that in the particular form in which these clauses were introduced in the Bill to amend the Act respecting the North-west Territories, they could not be properly taken up in the consideration of the Election Act. But, I think the idea that my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) had in his mind, could be framed in such a way that it would properly be an amendment to the Election Act. May I ask the Solicitor General to consider that before the Bill comes up again ?
My hon. friend will realize that the suggestion that I should pledge the government to amend the North-west Territories Representation Act would be entirely futile. All I can do is to submit these amendments to the government and then if it is decided they should be adopted, well and good.
I did not ask the learned Solicitor General to pledge himself. I asked that he should consider them in the meantime. Before this Bill comes up again, would the hon. gentleman also consider the point raised in Bill No. 96.
Simply because it occurred to me that it was an oversight in the original drafting of the statute that this particular point was not covered. Section 108, clause (i), makes it illegal to oiler an 'office' to any person to induce him to withdraw as a candidate. My Bill provides that it will be illegal to offer him money as well as to offer him an office. Why should it not be unlawful for to attempt to dissuade a man from being a candidate by the offer of money, as well as to attempt to dissuade him by the offer of an office.