Mr. GUTHRIE:

Had it the consent endorsed on it?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Yes, the statement

was on that form.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Because it was in the

former Act, of course.

Mr. PROULX:

If the Solicitor Gener >.l

has any objection to putting the consent on,

I would ask him to put a note on this form that this nomination paper must be accompanied by the consent in writing of the candidate.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

That is in the statute.

Mr. PROULX:

Sometimes the candidate does not look at the section but at the form.

Mr. BUREAU:

If we are going to make a form that is to be a kind of skeleton the same as in the Bill, why not put it all in or take it all out so it will not mislead anybody? If there is no form the section will be followed.

The CHAIRMAN:

I must point out

to the committee that this discussion on the forms has been carried on more or less by unanimous consent owing to the fact that they were hurriedly passed at the last meeting of the committee. But the forms were voted, and no amendment could now be legally proposed to them without the unanimous consent of the committee. In the absence of such consent, it would perhaps be better to put the motion which is now before the committee: shall the title carry?

Mr. EULER:

I move an amendment,

seconded by Mr. White:

That Bill No. 130 be not now read a third time, hut he referred hack to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to insert as Clause 22 the following:

That subsection 2 of Section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1920, be and is hereby stru-k from the Bill In its entirety.

Mr. SPEAKER:

While the amendment

is quite in order, I suggest that it might better be worded "is hereby repealed" and if there is no objection I would put the motion in that form:

That subsection 2 of section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1920, i>s hereby repealed.

Mr. McCOIG:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. McCREA:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Algoma (Mr. -Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. BUREAU:

I was paired with the

hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. KAY:

I was paired with the hon. member for East Toronto (Sir Edward Kemp.) Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :

I was

paired with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Hunt). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion of the Acting Solicitor General.

Mr. ROBB:

I was paired with the hon.

member for North Grey (Mr. Middleton). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.

Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) :

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have

to take up the time of the House at this hour, but it will only be for a minute or two. This Act is in the nature of an experiment, and it is only through its being worked out at elections that we can see its merits and demerits. Section 3 of the Bill provides that judges of the respective judicial districts shall' be revising officers, and subsection (b) provides that judges may appoint substitutes to revise the lists, such substitutes, with respect to the lists, "to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of such judge," I must say that this subsection may lead to grave abuses. There has been an election quite recently in the province from which I come. The judge happened to be sitting for the judicial' district in which the constituency was situated and he appointed a certain gentleman as revising officer. Now, I do not say anything against him. I know him very well; he was a colleague of mine in this House, and was a member of this Government after 1911. He was a candidate at the last elections, in 1917; he was the mover of the resolution which nominated one of the candidates at a convention of his party. He took an active part in the recent by-election, spoke at different meetings, and when not speaking disturbed order at the meetings. I say that this is a grave abuse and that judges and judges only should sit as revising officers and be the final judges of the lists to be used at an election. Surely such an abuse will not inspire any confidence on the part of the electors in this law. I thought I should call the attention of the Government to this section, and if it is still possible to repeal

subsection (b) and allow judges and judges only to revise the lists, that should be done.

Main motion (Mr. Guthrie) carried on division, and Bill read the third time and passed.