1957-01-31

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce tabled the order in council concerning Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Apparently there also were agreements between some department of the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, or between Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. I wonder whether the minister would also table such agreement or agreements.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: When the documents left my office the agreement affecting Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was tabled with the order in council. I think the hon. member will find that the Clerk has both documents, but if not I will be glad to furnish anything which has been prepared and not tabled.
While I am speaking on this subject I might say that the financing of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has now been approved by the conservation board of the province of Alberta and by the board of transport commissioners as well as by the government of Canada. So I think we can assume that that subject need not be pursued further.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: On that subject, would the minister say whether last year, when I understand there was a new agreement following the steel strike in the United States, the deadline for construction to Winnipeg was extended, and, if so, to what date; or was it simply lifted without any definite date being set?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was no new agreement after the steel strike in the United States. The only agreement which had been made affecting the western portion provided for protection against force majeure, and if the cost of the line is not repaid before the due date, which, I think, is April 2, the question as to whether force majeure occurred would be interesting; but as we are quite sure that the advances will be repaid shortly, the matter is purely academic.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Am I not right in understanding that the agreement provided for construction to Winnipeg by December 31, 1956, in the absence of strikes or something which rendered supplies unavailable? Surely a deadline was written into the agreement. Was that deadline extended to another date or was the company relieved of any obligation to meet the deadline with respect to construction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the company was not relieved of obligation to meet the deadline, but the obligation can be discharged under the agreement by the repayment of the government loan, and it will be discharged in that way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So there is some deadline by which the company is obliged to complete construction to Winnipeg?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Or by paying back their debts to the government.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: May I
ask a supplementary question with regard to the proposed public financing. Has the minister considered whether the proposed offering of bonds and common shares in a package, or unit, complies with the agreement of the Trans-Canada company to make a public offering in Canada of common shares?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, sir, the common shares are being offered in Canada and considerably more than half the total of the outstanding shares will have been offered in Canada when the financing is complete.


Daniel Roland Michener: The reason I asked whether the minister had considered this matter is because I understand the public offering would be an offering of bonds and shares, whereas the agreement called for the offering of common shares. Presumably, common shares cannot be purchased alone.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true, but the agreement nevertheless calls for an offer of shares in Canada, and shares are being offered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On condition you buy bonds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What difference does that make?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It amounts to a condition of sale.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was no offer of that kind in any agreement. It was a verbal understanding with the group that represented the ownership of the pipe line, which I conveyed to the house. The understanding was that after the financing had been completed more than one-half of the total outstanding shares would have been offered to purchasers in Canada; and I may say, from reports reaching me, that all those shares will be taken up by purchasers in Canada, and I am satisfied the demand for further shares will still exist.


Daniel Roland Michener: May I take it that the minister considers what is being offered as in compliance with the agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the agreement of May 8, 1956, clearly provides that the Trans-Canada company undertook to build the western section of the line by December 31, 1956, why has the company been relieved of all obligations with respect to a deadline for the completion of this section of the line and the only obligation remaining is to repay the loan? How could they just be relieved of that obligation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, possibly if the government had wished to acquire the western section under the terms of the mortgage and had wished to foreclose the mortgage, they could have attempted to declare the company in default. I think the company would have had a good defence because, as everyone knows, the cause of their default was that a steel strike in the United States had interfered with the delivery of pipe into western Canada for a period of about two and a half months. However, the government has not claimed default and, as I say, the company can discharge all claims of the government of Canada by the repayment of the money that was advanced to the company for the western section.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question is, why was not a new deadline established? Granted, for the sake of argument, that we agree with the statement, why did you not negotiate a new deadline instead of lifting all obligations with respect to a deadline?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We lifted no obligations and we set no new deadline. We wanted to reserve the position if at any time we desired to contest the position of the company as being in default, we would base
IMr. Fulton.]
our default claim on the original agreement. No new agreement was made and no agreement was lifted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The company is in default? Is the company in default?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You say so. Let
the courts say whether you are right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How can it not be in default under the agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a matter for the courts to decide, namely to what extent the force majeure provision remedied the apparent default.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: The courts cannot decide after the order in council was passed last Friday.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would you like us to declare the company in default? I know you are trying to kill this pipe-line project-


Mr. Harkness:: That old canard will not get you anywhere.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -instead of taking the logical step which will permit it to be completed on time.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that why you made the order in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly, that is why we made the order in council. We wanted our money back and the pipe line built.


John George Diefenbaker: It was wholly improper to have made the order in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad to hear that legal opinion from the leader of a great party, and I will remember it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of the fact that parliament was told last summer that the bill had to go through by June 7 in order that construction could be completed by a certain date, and construction was not completed by that date, why has the government not held the company in default when construction was not completed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason that the bill had to go through by a certain date was so that the company would be justified in undertaking the building of the line under the then agreement. That was the agreement with the company which was prevailing at that time. As I say, if we had preferred ownership of that uncompleted pipe line to the return of the money advanced by the government we might have gone into the courts and tried to enforce default against

the company. We are anxious to have a pipe line completed from Alberta to Montreal. In spite of all the efforts to prevent it from across the house we believe that the project will be completed, and completed by autumn of 1958.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No matter how many times they break their word you will do nothing about it.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask an overall question. Is there any doubt in the mind of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this pipe line is not going to go through? Is there any doubt, anywhere, east or west? I think that should end it if we get a good answer.


Mr. Pearkes:: There is no answer.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has ever met any deadline that was set for it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the pipe line met the deadline of satisfying the government that the pipe line has finances and that it is able and willing to pay back the advances relating to the western section by April 2, 1957. That deadline will be met.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How did they meet that deadline?


Mr. Castleden:: I would like to ask-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like an answer. How many extensions had the company been given before they met that deadline?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the document giving that information was tabled yesterday. The order in council sets it all out in detail. If my hon. friend has not read the order in council he is not as well prepared as usual. Perhaps he has read it and knows the answer himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. It had four extensions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES  ATTITUDE OF ALBERTA GOVERNMENT TOWARD EXPORT OF GAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the fact that there are no plans at the present time for extending the branch pipe line to Emerson in any way affected the attitude of the Alberta government toward the export of gas from that province through this line?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is asking about the attitude of the province of Alberta and I think he had better ask Premier Manning that question. As I say, the conservation board of the province of Alberta has approved the financing of the pipe line. Apart from that I have no information as to the attitude of the province of Alberta toward the pipe line.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Was not the consent with regard to the export of gas from that province based upon an offer by this government and an understanding by this government that there would be transmission allowed to the United States through Emerson?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was the original proposal, yes, that the government would combine two companies, one of which was formed to export gas to the United States and the other of which was formed to take gas to Toronto via an all-Canadian route. The purpose was to preserve the permits of both companies. The government has not interfered with export to the United States; the company has decided that it does not plan to provide for export at the moment.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider asking parliament to approve the expenditure of public funds for the building and construction of a national sports stadium and exhibition ground as currently proposed by the city of Ottawa?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I do not recall, Mr. Speaker, that that matter has yet come before the government for consideration. All the proposals that seem to apply to the general capital plan and which come before the government are seriously considered, and if and when that happens in respect of a stadium an announcement will be made.


Hazen Robert Argue: Was this item not included in the recommendations made a few years ago for improving the national capital area?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not want to answer offhand. I would want to have my answer very accurate and I would want to look at the report referred to to see if that subject was mentioned in it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe it was.

Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister comment on the charge by Mrs. John Gorman, legal counsel for the Alberta Indian association, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, that the action of the minister in holding up a petition directed to the Queen is an act contrary to British justice and a denial of the right of subjects to petition Her Majesty in a case where it is felt an injustice is being done and solemn Indian treaties of the 1870's are being broken by representatives of the Queen? Will the minister indicate whether or not he will send that petition to Her Majesty, to whom it is addressed, and also by what authority the petition was transferred from the Governor General's office to him?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have said once or twice before in the house that I did not think it would be wise for a minister of the crown to give legal opinions of his own in the house.


Carl Olof Nickle: Would the minister advise the house of the number of petitions and resolutions he has received protesting the Hobbema Indian reserve action from home and school associations, church organizations, bar societies and other groups of conscientious Canadians, and will he advise the house of the nature of his replies to each of the three or four specific requests for amendment of the 1951 Indian Act and Indian policy in general contained in these resolutions and petitions?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: What subject are you debating now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I can give offhand the number I have received. It is quite considerable. As to the second part of the question, I have given the same answer to these petitions as I have given in the house, namely, that a procedure was laid down by parliament for an appeal to the courts and I think it would be a very extraordinary thing to change that law in the midst of a proceeding and to deny to those who now have an appeal to the courts the appeal that was given to them by parliament. I repeat what I have said before, that there is an opportunity of appeal to the courts provided by parliament, that it seems to me that advantage should be taken of that opportunity, and it seems to me it would be a very wrong thing and,

indeed, rather contemptuous of parliament, to attempt to interfere in any way with that.
I should like to add one other thing. There seems to be a misapprehension that the act of 1951 changed the definition of an Indian. Those hon. members who are lawyers know perfectly well that it did nothing of the kind. No change whatsoever was made in the definition of an Indian by the act of 1951. All it did was to provide legal procedure for determining in certain cases any dispute as to whether a particular person was or was not an Indian. But the law setting out those who are Indians and those who are not Indians still is the law that was in existence at the time this reserve was set up. What is being suggested by the representations that have come to me is that people that some persons allege are squatters on the reserve and have no rights to share in the trust-


John George Diefenbaker: After 60 years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -should by an act of
parliament be given a share of the trust. That is what the proposition is. If these people are Indians according to the definition which existed at the time the reserve was set up they are entitled to remain on the reserve. If they are not Indians but people whose ancestors squatted on the reserve, the fact that they have been there for a long time does not, as I apprehend it, change the legal situation. It seems to me that until this matter can be brought before a competent court and settled we should not be discussing it here.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the three judgments handed down by courts in Saskatchewan recently, he will reconsider the statement he made a moment ago that the 1951 amendments did not have the effect of changing the meaning of the word "Indian"? I refer to the three judgments given by district court judges within the last few weeks in connection with appeals launched by Indians whose names were erased from the band membership.
Second, I should like to ask the minister this question. In view of the fact that so-called squatters-to use his expression-had in many cases been on the lands of the reserve without challenge for 50 years or 60 years, does he not feel that common justice to these poor unfortunate people demands an amendment at once if the law be what he says it is?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might answer the second question first, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. It does not seem to me that if the hon.

gentleman's grandfather had had a farm and if he had tolerated someone living on that farm for a long time, it would be an appropriate thing for parliament in our day to pass a statute giving half that farm to the descendant of the person that he and his family had tolerated living on it for that time. That is what his suggestion amounts to. As for the judgments of the courts in Saskatchewan, as I understand it the judgments of the courts in Saskatchewan reversed the registrar. That is why there is an appeal, namely so that the registrar's decision can be considered. If the courts in Saskatchewan reversed the registrar, it will be quite open to the courts in Alberta to do exactly the same thing if there is the same evidence. It does not seem to me that it is proper for me or for anyone here to attempt in advance to prejudge the decision which this parliament, not I, left to the courts.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask the minister this question. Is it not a fact that in Saskatchewan where appeals took place-three of them in three different judicial districts-the judges held that the provisions of the act of 1951 did not apply to those who were on the reserves prior to the date on which the statute was passed? If I am correct in my premise, then why does the minister not end this tyranny in the Hobbema reserve on the basis of these judgments which apparently the minister is not going to appeal and which, unless they are followed by Alberta, will result in the law being interpreted in one way in Saskatchewan and in another way in Alberta?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, do you not think that we ought to wait until the courts in Alberta have interpreted it in order to see whether that situation would arise which the hon. gentleman is attempting to forecast as the decision of the courts in Alberta?


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. From whom did he receive the legal advice that the definition of an Indian, as contained in the 1951 amendment, did not change the previous definition of an Indian? Is he aware that at the time the ancestors of these Indians who are now being expelled from the Hobbema and other reserves settled on those reserves the definition of an Indian was anyone who followed the Indian way of life?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should think, sir, that as to the first question my reply would be that the advice I received was advice from the appropriate officer of my department. As
Inquiries of the Ministry to the second question, I would not venture to give an opinion without consulting the documents.
[Later:1


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will he please answer specifically that portion of my question asked earlier which had nothing whatsoever to do with any legal action under way in Canada at the present time? In other words, by whose authority was the Indians' petition to the Queen transferred from the office of the Governor General to himself? Furthermore, will the minister please indicate whether he will send this petition on to Her Majesty to whom it is addressed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I answered that question yesterday when I indicated that I was seeking advice on this subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we are met with an adamant refusal on the part of the minister to do anything in connection with these unfortunate Indians, I intend to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he consider looking into this matter and in the meantime giving a stay of proceedings in so far as the eviction of these Indians is concerned? Will he also give consideration to setting up a royal commission to determine the rights of these people who may not have votes but who have the right to consideration by this parliament?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should answer the question just put by the Leader of the Opposition in any way that would commit the government. It may be a very popular cause at this time to try to make much out of the unfortunate situation in which some of those find themselves who have been found to be residing on this reserve and not to be Indians. However, there are legal proceedings that can be taken and should be taken and which I hope will be taken. If they are not taken they can be supplemented by action recommended to this parliament to see that there is consideration by the courts of the question of fact involved in this matter.
This is something which was apparently not considered of very much importance by anyone until a very greatly enhanced value was given to the lands of this reserve by the oil finds either on it or in the surrounding territory. Proprietary rights are now involved and I think they should be decided by the courts, as is always the case.
I have not gone into all the facts but the information I have is that the definition of

Inquiries of the Ministry who is or who is not an Indian entitled to be on the reserve has remained unchanged over the whole time since that reserve was set up. There was a procedure instituted under the act of 1951 to have the question of fact tested if there was a contest as to who had or who had not the right to be treated as an Indian on the Indian reserve. That procedure involved an investigation by commissioners, then a finding by the registrar which was subject to appeal to the district court.
As the hon. gentleman has stated, there have been three cases in the province of Saskatchewan where after investigation and a finding on the investigation by the registrar the courts have found that the registrar's finding was wrong and quashed it. There is nothing to suggest that the district court would now confirm or quash a finding of the registrar in this case, but it is the district court which has been given by parliament the responsibility of doing that. I do not think it would be proper when there is a dispute about proprietary rights to attempt to set up a royal commission to make a decision on that dispute instead of having it decided by the ordinary courts of the country.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration believe he is holding a pretty hot potato when he delays for 24 hours a message sent to Her Majesty the Queen by her subjects; when he takes over 24 hours to get some legal advice on diverting a petition to Her Majesty? Who is he? Who is the gentleman who dares to do that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Shall we proceed with orders of the day?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister in view of his statement a little while ago that he did not believe the definition of an Indian had been changed. If the definition was not changed in the act of 1951, can he explain to the house why the wording and the clauses defining an Indian which appear in the original act of 1892, I believe, are completely changed in the act of 1951?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the statute and perhaps the hon. gentleman himself will look at the statute-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and he
may be able to find a sufficient explanation in the statute. If not, perhaps he will do as I will do and refer to the discussions that


took place when the bill providing for this legislation was before the house. Perhaps we can find there the answer that the hon. gentleman is asking me to give in the house. I think it would help in the expedition of the business of parliament if a lot of us did such work ourselves and got the information by our own research instead of using this period as an opportunity to advertise our interest in the subject.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of what the Prime Minister has just said I would inform him I was on the committee which studied the Indian Act from 1947 to 1949, again in 1950 and 1951 and also last year-


George James McIlraith: Is this more advertising?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and that to my knowledge it has never been maintained before that there was not a very definite change in the definition of an Indian which was written into the act in 1951.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister given consideration to following the course established by a Tory government in the thirties by setting up camps at 20 cents a day to take care of the Indians on the reserves?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister had a chance to determine whether or not the two-page advertisement in this morning's Globe and Mail by Dominion Stores offering a prize of $2,500 to a lucky customer is a violation of section 179 of the Criminal Code which prohibits the element of chance being used in disposing of merchandise?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the notice I received from my hon. friend of his question, for which I thank him, is divided into two parts and I should prefer to answer the second part of it first. That was as to whether or not the federal

Department of Justice is concerned about the testing of possible infractions of the Criminal Code.
Of course the Department of Justice is always interested in the results of criminal proceedings in the courts, particularly from the standpoint as to whether these results disclose the need for amendments to the Criminal Code which it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to recommend to the government and to parliament. But as I have stated on many occasions in the past-and apparently from this question that is now asked, it should be restated-the responsibility under our constitutional system for the enforcement of the criminal law rests with the provincial attorneys general.
It is for this reason that, in reply to my hon. friend's first question as to whether or not the two full pages of advertisements in this morning's Globe and Mail are violations of section 179 of the Criminal Code, I would point out first that traditionally the Minister of Justice does not express legal opinions in parliament; and second, that if he did so, I cannot see that there would be any purpose in his expressing a legal opinion in respect of an alleged offence which it is the responsibility of the provincial attorney general to prosecute. In the third place, I would not wish to express any kind of opinion at all with respect to these advertisements until I had before me a detailed police report of the complete set of facts upon which crown counsel would have to rely in any prosecution based upon such advertisement.



PERJURY BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. If it is not possible for him to get legal advice can he explain the procedure? In other words, will the minister explain to the house how, if a member of the House of Commons receives what he believes to be responsible information relative to alleged perjury before a divorce committee of the other house, a charge of perjury can be laid? Will the minister, if he can, further explain, if no action is taken prior to the transcript of evidence and the divorce bill being received by the House of Commons, what procedure on perjury may then be pursued? I feel that this is a question of urgency, Mr. Speaker, because only a few moments ago you mentioned that divorce bills have been passed by the other place and referred to the House of Commons.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question, I apprehend that where a crime takes place in Ontario the proper official to prosecute is the crown attorney representing the department of the attorney general in the particular judicial district in which the crime took place.


Harold Edward Winch: But who lays the information if the crime took place in a divorce committee of the other place?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think any interested person could lay it if he wished to do so. My hon. friend himself could do it.
[Later:!


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question which I think is important. Will the Minister of Justice inform the house whether or not the courts of Ontario have jurisdiction over the other place and the House of Commons and the evidence or operations given before or carried out by a committee of the other place? Will the minister in answering that also inform the house whether if a bill is passed in the other place and the House of Commons dealing with divorce that would not negate any charge by a private member of perjury, with the act having been passed. Third, as a further supplementary question, would the Minister of Justice also tell the house why a private member should have to do the ' minister's job for him?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has been here for a sufficient length of time to have learned some of the basic rules of this house. One of those rules, as has been stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) yesterday and by myself just a few moments ago, is that the Minister of Justice does not give legal opinions on the floor of the house to members of the house. If he did and if he were a prudent lawyer I think he would not give an answer to the type of question which my hon. friend has just asked inside of ten seconds after my hon. friend took his seat.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister take that
question as notice in order to give himself time to think out a further answer?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister correctly

Inquiries of the Ministry reported in a Canadian Press dispatch from Toronto as having said last Monday evening that little businesses may have felt the scarcity of credit more than others? If so, will the minister assure the house that he will do something about his credit restrictions to end such discrimination against such small businesses?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I think I will answer as I answered the questions yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I will be glad to send a copy of my notes to my hon. friend.



INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. As municipalities are now making up their budgets and tax rates for 1957, can the minister say when they will be notified as to what the government will pay them under the Municipal Grants Act?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes; I shall be glad to say that. I hope that when we have disposed of the supplementary estimates and such days as are allotted for private members, the Canada Council bill and the Canadian wheat board bill, we will then come to the municipal grants resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it will be time to dispose of the government.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister comment on the report on the front page of this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the federal government is now hedging on the question of health insurance? Will he also indicate what steps the federal government proposes to take to make it clear to the Canadian people that this important matter will not be delayed?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for asking this question. I may tell him that a few moments before coming into the house the hon, member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke) expressed the

feeling that the editorial in the Globe and Mail this morning was one that did not represent the situation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I referred to the article on the front page.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and that the article on the front page was one that likewise was so far away from the facts that perhaps I should comment on both. I told the hon. gentleman that I thought the editorial and the article spoke for themselves-that there was no one in this house who would not conclude, having followed these events, that I have been interested in this matter from the first and that the government had given every indication, by the initiative it has taken, that it, too, was interested in the matter of hospital insurance.
The government is, of course, not "hedging" in any way. The hon. gentleman has given this matter a great deal of study, and he knows it is very important in all questions of this kind that before we embark upon agreed procedures we clearly understand what we are seeking to do. The important thing to keep in mind is what the federal offer means to Ontario and to other provinces. It means, for Canada as a whole, that the federal government will be meeting half the cost of standard ward care, laboratory and radiological services for all persons in the population who are brought within the scheme.
The federal government, together with, I am sure, every hon. member who has studied this matter, wishes to see everyone possible brought within the scheme in order that the reduced charges which are made possible by this generous offer-and that is what it is-may be made effective for our people. We do not want to see a situation develop in any province where only a small portion of the population is covered and the rest are not. In such a situation, while the federal expenditure would be proportionately reduced, the result would be far from satisfactory. The population covered under the federal proposal would be receiving hospitalization at a greatly reduced cost as a result of the federal contribution, while the population not covered would have to go on as before, meeting the full cost of its hospital care.
I indicated previously in this house, following the tabling of the plan by the premier of Ontario, that I had every reason to be optimistic and that I felt it would prove possible for the premier and the government of Ontario, after negotiations which are necessary in a matter of this sort, to bring their plan within the principles envisaged

Inquiries of the Ministry
in the federal proposals. I am still hopeful as to the outcome. The federal government put forward this plan a year ago. Three provinces have accepted it. The province of Ontario has taken a step which would seem to advance that proposal, and there would be no one more happy to see this proposal realized at the earliest possible date than the present government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Now that four provinces representing 54 per cent of the population of Canada have virtually agreed to enter the plan, what steps is the government taking to persuade some other provinces to agree, particularly the three provinces in Canada which have Liberal governments, not one of which has yet agreed to the federal proposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has asked this question before, and he always asks: what steps are we taking to bring in other provinces, including those provinces with Liberal governments? That is a fair question, but this is a fair retort: it is a Liberal government which took the initiative in this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the Minister of National Health and Welfare a supplementary question. Is it a fact that the area of disagreement between the federal government and the Ontario government relates to the percentage of the population that would be covered; and, if that is correct, what is the percentage which the federal government regards as a minimum?


Mr. Marlin:: The hon. member for Kamloops asked me that question last week, and he will remember that I told him that until the correspondence between the premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister of Canada has been tabled in accordance with mutual arrangements, I could not disclose the nature of that correspondence. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me the other day if we would table that correspondence I said I would take steps at once to ascertain the wishes of the premier of Ontario in the matter. That has been done, the premier of Ontario has consented to the tabling of this correspondence, and I hope that can take place on Monday or Tuesday of next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the minister's admission that my previous question was a fair one-the question regarding negotiations with other provinces-will he also table the correspondence he has had with the governments of provinces which have not yet agreed to the scheme, particularly his correspondence with those provinces that have Liberal governments?


Murdo William Martin: As the hon. gentleman well knows, the government has been active in this matter since it was first introduced. The persuasions we have sought to exercise have not always, as he knows, been contained in letters, but to the extent that this is the case I should be very glad to ask the consent of the governments concerned to publication.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I wonder if I could obtain a little more information from the minister on this same subject? The alleged hospital insurance scheme of the Ontario government will not become operative until 1959. Does that mean that, if the federal government is successful in getting the percentage of the population that is required into the national scheme, the national scheme would be held up until 1959?
I am interested in this date 1959 because that happens to be election year in Ontario.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is always very perspicacious in these matters, but I cannot comment on his last observation now except to say that once six provinces representing a majority of the people of Canada accept the federal proposal, there is no reason why we cannot proceed without delay.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Batllefords):: I
would like, Mr. Speaker, to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What heart foundations exist in Canada today, and, second, what moneys have been allotted by the federal government for research in heart diseases to each of the different provinces of Canada?


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
answer this question on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question in advance.
The answer to the first part is: the National Heart Foundation of Canada and the Ontario Heart Foundation. The National Heart Foundation was established through the work of the Department of National Health and Welfare arid other interested parties.
The answer to the second question: a total of $1,189,343 has been made available to the provinces under the national health program

Canada Elections Act
from 1949-50 to date for heart research. Details by provinces are as follows:
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan ... British Columbia
Research	Special
projects equipment $240,454	$363,097
492,916	26,413
12,348 46,081 8,034
All provinces 1949-57 .... $799,833	$389,510



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FEED GRAIN SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he now in a position to answer the question with respect to feed grain subsidies that I asked on January 25 during the discussion of estimates?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker. At the conclusion of that debate I asked that the various questions be answered for me, particularly the financial ones, but I have not received the answers yet.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. 5, which is identical with a bill I had the privilege of presenting to the house last year, is to extend the privilege of voting at advance polls in federal elections so that that privilege may be enjoyed by any qualified elector who finds that he will be absent from his home constituency on election day. Hon. members who may have looked at the bill, either last year or this year, will recognize that it is a document of some nine pages and that there might seem to be quite a few details in it. Let me make it perfectly clear that all the other changes in the act proposed in Bill No. 5 are purely consequential changes arising out of the change with regard to voting at advance polls.
I wish also to make it clear that the particular changes suggested by my bill consequential upon that major change are not sacrosanct. I mean by that that it would be quite satisfactory so far as I am concerned if the details of those consequential changes were altered by a committee after second reading of the bill. What is important in the bill and in any event what one should stick to in speaking to its second reading is its main principle, which is to make it possible
[Mr. Robertson.!
for any qualified elector in a federal election to vote at an advance poll if he finds that he will be away from home on election day.
As hon. members are aware, the Canada Elections Act as it now stands makes provision for advance polls but the right to vote at those advance polls is limited to a very few categories of Canadian citizens. The only ones who may vote at advance polls are commercial travellers, fishermen, employees on railways, vessels, aircraft and so on, who in the course of their duties are required to be away from home on election day, together with members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I think all members will agree that one of the most common grievances drawn to our attention at election time, and all of us in this place have had experience with elections, is the fact that many ordinary people who find they will be away from home on election day cannot vote at an advance poll. It is particularly annoying to voters to discover that they cannot vote at an advance poll when they are aware of the fact that an advance poll does exist. This strikes those so denied that right as a form of discrimination, and I am sure all of us can tell stories of many protests that arise with regard to this matter at every election.
There is another way in which it seems to me there is a form of discrimination with respect to this matter. It arises from the fact that when a general election is held in the summertime, and most of our elections are held in the summer months, there are always people who are away on holidays at that particular time. Some people can afford to return to their homes for election day in order to cast their vote. Others who happen to be away for their holidays during a period that runs over election day cannot afford to make the trip home, and there again one comes up against a feeling of discrimination.
Not only because grievances of this kind should in my view be met, not only because any element of discrimination should, if at all possible, be removed, but because the bill is in line with the basic principle underlying the establishment of the franchise in a democratic country do I feel that it should be supported by the House of Commons. That basic principle in a democracy is that the right to vote should not be restricted but rather should be made available to as wide a group of our citizens as possible, and if one is going to carry out that principle barriers such as this should be removed.
Let us tell ourselves, as has often been said when the elections act is under discussion in parliament, that the matter of voting is not something that belongs to us

because we happen to be in parliament. It does not belong to the government. It does not even belong to parliament. It is a right that belongs to the people of Canada. Our only job on their behalf is to make sure that the law governing that right to vote is as fair, generous and democratic as it can possibly be. So long as some of our citizens on election day, because they find they will have to be away from home, are denied the right to vote whereas some other citizens away from home on election day get the right to vote there is this feeling that there is unfairness and discrimination. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that consideration be given to the principle of this bill which, as I say, would make it possible for any qualified elector away from home on election day to vote at an advance poll.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to violate the rule which I myself quoted a moment ago concerning the requirement that discussion on second reading relate only to the principle of the bill. However, I might perhaps point out some of the details of the bill which, of course, flow from this general change. For example, if more persons are going to be permitted to vote at the advance poll than is now the case, it would obviously be necessary to hold the advance poll a little further ahead of the general election day than is now the case.
My bill makes such a provision. The particular provision that my bill makes, as I have already indicated, is not sacrosanct. That provision can be changed. I mention that point simply to express the hope that hon. members will not take a stand in opposition to the bill merely because there is in its mechanics some detail with which they disagree. I for one would be quite happy in the committee on privileges and elections, if this bill is referred to that committee, to see any change made in mechanics of that kind. The same comment goes for the change as to the date of nomination made necessary in order to facilitate the taking of an advance poll amongst more voters than is the case at the present time.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that this privilege of voting at advance polls on a universal basis already obtains in some of our provinces with respect to their provincial elections. Most of the provinces have some advance poll privileges but in several of the eastern provinces, at any rate, those privileges are restricted along lines similar to the restrictions that are still in the Canada Elections Act. But in the four western provinces-I refer to British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba-there are provisions for voting at advance polls by any 82715-53J
Canada Elections Act
qualified voter who finds that he has to be away from home on election day. As a matter of fact, even more generous provision is made in two of the western provinces, unless British Columbia has changed it; I have not been able to ascertain whether or not they have done so in recent changes in the election act. With that qualification I say that in two of the western provinces, namely British Columbia and Saskatchewan, even more generous provision is made in that there is absentee voting so that persons who are away from home can vote on election day in the constituency in the province where they happen to be on that day. In the case of Saskatchewan both absentee voting and universal voting at advance polls is provided. So far as Manitoba and Alberta are concerned, there is no provision for absentee voting but the right to vote at advance polls is universal. In other words, any person who is a qualified elector and who finds he must be away from home on election day may vote at the advance poll.
Some of those who have not been too sure whether they can support my bill have thought that maybe its provisions were too wide and that maybe it makes it too easy to vote at the advance poll. May I point out that my bill makes it not quite as easy to vote at an advance poll as is the case in provincial elections in my own province of Manitoba. I quote my own province of Manitoba to my friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard), who no doubt will speak on this matter, because after all it is the only province on the mainland of Canada with a Liberal government. I am therefore sure that he would be interested in the provisions there.
In Manitoba all that is necessary for a qualified voter to vote at the advance poll is to appear in person before a returning officer and obtain a certificate. No affidavit is required. All that is required is simply a personal appearance. Form 19 which is included in the election act in my province simply provides for the returning officer to issue that certificate to any qualified voter who merely appears before him in person. In the case of my bill, it goes at least a little further in that, in order to obtain the right to vote at an advance poll, a voter must not only appear in person before the returning officer but must take an affidavit to the effect that he has reason to believe that he will be away from home on the general election day. I think that is a sufficient protection against abuse of the privilege. I think it is sufficient protection against people voting at the advance poll if it is not necessary for them to do so.

Canada Elections Act
In, another debate on this matter the Secretary of State expressed the fear that if advance polls were open to all voters the number of people voting at advance polls would mount until it might exceed the number left to vote on general election day. I still make the point with him-and I hope he accepted it when I made it last year-that it is rather hard to argue in that way when, in any of the provinces where universal voting at advance polls is allowed, there is no experience that would support that idea. In my own province of Manitoba, as in the other western provinces, those who require to vote at advance polls in provincial elections do so, but percentagewise their number is still very small. Nevertheless, the fact that the right is there removes this grievance that is felt very keenly at election time by so many people. That indeed was one of the principal arguments advanced last year by the Secretary of State, namely the feeling that this provision would lead to several election days rather than one main election day. If I thought there was any substance in that fear I certainly would have to give some weight to it. But I suggest to him that he should take note of the experience in the provinces where we have universal voting at advance polls, and that if he does so he will see that that fear is really quite unfounded.
Another objection voiced last year was that made by my friend the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) who also spoke against this bill. He criticized my proposal on the ground that, if my bill went through, it would be possible for people who were just going away on trips or people who were just going away on holidays to vote at the advance polls. Let there be no secret about it, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the purposes of the bill. Surely, it is not a crime to go away on a holiday. Surely, that is not something that should cost one his right to vote or cost him any of his rights of citizenship. Holidays are becoming more and more general. They will be more general still if certain bills of mine receive favourable consideration before this session is over. At any rate, it is now accepted as part of our life in this country that people should have an annual vacation, and should have it with pay as well, Mr. Speaker.
Also, it is becoming fairly general for our elections to be held during the summer months. If one goes back over quite a number of years, but for the winter election of 1940, one finds that all of our federal elections have been held in what might be called the summer months. I should think there is no doubt but that the general election this year will be held in one of the

summer months. At the moment, it looks as though it will be either in the month of May or the month of June; certainly, it will come no later than June 17.


Mr. Pinard:: You can still speculate on that, as you did last year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Secretary of State for saying I am still free to speculate. I suggest if it does not come by May 27, it will be delayed until June 17.


Roch Pinard: You have not informed the chief electoral officer as yet?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not privately, but this
information which I am giving here will perhaps suggest to him that he should get his machinery ready. Since the election is coming within a matter of weeks, I hope consideration of this bill might not take too long so that if the House of Commons sees fit, as I hope it will, to adopt it, its provisions can be effective at this year's general election. As I say, I believe it will be on May 27 or in the month of June; certainly not later than June 17.
One or two other objections were raised last year. One that was put up by one of my friends to the right was the extra cost that might be involved in providing for these extra advance polls. Of course, one could use that argument against the franchise generally, that it is a costly business. But surely, it is one of the most beneficial expenditures that we make in a democracy, namely any expenditure that is made to provide for the people to express their views freely as to those whom they want to represent them in parliament.
Some objection was raised in one quarter last year as to whether a provision of this kind might open the way to a greater amount of impersonation at election time. From the experience in my part of the country, that is not a fear that I entertain. The act is well drawn in that respect, in terms of preventing fraud and impersonation. I have tried in this bill to add any additional precautions that are necessary in connection with this further right so that there will not be fraud or impersonation.
In connection with the drafting of this bill, I should like once again to express my thanks to Dr. Maurice Ollivier, our parliamentary counsel, and Mr. Nelson Castonguay, the chief electoral officer, for the help they gave me something over a year ago in preparing this bill. I want to make it quite clear again, as I did last year, that in mentioning their names it does not mean they are either for or against the principle of the bill. It was a real help to have their assistance in putting

in concrete form the changes that would be necessary to carry out this principle.
Mr. Speaker, this right to vote is the property of the Canadian people and not something that belongs to us here in parliament. I feel it should be made as widely available as possible, without any barriers such as the real barrier that is there when some people have to be away from home on election day. I hope that the house will give favourable consideration to this bill, and I hope that it will vote for second reading so that the bill can be referred to a committee where we can make any changes in the mechanics that may be necessary. Nevertheless let us now write into our election law the basic principle that everyone who is a qualified voter should have a right to vote at an advance poll if he finds he will be away from home on election day.


Roch Pinard: After reading this bill and comparing it with the bill introduced last year, it is obvious that the two are identical. I can add also that, so far as I am concerned, I thought the arguments advanced in favour of the adoption of second reading of the bill by my hon. friend were substantially the same. I do not think he added very much to what he said in favour of the bill last year, except that he expressed certain views on the arguments advanced by other members in the house who opposed the measure last year.
As I said before, I intend to be very brief because I do not feel it would be proper for me to repeat the arguments against the adoption of this measure which I advanced last year. I think the fact remains that, in my opinion, the main argument to be put forward in opposition to the measure resides in the fact that, as the hon. member indicated himself when he referred to what I said last year, if we allow a multiplication of these advance polls you will defeat the main purpose of the act which is to permit the Canadian people to choose their representatives in this house on one specified date. In other words, if one reads the Canada Elections Act and studies it carefully, he must come to the conclusion that all the sections of the act converge upon one main event which is polling day itself.
The hon. member said that, under the act as it now stands, there are very few people who are authorized to vote at an advance poll. I admit that, and I say that there are very few because they have to be exceptions to the general rule and there have to be very serious reasons to justify the electors of Canada not to take advantage of that one occasion they have every four or five years to freely choose the men or women they wish to represent them in parliament. I feel that if we were to multiply these advance polls, if we
Canada Elections Act
were to accept the very wide proposal put forward by my hon. friend that whoever believes he is going to be away on polling day will be able to cast his vote at an advance poll, then I am sure the result would be that a great many would vote at such advance poll. Last year, my hon. friend said he thought this argument was absurd. He said the suggestion was absurd because that had not happened in his province.
I do not know exactly when these advance polls were established in his province, but one thing is certain. If you allow a greater number of people to vote at the advance polls, if you tell them they do not have to concern themselves about being in their constituencies on election day but they will be entitled to vote on two or three days other than on polling day, then a great number will take advantage of that privilege. Surely the number will increase. Will it increase to the extent some day of having more people voting on these other polling days than on polling day itself? I do not know, but one may suspect and may have reason to believe that eventually the interest in polling day itself will be completely lost. In other words, is it not a true contention that there might be more people voting at these advance polls? I submit that you could have the result of having fewer people voting on polling day itself because they will say, "We have the opportunity to vote on three or four different days" and the interest of the electors will be lost, in my opinion, in the very day on which they have to make their choice.
My hon. friend has referred to the delay between nomination day and polling which, under the proposal, will be extended to 21 days. He thinks that 21 days should be allowed instead of 14 days. So far as I am concerned, the 14 days that do exist under the act are very important for the electors to form a judgment as to whom they are going to choose to represent them in parliament. In other words, if the elector is going to be away, as the proposal suggests, during the nine days, if he is going to be away on his holidays-it is true he has a right to have his holidays-nobody will contest that, but is it not a fact that he should, when he knows that arrangements are made long in advance and election day has been announced a long time before, feel that it is his obligation, if he wants to have the privilege, to see to it that he is well informed as to the candidates who are running in the election so that he can form a sound judgment and make a proper choice? In other words, I am trying to make the point as clear as I can that we should not destroy the significance of polling day as being the one day under the act when an election is to be held, and that we should

Canada Elections Act
not, by allowing other days to be used for the purpose, destroy the significance of polling day itself.
The hon. member referred to costs and said that this point was raised last year. I also raised it myself. It is true that the matter of costs should not prompt us to decide against the principle underlined in this bill. It is true that the question of costs should not be sufficient for us to dispose of this matter and say, "Because it is going to be too costly we are going to vote against this bill." But surely one should think of the additional costs that these advance polls would entail. I was informed last year it would cost approximately $500,000 to create the number of advance polls in rural and urban districts which would be necessary to have this proposal implemented. Well, the cost in itself may not be of prime importance; but surely, if, as my hon. friend himself says, it did not produce very much in the way of additional votes in his own province of Manitoba we are going to spend $500,000 to have, in his opinion, the same result of not getting very much more interest on the part of voters in these additional days set out in the proposal? The hon. member will probably say, "You are making your choice in your argument". In other words, it is either going to decrease the importance of polling day or it is going to increase the importance of these additional days. My own view is that if we allow two or three more days besides polling day for voters to exercise their right we will have a greater number of people taking advantage of it and thus diminish and reduce the importance and significance of polling day.
I also said last year that the matter had been discussed before in committee. My hon. friend said that this should not be a matter for us alone to decide; that it should not be a matter for the government to decide. I fully agree that it should not be a matter for the government to decide but it should be for the people of Canada themselves to decide whether or not there should be more advantages given to the people to vote at these advance polls. Surely, this has to be done one way or another. I suggest it has to be done by parliament, and parliament has agreed to have this matter discussed by a committee. The matter was referred to a committee and was fully discussed there. The proposal was then negatived on division and by a large majority in the committee. Last year the very same proposal, advanced with, I believe, no better arguments than those the hon. gentleman used this year, was also negatived on division by

a large majority in this house, and I see no additional reason this year why we should change our minds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was negatived on the basis of no better arguments than my hon. friend has produced today.


Roch Pinard: I am going to say that maybe my arguments were not considered by him to be any better than his; but surely there was also the expression by this House of Commons of the views of other people who thought that even if my arguments were not good enough to oppose the measure, they also thought that my hon. friend's arguments were not good enough for them to change their minds. They voted against the measure. I believe the same attitude should be taken this year and that we ought not to change the situation for the moment, at least until the time came when we were convinced of the soundness of the proposal. After all, provincial governments, after having decided they should do so, have established advance polls and experience has been gained in four provinces, according to what my hon. friend has said. I would like very much to be able to study statistics of what actually happened there. It is quite difficult to do so because you have a number of people who cast their votes in one election, and you see that in another election the issues were of such greater importance that you have a greater number of voters at that election. To my way of thinking, this does not establish the fact that it was simply the normal procedure. There was simply a more important issue. For instance it could very well be the fact that the people were so satisfied with the government they had in Manitoba that they felt they should not take too much advantage of the advance polls created by the government to express dissatisfaction, with the result that the same government was re-elected.
I say it is difficult in studying statistics to come to a conclusion which will be different from the argument I think I was making rightly. I would like my hon. friend to be able to convince me that I am wrong. It is not enough for him simply to say that my argument appears to be absurd to convince me that I am wrong, unless he proves the absurdity of the argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question?


Roch Pinard: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Secretary of State know of any cases to prove his assertion with which he can answer my drawing on certain examples where it has not happened?

Canada Elections Act


Roch Pinard: No. The only thing my hon. friend has been able to give us is the experience in his own province. Whether that was the province which adopted the system many years ago I do not know. I do not know how many years ago it was adopted by Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Many years ago.


Roch Pinard: Has more than one election been held in Manitoba since the system was adopted?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I am unable to give the year, but I myself voted at an advance poll in 1936.


Roch Pinard: Maybe my hon. friend was a commercial traveller at that time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. It was universal in 1936.


Roch Pinard: In other words, at that time my hon. friend took advantage of the system by simply taking advantage of the same proposal that he now has before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Roch Pinard: It would be quite interesting to make a study of the statistics to find out whether his claim is right that there has not been a very substantial increase in the number of voters at advance polls, because it is very difficult for me to believe that if you allow practically anyone who feels that he is going to be away on election day to vote at an advance poll, you will not increase by a very large number the proportion of people voting at these advance polls.
You say it is not an argument simply to affirm that, but to me it is pure logic to believe that if one can perform that duty, on two occasions, 10 or 11 days before polling day, you will have a greater number of people taking advantage of that opportunity than otherwise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it pure logic to believe
that what has not happened would happen?


Roch Pinard: What has not happened in
the provinces. I do not deny what my hon. friend says, that the situation may have not changed materially, but I think he has also admitted that there was in fact an increase in the number of voters who voted at advance polls in his own province. I think he said that last year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think there has
been, but I agree that it might be wise to have statistics collected. Perhaps the minister is now in a position-


Roch Pinard: I know my hon. friend is
going to suggest that we send the bill to a committee, but that is not the only reason
why I object to it. I submit that it would not be a wise thing to do to destroy the significance and importance of polling day. It is all right for us to say that it is a privilege, that the people should be able to enjoy that privilege; I agree with that general principle. But there is also an obligation on the part of the electors to have enough interest in the election to cast their votes.


Harold Edward Winch: Suppose an elector cannot be
in his riding on that day?


Roch Pinard: There are many things that
would prevent a person exercising his right to vote, but is parliament to be asked to arrange mechanics so that people may vote on days other than polling day simply because electors find themselves in some difficulty? I do not think that the purposes of the act would be served if we did that. So far as I am concerned I am not convinced that we should go as far as my hon. friend suggests and I do not think that we should for the time being go further than what the act provides.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, having examined the bill, having listened to its sponsor and having just heard what the minister had to say I am thoroughly convinced that the sponsor has won by a margin of about 75 to 1. We realize fully that there are difficulties in making a move in a new direction, difficulties which have to be met and overcome. We in Canada frequently deplore the fact that such a substantial percentage of qualified electors do not vote. Some have legitimate reasons, some have reasons that are riot legitimate, but surely there is a responsibility upon us to make it possible as far as is reasonable for all qualified electors to vote. In some countries they have compulsory voting, something to which I am wholly opposed, but on the other hand if we are not going to have more and more people talking in terms of compulsory voting we must make every conceivable effort to make it possible for those who are qualified to be able to vote.
Throughout his remarks the minister laid emphasis upon' the significance of a day. To me that is wholly wrong; the emphasis should be on the significance of a fact, not upon the significance of a specific day. If voting is the important thing which we all regard it as being, surely whether it is done on a Friday or Monday, or even on both days, or on any day during a period of four days, does not detract from its significance.
Surely we all look forward to election day, but I cannot for one minute find any validity in an argument based upon a day rather than upon a fact. The minister indicates that he

Canada Elections Act
believes more and more people would take advantage of the advance poll. That would be the case even if no change were made because with our increases in population there are going to be more and more persons occupied in those professions or activities or lines of work which would qualify them to vote in an advance poll. That is not a legitimate argument as far as I am concerned. Numbers should not enter into the matter, it is the principle of the thing upon which we should base our thinking.
Surely the federal government is no less desirous of granting to the electors of Canada the right to vote than are certain of the provinces. There are four provinces which have considered it advisable, based upon experience, to permit certain qualified electors to vote at advance polls. I have not heard any argument advanced as yet that leads me to believe that the federal government should not pursue exactly the same course in relation to the consideration of qualified electors in the federal field.
The minister referred to statistics indicating the experience in the provincial field. Surely there has been enough experience in those provinces where advance polls have been provided to warrant the minister's department examining the statistics.


Roch Pinard: Does the hon. member think that there is an obligation upon the minister, who is responsible to parliament only as a spokesman for the chief electoral officer, to gather those statistics? I think the matter of statistics is something for anyone to deal with. What I would have thought is that this would have been an excellent occasion on which to supply these statistics so that hon. members would know.


Frederick Davis Shaw: If the minister intended to make any reference whatsoever to statistics in this debate I would have thought he would have obtained all available statistics before participating in the debate. As members of this house we are all interested in this matter and those of us who come from provinces which are more generous with respect to advance polls are convinced that those provinces are right in doing what they did in that connection and permitting qualified persons to vote at advance polls. As the minister of the department under which the elections act is administered I would have thought he would have secured statistics in order to bolster whatever argument he may have wanted to make today.
With respect to this question of holidays, it is a fact that nowadays holidays for employees are often established six, seven or eight months in advance. Most employees get from

ten days' to two weeks' holidays, and with travel conditions what they are today reservations must be made frequently some time in advance. While it may be argued that an elector could defer his holidays one day in order to vote, it is equally true that a great many complications would be created as a consequence of such a change.
I wonder why the sponsor of the bill, instead of suggesting a certain number of days for advance polls, did not suggest an extension of the voting period for three or four days. I am not advancing that as a suggestion, but if that were done it might result in even greater simplification. Once again the minister would probably suggest that that would reduce the significance of the day, but I still say to him that it is not a matter of one specific day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Davis Shaw: If there are going to be interjections I wish they would be made in such a way that I could understand them. Many of these interjections manage to get into Hansard when the hon. member who is speaking has not even heard them and therefore cannot answer them. I did not say I was advancing that idea at all. I am supporting the measure sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wherein he is asking, in the main that a greater number of the qualified electors of Canada be permitted the opportunity of voting at advance polls and I, personally, have heard no argument yet that leads me to believe that such a thing should not, or could not, be approved by the government. I am sure it would be to the advantage of all Canadians and that we would find the total over-all vote in Canada, among those properly qualified to vote, increased very substantially.
After all, it should be one of our duties to enable just as many Canadian electors as possible to vote. I am not overlooking the fact that there is also a great responsibility upon the shoulders of the qualified electors themselves to go to the polls. I have said that in the past, and I will continue to say it. We see no reason whatever, Mr. Speaker, for not supporting the measure which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has sponsored.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill. I have been a member of the election committee for a number of years; I have also taken part in a few elections.

I do not know whether or not I know anything about elections, but I have studied the Elections Act and I think I know a little about that.
The Elections Act has been amended over the years, and I think that each time it has been amended something was done that has proved to the advantage of the voters throughout Canada. However, I certainly do not feel, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should be brought in at this time, just a few months before elections take place. What I am afraid of is this: newspapers are circulated, people read Hansard-as a few of them do- and they may get the impression, despite the fact that this bill may not become law, that they would still have an opportunity to vote on an advance poll. Because, at an election time, many people get queer ideas as to where they should vote, how they should vote and everything else.
As to the suggestion that was made a moment ago about the advanced polling day-[DOT] making it three or four days instead of one- people might get that into their heads, and, instead of turning up on voting day, choose the next day to go to the polls. I am very much afraid of that. It occurs to me, also, that some people might come to the conclusion that they could go to an advance poll nine or ten days ahead of time, and that everything would still be all right. They might make arrangements, ahead of time, to go away on the regular voting day, and I believe that, in fairness to the voters and to hon. members of this house, this bill should be shelved at the present time and brought up in committee next year when the committee on elections would have an opportunity to call in witnesses and find out just what we could do about the proposals.
When this matter was before the elections committee on a previous occasion, I myself advanced the suggestion that we should extend the privilege of the advance poll, but my proposals were turned down. I feel that during the coming election which, I understand, is not many months away, the members here may also have an opportuniy to prepare suggestions which they could put before the elections committee at the next session of parliament.
I understand that at present practically all the literature and necessary instructions have been sent out to the returning officers throughout the country. Those instructions could not very well be changed at the present time because in some cases the returning officers have, in turn, sent out literature to the deputy returning officers. One thing I do object to is the change which this bill proposes in the nomination date-a change 82715-54
Canada Elections Act
from 14 to 21 days. I think that is entirely too early before the election.
It has been suggested-and I know the chief electoral officer has so stated-that these proposals would cost the taxpayer a great many thousands of dollars more. Personally, I feel that anything that could be done to help the voter should be done, despite what it might cost. I do not think dollars should enter into this; I think it is the principle that matters-the question of what is right and what is wrong. I myself, am in favour, as I said, of extending the privilege of the advance poll but I do not feel that this is the time at which to do it. I believe that in Ontario, at the last election, extension of the privilege of the advance poll did help to some extent but not to any great extent; I do not think the vote was any higher than it would have been if facilities had not been widened as they were. Under this bill, as I read it, the advance poll is to be nine or ten days before voting day. The voting list would have to be marked, checked and so on, and 1 feel that that, also, would cause quite a lot of difficulty at the present time in view of the short time that would exist in which to make arrangements.
Then again, if this were "wide open" there is every possibility that people might flock to the poll nine or ten days ahead of time and forget about the poll on election day; and we might have them voting nine or ten days ahead of time, instead of on voting day. Whether that would be true or not I do not know.
At the present time, commercial travellers, people on vessels, aircraft and so on are covered. I remember that at the election which was held on the 10th of August, 1953, there were in my riding some 32 school teachers who were attending summer school at London, Ontario. They all lost their votes because they were too far away to return to Peterborough to vote. Moreover, their examination in London took place on the same day as election day. They were quite sore about it, but I think that is not the fault of the Elections Act; it was the government's fault because they must have felt that these school teachers would vote for the Conservative party. 1 see the minister shaking his head, but 1 know I would have received a lot of those votes if those teachers had been able to vote on that day.
Another point: if this were "wide open", and a person could vote nine or ten days ahead of an election, there would be the possibility that between that date and election day the government might move one of its military commands into another riding about which they might have felt doubts.

Canada Elections Act
Whether that could be done or not, I do not know, but there has been skulduggery in the past, and I think all this machinery should be worked out and considered well in advance.
Some time ago, hon. members may be interested to hear, I discovered that two men who voted during the election in my own riding had also voted in a riding very close to mine, and had I not been elected I would certainly have taken the matter up.


An hon. Member:: Maybe they voted for you.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know perfectly well they voted against me because they were rounding up votes for the other side-not in my riding but in the neighbouring one.


An hon. Member:: That is not always a clear case.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, but it was
in this case. It was mentioned in the elections committee that the cost of an advance poll was $130. I believe there will be four advance polls in Peterborough riding for the forthcoming election and I doubt whether they will get away with $130 because the inflation brought on by the government will mean that the cost will likely be $160 or $170.


Howard Charles Green: Or $260.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Or $260, as one member mentions. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I object to the bill at the present time. I also object to certain changes proposed in the bill. One thing in particular to which I object is the provision that nomination day shall be 21 days before election day instead of 14 days. Therefore I will not vote for the bill.


Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill. Very often I find myself in support of some of the proposals of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but I cannot find too much to support in the bill now before us. I have been thinking about the matter since last year and I have not found any new reason why the bill is deserving of support. As far as I am concerned, I am quite frank in saying that I think it will do no great harm. If there were wide open advance pools at which electors could vote a week or two in advance of the regular polling day I believe it would do no harm. It would probably cost the country a little more money to register the vote but in my opinion it would not likely alter the result.

But I believe there are certain very real technical objections to the proposal. There seems to be some validity in the argument that if you confine advance polls to a few categories like commercial travellers, railroad men and so on you are discriminating in their favour compared with other people, and I think that is quite correct. But it is also true that no matter how you extend the categories you are going to discriminate against some people on some ground. At the present time voting is confined to one general election day for all the people plus one or two extra days for a certain few categories. But if we widen that to include all categories it will still rule out certain people who cannot be there on the particular days that the polls are open. It seems to me that the hon. member's definition is wider this year than last year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The same bill exactly.


Elmore Philpott: In any event, taking the bill as it stands and taking the hon. member's own argument about people who go away on holidays, there will always be some people who will be ruled out on the ground that they are away on holidays because people now go away on two week vacations or three week vacations. Incidentally, my hon. friend has another bill having to do with vacations which would make more people eligible for longer vacations, and as far as that bill is concerned I am certainly with him 100 per cent.
The more I think about the bill now before us the more I think that it really would not do too much good for the country. In my opinion the onus is on anyone who wants a reform of any kind to prove his case by logic in advance, and it is not a bad thing for democracy to have the dead weight, if you want to call it that, of lethargy on the other side with respect to all these reforms.
Reference was made this afternoon to the fact that the four western provinces have adopted some of these innovations and it was said that the four western provinces have set us such a good example that we in the federal field should do the same thing. In all earnestness I cannot honestly say that since the four western provinces adopted some of these new voting techniques we have had any more intelligent verdicts from the people of those provinces than we had under the old system. I for one am quite interested to note that while the present government of British Columbia came to power under one voting system it was not too long before it switched back to the old voting system. I notice that even my hon. friends of the Social Credit

group, who for so many years were so proud of the switched vote system, have now switched back to the good, old, tried, trusty and reliable one X system of British voting.
I for one do not believe that we should go overboard too quickly or introduce too many of these innovations. While I am quite frank to say that I would not have any objection to the bill because I do not think it would do any harm and might do a little good, nevertheless I think it would be costly and expensive and that the expense would probably outbalance the benefit.
There is one final point I wish to make. The most serious objection I see to my hon. friend's bill, having reflected about it since last year, is the provision whereby nomination day would be fixed even farther ahead of voting day than under the present system. I think that our election procedures in Canada are too long drawn out, too laborious and too expensive. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), for whom I have great respect, suggested that we might keep the general polls open for longer than one day. I think most of the expense of holding an election is centred right around one day now and if we kept the polls open for two days the expense would be twice as great. If we kept them open three days it would be three times as great.
I think our election techniques are now too expensive and long drawn out. I have had the great privilege in my professional capacity of having to cover British election campaigns. In 1951 I had the great privilege of following the then Mr. Churchill on his election campaign. I was interested and amazed to notice that they can dissolve their house and complete the holding of an election in less than one month. If there is one reason why my hon. friend's proposal has more objections to it than advantages it is that by setting nomination day ahead we would make our elections even more prolonged than they are now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question before he sits down? Is he aware of the fact that he voted for the bill last year? The hon. member and the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) both voted for it. I hope the hon. member is not slipping backward.


Elmore Philpott: No, I am not. I have since given the matter very careful thought. At that time I had only given the matter offhand consideration. I am sorry that I voted for it then and I have given my reasons today for not supporting the bill.


Mr. Wylie:: It would not be the first time that the hon. member changed his mind.
Canada Elections Act


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-AIberni):: Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised to hear my fellow British Columbian from Vancouver South get up today and say that he was going to oppose the bill because I had some recollection that he had supported it previously. I was rather going on the assumption that anyone from the province of British Columbia who had the advantage of knowing how this provision, together with the provision for absentee voting, has worked out there over the years would stand up to support the measure proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As he very well knows, there are a good many of the actions that have been taken by the present provincial government of British Columbia with which I do not agree or which I do not support. But certainly the one specific action which he mentioned in his speech in respect of a change that was made in the voting system is one for which I think they can well be commended. He may recall that that system was put into effect by some of his friends in the provincial field. It is fairly well recognized in British Columbia that it was put in there for a rather specific purpose and that it achieved that purpose but not with the results that his friends had anticipated.
I think that most of the arguments which were advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) really were in support of this measure rather than against it. Hence while I agree with some of his arguments I am a bit puzzled by his conclusion. Nevertheless I think perhaps he has a better appreciation of some of the advantages and has a little bit more difficulty in arguing against this bill than has the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) who has indicated his opposition to it. It seems to me that the Secretary of State has based his argument largely upon what he supposes might possibly happen if this bill were to be put through this house and that he is prepared to ignore completely the suggestions that are made by people who come from provinces where this system has been in effect over a period of years that goes back as far as the voting memories of many of us at least. They are systems which were introduced by either Liberal or Conservative administrations in former days and which have established themselves over the course of years as being of some aid to the electors in enabling them to vote on election day. The Secretary of State indicates that there might be some necessity for him to get further information on the results in these provinces. Inasmuch as he is the minister who speaks in the house on these matters, I certainly hope that he will take the trouble

Canada Elections Act
to make some study of the way in which the election acts in the western provinces- and, shall I say, in particular in the province of British Columbia-work out.
As I think I may have indicated on former occasions in this house, I believe there are some ways in which our federal elections act is much superior to the provincial elections act that we have in British Columbia. In particular I think that the manner of registration of voters which is provided for in our federal elections act is certainly much better than the system we have in British Columbia. But I also think it is important that members from other sections of the country should have some appreciation-if they are prepared to accept, as I am sure they would say they are, the idea that all possible voters should be able to vote-of the problems that exist through geography and distance in the western parts of the country, and perhaps more particularly in British Columbia than in any other part of Canada because of the terrain being divided by mountains or by waters, thus making intercommunication within the boundaries of electoral districts more difficult than in most other parts of the country.
Certainly from my own experience I know that in the area that I represent in this house this question of people being disqualified in elections is one of great concern. Only last fall when we had a provincial election in British Columbia it was a matter of great concern because a large number of people found that they had not had a proper opportunity of getting on the voters' list. While that particular objection does not arise so much in respect of a federal election, nevertheless the fact remains that a large number of people who have been enumerated and put on the federal election list find themselves unable to vote when voting day comes. That is one of the reasons why I am particularly glad to say a few words in support of the measure introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
One of the things on which the Secretary of State seemed to place a good deal of emphasis in his argument was that this measure was going to create a large number of extra advance polls. I would not suggest that, if this bill became law, further advance polls would not be necessary to carry out its provisions. But I think it should be pointed out that the purpose of the bill as announced by my colleague is to increase the number of people who are going to be able to vote and that implicit in the bill and in its principle is not any suggestion that that would necessarily require any multiplication
IMr. Barnett.]
of the number of advance polls. In one section of the bill specific mention is made of that subject matter where it is indicated that it will remain within the discretion of the chief electoral officer as to whether one or more advance polls are set up in an electoral district. Provision is made for the setting up of advance poll districts which in some cases-dependent upon the geographic circumstances of the district-might very well mean that only one advance poll would be necessary in a constituency.
I think no one would argue that, once you set up the facilities for an advance poll and appoint the necessary officers to carry on the advance poll, it would not be possible for them in most cases to handle many more voters than normally are able to vote under the present restricted provision.
I agree with the suggestion that was advanced by my colleague that this is the kind of bill that should go before a committee of the house for study of its details. I am frank to say that if this bill were before a committee and if I had an opportunity of discussing it under those circumstances, I would want to make one or two suggestions for changes in the details of it. I say that because, as I mentioned earlier, in our province lines of communication do not necessarily follow the lines of the electoral districts. I think perhaps Comox-Alberni district is as good an example of that fact as exists anywhere on the coast. In many cases if-as often happens-a large number of people in my district have to leave the place where they are working shortly before an election, they do not go to some other place within the electoral district but rather, if they are loggers or if they are fishermen, they find themselves going into a place like Vancouver. If I were having an opportunity to argue on the details of this bill in committee, I should like to suggest that provision be made, where circumstances warranted it, that electors could vote at an advance poll in another electoral district than the one in which they had been originally enumerated. I feel that perhaps would be a simple way of carrying out a provision for which I have argued, namely the provision for absentee voting in our federal elections act. If the opportunity to vote at an advance poll were made universal, as this bill suggests, then those voting at an advance poll could vote and in the time that elapses before the regular polling day their votes could be transmitted to the electoral district in which they reside for counting.
Perhaps this problem is not one which greatly affects the more densely settled areas of the country, but it certainly is a source

of discontent in many places along the coast because of the particular circumstances that surround the work that the men are doing on the coast. Because of a sudden forest closure as a result of a fire season, they may find themselves forced to move from the logging camps where they are living. This move may occur between enumeration day and polling day, and since they would be out of the electoral district they would find themselves precluded from any opportunity to vote.
I think that the same provision could be made in respect of the fishermen. If the change I am suggesting were incorporated in this bill, I am sure it would be of advantage to the commercial fishermen. While it is true that commercial fishermen are amongst the categories of people who are eligible to vote at advance polls, so far as I am able to observe that provision has actually been of little use to a large number of fishermen in British Columbia. They find it difficult to reach any of the advance polls within the electoral district in which they may be registered because they are so widely scattered along the coast that in most cases it would require a very large number of advance polls in order to accommodate them adequately. It has never been considered a feasible thing to provide that number.
As I listened to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) make some reference to the responsibilities of the electors to use their franchise in relation to the holiday situation, I felt his thinking was a long way from the realities of the industrial society in which we live today. As was pointed out by one of the other speakers, the time has long since passed when the majority of the workers of this country have an individual choice as to the time when they take their holidays. This decision is made for them, and in most cases long in advance.


Roch Pinard: I do not believe I suggested that this particular person should cancel his holidays. I simply said that it might be possible for him to arrange to be present on polling day.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I quite agree that the minister did not suggest the individual should cancel his holidays, but he placed considerable emphasis upon the seriousness with which an individual elector should regard his responsibility to vote. I would say that implicit in his argument was the suggestion that, if one were to take his duties as a citizen seriously, he would be prepared to cancel his holidays in order to be at his polling place on election day. That was the only conclusion I could come to as I listened to the minister. I quite agree that, theoretically,
Canada Elections Act
that may be a desirable state of affairs in this country for the electors to take the issues before them that seriously, but I would submit that it is hardly fair to suggest that the thousands and thousands of industrial workers, who have only one opportunity annually to enjoy a holiday with their families, should have to sacrifice that holiday just because the government of the day has seen fit to set an election date that coincides with the time arranged between the employers and the union as to the time when holidays will be taken. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is the practical situation.
I quite agree that at the time the Canada Elections Act was originally adopted we were living in a largely rural economy and, under those circumstances, the minister's argument as to the ability of the elector to decide whether or not he would be away would be valid. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the day has long since passed when that situation prevailed. I think there has been a recognition of that fact because, in a minor way, we have set up advance polls.


Roch Pinard: I suggested that possibly they could arrange to come back to exercise their franchise and then afterwards return for their holidays. It is not necessary to cancel their holidays.


Mr. Ellis:: If he is a thousand miles away, what then?


Roch Pinard: If he is a thousand miles away, that is another problem.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If the minister were working in a logging camp on Vancouver island and had to pay over $200 to get his family back and forth on their annual holiday, he might take a different view of the matter.


Roch Pinard: Of course, if the worker were in Japan it would be more difficult for him to come back and exercise his franchise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister would not like me to use that word "absurd" again?


Roch Pinard: I think it would be absurd then.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister referred to
Japan, but I do not know of many workers who go to Japan or even get as far as Honolulu.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Don't you want to encourage the tourist industry in Canada?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am suggesting that this proposal would ensure that every elector would have an opportunity of voting. I feel that the suggestion there should be advance polls at certain times might, in many cases, enable the industrial workers on annual holiday to

Canada Elections Act
arrange their holiday in such a manner that they would, within reason, be at a place where they could vote on election day. I believe that is a right we should be prepared to give to them.
I do not think I need to say much more, Mr. Speaker, except that I cannot agree with the argument of the minister, any more than could the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) as to his emphasis on the particular significance of a certain date to the exclusion of the recognition of the importance of impressing upon people the need to exercise their franchise and the desirability of seeking as wide an opportunity as possible for them to do so. I hope that the minister after due consideration and after having made some study of the experience with this method in western Canada, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will, if he happens to be fortunate enough to be a member of this house after the next election, be prepared to take a different attitude than apparently he is prepared to take today. I do not know whether or not the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) voted for or against this proposition last year. I appreciate his suggestion that there may be some practical difficulties in implementing it this year. Nevertheless I feel that if this house had the will, the necessary changes could be made in plenty of time so that there would be no confusion when next election day comes around. So far as I am concerned, I would be prepared to see the government revise its plans as to the election date and give an extension of a couple of weeks in order to achieve the purpose set forth in this bill. I would be interested to know whether the hon. member would have supported it last year or would support it this year, or whether he is just trying to find an excuse not to vote for it this year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I object to the 21 days instead of 14.


Frederick George Hahn: In
rising to support the bill I wish to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has seen fit again to introduce this bill at this time. There is no denying the fact that Canadians as a whole frequently feel that they are disfranchised and there is no denying also, despite what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) had to say, there are those who feel otherwise, even if he has changed his mind. I do not speak for myself alone, sir; I also speak for one of my adversaries.
In this instance, Mr. Speaker, I refer to an article carried by the Surrey Leader, which is a local newspaper in my riding. The paper is

dated January 24, 1957. It seems that the Liberal association of New Westminster had a convention in that riding and they saw fit to nominate a certain William "Bill" Mott, whom, I am sure, most of the members in this house will recognize. I would ask the minister to pay particular heed to this, because Mr. Mott has a plea here. I think he has a case. In fact, I should not like the same thing to occur again so that the gentleman might have reason to believe that he is not here because too many people were disfranchised owing to their not having the opportunity to vote.
I refer specifically to a couple of matters in this article, Mr. Speaker. I do realize, of course, that one cannot always believe what he sees in the newspapers because I find that the Surrey Leader, which is rather pro-Liberal, I must say, said that there were 200 at the convention and a smaller paper, the Whalley Herald, said there were nearly 60 at the Liberal meeting.


An hon. Member:: Sixty would be more like it.


Frederick George Hahn: Let us forget about the discrepancy in numbers for the moment. This is what Mr. Mott apparently had to say at the meeting:
In his address to the party Mr. Mott mentioned that he was only defeated by 33 votes-
You see, if he had 34 more votes it would have made a big difference in the last election. The article goes on:
-in the last election, and this was probably due to the fact there were so many people away on holidays.
According to the bill, as I understand it, these 33 voters were disfranchised. Undoubtedly there were many hundreds who were in that position. I personally know of 10 in my own little community who were disfranchised. I am satisfied, sir, that if this legislation were passed we could set up the machinery to make it possible for everybody to vote, and we would then have the true representatives of the people sitting in this house.
I am sure, sir, you will appreciate my feelings at this moment when I realize that I am probably not sitting here by right.


Roch Pinard: Are you thinking about your own convention?


Frederick George Hahn: I am not thinking of my own convention; I have had my convention. The newspaper said there were 500 at that one. It was a Social Credit convention, but that is neither here nor there. The article goes on to say:
The last election, he felt, had been called at a very inopportune time.

"This year", he continued, "I hope people will set aside their holidays until after the elections take place".
I do not know whether he was hoping that the Social Crediters, the Conservatives, the C.C.F.'s, or just the Liberals, would set aside their holidays, but I am sure the minister must realize that this thing is very important in the eyes of not just those who are running for office, as this gentleman is, but also of the people themselves who have been disfranchised.
I am sure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) did not raise a ludicrous point when he suggested that many of these people are too many miles from home to come back to vote, as the minister said they might do if they did not wish to be disfranchised. The fact remains that in a metropolitan area, which is so close to the finest fishing and hunting grounds in Canada, probably,-I should say it is definitely-the people cannot be expected to return in the middle of their holidays to exercise their franchise.
We realize the value of the franchise. Many countries have enacted laws making it compulsory for the individual to vote, and here we are just simply setting it aside by voting for it one year, as the hon. member for Vancouver South did, and deciding to vote against it the next year. I have no doubt that if he were to discuss this question with Mr. Mott he would be sure to change his mind and vote for it because I am quite certain that the members of this house, certainly the Liberal electorate, feel that it would be to their advantage, according to this man's statement, to have the advance poll as suggested and have it made much more extensive as is suggested in this bill.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, when the committee on privileges and elections sat two years ago I was the member of that committee who moved a motion in an attempt to get the committee to recommend the change in the elections act which is envisaged by this bill. For that reason alone I would like to make a few observations. First of all, I think that if we started on common ground we might come to an agreement. It seems that everybody who has taken part in this debate so far has emphasized the extreme importance and significance of voting on election day. The day of voting has been referred to as a privilege to the elector. In a way, it is a privilege, but it is even more than that, Mr. Speaker, because I regard it as a right. We find ourselves in a rather peculiar position here when we who are the representatives of the electors are the ones who have to decide
Canada Elections Act
under our constitution who the electors shall be. In other words, we are the body that can say by legislation who may vote and who may not. For that reason I think we have to approach this question extremely carefully, because an elector would have cause for a justifiable grievance and resentment if he felt that his elected representatives were in some way denying him a right which is his.
The minister, in replying to the sponsor's address, spoke of several things but of three things in particular. One, he emphasized the significance of voting day; two, he mentioned the question of costs; and, three, he dealt with the need for further study of statistics and details.
On the question of the significance of voting day, I am sure the minister would not insist upon that as being his main argument.


Roch Pinard: I do.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Other countries in other
parts of the world have adopted a system of voting which extends over several days and sometimes over a week. Regardless of what we may think of their policies or of the results of their elections, it must be admitted that many of those countries which have had long experience with democracy have felt it a convenience for the voter to extend the number of days beyond the one day, and apparently no ill effects have been experienced because it has been carried on for quite a number of years. To say that because a certain date is taken it somehow or other acquires great importance and significance is I think placing far too much importance upon that selection.
As to the cost, the minister has said that if there were a large increase or prospective increase in the number of voters as a result of this amendment it might cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000.


Roch Pinard: I do not think that is what
I said; I think I said that if there were to be enough advance polls established to cover what is involved under the bill, according to information I have received from the chief electoral officer, it would entail an additional expense of about $500,000.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think that is what I said;
if I did not say that, that is what I meant. In the opinion of the chief electoral officer the provision of the necessary machinery to accommodate what is provided by this amendment would cost up to $500,000. That is not a small amount of money but in relation to other expenditures I do not think it could be considered to be a large amount

Canada Elections Act
of money if it does the kind of job we intend it to do. I was not present when the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) spoke, but I have read Hansard where he addressed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in which he alleged or inferred that some official of the Liberal party in Canada had made the boast that the party had something like $8 million salted away for the next election. Of course that was neither denied nor confirmed so we have no authentic statistics. However, I venture to say that if they do not have $8 million now, they will have it by the time the election rolls around because all they have to do is to give out a few more concessions for a few more pipe line companies and the money will be there.
I think too much money is spent in this country by political parties trying to persuade the voters to vote this way or that way. If more money were spent in order to provide, as this bill does, the greatest possible facilities for voters to take advantage of polling days or advanced polling days, even if it cost a million and a half instead of half a million dollars, if it were instrumental in making it possible for a greater number of people to express their choice, it would be money much better spent than the several millions of dollars which will be spent by the Liberals or Conservatives or both in the next election.
The minister used as one of his arguments the need for further study, and I noticed that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) agreed with that argument and said that in his opinion this was not the right time at which to consider this proposed legislation. I think the situation is the exact opposite. I cannot think of a more suitable time to deal with a bill such as this in the committee on elections and privileges. If we are serious in our belief that people take a greater interest in voting as election day approaches, then certainly the next few months should bring about the high-water mark of interest in voting. If there are interested organizations or individuals who have views to express before such a committee, just before the election would be the proper time for them to express those views.
As a matter of fact some organizations have expressed their views already. I have before me copies of the resolutions passed as recently as November of last year by the Manitoba chambers of commerce at their annual convention held in Winnipeg on November 1 and 2. The very first resolution in this booklet which they have circulated refers to voting. It refers to other things besides advance polls, but it does say this:
[Mr. Zaplitny.)
Further that the federal government provides for the advance polls for a reasonable period to accommodate all who certify that they will be unavoidably absent on election day.
That is right in line with the bill we have before us. When a body such as the Manitoba chambers of commerce, which I am sure is not out of line with chambers of commerce in other provinces, with its experience and having had the opportunity to see the advantages of advance poll privileges in Manitoba, expresses a view like that I think it should be given some weight.
I submit that this would be a most suitable time for the house to accept second reading of this bill, which would then go to the committee on privileges and elections. It could then be made known across the country that such a bill was under consideration and chambers of commerce and other organizations which might be interested could have their representatives appear before the committee to advance their arguments and opinions. At the same time, and this was referred to by the minister, the chief electoral officers or their representatives from the four provinces where such systems are in use could be asked to appear before the committee as a courtesy in order to give the committee the benefit of their experience.
The house would lose nothing if this were done. The bill would have to come back from the committee for third reading and the house would then have its final say. But to turn down the bill at this time without giving the committee an opportunity to consider it, without giving organizations across the country the opportunity to place their arguments and views on this important matter before the committee just before election, would I think leave a very poor impression upon the electors. It might appear as though members of this house for one reason or another were quite satisfied to deprive a large number of people in election after election of their right, a right which is theirs under our constitution, to exercise their franchise.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this bill is of great importance to the people of my constituency. Of all the complaints one hears about the manner in which our elections are conducted the principal complaint is about discrimination. I am quite sure that other hon. members have had the same experience I have had of people saying: Why should I be discriminated against? I am not a railroader, I am not a commercial traveller, but in order to earn my living it is necessary for me to leave the city and travel perhaps 100 or 150 miles in order to perform the job which I am called upon to do and at a given time it may

be necessary for me to be away and thus miss the opportunity of voting.
I realize it is difficult to draw a line as to what classifications would be entitled to vote at an advance poll, but in a city like Regina there are many construction workers and other people who do contract work outside the city, such as wiring farm homes and so on. During the course of their jobs they find it necessary to be absent from the city on polling day. These people are very anxious to vote as they are fully cognizant of their responsibilities as citizens. It seems rather unfair that they should not be accorded the right to cast their votes the same as other employees who are provided for under the existing legislation.
While I agree that it is difficult to know where to draw a line, I think that is the best reason why we should accept this bill. The only way in which we are going to be able to treat all voters fairly is by making some realistic provision for voting at an advance poll. There has been some comment about possible difficulties. The minister suggested that people who are on holidays should return to vote and then, I presume, go back to resume their vacation. I will grant that when the election act was first placed on the statute books most people did not have automobiles and factory workers had no opportunity to travel very far afield. Consequently it might have been possible that there was a greater percentage of voters in their home localities at any given time. However, I think today, particularly in sparsely settled areas such as Saskatchewan, workers, when they get their holidays, are going to travel considerable distances to visit relatives or one or other of the many beauty spots throughout this country.
I have always believed we should encourage Canadians to travel. I am very pleased to note the great number of people from the prairies who visit British Columbia each year, and the great number from British Columbia who visit the prairie provinces. And I think it is a good thing that the prairie people should visit Ontario and the maritimes. That is possible when so many people are getting three weeks' holidays. In my province, at least, where all workers are provided with two weeks' paid holidays, they should be encouraged to visit other parts of Canada.
I think it is most unfair to say to such people, "Your holidays commence one week before election day, and if you want to vote you will have to curtail the extent of your travel in order to return to your home to do so." I think that is not the sort of thing we should expect under the electoral law of Canada, and I rather deplore any suggestion that these people are not aware of their
Canada Elections Act
responsibilities as citizens simply because they take their holidays at a given time. 1 think it is asking a great deal to expect someone to give up two weeks' holidays on account of an election, because that is what it amounts to. In my own province you cannot expect a person who travels, let us say, from Regina to Prince Albert national park to drive the considerable distance back to Regina, or Moose Jaw or some area in the southern part of the province, in order to cast a vote.
It seems to me we should be primarily concerned with getting the maximum number of people to vote in this country. I think we would all agree that the ideal situation would be that everyone should vote, and certainly we should place no obstacles in the path of any Canadian citizen who wishes to exercise his franchise. While there may be difficulties advanced and objections made to the present proposals, I think all these objections, if they went before the committee, could be ironed out and satisfactorily dealt with. I think the main question now, is simply this. Do we want to make it possible for a greater number of Canadian citizens to exercise their franchises? If we believe that is a desirable thing, then I think the most effective way of indicating our sincerity is to vote for the bill now before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to say a few words on this question now before us. I think it is a very important question, and that these are proposals which merit the full support of every member of the House of Commons. I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Secretary of State. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that I can only come to one conclusion. He has not the faintest idea of the subject whatsoever, and had not the faintest idea of what he was talking about.


An hon. Member:: You are so clever.


Harold Edward Winch: As a matter of fact it was almost amusing, the way he built up those straw men and then gallantly proceeded to knock them down. We have had, in British Columbia, both the absentee and the advance poll for as long as I can remember, and that state of affairs exists because there has been an understanding by all parties and by all governments, past and present, that this is necessary if the people are to be given every opportunity to exercise their democratic right of casting their ballots on election day. Not only do we have these facilities in our provincial elections, but we also have them incorporated in the act that governs the city of Vancouver.

Canada Elections Act
The minister spent a great deal of time building up a picture of the fear that was in his mind that if we had an advance poll as part of our election machinery the people would forget the real meaning of polling day, and that so many would cast their votes at the advance poll that the actual polling day would not mean anything at all. If there were any semblance of truth in this suggestion it would have shown itself in the province of British Columbia during the application of legislation which, I think, goes back either to 1920 or 1925. But the situation visualized by the minister has not developed.
I know. I ran as a provincial candidate in British Columbia in some seven elections, and I therefore recall very well what happened on polling day and how many ballots were cast at the advance and the absentee polls, and I can assure my hon. friends that in the seven elections which I contested provincially over a period of 20 years-and I represented one of the biggest constituencies in the province of British Columbia as far as population was concerned-there were never more than 500 votes cast in the advance or absentee ballots. That was not too large a number in comparison with the thousands who voted on polling day, but it was of great importance to the four or five hundred people who were able to vote because of the fact that there was provision to this effect.
The minister emphasized time after time that there had to be a sense of responsibility on the part of the elector himself, and nobody will disagree with that; but I think we should also emphasize the responsibility which the government has of ensuring that as many people as possible who will not be in their home constituencies on election day should have the opportunity of exercising their democratic right to vote.
This applies in particular to the province of British Columbia because, as the minister must know, the major industries of British Columbia are logging, mining, fishing and construction. As you realize, Mr. Speaker, in connection with all these enterprises in British Columbia there are always thousands on the move from logging camp to logging camp, from sawmill to sawmill. The people concerned cannot govern themselves so they are in their own ridings at a date set at the will of the Prime Minister. Our fishermen, sir, know that election day is set by the Prime Minister, but the days on which they can fish are established by the Department of Fisheries, and on the days they go out fishing they are away, as hon. members know, before sunrise, and they do not come back before the sun has set. There are occasions when they go many miles out to sea; sometimes they are

away for days at a time. Why should these responsible citizens be denied the right to vote because their occupation does not allow them to be in their own constituencies on polling day?


Mr. Macdonnell:: Don't you know that fishermen are specially mentioned?


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry. We will go back to the others, then, who are employed in construction, in the mining industry, in logging camps and other concerns in which a great many thousands of our citizens are engaged. This is not something new; it is something which has been proven in the four western provinces, something which has been proven for over 20 years, from my own memory, in the province of British Columbia. We say, Mr. Speaker, that it is the responsibility of the government to give the opportunity of voting to every possible elector and I sincerely hope hon. members will support the proposal which is now before us and see to it, though this measure may only affect a few hundred, or a few thousand, that all those who wish to vote and who are not able to cast their ballots on election day should have an opportunity of doing so beforehand.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and his vigorous style. I always know what he means. I gather that he did not think very highly of the speech of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard).


Roch Pinard: I share that view of his speech.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say that I thought more highly of it. I was interested in it. It made me realize that I had not thought as much about the question as I might have done, and I confess that some of the arguments he made struck me as quite sound. I should like to say, commenting on the speech we have just heard, that I did not think the member made his argument too convincing when, after expounding on the tremendous need for the saving of all those Canadians who might be prevented from voting if they did not get this extension, he said that the total number who had voted, if I understood him correctly, was 500. That did not seem to me to establish a tremendous need.


Harold Edward Winch: In the one constituency.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is different.


Harold Edward Winch: That was in my own provincial constituency.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I also wish to say that I thought he made an entirely gratuitous supposition when he said that all these 500

people would not have been able to vote otherwise. I thought that was going pretty far and certainly I would not wish to accept that argument.
Second, I should like to say that I think there may be an argument for extending the present list. I do not know that that argument has been made. It seems to me that no one has attempted to do other than go whole hog. I mean those who wish the present bill to pass. I think the house is prbably familiar with the list, commercial travellers, fishermen, persons employed upon railways, vessels, airships, etc., members of the reserve forces, the R.C.M.P., et cetera. There are two et ceteras there and I am not exactly sure how much they cover. At any rate, there has been an attempt to deal with cases which cried out for special treatment, and I am not saying there should not be more done.
On the other hand, I was inclined to agree with the Secretary of State that anything that derogates in a big way, as this is intended to do, from election day is undesirable. Often when we read the figures of those who have voted and still more the percentage of those who have not voted we find it hard to believe that our ancestors struggled so hard in order to get the suffrage, and I did feel there was force in what the Secretary of State said, that anything which takes away a kind of dramatic concentration on election day does derogate from the interest in an election. I think, although it is something that can never be proved, that if one were able to assess these matters one might find that as against the numbers given in the case mentioned

I admit that 500 is a substantial figure-who voted in advance there were a considerable number who might otherwise have voted on election day but who had their attention dissipated and just did not take the trouble.
We know that a great many people do not take the trouble. Sometimes the number is alarming. I suggest it is at least arguable that if we do take away, if we do distract and spread over we may give everyone the feeling that they do not need to vote on election day because there are plenty of other days on which to vote and they do not need to bother about it. I suggest it is a fair argument that there will be a distinct lessening of the vote for that reason.
I do not find much merit in the argument that a large number of people are going to be prevented from voting. The question of holidays has been brought up and I will admit that if we are going to have every election in August that argument would have a good deal of weight, but sensible governments do not usually do that. We hope this
Canada Elections Act
government will not do it again. Care is taken to put the voting day on a Monday, and I do not find myself moved anywhere near tears by the feeling that a large number of people who wanted to vote desperately could not do so.


An hon. Member:: You are a hard hearted man.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I really am not. I try to be but I am not. As I say, I was greatly moved by that argument. Again, if it were possible, which it is not-and this is the type of argument which it is always useful to make because nobody can prove you are wrong-to find out how many of these people would not have been there I suggest that the figure of 500 might become very much smaller.
I was also interested in the discourse on travel given us by the hon. member for Regina City and the very clever way he connected advance polls with the desirability of Saskatchewan citizens becoming world travellers. I thought that was very interesting and ingenious indeed. It almost looked as if he was trying to talk his own bill out when he got on an argument of that kind. That seemed to me to suggest that there was a somewhat flimsy foundation for the heart-breaking appeal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg-


Stanley Howard Knowles: North Centre.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Winnipeg North Centre. I do not know why it is so difficult to remember the hon. member's constituency, because we do hear it quite often, but there is something about those three words that makes them hard to remember. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a very sustained appeal. One always has to treat with respect arguments which he makes but one does not always have to be convinced, and when I was asked to believe that if we did not do this a lot of people were going to lose their two weeks holidays I felt we were getting very far away from reality.
Unfortunately I was not a member of the committee. I am sure I could make a much better speech if I had only been on the committee. But I do gather that when the question was put to the chief electoral officer, Mr. Castonguay, although, of course, he could not show himself partisan in any way, it became clear that he felt there were difficulties of administration which would have to be faced. Of course, if they have to be faced they must be faced but I should like to be quite sure that it is necessary to face them. In that connection I propose to quote from

Canada Elections Act
the proceedings of the standing committee. I ; do not often quote the hon. member for Macleod but I hope he will not mind my quoting him on this occasion because I think he raised a serious point. Evidently Mr. Cas-tonguay also felt that it was a serious point. I read from page 308 of the proceedings of the committee of 1955 on privileges and elections.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I am all in favour of getting everyone out who has a vote, and I think that is true of all of us. I would like to support this if it were not for some doubt in my mind.
My doubt is whether a thing of this kind would not be taken undue advantage of. Is there any way you could protect a person's vote? For instance, we do know that a good many votes are stolen. In other words, a person goes in to vote at noon or in the afternoon, only to find that somebody has voted in his place, has stolen his name, has impersonated him. That is done and there is nothing that you can do about it.
A person comes in to vote and finds that his name is gone. No one knows where he came from. Now, how could voters be protected under this? I visualize, for instance, a city where there is a bit of skulduggery done, and we would say that at a couple of hundred polls three or four or half a dozen in each poll have voted previously on a declaration such as might be described in this resolution, and then we find that those declarations were spurious. A person comes along on election day only to find that he cannot vote because someone else has already voted and made this declaration. He says: "I did not make it." What can be done about that? That is the difficulty which I see here. I would like to support it, but I do not want anything like that to happen.
Then the witness, the chief electoral officer, said:
The Witness: Mr. Chairman, as members of the committee know, the advance poll takes place on the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday immediately preceding the ordinary polling day. At present, in view of the limited nature of the provisions of section 95 of the act, it is possible for the returning officer to send a duplicate of the certificate which he issues to the person who has applied for it, to the poll where that person would normally vote, and therefore prevent double voting.
Because of the limited nature of the section there would not be more than 30 or 40 voters, generally speaking, who, in practice, would vote at an advance poll. Therefore, it is only a question on the Saturday night before Monday the ordinary polling day of having 30 or 40 certificates delivered to the various deputy returning officers concerned.
I submit that if this privilege was extended to everyone, let us say that 5 per cent of the electorate used these facilities, out of 40,000 electors it would mean that 2,000 certificates would have to be delivered from Saturday night to the following Monday to prevent double voting.
I know of no way to prevent what Mr. Hansell has mentioned. I think that the only way you can prevent double voting is to notify the deputy returning officer in the ordinary poll that someone has voted at an advance poll. And by advancing the poll to the week previous, the eleventh, tenth, and ninth day before the ordinary polling day, we would have an interval of eight days between the last day of voting at the advance poll and ordinary polling day in order to enable the returning officer to strike off the names on his list of the electors who have voted at the advance poll,

I think perhaps I had better read on. Mr. Pouliot interposed "Hear, hear" and then the witness continued:
The Witness: That is the only way it could be done. In the cities I would say that the ballot boxes would not normally have been delivered to the deputy returning officers before the eighth day before polling day, therefore the returning officer could possibly strike off the list any names of electors who voted at an advance poll. However, he might also strike off the name of an elector who had been impersonated. I do not know of any way to prevent it except by persons at the poll who represent the candidates, challenging these electors, because they would probably know the electors. I know of no way if the privilege is extended to prevent an elector from attempting to vote twice except by putting a larger period between the advance poll and the ordinary polling day to permit the returning officer to take the necessary steps to notify the deputy returning officers concerned .	.	. The problem is more
difficult in some rural areas because the ballot boxes ordinarily are sent a week before polling day by registered mail, and the deputy returning officers in some cases would receive them three weeks before polling day. Therefore some means would have to be devised in rural polling places to notify the deputy returning officer that an elector has voted at an advance poll, and that should he present himself to vote at the ordinary poll, he should be challenged or not be permitted to vote.
There is more to the same effect but I shall not weary the house by reading it.
I want to make the point that there are administrative difficulties that I think should not be overlooked; that we should consider whether the additional expense is worth while and whether the difficulty in connection with the custody of the boxes is worth while. It seems to me that the chances of irregularities occurring are vastly increased. After all, every deputy returning officer has not in his house a safety deposit box in which he deposits these things. In general, it seems to me that it will cause real difficulty of administration, and that it will be a terrible headache to the chief electoral officer. How far we should go is something that I think could be better stated by people who are more familiar than I am with the actual mechanics of elections.
I would just add that to me the argument for throwing the gates wide open as against continuing with those who are presently named here and whose right to the advance poll I think we all concede is not one that convinces me. Certainly I see no reason why we should go further with the matter at the present time.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the motion for second reading of this bill. There is perhaps no riding in the whole -of Canada where a larger percentage of voters are disfranchised than in my own riding of Burin-Burgeo. In the two elections

that have passed, only about 50 per cent of those eligible have been able to vote. Of the other half, about 20 per cent have been somewhere on the high seas on voting day, either in the deep-sea trade, in the coastal trade or else fishing on the grand banks. Another 30 per cent have been out of the riding altogether, employed in other parts of Canada. I am not sure whether or not they were able to vote in the places where they were working.
This bill is therefore of considerable interest to my constituents. But I should like to say right at the beginning that I heartily agree with what the hon. member for Peterborough said earlier today, namely that this bill should not have been introduced at this particular time because I think it is going to confuse the issue.
As I have listened to the arguments put forward by the opposition side in favour of this bill I can see a great deal of confusion already. In the first place, we are confusing people's right to vote with the convenience of voting. Nobody is being deprived of the right to vote if there is no advance poll. Neither is a person given an additional right to vote by the creation of an advance poll. What the advance poll does is to give an extra convenience to the voters in that locality where it is established.
In my riding of Burin-Burgeo I have about
45.000	people, of whom about 20,000 are electors. Those 20,000 are distributed over
1.000	miles of coastline in about 250 different settlements. In most of those settlements there is a polling booth. Some of the smaller settlements are too small to have a voting booth, and the people must row by boat three or four miles to the nearest poll in order to vote. If the weather is bad and they cannot row that distance, then of course they do not vote. In some of the larger centres there may be five or six separate polling stations. Hence the total number of polling booths in my riding would be somewhere about 200 or 220. I have mentioned these figures for one purpose, Mr. Speaker, namely to point out that in my own riding there would be 200-plus separate polling stations, yet in that whole area there would be not more than four or five advanced polls.
We all want to make it possible for the greatest number of people to vote on polling day. We want the voters to realize that it is their duty to vote. But if they cannot vote on voting day, nobody in this parliament is depriving them of the right to vote. They are prevented from voting because of some domestic factor or some factor such as work, business, pleasure or vacation. They have
Canada Elections Act
to choose between the two, whether the right to vote is of sufficient importance to forgo the other or vice versa.
My objection to this bill is based on the fact that I do not see how it can be applied on a practicable basis to my riding, which is similar to all the ridings in my province, and similar as well to ridings in other parts of Canada, particularly British Columbia. I submit that if this house is going to provide extra convenience for one set of voters in one locality then, by the same token, we must provide the same conveniences for other voters in other localities wherever they may live. I believe it was the hon. member for Regina City who spoke of treating every voter fairly. If we are going to treat every voter fairly, the only way that can be done is to set up advance polls in every community. If we do that we will double or triple the cost of an election. In addition to that, we will be destroying the very meaning of polling day itself. In other words, the result of this bill would be to destroy the main significance of the election act.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I find myself unable to support this bill. My argument is this. Why should a person be granted an extra convenience just because he happens to live in a certain place, because he lives in a large centre or because he works in an industrial centre? Surely every voter has equal rights under the law. He has equal rights because this parliament has given him the same conveniences that we grant to all others. Unless this bill envisages setting up advance polls at every polling station in Canada, then it discriminates against the places where advance polls are not set up.
That is the very thing this bill claims to do, to eliminate discrimination, but all it will do will be to increase the discrimination. The only way discrimination can be avoided is to set up advance polls in every polling station in Canada. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is impracticable, and for that reason I cannot support the bill.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolei-Yamaska):: I should like to say just a few words with respect to this bill. Even if the hon. member for Vancouver East used strong arguments, as usual, he failed to convince me that he was right. Personally, I do not see any advantage in doubling the number of polling divisions in our country. In the last election we had nearly 41,000 polling booths, and the proportion of those who voted at the advance polls was quite small.
This bill is intended to extend the privilege of voting at an advance poll to every citizen who believes he will be unable to

Canada Elections Act
vote on polling day. Let us ask, first, who is going to determine whether or not each individual is right or wrong in the belief that he cannot vote on polling day. This is quite a complication. Who is going to decide that Mr. So and So is right in believing six or seven days before the polling date, that he cannot vote on election day? In my opinion that is quite a weak spot in the bill.
The second weak spot is that in my estimation this bill will create quite a few legal problems. After the last election we did not receive many petitions. In the rural districts we have no problem about voting on polling day, but the problem is greater in the cities, and that is where we now get the trouble on election day. If people are entitled to decide for themselves that they are going to vote at one of the advance polls, then on polling day who is going to decide whether or not the vote was properly given at the advance poll? It will require closer checking in order to avoid duplication of votes. This would open the door to many petitions after the election.
I would think that voting is a duty, and when the date is set by parliament I believe it is a duty that is dear to the heart of every Canadian. I would conclude by saying that the bill, instead of reinforcing the election act, will have just the opposite effect and will destroy an act which has been giving good results. Nearly 70 per cent of the people cast their ballots at the last election, and if we compare this percentage with the percentage of votes cast in many other democratic countries we will see that it is a very good result. I do not see why we should change a law which has been giving such good results.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I intend to be very brief, but I did want an opportunity to express my support for the bill. I believe that in a democracy we should aim to provide an opportunity for as large a percentage of the population as possible to exercise their franchise. I am not capable of speaking with respect to urban conditions but I do know something about rural conditions, and I know something about the numbers of people in my own constituency who have been denied the franchise on election day because of the deficiency of the present election act.
In my constituency it is customary for loggers to come down the lakes some 20 or 25 miles on week ends and then return to their employment. If it should so happen that election day is on Monday-in fact, by law that happens all the time-they are not permitted the opportunity to exercise their franchise when they are at their homes over the week ends, and so on; they have returned

to their employment. In my constituency I have possibly up to 100 loggers who at the last election were denied the opportunity to cast their votes because it was simply almost impossible for them to return to the polling station to cast their votes on election day.
Let me give another illustration. I happen to know of the situation of some miners who are working in isolated places. I have miners who are working on the Duncan river. The nearest poll is 25 miles away. They are in the habit of coming to town on Saturday and Sunday to do their shopping, to visit their wives and things of that sort, returning on Sunday evening. The election is normally held on a Monday. Under these circumstances these men are usually denied the opportunity to exercise their franchise, because in this instance they would have to travel some 25 or 30 miles by launch.
Then I have a number of men who are on the passenger vessels and tugs on the various lakes and rivers in my constituency. It just so happens that in the case of one passenger vessel I have in mind it leaves at six in the morning and does not get to a suitable port for voting until after the polls have closed. I could give a number of illustrations with respect to tugs towing logs that are out on the lakes for days at a time; because of the terms of the elections act a good number of these people have been denied the opportunity to exercise their franchise.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because of my personal experience, and my knowledge of the fact that the present election act denies to a good number of loggers, a number of miners and a number of those working on lakes and rivers in my constituency-the men, I might tell you, who are producing the wealth of this country-the opportunity to exercise their franchise, I have no hesitation in supporting the bill and the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to get the election act amended so that a greater percentage of good Canadian citizens can express their opinions on election day.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that those who have spoken in opposition to this bill live in sheltered areas of the country, and are not familiar with the problems which confront a great many other citizens. In view of the fact that a number of our provinces have made provisions along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is very difficult for people of all political parties living in those provinces to understand why the federal government is

not prepared to take a look at the problems which confront people on the frontiers of the country.
The hon. member for Kootenay West describes conditions which are found in many parts of Canada. These are not isolated conditions. It so happens that in my constituency we have no provision for advance polling for railway workers, and we have several trains which must operate on election day as they do on other days. The conductors, the brakemen, the engineers and the firemen operating those trains are denied the right to exercise their franchise if the trains are to move. The trains must leave before the polls open, and when those men reach their destination they are outside their constituencies and are not entitled to register their votes.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has performed a valuable public service again by bringing forward this bill, which really should be supported by everyone who is concerned about the importance of giving every person a chance to exercise his or her franchise on election day. I want to be on record as supporting this progressive move that has been brought forward.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate up to this point. If it were to continue somewhat longer perhaps I might be persuaded one way or the other. I doubt whether there is much to be said by the supporters of the government; for it seems to me the Secretary of State has made it difficult, if not impossible, for any of them to be persuaded by the-


Alfred Claude Ellis: He cracked the whip.


Daniel Roland Michener: -eloquence and by the reasoning of those who have supported this bill.
The argument has been largely one of detail and example. We have heard a good deal about the difficulties of persons in various occupations exercising the franchise. We have heard about the lumbermen and their habits, their times of absence from their homes and the times when they are present at their homes, when it would be convenient for them to vote and when it would not be convenient for them to vote. We have had a great many other specific examples of people who, by reason of their occupations, find it more convenient to vote at one time than at another. The case of the traveller, the person on holidays, perhaps is the most interesting one that has been advanced, and I am not sure whether the amendment to the act is in aid of more travel or whether the reverse is the case.
Canada Elections Act
I see you are getting a bit uneasy, Mr. Speaker. Will you call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Speaker, before six
o'clock I was recalling some instances and examples which had been given in the course of the debate of different groups of people whose opportunity to vote might be increased by the amendment. Quite a variety of examples were given. I daresay that in some instances they were well founded and that the effect of the bill would be to enlarge the opportunity of some people to vote. Perhaps the amendment might work in the opposite direction, because it is hard to see just how these things will work out when you are looking at them in the abstract.
I want to speak for a minute about the principle of the bill, which as I see it is the desirability of making it possible for all those entitled to vote to do so. That objective might be achieved in different ways. You might have a method of voting by proxy when the voter himself is unable to appear, or you might extend the number of voting days. Members of this house will not remember it, but I believe in the early days of confederation voting took place by open ballot. Under those circumstances it would have been possible for people to vote without attending the poll because their ballots were open. Voting could have been done by sending in a letter.
There is no question that in our view of government the right to vote is basic. Some people call it a privilege, and in some countries it is regarded as a duty. In those cases those eligible to vote are under some compulsion to cast their ballots whether they want to or not. We have not taken that view in Canada, but undoubtedly this is a basic right and anything within reason which will assist those entitled to exercise it is desirable.
As I understand the proposed amendment, the problem is approached from the point of view of the number of voting days to be made available and the spacing of those days. That is exactly the same principle as the present election act, but with a different arrangement of the days on which one may vote. It is possible to suggest a great many combinations of voting days. Regular voting might take place on more than one day, on a series of days, or there might be two periods for voting as under the present act. There

Canada Elections Act
are various arrangements of those two periods by placing them at greater or lesser intervals apart.
I think it is desirable that as far as possible all people who wish to exercise their franchise should do so at as nearly the same time as can be arranged conveniently, so that all will be casting their ballots on the same issues with the same considerations before them. It is not often that election issues change very much from day to day, but one can recall instances where the results of elections have been changed by reason of something that has happened in the last day or two of the campaign. As a general approach it seems to me desirable that as far as possible everyone should vote at almost the same time. Therefore I would not think it wise to have an advance poll some distance ahead of the regular poll.
The other question involved is who should be entitled to take advantage of these advance polls. This is the broadest suggestion of its kind that has been submitted, because it goes almost as far as saying that anyone who considers it would be convenient to vote at an advance poll rather than waiting for the ordinary voting day could persuade himself to that effect and make his affidavit reasonably near the fact by saying that he had reason to believe he would not be able to vote later, and govern himself accordingly.
I think it is admitted that the present category of those who are entitled to vote at the advance poll is fairly narrow. I have known of people whose business took them away regularly and who did not fall within the limited categories named, though they were on a par with those who were entitled to use the advance poll. It appears to me that the categories as now enumerated might very well be enlarged in order to make it unnecessary for anyone whose ordinary course of business took him away from his polling division on voting day to be denied the opportunity of casting his ballot at an advance poll.
When one tries to go beyond that and suggest that being on holidays is a good reason for not attending to vote, it seems to me that a very wide net is being spread to catch a very few voters. My experience is that people who are away on holidays do not like to be interrupted. As a matter of fact, in our exercise of the franchise in this country at all levels of government the proportion of those who see fit to exercise their voting right is lamentably small. In elections in the city in which my constituency is located as few as 25 per cent of the qualified voters have turned up on occasion to cast

their ballots. That perhaps is extreme. I think on the average some 50 per cent see fit to go to the poll and vote.	.
Of course these are non-party elections. With the help of the political parties a good many voters are stimulated to go to the poll and cast their votes. That creates more interest, with the result that in provincial and dominion elections, in my experience, the percentage of the qualified electorate voting ranges from 54 or 55 per cent to as much as 90 per cent in some polling subdivisions. Now it is a question whether the system can be improved. I have mentioned the case of people on holidays. They are not anxious to disturb their vacation, as a general rule, and though some of them will go long distances to vote others would not take advantage of the advance poll even if it were set up for them.
So, looking at the bill as it is presented, and in the light of the solutions proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it seems to me that in principle one cannot disagree with anything which enlarges the opportunity to vote, provided the system suggested is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and does not unduly extend the election period. Under the terms of the bill as now put forward we would have to face a longer period between nomination and voting than exists at present and, it seems to me, a longer election period; but on the whole I think my view of the matter is that we could very well enlarge the category of those who vote at advance polls without, perhaps, making some of the other changes suggested in this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see the interest there is in these proposals, and I agree with those hon. members who have said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has done a service in bringing the matter forward and focusing the attention of the house on certain problems that undoubtedly exist in connection with the election act and the opportunities afforded Canadian people to vote.
I think on balance I agree with my colleague from St. Paul's who has just resumed his seat, when he said there are some features of the bill which would be of such possible disadvantage that, on the whole, the measure cannot be unequivocally supported. Certainly I think much is to be said in favour of widening the opportunities to vote at advance polls. I believe the categories of those now allowed to vote under this procedure are much too restricted. On the other hand I am not in favour, without hearing further conclusive argument, of allowing

unrestricted opportunity to vote at advance polls for the period of time the bill suggests. I would prefer to see, perhaps, a compromise between a wider classification of those who might vote at advance polls and a shorter time in which they might do so, together with an experiment, at least, in an approach toward the absentee vote.
Undoubtedly there are many people who for personal reasons or for reasons of their employment have to be away from their constituencies on polling day, and I really do not see any compelling argument against some system of absentee voting for these people if they are able to prove their identity in whatever constituency they may happen to find themselves on polling day. In my opinion they should be allowed to vote there, and have their vote counted in their home constituency.
I think this is a safer system, for this reason. There is a complete opportunity to check the ballots cast in an absentee vote. The name goes back to the home borough, and if it is on the list there and no one else has voted in that name, that vote may be counted there. On the other hand, if one adopts this virtually unrestricted advance poll, as this bill suggests, it would, to my mind, open too much opportunity for tampering with the voting machinery.
I may, perhaps, be accused of having a nasty, suspicious mind; but I am aware of cases, particularly in completely urban constituencies, where there was a great deal of what has been called, and can only be described as, skulduggery in connection with voting on polling day. It is difficult enough to check this sort of thing, and stop it. Individual candidates have their scrutineers, and they act to the best of their ability to see that there is no impersonation, but there are letters on file with the chief electoral officer-letters which at one time were brought to the attention of the committee on privileges and elections-which show how difficult it is to resist a determined attempt, well financed and well organized, to impersonate electors, and to have a number of people who are not actually entitled to vote at all cast their ballots in the names of people who are on the list.
There are also examples of what can only be called "goon squads" entering polling stations. When the scrutineers representing the candidates, feeling that impersonation is going on, try to challenge a voter, they have virtually been terrorized into silence. If this can be done on the one day to which voting is confined, how much easier it would be to do it if there were an advance poll open for a week or ten days, with less opportunity of
Canada Elections Act
checking whether or not a person who comes in claiming he is someone whose name is on the list is actually that person.
I do not think it would be safe to give the increased opportunity for impersonation and organized skulduggery at the polls which I think this proposal would make possible, and I believe that was one of the features the chief electoral officer had in mind in the passage quoted by the hon. member for Greenwood, when he said it would be very difficult indeed, if not impossible, to provide adequate machinery to supervise advance polls of this length of time and give the assurance that voting was conducted properly.
So, because of that danger; because I believe the period of time my hon. friend suggests is too long, and because I think the same results could be achieved by a widening of the classification of those who are entitled to vote at advance polls, I must say with some reluctance that I find myself not in accord with the bill as it has been presented to the house.


Mr. Frank G. Power (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some diffidence that, as a rather junior member of the house, I rise to speak in the debate at this time, but this is a subject which has been of considerable interest to me for quite a long time. I must congratulate the proposer of the motion for the intention he has in submitting the bill to the house. I think it is laudable in every way. I believe he is sincere in wanting the greatest number of voters possible to cast their ballots at every election. However, like the hon. member for St. Paul's and the hon. member for Kamloops, who have preceded me, I feel he is going too far in wanting to have anyone who feels that he cannot be present permitted to file an affidavit and vote on the ninth or tenth day prior to the date set for the election.
In my opinion this would result not in one election day but in three election days. At times today voters are rather difficult to stir, and were they given this added convenience I am afraid they would flock to the advance polls, with the result that instead of having one election day we would have three. Speaking only for myself, may I say that the nervous tension of such an ordeal would be terrific. I cannot, of course, speak for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I presume he has contemplated this and is prepared to face it. Personally 1 think it is torture in the most medieval sense of the word.
Then there is another factor. In looking over the bill I have examined the clause in which is set forth the manner in which

Canada Elections Act
at the end of the first day of the advance poll and at the end of the second day the ballots will be dealt with, and I must confess that the mechanics of it completely escape me. In the ordinary course of events, when a ballot box is opened the deputy returning officer, the poll clerk and the representatives of each candidate have a right to examine each ballot. Yet it is provided in the bill that the ballots shall remain secret. Frankly, I should like the proposer of the bill to explain in more detail how secrecy of the vote can be maintained at these advance polls.
Another matter of considerable import to most of us is the convenience of our workers and the expenses involved in an election campaign. Each one of us, I am sure, depends not only on a party platform but also on a large group of party workers, personal friends and other voluntary workers. I cannot see how we can expect our friends and workers to take three days off, which is what in effect would be required if they were to represent the candidate adequately and take part in all these electoral procedures. I think it would be asking too much of them to ask them to do so.
However, I do think, and I speak with some experience in the matter, that the qualifications for voting at advance polls should be considerably widened. September 26, 1955, the date of the by-election at which I was chosen, happened to be a holy day of the Jewish people. As a result over 250 Jewish men and women in my constituency were deprived of the vote. I feel that not only should there be occupational exceptions and that those exceptions should be extended considerably, but also that religious exceptions should be included in our electoral law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. gentleman speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Canada Elections Act
which has been tried so successfully in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan. That proposal being a little more radical than the one that is in this bill, I say to him that it was my fear that I would have more trouble in this house in trying to present it than with this one. But at any rate here is hoping that one of these times soon we shall recognize that this grievance which people have that they are not able to vote on election day because they are away from their home constituency is one which it would be proper for parliament to try to meet.
After all, as I said earlier, the franchise is not something that is the property of the government or of parliament. It is something that belongs to the people of Canada. We should make it as fair and democratic as we possibly can for all the people of this nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce) moved: the sec-	
ond reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Financial Administration Act.	
(Translation):	
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Bill No. 6 whose second reading I am moving today, is, as it	
were, a true copy	of Bill 149 which I introduced last year and about which I made quite	
elaborate remarks	at the time, I assume that
I need not dwell at length on that same sub-	
ject today.	
Besides, I wish	to be brief so as to give
others who would	like to speak on the bill
a chance to do so	, and still allow the house
enough time, if it	so wishes, to vote on that
important matter.	
The sole purpose of this bill is to provide that every cheque, draft, traveller's cheque,	

bill of exchange, postal note or money order, of any department and of any crown corporation, shall be printed in both the official languages of Canada.
There is nothing very strange, and still less impossible, in that provision, since it is naturally inspired by the principle recognized by the house in 1936, when the Bank of Canada Act was enacted.
I do hope that this time, unlike what happened last year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will not attempt to suggest the possibility that a measure of this character cannot be introduced by a private member, since its implementation would involve an additional expense of public funds. If anyone feels he must at all costs oppose this measure, I trust more serious arguments than that one will be resorted to.
There is no doubt that the English speaking element in this house and in the country as a whole will welcome such a measure, for it would complete the one concerning bilingual money and stamps, and would, in a way, sanction a recognition of the bilingual status of Canada.
I have no doubt that this same Englishspeaking group will graciously consider what happens in the province of Quebec where, ever since confederation, government authorities have observed not only the letter of the law, but have gone far beyond its spirit. Indeed, all official printing in that province is made out in both languages, at least at government level.
And yet, the percentage of the English minority in Quebec is less than half the percentage of the French minority throughout this country.
Not later than January 23 last, I read in Le Droit, of Ottawa, a news item of the Canadian press exemplifying the general statement I just made. I quote:
Municipal notices must be written in both languages.
Quebec (CP)-The private bills committee of the legislature yesterday turned down a request by a Quebec municipality asking for authorization to use only the French language for its public notices.
That request had been made by the municipal council of Plessisville. Plessisville is a municipality of 5,700, located 100 miles north-east of Montreal.
Premier Duplessis said the Cities and Municipalities Act says that all municipal notices must be made out in both French and English.
A spokesman for the municipal council of Plessisville said, on the other hand, that there is not a single English-speaking citizen in Plessisville.
Financial Administration Act
I do not think anything need be added to that report of the Canadian Press, except that, before asking others to make sacrifices in the interest of good understanding we, in Quebec, start by setting an example of graciousness, sometimes, even to the point of exaggeration, and of co-operation.
I have no intention of quoting to the house all the expressions of approval I received last year following my introduction of this bill to the house. This would be tiresome. May I simply say that I have received some from every imaginable quarter. There were some from individuals belonging to both our great ethnic groups, from patriotic, educational or religious groups, from city or rural parish priests, young people's associations, women's clubs, school principals, municipal councils, school boards, business concerns, citizens' leagues, insurance companies, boards of trades and what have you.
Consequently I am confident that this proposal will be accepted by the house, if not unanimously at least by a substantial majority.


Mr. J. H. Proudfool (Poniiac-Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, dear French and English speaking colleagues, I am pleased to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin).
(Text):
As I have already said, I rise at this time to give my full support to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Beauce. Might I point out at this time that Canada is the home of French Canadians, and I believe they should be made to feel at home from the shores of the Atlantic to the shores of the Pacific. Together we of French Canadian origin and those of English speaking origin can build Canada into a great nation.
Might I point out that the only reason we have a confederation instead of a unitary state is because of the French Canadians. We asked them to come into confederation as full partners with English speaking Canadians, yet at the same time we wanted to preserve their rights and their own way of life. We divided authority between the federal government and the provinces primarily so the French speaking people would not be overwhelmed by the English speaking majority.
Might I point out that in the province where I live and where I was born the English speaking minority are perfectly free to live their own way of life and teach their own mother tongue. Their schools have been well provided for since confederation by each provincial government which happened to be in power, regardless of its political

Financial Administration Act make-up. I should like to point out also that in Quebec nine out of every ten people are of the Roman Catholic faith, with eight out of every ten speaking the French language. Yet the minority have complete autonomy and equality.
There may be some hon. members of the house, and I am thinking particularly of those who come from distant parts of Canada, who question the need for the legislation proposed by the hon. member in Bill No. 6. Indeed, it would not be strange if some of those whose lives have been spent in British Columbia, for example, where the French language is rarely heard, were inclined to make light of the proposal in Bill No. 6.
To those hon. members, if any there be, I should like to point out some rather surprising figures, or at least I think they will be surprising to them, and I refer to the tabulations resulting from the dominion census of 1951. In that year the total population was just over 14 million people, and of that total 2,741,812 used the French language as their only means of communication with one another. I do not quote that figure in any disparaging way, any more than I would disparage the more than nine million Canadians who according to that census spoke only English. I merely call it to the attention of the house to illustrate my point that a very considerable number of the people in this country speak French exclusively.
They have every right to do so, because the right of Canadians to the use of the French language is inviolate. The British North America Act contains guarantees in this respect with which I am sure all hon. members are familiar. I submit that those who framed our written constitution did not mean or intend that the use of the French language should be limited to the federal parliament, the federal courts, the Quebec legislative assembly and the courts of Quebec. In 1867, when a French speaking minority was entering somewhat fearfully into a new kind of political partnership with the English speaking majority, it was thought necessary, and I believe rightly so, to guarantee the areas in which the use of the French language would be of the greatest value to the minority. This, you might say, was the irreducible minimum.
From that starting point I think one must assume that several factors govern the determination of whether English or French shall be used in the official business of government or the day to day business of living, and by far the most important factor is the ability of those communicating with one another to understand the same language.


I come now to the 2.75 million Canadians whose only language is French. The question here is not on the high plane of constitutional rights, it is on the very practical level of communication. The only way to address them and be understood is in the French language. Whenever the federal government has to communicate with them, in respect to income tax for example, it does so in French. That is only practical common sense.
(Translation):


Mr. Knight:: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a question? What is he reading?
(Text):


John Hugh Proudfoot: I have not time to answer questions put by the hon. gentleman. As other hon. members who have spoken previously in support of this bill have pointed out, our coinage and our paper currency are bilingual. This is a recognition of the fact that it is both a convenience and an advantage to a large number of French speaking Canadians to be able to understand that the Bank of Canada will pay on demand one dollar, or whatever the sum may be. Their understanding of this, by virtue of the French inscription on the bank notes, lends added strength to our currency.
Government departments and the many agencies of government pay out a great deal of money to French speaking as well as English speaking citizens. When doing this they do not wrap up a sheaf of Bank of Canada notes and send them off by parcel post. In lieu of doing that they issue cheques. But is it not just as important for the recipient of such a cheque to be able to understand what is printed on it as it is for him to be able to understand that the Bank of Canada will pay a certain sum on demand?
I submit that it is. Cheques and other negotiable instruments are merely extensions of the currency system. The reasoning which lay behind the decisions of both Liberal and Conservative governments of a generation ago to issue currency bearing French as well as English inscriptions is just as valid when applied to negotiable instruments.
Perhaps, in spite of my argument, some hon. members may think that the use of bilingual cheques should be limited to those parts of Canada where most French speaking citizens reside. But, Mr. Speaker, I would call their attention to the fact-and again I go to the 1951 census for my information- that very nearly one million citizens of French origin reside outside the province of Quebec. It has been said by some of my hon. friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, that there is some likelihood of a general election being

held before long. I know nothing of that. But I do suggest to them that if this indeed be the case, then a million people represent an awful lot of votes, votes they may need. If these members can see their way clear to support this bill, I am sure those citizens of French tongue who reside in their ridings will appreciate the fact.
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have based my argument on the very practical consideration of communicating with our fellow citizens of French language who do not understand English. But there is another consideration to which we should give great weight in approving or rejecting Bill No. 6. It is that the cement of common citizenship in this great country is slowly hardening, binding together both races for the better pursuit of our common destiny. The old division between English and French is being bridged- slowly, perhaps, and with difficulty. Old antagonisms and old suspicions are hard to root out. But rooted out they must be if we are to survive as a nation, if we are to play our part in preserving our civilization.
I implore hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to look about them in the world today and consider whether Canada can afford to be disunited; to consider whether they can afford to reject any proposal, however insignificant it may seem against a global backdrop, which will foster Canadian unity. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation proposed by the hon. member for Beauce can be likened to a timber in the bridge we Canadian people-all of us-are building over the gulf of misunderstanding and distrust which for far too long has divided and weakened our country.
Mr. Speaker, I support the proposal of the hon. member for Beauce to make further practical and valuable use of the French language in this country.
(Translation):


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would like to say that I do not object to the bill being carried, as the hon. member said.
(Text):


John Hugh Proudfoot: I do not think I can
answer the question of the hon. member who spoke for the opposition, as his French is so bad I cannot understand him.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that his French is considerably worse than mine. (Translation):


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely congratulate the mover of this bill and I also wish to congratulate immediately and quite sincerely the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot) for the generous contribution he just
Financial Administration Act made with respect to that proposal, which to my mind should carry the approval of all hon. members of the house.
Here is what we can read in the explanatory notes accompanying the resolution moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin);
The purpose of this bill is to provide that every cheque, draft, traveller's cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar remittance of any department as defined in paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Financial Administration Act or of any crown corporation enumerated in schedules B, C and D of the same act shall be printed in both the English and the French languages.
Mr. Speaker, it is as a Canadian, as an average Canadian citizen, no more, no less, that I feel it my duty to bring my support to the bill at present before the house. I remember that last year when the hon. member for Beauce introduced Bill No. 149 of the third session of the 22nd parliament, several members who are now sitting in this house brought forward impressive arguments in support of that proposal.
This year in very similar terms the same bill is introduced as Bill No. 6. The purpose of the bill seems extremely simple. It merely requires that all negotiable instruments of the government be printed in the two official languages of this country.
I have often heard prominent Canadian citizens from every civic or religious field, boast of the duality of culture in this country and quote this fact as an example to be followed by other countries. I do not see why members of the Canadian parliament would not get together to enact a legislation which will give a more concrete importance to our double culture.
The immediate effect of this bill is to make the Canadian government issue in both official languages any negotiable instrument. Its purpose is therefore to give greater recognition to the principle of bilingualism in this country.
I am not one of those who believe that adoption of this bill would constitute a favour to French speaking Canadians; I think it would rather be the recognition of a right given by the Canadian constitution of 1867 and more particularly by section 133 of the British North America Act.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the members of this house are broadminded enough not to consider that this legislation asks for anything more than the recognition of a rightly understood principle of bilingualism in Canada.
French speaking Canadians have never sought to be anything else than Canadians, as attached as anyone else to their country,
864	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration Act
but as proud of their origins and traditions as other Canadians of different culture and origin. Living in a country which they have pioneered, having always heartily supported every measure intended to make our country an independent and strong nation, my fellow citizens want to be at home everywhere in Canada, and a measure such as this would more effectively recognize true Canadianism, where there is no boundary between our two great cultures. I am glad to emphasize that, in the past, marked progress has been made in that direction mainly through the British North America Act of 1867, when the fathers of confederation, in their desire to lay the foundations of a great country, recognized the ethnical characteristics of the two great people of our country.
Besides, in 1927 the Canadian parliament enacted legislation providing for the issue of bilingual postage stamps and money orders.
In 1936, the Canadian parliament provided for bilingual money. In this respect, I would like to remind hon. members of the numerous appeals that were made in this house by one of my predecessors in the riding I have the honour to represent, the hon. Justice Oscar Boulanger, who battled a long time in this house for this legislation.
In 1946, the Canadian Citizenship Act was enacted, and, to my mind, it amounted to another piece of legislation such as to reassert bilingualism in this country.
In 1949, parliament voted the act abolishing appeals to the privy council in London in civil matters and providing that the Supreme Court of Canada be the court of last resort in this country.
In 1952, the Canadian parliament adopted an act providing for the appointment of a governor general of Canadian origin.
All these measures, Mr. Speaker, point out further the true character of our dual culture in Canada. I am sure that in adopting this bill parliament will take a firm stand likely to show all Canadians that it realizes the will of the great majority of our fellow citizens to live together in harmony, whatever their racial origin. Thus, feeling at home anywhere in Canada, they will be able to see in our statutes the assertion of their mutual qualities and of a true Canadianism.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish once again to pay tribute to the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming for supporting this bill and I do recommend its adoption.
[Mr. Laflamme.l


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a constituency whose population is 98 per cent French speaking but 100 per cent respectful of the rights and prerogatives of the English speaking minority, I believe it is not only my right but also my duty to intervene in this debate on Bill No. 6 moved by my friend the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin).
That bill tends to amend the financial administration act (chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952) by the insertion of section 33A which would make it mandatory to issue all bills of exchange and particularly all cheques of the various federal departments and boards in the two official languages of this country, English and French.
I feel that this bill is an important step towards national unity which is increasingly dearer to Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific and which we all agree to consider as the cornerstone of the future of our dear country. National unity cannot exist without mutual understanding and I believe that such understanding cannot find better expression than the very means of expressing our respective thoughts, our two languages, which the British North America Act made official in Canada.
I have received representations about that bill from many citizens in my constituency and I therefore faithfully express the wish of men and women of Roberval county when I support it, as I have always considered it my duty to speak on behalf of their rights in this house every time I had the opportunity to do so. Thus I always have the feeling not only of working in the interest of my fellow-citizens, but also in the interest of our country as a whole which has, as one of its main characteristics, the distinction of being bilingual and biethnical, a partner in the enrichment we have gained by the contact of the two great civilizations which have made their mark in the past and will continue to find Canada a ground favourable to their fulfilment if we give them a chance to progress freely; I mean the French and Anglo-Saxon civilizations. This favourable ground, I see it not only in a platonic mutual respect, but more particularly in the official expression of bilingualism in Canadian life.
The Liberal party to which I am proud to belong has not failed in its chosen mission which is to guide the development of this country towards a healthy canadianism. I have always felt at home in this party since I have been able to observe a very great breadth of mind among my Liberal colleagues, of whatever racial origin. This broadmindedness today finds an opportunity for very prac-

Financial Administration Act
tical expression. That is my reason for supporting the measure introduced by my hon. friend the member for Beauce. I would be ill-advised, in any event, to refuse this support since I remember having already requested, in this house, the printing in both official languages of negotiable instruments, notably of cheques issued by the government.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) who, we know, is making praiseworthy efforts to learn and to speak French is in my view, the very man to support the cause promoted by this bill. Bilingual bank notes and bilingual postage stamps adopted more than twenty years ago have been, in this country, vehicles for efficient Canadianism. They have most certainly contributed to the promotion of that national unity so dear to the heart of every Canadian worthy of the name. Negotiable instruments and notably bilingual cheques, issued throughout this country, would be ambassadors of good understanding and true Canadianism. This example would be all the more efficient in that it would originate in more exalted quarters, that is to say since it would come from parliament, from the very centre of Canadian thought which owes it to itself to appear in its true colours as is required by our motto "A mari usque ad mare".
During the fall of 1955 I had the honour to accompany the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) in a tour of my constituency. Last year I had the honour to accompany the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). Do I have to tell the house how happy were my constituents to hear these high officials, following His Excellency the Governor General who had come to my constituency in 1954, address them in this beautiful French language which only those devoid of culture are unable to appreciate? I noticed that after they had gone, my constituents had felt within themselves a new pride in being Canadians and in representing one of the elements which go to make the greatness of our country as well as its originality from a world viewpoint.
I would feel sorry if the tradition of bilingual cheques were continued only in the province of Quebec. The development of a well thought out Canadianism is inconsistent with this furtherance of the detestable idea of a "Quebec reserve". This is all the more true since there are more than one million Canadians of French origin, speaking French, in the nine other provinces of this country. The proposed measure, because of its official character, would help each Cana-82715-55
dian, wherever he may be in this country of ours, to feel perfectly at home.
Language being the most perfect expression of culture, it is also in the name of the Canadian culture that I support this bill. In that connection, I may be allowed, I am sure, to quote a few words from the Most Reverend Father Georges Henri Lesvesque, O.P., a son of Roberval who is known everywhere in Canada and of whom we are proud and rightly so. He said, in a speech delivered in Toronto in February 1955: "It is in the mind and the heart of Canadians that a spirit of brotherhood is born. It is their cultures which bring Canadians together, which will teach them to know each other and thus to better understand and help each other." And he went on: "A society like ours which extends its protection to the full growth of so different racial elements and whose members believe that mutual respect for their distinctive features is the first requisite for their common welfare, is an excellent example of civilization." Any real patriot cannot but wish that these two magnificent cultures will truly turn, to an ever increasing degree, to the glory and the enrichment of the whole of Canada."
It is to that magnificent endeavour that I wish to contribute by supporting the bill now before the house.
(Text):


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, this bill certainly means a great deal to all citizens of Canada. In some parts of Canada one view is expressed and in other parts there are other views with respect to whether or not we should adopt the printing of negotiable instruments in both the English and French languages.
I do not feel quite as strongly about the matter as other hon. members apparently do.
If a person wishes to explain why we should do this, I think he should have the subject sufficiently at heart so he would not be obliged to read his entire address to the House of Commons. If a person is serious about anything in the House of Commons, after he has been here a certain number of years I feel that he should not rise in his place and read his speech, but should let us hear what he has to say speaking from his heart.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to your party.


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I think that sometimes it is better to read than to say nothing at all.

Financial Administration Act (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, before making a few remarks, to congratulate the previous speakers. At the same time, may I kindly point out that there is but 25 minutes left to deal with this bill. Therefore, if we went on with as much eloquence and as much generosity as we have done so far, the bill could very well be choked by that warm embrace because if we talk until ten o'clock it will mean a first class funeral for that proposal.
No argument need be advanced in favour of this bill. On the contrary, it should be carried without the slightest delay. It is based on principles which are fundamental in Canada. I feel, like many other Canadians, that statements of principle would tend to be lowered to the level of electoral considerations if some legislation did not occasionally confirm the feelings so eloquently expressed about national unity. It is sometimes said that we must rely on public opinion since it is the safest guide and that the task of enforcing such measures must be left to public opinion and not to parliament. However, I do not believe that this dangerous argument can be applied in any way to this bill. A matter which goes right down to the soul of a nation, such as official bilingualism, leaves no ground for discussion. When the tradition, the history and the constitution of our country are at stake, we have no alternative but to respect them without discussion.
This bill is based on these sacred rights; to reject it would not be simply to repudiate what we are but it would be a crime of lese-majesty.


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few observations to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard), who, at the beginning of his remarks told us that there was only 25 minutes left to discuss the bill, and that we should not speak about it until ten o'clock, because that would mean a first class funeral.
I wish to tell him that we all have a right to express our views about the bill which, if it is not carried today, will stay on the order paper, just like all other bills, and as the house will sit again in the coming weeks, members will have other opportunities to study it.
There is no need to rush matters. We are here to express our opinions, and I suggest that it is not by rushing things that we will be able to discuss them freely. I have listened to the arguments expressed by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) in support of that measure, and I must congratulate him on the serious motives he brought in support of this proposal.


Since we have in this country bilingual postage stamps and money why should it not be the same for cheques and negotiable instruments issued by the government? What is asked for in this bill is nothing more than simple logic. If certain instruments within the jurisdiction of the federal government are bilingual, why should it not be the same in all cases.
Bilingualism has a purpose and it is a well known fact that it has constantly progressed in Canada and that its use is helping the cause of national unity.
We are trying to teach the younger generation the double culture which gives its vitality to our country, by teaching the French language to the young English speaking Canadians, and the English language to the young French speaking Canadians. Why do we see those young students from French universities fraternize with their fellow students of the English universities? Why do we see the students from English provinces spend their holidays in the province of Quebec in order to learn French, and those from Quebec go to the English provinces in order to improve their knowledge of the English language? All this is done in order to develop bilingualism and cement understanding and goodwill between both racial groups of our country. If we have such movements, it is because the Canadian people understand the characteristics of bilingualism and want it to carry its full effect.
When we see crown corporations give evidence of bilingualism as do the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority lay issuing bilingual cheques, we cannot help congratulating their officials for their attitude and telling them that they show a great understanding of their responsibilities toward the Canadian people.
Under those circumstances, it is easy to see that the Canadian people want bilingualism to develop and increase in this country; therefore I support wholeheartedly the measure introduced by the hon. member for Beauce.
The hon. member has shown us that bilingual postage stamps and money had been prejudicial to no one, and that the issuing of bilingual cheques wil not affect the rights or privileges of any Canadian, but that, on the contrary, it will help the cause of national unity.


Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the previous speakers in extending congratulations and thanks to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) for being so tenacious in presenting this bill which, I am sure, has as much significance for his constituents as it has for my own constituents.

Since I have been sitting in this house I have often noted that we can all have the same object in view but hold different opinions as to the best manner in which to attain it.
The purpose of this bill is to cement Canadian unity in providing that all Canadian citizens, when they get a cheque from Her Majesty, will get it printed in both languages. I see no more objection to that than in the case of a money order printed in both the official languages of the country.
We of the province of Quebec have only to go back to the past to realize that we deem it somewhat important to have cheques and money orders or any document whatsoever from the federal treasury printed in both languages. French and English are the two official languages in this country.
I find some interesting statistics in pamphlet no. 84 from the information division of the External Affairs Department, based on a text of Charles Bilodeau of Laval University, Quebec city.
As a matter of fact, to refer to my own little home county in lower Quebec, French has been spoken there from 1608 to 1759. For this reason, it will easily be understood that atavism or devotion to our tradition demands expression in the beloved language of those who founded that part of the country. After 1760, there was an increase in population either by natural growth or by immigration.
After the 1951 census, the percentage of people of French origin in Canada was stated as follows in the different provinces:
Newfoundland	 2.7
Prince Edward Island	 15.7
Nova Scotia	 11.4
New Brunswick	38
Quebec	 81.9
Ontario	 10.4
Manitoba	 8.5
Saskatchewan	 6
Alberta	 -
British Columbia	 3.5
Yukon and Northwest Territories	 15.6
The above table therefore indicates a proportion of about 30 per cent of French Canadians in comparison with Canada's total population. I want to point out that practically four fifths of these people live in the province of Quebec.
If you refer to the census of 1951 (vol. I, table 53), you find that French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians present the following pattern: English, 67 per cent; French, 19.5 per cent; English and French, 12.3 per cent; neither French nor English, 1.2 per cent.
There is no denying the fact that the French Canadian population makes up about 30 per cent of the total population of this country. So it is only fair to expect that the official documents originating with the federal treasury should be issued in the two official languages of this country.
82715-55}
Financial Administration Act
If you consider what took place after the treaty of Paris, on the surrender of New1 France to England, you find that there is nothing explicit on the language of the people of this country; still the use of French persisted. In 1774, the Quebec Act restored the French Civil Code and authorized the use of the French language before the courts.
In 1791, Canada was made up of Lower Canada and Upper Canada. In Lower Canada, that is in Quebec, the elected members of the legislature decided to use both languages in their debates as well as for the publication of the statutes and of related documents.
In 1840, the Act of Union stated that the English language would be the only official language of parliament but that, on the-other hand, the statutes would be translated into French. However, in spite of that rule,, a francophile member delivered a speech in French in the house and the use of the French language became more frequent such as is the case today.
In 1867, the Canadian confederation was set up. The constitution of the new nation was then incorporated into the British North America Act whose section 133 reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
The statutes of the House of Commons are printed in both languages. Besides, the official record of debates is published in both the official languages. Why then not print all cheques and instruments from the treasury department in both official languages?
If we look at what is going on in our schools, for instance in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, we see, as is apparent from a reading of the document to which I referred a moment ago, that there are 1,175 French-speaking classes in New Brunswick, 205 in Nova Scotia and 75 in Prince Edward Island.
To my mind, the printing of all official documents in the two languages would in no way reduce the necessity or the usefulness for each and everyone of us to understand both languages.
Over the last few years we have been in a position to observe remarkable progress

Financial Administration Act towards bilingualism in this country. In fact in some of our institutions French and English are generally placed on the same footing. Most French Canadian parents wish their children to have a practical knowledge of the language of the majority. Associations are promoting bilingualism by means of visits to the various provinces which make up the Canadian confederation.
Mr. Speaker for all the reasons which I have just given, I am happy to associate myself with the hon. member for Beauce and to congratulate him on having presented this bill.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelels (Maisonneuve-Rosemoni):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us proposes to amend chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952 so that in the future all negotiable instruments enumerated in section 33 shall be printed in the two official languages its effect to extend to all departments and crown corporations as defined in section 76 (1) (c). I congratulate the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) for his initiative in introducing this bill. In so doing, he not only reaches at the purest source of liberalism but he undoubtedly answers the desire of the great majority of Canadian citizens.
It is mere common sense that negotiable instruments issued by the Canadian government be bilingual. If everywhere today people take pleasure in pointing out the dual culture of Canada, it seems to me that it is only logical that the government be the first to recognize everywhere and forever the reality of bilingualism by issuing bilingual cheques as soon as possible.
In declaring myself in favour of this legislation, I am far from feeling as if I were seeking a privilege, for even though bilingualism at the national level is not expressly recognized in the act of confederation the point here is whether a right should be recognized. As a matter of fact, the constitution must not be read in a restrictive way but rather in its broadest meaning in order to promote throughout Canada a spirit of understanding and good feeling between the two great races which make up our nation. It is unfortunate that we feel obliged to raise these questions from time to time and I believe that we will always deserve credit for doing so very carefully. We must do it, nevertheless, for the great difficulty is not misunderstanding but rather the lack of a clear and accurate text.

I must say here that the Liberal party has been doing from time immemorial more than its share to straighten out this defect in our constitution.
Mr. Speaker, it was in 1936, under a Liberal government, that a bilingual character was given to our money. Since then, various federal organizations like the St. Lawrence Seav/ay Authority and the C.B.C. have already issued bilingual cheques. We also now have a bilingual stamp. All we have to do now is to make official what custom has already consecrated in various departments. I am therefore in favour of a legislation which, I believe, today meets with no opposition from any part of our people. And I may well make this comment, Mr. Speaker, because I am representing a riding where perhaps a little more than a third of the population is English-speaking. I know that such legislation is popular with us, for both races are doing their best to get along together. Moreover, it is by making concessions that we shall succeed in bettering this mutual understanding.
I recognize that the implementation of this piece of legislation may run into some difficulties at the administrative level. But I rely on the understanding of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to eliminate those difficulties, to get around them, so that, right from this year, the negotiable instruments issued by the government may be bilingual.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to dwell on this matter at greater length. I notice it is 10 o'clock and so I move the adjournment of the debate.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Deschatelets the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the supplementary estimates and then second reading of the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice, and the resolution in my name with respect to municipal grants.


Ernest George Hansell: Not the council?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

8S9
ANSV/ER TO QUESTION
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Holowach: 1.	In what manner are distributions of mineral, timber, oil royalties, interest earnings or other moneys held in trust for treaty Indians, presently being made?
2.	Is this policy being practised in respect of all reserves in Canada?
3.	What was the total amount of money accruing from the above sources in the province of Alberta for the years 1951 to 1956 inclusive?
4.	What was the amount of distributions to each of the Indian reserves in Alberta for the years 1951 to 1956 inclusive?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Trust funds are distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Act-largely under sections 15 and 64 to 66, and in the case of surrenders in accordance with the provisions of such surrender.
Question
2.	Yes.
3.	$10,970,212.04.
4.	Distribution in cash:
Enoch's	 $259,932.00
Blackfoot	 815,742.77
Alexander	 34,150.00
Hudson Hope	 1,050.00
Louis Bull	 16,400.00
Sarcee	 52,870.00
Samson	 90,281.00
Montana	 8,720.00
Ermineskin	 32,760.00
Alexis	 21,333.00
Stony	 23,525.00
Blood	 721,026.00
Paul's	 22,420.00
Peigan	 76,465.00
Frog Lake	 1,290.00
Michel	 26,585.38
Beaver of Fort St. John________	4,570.00
Saddle Lake	 61,585.00
Duncan's	 9,495.00
Pigeon Lake	 628,465.00
2,908,665.15


Friday, February 1, 1957