Is that an answer to the question put the other day by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Clements) to cover the case where an elector votes in a municipality, half of which is in one county and half in another county?
This section was left open to decide what penalty there ought to be on a candidate who does not comply with it, or who may give a fictitious address. A suggestion was made by the leader of the opposition, with which I agreed, that he might be made to forfeit his deposit. I prepared an amendment carrying out that suggestion, but on thinking about it, it seems to me a pretty severe penalty-$200 is a substantial fine. This idea occurred to me as an alternative, that the election petition or other paper, which would be served by leaving it at his address, if it were a real one, might be left for the candidate with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. If that suggestion meets with the approval of the committee, I have prepared an amendment on those lines. The idea of publishing it in the ' Canada Gazette ' was also suggested, but that perhaps is an unnecessary expenditure. My proposition would be to add this as a subsection :
If the nomination paper of any candidate gives a fictitious -address, or does not state any address -ais required by the preceding subsection, leaving -a copy of -such process, notice or other document with the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for -such candidate, shall be deemed equivalent -for all -purposes to personal service upon him of such process, notice or other document.
The candidate could then go to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and get the document.
I draw attention to the language of the Act in the section which is being amended :
And leaving a copy of such process, notice or document a-t such address.
I would suggest tnat the following words be inserted in the 17fh line : ' a grown person.' It would be unfair to leave the copy of such a document at a house where there was no one residing to receive it, or to throw it upon the verandah or into the back yard.
Do I understand that a candidate in tlie Yukon, for instance, would be obliged to accept service in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery at Ottawa? Would a bailiff, for instance, have to come all the way down to Ottawa? Why should it not be done by registered letter instead of forcing a man to come down here?
He would not be the loser, the man who gives the fictitious address is the man elected. Does the man who is contesting an election have to come, down to Ottawa? It seems to me that service might be made by registered letter.
What Is implied in the term ' address ' ? In small villages, for instance, there is no street number. Suppose a farmer is a candidate, and must, he give the number of his lot? In villages or towns the address would mean only a post office address. |1
I expressed the opinion when the Bill was in committee before that if a man lived at a country four-corners where there was only one building and that a post office, if he gave the name of that post office it would be an address and the paper might be left at that post office; but I should think that every candidate would take care in giving an address, to give some specific address, such as his place of business, or, if he preferred, his residence, defining where it was ; it would be his interest to do so.
This was all discussed at the previous sitting of the committee. The whole idea of this clause which was framed on the suggestion of the Elections Committee of two years ago was to make it easier to serve the candidate who was elected, and with that object this provision is inserted. If you are going to whittle it away by throwing conditions in the way of service you may as well not have it.
McCarthy. The hon. gentleman misunderstood if he thought the Minister of Justice was flippant. I would ask the leader of the opposition if he concurs in what the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is saying, because the Minister of Justice says this section is drawn to meet what the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barkei-) thought was a proper provision when sitting on the Elections Committee of two years ago.
The leader of the opposition of course was not a member of the Committee on Elections to which I referred. The view of that committee, as expressed here a few weeks ago, I think by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was that a man should be made to give an address and if when the process server came to serve him the place was locked, that might be a plot by the candidate to defeat service and the proposition was that he should leave it in the letter box or somewhere about the premises. If the committee want to force personal service we can at once strike out the clause.
I do not wish to be understood as assenting to the proposition that any man who has gone through the difficulty and trouble of an election should be liable to haying his seat contested or to have a cross petition filed against him by a document being alleged by some process server to have been thrown in his door, of which he never heard. This would not throw out the personal service, it is only a supplementary service and I think this law should provide that where an address is given by a candidate it should be left at that address with some adult person. Any other proposition is unfair. .