on this subject. With all that he said as to the desirability of establishing a higher conception of the relations between the candidate and the electorate I am most heartily in sympathy. It is a misfortune that at times many of the electors fail to realize what is the true position of the candidate and that the candidate is treated as one who has some personal gain to serve. If I thought ther.e was anything in this Bill to bring about that higher and better conception in the mind of the electorate of the position of a public man, I should most heartily give it my approval, but I have not been able to see that my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) made his point good with reference to that particular phase of the question. One hon. gentleman has stated that the principle of this Bill is all right and that the details can be fixed up in committee. There are just two principles in this Bill and it so happens that both of them are regarded as objectionable by hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this side. The first principle is the abolition of the deposit, and you could not fix that up in committee. It is a question of whether or not it is right or wrong to have a deposit. I am afraid I am growing a little Conservative. I am afraid I am beginning to have more regard for the thing that is. I said the other day that there was a time when I used to think there were a thousand and one things which should not be, but as I grow older I am beginning to believe there is a reason for the thing that is established and if we look for that reason closely we are sure to find it. I have no doubt that the men of former days who in this parliament pronounced in favour of the principle of a deposit-not an extravagant deposit-were actuated by the highest sense of propriety and I am inclined to think, after the discussion that has taken place to-day, that their reasons were good then and are good now. It has been said by some that the $200 deposit is a kind of a'penalty, but that is not the right way to look at it. It is not a penalty. If a man can get but a very moderate proportion of the votes of the electorate, the $200 is paid back to him, and that as a rule happens. There are hut few cases, after all, in which a man loses his deposit. That there should be something to prevent frivolous elections is surely a principle that members on both sides will accept. It is a question of method. The hon. member for St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty) suggests as a substitute that we should require a requisition signed by a small number of voters, say 150 or 200, on the part of a candidate. I would ask my hon. friend to think a little further over that. Take a great constituency like that which he represents; what are 200 votes in proportion to the total electors? And if Mr. FIELDING.
it turned out that a candidate did not receive any more votes than the 150 or 200 on the requisition, is it reasonable that that great constituency should be put to the trouble and worry and expense of an election merely to gratify the vanity of a man who, it is perfectly clear, has no considerable following in the community ? If he has any considerable following, he will have no difficulty in getting the $200. I doubt if there has ever been a case of a bona fide candidate representing any considerable interest in a constituency who failed to get the $200; and in a very few cases in which a man has lost his deposit, I think hon. gentlemen, if they look at each individual case, will say that he was a foolish man to run, that he did not represent any great interest or sentiment, and that there was no need of his butting in and putting the community to the expense and trouble of an election. So I think the $203 deposit is good, and I do not think the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. Anne put so moderately and argued so forcibly, would quite meet the case. Then with regard to the proposal of a holiday on election day, the Minister of Justice ventured to suggest that it might possibly be abused. My hon. friend from Toronto Centre (Mr. Bristol) says that is an insult to somebody, and another hon. member says, what about the Sabbath-should it not be a holiday for fear it would be abused? Let us recognize the fact that the average elector is a bit different on election day from what he is on the Sabbath day. The Sabbath does not as a rule excite the average man; but we all know that in the field of party strife a considerable proportion of the electors are stirred up and excited on election day. So I think there is reason for regarding the Sabbath as not a holiday of the same kind. Then, there is the other view, that there are a great many people who do not take the keenest interest in politics, but who love a holiday, and if you gave them a holiday, they would go out of town instead of staying to vote. The hon. member for East Grey says that under the present arrangement a man cannot get away to vote, because if he went he would lose one or two hours. If he cannot afford to take two hours to vote, how could he afford to take a whole holiday? It is not reasonably conceivable that the average employer is going to pay his workmen on that day when they are absent.