I do not think that would be desirable. It is putting too restrictive a condition altogether on the elected candidate, and the elected candidate is entitled to some consideration. If we are going to dispense with personal service, surely the candidate ought to be allowed to select the place within Canada where he would elect to receive service. We have a number of members in this House residing in Toronto and Montreal. Why should they not be served at their regular business office instead of being forced to name a place in their constituency, where the services might or might not come to their knowledge?
This Bill does not require them to be at their regular business office, but their address may be any place in Canada. My hon. friend has had experience in the serving of petitions, and possibly he will admit that the respondent ought not to be put to expense In chasing the candidate-elect all over the country. You should make this something definite, and make the address his regular place of business.
One would think that when a man receives his nomination as a member for parliament, he is a moving caravan and has no regular place of abode. I think it would be only necessary to compel him to give his proper home address.
The hon. gentleman proposes that this address shall be the regular place of business of the candidate. Has every member of this House a regular place of business ? I may say I would not like to answer for some of our gentlemen at large. Some perhaps would prefer their club as their address at which they should receive papers left for them. Is it not manifest that any restriction upon the scope you give the candidate is undesirable. You force him to name some particular place which is for him a place where papers can be left which shall be irrefutably presumed to be delivered to him. Ought he not to have latitude in defining the place ? I think each man should be free to choose the place for himself.
I think the hon, member for the Yukon would very properly give an address of that character. But if the hon. gentleman is content to have it assumed that any paper delievered at that address was personally served on him he would repent quickly.
It seems to me it would be the 'simplest matter in the world for me to give an address in the Yukon and then to go travelling for a year. I could not be personally served and the only other service would be Dawson City. It would mean I would be absolutely inaccessible.
If the court saw a man who indubitably did not live in the Yukon had given an address which was not an honest one, then if the petitioner was able to prove that he had complied literally with the direction of the candidate by mailing in a registered letter the petition to the address given, I suppose that the court would hold that the cor sequences were upon the
head of the candidate who had the opportunity of giving a real address and so to have secured that these papers should reach him at the earliest possible moment. Is it not manifest when you consider the consequence of giving this address that there is the strongest incentive to every candidate to give a proper address and prevent the papers being served on him without his knowing it ?
The section is designed to facilitate service, and I would be sorry to have it passed in such form as to have the contrary effect. The minister seems to think it requires a real address. There is not a word in it which would give the court any power if a fictitious address were given. It does not provide for mailing a copy of a petition but for leaving it. An election is held in a particular election district, the candidate is associated with that district, in 99 cases out of 100 he resides there. What is >the objection to confining this address to the electoral district ? There might be a few cases in which slight inconvenience would arise but I would not think they Would be serious. Take the extreme eas*e of a candidate residing in Vancouver and being a candidate in Nova Scotia. He gives his address within his constituency in Nova Scotia, and leaves directions at that address that communications left there shall be transmitted at once by telegraph. We do not want to be obliged to go to court to find out what can be done under this clause, we want to make it absolutely plain and certain, if we touch it at all.
In framing the clause I had in mind the possibility of a man simply giving his post office. Supposing he lived at Podunk or some other comer where there was only one house, I do not see any reason why he should not give that address if he was content with it. I thought it was desirable that the provision as to service should be just what it is here, that is, the leaving of the document at that address. If any man chooses to say: My address for service is the city of Toronto, then I think his direction would be complied with by an officer of the sheriff leaving the paper for him at the city post office in Toronto. You ma,y provide that the paper shall be sent to him by registered mail; you will then preserve evidence in the records .of the post office that it has reached that office, or if it has been delivered to some one else, then to whom it was delivered. In matters of such particularity as the service of legal papers it is customary to preserve evidence in the form of an affidavit or a statutory declaration by the person who has actually done the thing which constitutes service. An address means either a building
or the post office generally, and if a candidate chose to say: My address Is Smith's Corners, the service would be effected by delivering it at the post office belonging to that place.
Mr. AYLEgWORTH. That is not provided for. I thought the consequences would be sufficient, because it would be a serious thing for the candidate if papers are not delivered to him. Does the hon. gentleman think there ought to be a money penalty attached? 1 would make no objection to saying that if the candidate fails to insert this in his nomination paper, he shall be liable on summary conviction to the payment of a fine. But I ask hon. gentlemen to remember that many of us may possibly find ourselves in this predicament.
On section 5-enumerators in Yukon.
Mr. AYLEgWORTH. With a slight variation, this is a repetition of the existing law. The section as it stands in the present Act provides that the chief justice or the senior judge, as the case may be, shall forthwith appoint an enumerator in each polling subdivision to make a list of the electors. The only change is that, instead of appointing only one enumerator, he shall appoint such number as is necessary. But I think we can change that language with profit. When this section was drawn last November there was a suggestion that a chief justiceship for the Yukon should be created. No such legislation is in contemplation. There is no chief justice in the Yukon at present, and it would be time enough to amend a clause of this character at some future date by inserting the word ' chief justice,' if a chief justiceship for that territory should be created. I will propose therefore that the clause should now read :
In the Yukon Territory, the returning officer shall, immediately upon receipt of the writ, notify the senior judge-
Instead of the ' chief justice of the territorial court ' at the end of the second line,
-of its receipt,-
And then I would strike out down to the word ' senior judge ' in line 30, striking out the whole of line 29 and the latter part of line 28, so that it will read :
-is, by reason of illness or absence from the territory or other cause, unable to act, the judge next in seniority
gtrike out * as the case may be, and the chief justice or judge '
-on being so notified, shall forthwith appoint such number of enumerators as are necessary to make a list of electors for each polling division.
On section 6,-notice posted up by enumerators.
Mr. AYLEgWORTH. The first subsection is simply a repetition of the existing law, but we apply it to each enumerator, instead of as it now stands in the existing statute, to the one enumerator and we apply it to each polling subdivision instead of as it previously read to a particular polling division. As to the second subsection it differs from the present law. The present law provides what the hours of attendance shall be. That provision has been incorporated in the main section. The hours are the same as provided by the present law. As to the subsection in the Bill under consideration, the Bill only differs from the present law in that in such notice the time and place of the revision are to be designated.