1970-06-23

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MR. PHILIPPE YACE, PRESIDENT OF IVORY COAST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the House the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a very distinguished visitor, Mr. Philippe Yace, President of the National Assembly of the Ivory Coast Republic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of the House and of all hon. members, I warmly welcome to Canada our very distinguished guest and those who accompany him.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES CENTENNIAL


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At the time of Confederation, Canada included only Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and a very small portion of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Between the tiny Canada of that day in the east and British Columbia in the west stretched the vast, undeveloped, largely unexplored and sparsely populated lands owned by the Hudson's Bay Company.
In 1868 the Rupert's Land Act by the British Imperial Parliament authorized the purchase by the Dominion of Canada of the immense tracts of land known as Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory. One hundred years ago today, on June 23, 1870, Queen Victoria signed the order which transferred these lands to the government of Canada and which granted to the Parliament of Canada authority to legislate for their future welfare and good government upon the terms and conditions therein stated.
Thus Canada grew from a small country huddled along the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and the Atlantic seaboard to a mighty nation stretching north to the Arctic Ocean and west to the Pacific. The people of the Northwest Territories are Canadians first, proud of their contribution to our nation, its heritage and its culture.
The riches of the Canadian north, both of its people and of its resources, offer to Canada a unique opportunity to develop a truly Canadian identity from the Atlantic to the Arctic to the Pacific, from sea to sea to sea.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in French and in English-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle).

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in French and in English- Mr. Lefebvre.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) I wish to table one copy in each of the two official languages of the report of the study undertaken by the Department of Communications entitled "A Review of the Public Message Telegraph Service in Canada".


Mr. Baldwin:: Is that the new substitute for the Post Office?
Finance



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1970

Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the House concerning the creation of a central depository for securities in Canada. For a few years now, some prominent Canadian financial and investment institutions have been considering the feasibility of establishing such a central depository. This led very recently to the incorporation under Part I of the Canada Corporations Act of the Canadian Depository for Securities Limited.
This corporation is a non-profit, service venture with no public financial involvement; most of the major financial and investment institutions are committed to its eventual operation.
The purpose of the depository is to facilitate the transfer of shares across Canada by computerized bookkeeping entries, thereby reducing the need for physical transfer of share certificates and the attendant administrative problems and costs.
Incorporation of this company under the Canada Corporations Act is an interim step. Before it can begin to operate as a depository it will require special powers now reserved for trust companies and not granted to companies incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act. It will also require government supervision in order to maintain full confidence in the system.
For these reasons, and in view of the fact that the creation of the depository will be an important forward step in the operation of the Canadian securities market, the government intends to present to Parliament in due course legislation which would give the depository the special powers needed for its effective operation.
For the further information of the House, I should like to table a letter I have written to the corporation's solicitor, outlining the government's position and intention in this matter.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, having had an opportunity to consider this matter as a result of the minister having sent me notice of his intention to make this statement, I should like to make a few comments. I think this is a step in the right direction, albeit there would have been much more progress if it had been wedded to

a similar indication of progress on the establishment of a Canadian securities commission. The central depository for securities is a cooperative venture made possible through amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. It is important to determine where the location of this depository shall be. That is a matter that could be settled through co-operation with the provinces. The federal government and the provinces should agree upon the ultimate location of the securities commission and also agree upon the location of this depository because the two go hand in hand.
I agree with the minister that there will be a sensible reduction in the loss of time and in expense. The method of supervision has not been indicated but I hope it will come under the Superintendent of Insurance rather than under some other body.
Under these circumstances I think it is a welcome announcement. We look forward to this matter having high priority at the opening of the new session as far as legislative changes are concerned and we hope that it will not have to wait for the abolition of symbols in other places.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in this age of computers a central depository for securities is a necessity and we are therefore pleased to see that such an organization is to be established. Since the purpose is to ease the physical transfer of shares and other assets, I question why it is being brought in as a corporation involving the financial institutions. In view of the fact that the minister has stated it will require government supervision to maintain full confidence in the system, it would seem that the logical and uncomplicated thing to do would be to set it up as a Crown corporation somewhat similar to the Bank of Canada or a land registry office where a fee would be charged for the use of the service. There is no explanation why it was not done in that way.
We may find ourselves following the same path as we did with the Bank of Canada when an attempt was made to set it up as an instrument in which the financial institutions would play a role. It was discovered that it would not work this way and would have to act as an instrument of public policy. It seems to me, barring some explanation, that this is not the sensible way to set up this organization and that the minister should seriously consider the establishment of a Crown corporation. Desirable as the purpose is, I think it is frustrated by the manner in which he proposes to set up this body.
June 23, 1970



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I should like to make a statement about the conclusions which the government has reached with respect to the recommendations of Volume III of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism. As hon. members will be aware, this volume deals with "The Work World", including the public service and armed forces as well as the private sector.
I am pleased to state that the government is able to accept in principle the broad objectives proposed for the public service by the Royal Commission. The general lines of these objectives are that the French language should increasingly become a language of work in the public service, that the atmosphere of the public service should represent the lingustic and cultural reality of Canadian society, and that Canadians whose mother tongue is French should be adequately represented in the public service-both in terms of numbers and in levels of responsibility.
The fifty-seven recommendations which Volume III of the report sets forth have been the subject of detailed study by a committee of senior officials and have been given careful consideration by ministers. The suggestions put forward by the Commission involve far-reaching changes in some instances, and they have been given the close attention which they deserve.

I wish to table, with the consent of the House, a detailed document which outlines the existing management objectives in this field and comments on the recommendations made by the commission. I have two copies in both official languages, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to have this document tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The fundamental consideration to which I am sure all Canadians fully subscribe is one of equality of opportunity in
Bilingualism and Biculturalism the words of the commission's report, "a real equality of opportunity, ensuring that the fact of speaking English or French would be neither a help nor a handicap to a person seeking entry into the institutions affecting our individual and collective life."
In the Federal Public Service, equal opportunity is closely related to the merit principle which cannot be said to be fully operative unless it extends to qualified francophones with little or no knowledge of English a recognition equal to that which it accords anglophones whose knowledge of French is similarly limited. I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that we in no sense propose to limit the merit principle, but rather to fulfil it.
At this point I might put it to the House that, this general principle having been stated, if we want to get on faster I could table the rest of my statement which has been distributed to the leaders of the parties.


Some hon. Members:: Read on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If there is some desire to go through the whole reading of it, members know how well I enjoy reading and I know how much they enjoy listening to me.


Gerald William Baldwin: You need the practice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) says, I need the practice. I am not quite sure if that practice could ever improve my performance. However, I am perfectly happy to take the time of the House to read on as suggested by the Conservative party.

The recommendations of the Commission can be considered under five main headings:
First, general principles. The first group of recommendations deals with the general principles of Public Service organization and management. It includes three recommendations (Nos. 1, 2 and 5) concerning the establishment of French-language units, and two more (Nos. 3 and 4) dealing with the appointment of francophones to the most senior positions in the public service.
There has, I think, been a great deal of misunderstanding about the notion of French-language units. I stated some time ago that we could not accept the creation of ghettos in which French-Canadian public servants would be divided off from their English-Canadian colleagues. Of course, this was not the Commissioners' intention.
June 23. 1970

Bilingualism, and Biculturalism
Their comments make it clear that they had in mind units in which the main language of work would be French, but which could include both anglophone and francophone public servants. In our opinion, what the Royal Commission hoped to see accomplished was simply an extension of measures which it had already recommended to make the Public Service a bilingual institution. Viewed in that way, French-language units could have several advantages: for example, they would permit the recruitment and participation of unilingual francophones on a more equal footing with unilingual anglophones. By the same token, this procedure would open the way to a greater reliance on a manpower source that has not until now been adequately used, that is, those well-qualified francophone candidates whose knowledge of English is limited. It is a pool of talent from which the federal Public Service has been largely cut off. At the same time, the French language units would provide a milieu in which anglophone public servants who have invested great effort in acquiring second language skills would have the opportunity of becoming fluent in the French language, just as many of their francophone colleagues are now fluent in the English language. Such units would operate in favour of a greater degree of individual bilingualism at senior levels of the Public Service. They should also make it easier for French to take its place with English as a language of work in the federal administration.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)

The upshot of this, in the government's view, is that French language units should be considered as a means to an end, a useful tool in helping to advance toward a bilingual public service. Indeed, a number of francophone units, or units which come close to what the commissioners had in mind, are already in operation in the Federal Public Service in Quebec, in the Armed Forces and in some departments in Ottawa where they appear to work effectively and without difficulty.
It is clear that the consequence of establishing such units cannot be judged in the abstract. The government therefore believes that in an initial period they should be set up on an experimental basis which would permit a better informed decision to be taken at a later date as to whether the system can be viable in the long term. The application of

the use of French would be established progressively in these French language units so that during a preliminary period, as an aid to anglophone participants in such units, the choice of language for written work would be optional.
On the understanding, then, that the units should not be considered an end in themselves, and that we should have an open and experimental attitude toward their potential advantages and disadvantages, we are prepared to go ahead over the next year or so with pilot projects in a number of departments designed to test this idea more fully.
We are also inclined to believe, Mr. Speaker, that there has been some misunderstanding concerning the Royal Commission's recommendations on the appointment of francophones to the Public Service and government task forces. I should make it clear that the government has no difficulty whatever in accepting recommendation No. 4 to the effect that federal planning and advisory bodies, task forces and similar groups should include "effectively balanced participation by Anglophones and Francophones". This is already government policy and has been for some time. Nor do we find it difficult to agree that such balanced participation should also be an important consideration in the appointment of senior officials. I must emphasize, however, that we do not accept that this in any way represents a modification of the merit principle. The first requirement will always be to search for the public servant who best merits the job. We see no inconsistency in ensuring the maintenance of this principle and at the same time respecting the need for full participation in the Federal Public Service by members of both the Anglophone and Francophone communities.

Second, the language policy. The next group of recommendations (Nos. 6 to 15 and No. 21) deals in some detail with language policy in the public service, in relation to recruitment, training and the work situation. In large measure these recommendations are straightforward in nature and can be accepted without difficulty; in fact a number of them have been reflected in government policy for some time. Although we recognize that a great deal remains to be done in this area, I am pleased to say that considerable progress has already been made toward realizing the objectives which are set by these recommendations.
June 23. 1970

Third, the public service organization. The next series of recommendations includes a number of suggestions regarding recruitment, promotion, and conditions of' employment (recommendations 16 to 20), as well as suggestions with respect to organizational changes relating to the implementation of the recommendations put forward in Volume III, recommendations 22 to 24.
In general these recommendations are acceptable to the government, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to three in particular.
With regard to Recommendation 17, the government is of course prepared to recruit qualified persons abroad, whether in Englishspeaking countries or French-speaking countries, but only after it has been demonstrated that Canadian sources have been examined and that no qualified Canadians are available. This requirement is included in the Public Service Employment Act, and the government sees no reason to propose that it be altered.
The government has given careful consideration to the Commission's recommendation 22 that a new Public Service Authority be established. A number of developments have taken place in this field since the Commissioners carried out their study, and these have had a considerable bearing on our analysis of this proposal. In particular, a new service was established in the Secretary of State Department in 1969, whose responsibility it is to co-ordinate the implementation of the government's official languages policy. In order to avoid waste and duplication, we consider it more rational to maintain and reinforce this organization rather than to establish a new bureau with responsibilities in the same field. We are convinced that by proceeding in this way we will reduce administrative delays and speed up progress towards bilingualism in the public service.

Fourth, the armed forces. The next group of recommendations, numbers 25 to 41, relates to the Canadian Armed Forces. They have been the subject of detailed study in consultation with the military authorities, and I am happy to be able to say that, on the whole, the Armed Forces are already working in the directions indicated by these recommendations. Nevertheless, although they are acceptable to the government it would be misleading to suggest that the measures recommended in this field by the commissioners can be accomplished overnight or without
Bilingualism and Biculturalism difficulty. Changes of this magnitude require considerable effort and can only be introduced gradually if standards of efficiency and morale are to be maintained.
Fifth, the private sector. On the whole, the recommendations in this section are not addressed to the federal government. I might say, however, that we understand the reasons which led the commissioners to make a number of recommendations concerning the private sector, for a bilingual Canada cannot be achieved if efforts are restricted to governmental activities alone. We recognize, moreover, that the situation in the past has not been satisfactory and we believe Canadians will agree that changes are needed. Indeed, certain private firms and institutions have already shown what it is possible to accomplish with good will and a determined effort. Those responsible are to be commended, in my view, for having acted on their own initiative and I hope that increasing numbers of private institutions will see the need for further steps in this direction. For its part the government will be pleased to do whatever it can to encourage and assist them.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The proposals which the commissioners have put forward to establish task forces involving government, business, labour and universities seem to us to be reasonable. Although they are not addressed to the federal government as such, I can assure the provincial authorities that we will be pleased to play a part in this process if that is their wish. Moreover, in so far as recommendation 42 is addressed to the federal government, we are certainly prepared to ensure that the French language is used in our operations in all appropriate circumstances. We also have no hesitation in accepting two of the recommendations in this series, numbers 56 and 57, which are directly addressed to the federal government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we must recognize in all honesty that the effort to move toward a bilingual country is one to which Canadians have come very late in the day. As a result, we do not expect that the goal will be reached overnight; nor do we expect it will be easy to accomplish. We believe, however, and we think that this view is confirmed by discussions with provincial governments, groups and individuals across the country, that there is a new attitude toward bilingualism in Canada and a willingness to work towards its realization. We con-
June 23, 1970

Bilingualism and Biculturalism sider that the recommendations contained in Book III should be seen in this light, as a part of an ongoing effort which cannot be imposed on a people, but which will grow out of a sense of co-operation, mutual respect and understanding. Mr. Speaker, it is my profound hope that all Canadians will wish to join in making these ideals a reality. That is all I have to read at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by expressing admiration for the obvious reluctance of the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) to take very much of the time of the House to make this statement, particularly in view of the special significance of tomorrow. I do wish to thank him for sending me a copy of his statement with the attached papers this morning.
This is obviously a subject of great importance, a subject of great sensitivity and a subject in respect of which we would obviously wish to weigh our words carefully and also speak quite frankly. This is a very far-reaching statement by the Prime Minister with very far-reaching implications. I think I can summarize his statement by saying that generally speaking he is accepting the recommendations of the commission in the third volume, with one very important exception.
Let me refer to recommendation No. 22 which will be found on page 8 of the document tabled by the Prime Minister. The commissioners say:
We recommend the creation of a Public Service Language Authority. This new body will be responsible for a) planning, implementing, and maintaining institutional bilingualism-
This recommendation was not accepted by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister instead said the government had decided to amplify and develop a service that had been established in the Department of the Secretary of State. In other words, instead of establishing the formal authority recommended by the commission, presumably by Act of Parliament, the Prime Minister and the government have chosen to utilize a service within the Department of the Secretary of State.
This is of vital importance. What are the terms of reference of the Secretary of State's authority? What are his terms of reference in regard to exercising the control he will presumably exercise over every other department of government and the Armed Forces

within, of course, the terms of reference? What are the terms of reference of his authority with regard to the private sector?
The government itself has great power to influence private institutions and private companies in this country. It is no exaggeration to say that the tentacles of the federal government are everywhere. Precisely what is the Secretary of State going to do to "encourage and assist private institutions" to take further steps toward bilingualism? We do not know.
I do not propose to commit myself or my party at this time to the establishment of a public service language authority, but at least such an authority would be set up by Act of Parliament and would give Parliament and the country an opportunity to discuss these matters. Certainly I have no hesitation in condemning as strongly as I can the tactic of the government to avoid this kind of discussion by giving this kind of authority to a service in the Secretary of State's department with undefined terms of reference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suggest that this is a far-reaching matter. It is a matter that ought to be discussed in Parliament. It is a matter that ought to be discussed in Parliament in such a way that the public which wishes to express its views could do so to a committee of the House. This could have been done if the recommendation of the commission had been followed and a bill introduced, for example, to establish a public service language authority. Nobody in the House would disagree that this is of special importance. At least in this way it would bring the matter before the House in a manner presumably in line with the views of the commission. The Prime Minister is avoiding this.
What are the Secretary of State's terms of reference? We may be told they are contained in the recommendations included in the third volume of the B and B commission report. If these are the terms of reference they could be changed presumably any day by cabinet minute.
I think we have to recognize that relations between linguistic groups are always somewhat difficult. There is always a certain amount of fear and suspicion, whether or not it is justified. Therefore it is most important that we avoid this as much as possible. It is very important that we establish institutions and that we take steps in such a way so as to
June 23, 1970

reduce to a minimum the possibilities of fear and suspicion as to what may be going on.
The Prime Minister wants to use the Department of the Secretary of State as a vehicle "to speed up progress towards bilingualism in the Public Service". That is the Prime Minister's aim. In choosing this vehicle he may actually set it back. The old adage of more haste, less speed, may be appropriate here, because this is a very far-reaching step being taken, as I say, with no real public discussion. The measures are subject to no real public control or knowledge because they are being relegated, as I judge the Prime Minister's statement, to the secret recesses of the government.
I have in the past expressed concern about the concept of unilingual working units. I suggested that this is a backward step and to that extent an abandonment of the concept of bilingualism. I referred to the danger that we might develop some new solitudes. This is still my belief.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Are we to proceed without more discussion than we are having here this afternoon? Are we merely to have this brief exchange? The Prime Minister joked about the length of his statement. Are we to have this relatively brief discussion and then turn everything over to the Department of the Secretary of State to administer from now on?
The Prime Minister referred to the question of senior appointments and the merit system. He said that the merit system would not be modified in any way by an attempt to balance senior appointments in terms of language. There may be very good reason to balance senior appointments in terms of language, but it is nonsense to pretend that this would not be a modification of the merit system. We would be modifying the merit system if we were to adopt a system whereby so many senior appointments would come from each region. There might be reason for this, but it would be a1 modification of the merit system. So I do not think the Prime Minister should stand up in the House and say that this is not a modification of the merit system. It may very well be defensible, but it is a modification of the merit system.
I say again that it is wrong to proceed in this way. This is the same way Information Canada was set up. It was set up by government decree. This is a further concentration of power. I suggest it is an abuse of power and is an excessive resort to secrecy.
Bilingualism and Biculturalism


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say again that the commission itself recommended a procedure that would be open and that would call for the government coming before the House and the country to present its measures and persuade the country to adopt those measures. But even had the commission not made that recommendation I would still believe that Parliament and the people of this country should have an opportunity to discuss these matters and make their views known before the policy is settled and shunted off once and for all to be administered by a department of government.
I wish to emphasize that I do not say this because the present Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is a French-speaking Canadian. The situation might be more serious and a little more under suspicion if he were an Englishspeaking Canadian. The principle, however, is the same. We are faced not only with a fait accompli but with the administration of this policy in the future and with the development of this policy in the future being conducted within the secrecy of the cabinet and administered by departmental decisions.
I say in all seriousness that the government is creating an atmosphere which will encourage suspicion to flourish. I do not like that. I do not like it a bit, and I ask the government to reconsider more earnestly the manner in which it is proceeding and its intention apparently to deal with this simply as another departmental operation. I ask most sincerely, in fact I insist, that the government proceed in such a manner that this matter can come before the House and be discussed in such a way that interested Canadians will have an opportunity to make their views known.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are trying to build a
united country. We are trying to make progress. I suggest we have been at it for quite a while and ought to take enough time to make certain that we proceed forward and that we do not take a step forward in such a manner that we find ourselves having slipped back a couple of steps in the process.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I shall begin by congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for reading the statement in a way that was more pleasant to listen to than he himself said was the situation on other occasions. I do wish to thank him very sincerely for having provided the
8492	COMMONS
Bilingualism and Biculturalism opposition parties with a copy of his statement very early this morning so that it could be given some consideration.
I remind the House that it was only as late as 1966, indeed on April 6, 1966, that the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, made a statement with regard to bilingualism in the federal service. Indeed, Book III of the commission's report reproduces that statement as one of the appendices. At that time, speaking for my party, I said that it is a measure of the insensitivity by which we have treated our country and the language question that it was not until the 99th year of the existence of Confederation that the Prime Minister of Canada produced a co-ordinated statement about bilingual policy in the federal service. It is a measure also of the neglect of 100 years that it was not until the 103rd year of Confederation that the policy merely started by the right hon. Mr. Pearson in 1966 received fuller implementation in the statement we had today. As one Canadian I know the immense harm this failure to recognize the bilingual character of Canada inside the federal civil service has done to the unity of the country. I express with the Prime Minister and every other Canadian the sincere hope that these steps are not too late.
I am also very glad that the Prime Minister and the government have decided to deal with the French language units on an experimental basis. When I first read Book III of the commission's report I wondered whether the commissioners are not being a little too theoretical rather than practical in their propositions, because it is important that we not create language ghettos in the federal public service and not create a situation where one language unit competes with another language unit, whether of the same language or of the second official language, which is likely to be the case. Furthermore, it would seem to me that these things must not be artificially imposed. They ought to be developed functionally, to use a favourite word of the Prime Minister, as the situation makes it natural that the language unit be developed in a given department, Crown corporation or agency. Therefore, on behalf of my colleagues and myself I welcome the fact that the government intends to proceed step by step with these units as a pilot project in order to study the advantages and disadvantages before any large-scale work is done in this field.
I remind hon. members, and I think it is important to emphasize it, that when we speak of Anglophones in Canada we are not

DEBATES	June 23, 1970
speaking about Canadians of British origin but are speaking of all Canadians whatever their origin whose working language in Canada is English. Also, when we speak of French-speaking Canadians in this country we are not speaking only of Canadians of French origin but of all Canadians whose working language is French and whose education has probably been in the French language. We ought to make clear to the people of Canada that this is not French versus English in the traditional sense of those words. It is recognizing that there are two language communities in Canada, whatever the origin of the members of those communities may be.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I want to emphasize another point which is merely mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement and which I have thought for many years is of very great importance. I suggest that one of the difficulties in the province of Quebec-only one; I am not saying it is the major one or that there are not very many others-in latter years has been the absence of identification by the French-speaking university population in Quebec with the federal system, with the federal capital and with the federal service. They have not felt that this is their service, this is their capital, this is where they can live their lives in useful contribution to their country, but have tended to regard the capital of their province as being their capital only, or their only capital, and to feel that no other capital in this country affected them. Therefore I think it is of the utmost importance that the government and the various agencies of government make a concerted and conscientious effort to bring a federal civil service career to the attention of the undergraduates in French-speaking universities in Canada, and to promote as much as possible their undertaking that career in the federal service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: These steps we are taking now, these steps which are proposed now, ought to make it possible to persuade Canadians of the French language attending French language universities to accept the proposition that the federal civil service is also a service in which they can live their lives in useful contribution and in fulfilment of their individual culture and language.
I suggest also, Mr. Speaker, that we must in implementing this kind of policy-I am saying something that is rather banal and I
June 23, 1970
apologize for it-avoid either timidity or rashness. We must avoid going too slowly, and we must also avoid imposing the suggestions of the commission in a way which will upset a lot of people. No matter what the policy may be, Mr. Speaker, whether it is laid down in a law or laid down in a statement by the Prime Minister, whether or not that policy will be advantageous will depend on the way in which it is implemented. A bad law is often good because of a good administration, and a good law is often butchered because of bad administration. No matter how good a policy may be, unless it is implemented with flexibility, with sensitivity, with understanding, implemented on the basis and with the knowledge that you cannot correct a mistake of 100 years in one year, unless that is carefully kept in mind a great deal of harm may easily be done.
I also want to say to the Prime Minister, although I am sure he does not need to hear it from me but I want to put it on the record, that it is not merely the question of retaining the merit principle that is involved, the merit principle in the technical sense in which it is defined in the relevant legislation. What is involved is the maintenance of a high quality of civil servants in the civil service, and the matter of language should be used as an instrument for improving that quality and never be allowed, because of pressures, to reduce the quality in our federal civil service in order to satisfy either one or other of the main language groups in this country. The quality of our federal public service is a most important thing.
I was going to say a word or two, and I will, on the public service authority recommendation of the commission, recommendation No. 22. I am not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was recommending that such an agency should be established or whether he was expressing dissatisfaction with what is proposed but opposing the establishment of such an agency.
I have not had a chance to discuss this with my colleagues, and I hope they will agree with me, but I want to make it clear that my study of the situation, which is not entirely inconsiderable, persuades me that such an authority would be undesirable, not only for the reasons the Prime Minister has given of duplication and so on but because it would set up another authority, an agency having to do only with language. It could become an agency unto its own end, as it were. Instead
Bilingualism and Biculturalism of recognizing the language problem as a means to an end that agency would be concerned only with the language and it would seek to interfere with the Public Service Commission, it would seek to interfere with government departments, it would seek to interfere with the merit principle, and it would seek to interfere with the quality of the civil service.
I therefore cannot agree with the implication-I say this in friendliness and kindness -in the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that any kind of separate language authority which would have authority over all departments is a practical way in which to deal with this problem. I do not think it is. I remind the House that we also have a commissioner under the Official Languages Act, whom some of us have met, and we are impressed with his flexible and intelligent approach to this problem, and he will undoubtedly do some of the ombudsman work that may arise.
Having said that, I express on behalf of my colleagues and myself entire agreement with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition in criticism of the government for putting this into the Department of the Secretary of State, without telling us exactly what it is that they are putting there. I suggest it is the Prime Minister's duty, as a part of governmental organization, to set up in the Secretary of State's Department a separate division having to do with language, for which there should be a separate vote in the estimates, for which there ought to be regular reports to Parliament on which the minister and his officials can be regularly questioned, and on which their work can receive the scrutiny and, if necessary, the criticism of Members of Parliament and of the public.
It is totally inadequate to say that his department is doing this. I want to know who is doing this. Who is the person, who are the people, what is the division, who is the head of it, what policies are they pursuing, what are they trying to accomplish, and what are their objectives? We should be told all of these things, and a separate division should therefore be set up for that purpose.
I should not take any longer, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that a further step in the right direction for unity in Canada is being undertaken. I emphasize again that you cannot repair the errors of a century in a year or two, and that I am therefore glad that the steps that are being taken are being taken on an experi-

June 23, 1970

Bilingualism and Biculturalism mental basis so that we may be sure that what we build we build soundly for a stronger and more united Canada.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the general agreement which the government is in a position to give to the main objectives set forth by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in volume III of its report must not let us overlook the fact that the national problem is of such far-reaching consequences that a mere agreement in principle is far from satisfactory.
At a time when 650,000 Quebecers decide in favour of a provincial party advocating Quebec independence, it is rather strange to note to what extent the Prime Minister soft-pedals the essential recommendations of the Commission. What may appear as radical and drastic solutions to an English-speaking Canadian is merely basic justice to a Frenchspeaking Canadian.
The Prime Minister states, and I quote:
In the Federal Public Service, equal opportunity is closely related to the merit principle-
-I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that we in no sense propose to limit the merit principle, but rather to fulfill it.
Saying this, he seems to ignore an actual situation which makes the knowledge of English an essential requirement of the merit system he referred to. One only has to try to get in touch with senior officials in various federal departments to find out that it is still very difficult to obtain information or to carry on discussions in French with them.
Some progress has indeed been made. But much more will be needed in order to achieve the true equality we all hope for. I would like to emphasize a particular paragraph of the Prime Minister's statement which puzzles me. At page 3 of his statement, he says, and I quote:
The application of the use of French would be established progressively in these French-language units so that during a preliminary period, as an aid to anglophone participants in such units, the choice of language for written work would be optional.
We do not object to helping anglophone participants to learn French, but if French units are designed for that purpose alone, nothing will change. The fire that burns brightly at night on St. Jean Baptiste Day will slowly go out. And the Prime Minister's good intentions, on the eve of French Canada's national day, will come to nothing in the English bureaucracy.

As I said, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement but I am afraid that it is not forceful enough.
While in Quebec we have put behind us forever the little "Baptiste" with his blond curls and even the tall "Baptiste", in Ottawa the sheep is shyly coming in.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion about the motion on the notice paper today standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It is a motion to concur in the second report of the committee, and I believe there would be general agreement to an order in the following terms: first, to permit the motion for concurrence to be brought forward today rather than Thursday which would be the normal course and, second, that the question be put on the motion without debate. I wonder if it could be ascertained whether there is agreement to this effect and, if so, perhaps it could be made a motion of the House and brought forward at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable in the hope that the government will use this extra time to move immediately on all the recommendations in the report.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We are very happy to agree to this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the order suggested by the President of the Privy Council. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CENTENNIAL OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. June 23. 1970

Speaker, 100 years ago today June 23, Queen Victoria, by decision of the Council transferred the vast territories known at the time as Rupert Territory, and Northwest Territories to the new confederation then set up by Canada.
Last night, we celebrated the Centennial of the Northwest Territories at the National Arts Centre. On this memorable occasion, we had the pleasure of welcoming there the Commissioner and the members of the Council of the Northwest Territories. Thanks to the courtesy of the people of the North, the event was a success. I would therefore like today to give them due credit and to thank them for their dedicated service in the far North.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that we are privileged to have in the gallery today Commissioner Hodgson and Councillors Tetlachi, Stewart and Barber.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we in this party join with the minister in his statement and are pleased to welcome these distinguished visitors. We hope their presence here will move the government to grant that degree of independence which the citizens of the territories so earnestly desire.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party would like to add their welcome and say how glad we are to have them here on this auspicious occasion. We regret that the government last night managed to emasculate the recommendations of the committee which would have improved the lot of these people, but we are hopeful that by persistence we will be able to bring about a genuine type of democracy in the far north.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, we of the Ralliement creditiste would like to join with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in congratulating the Council of the Northwest Territories and wishing it well.
I would also like to point out that during the present session several pieces of legislation concerning the Northwest Territories have been considered and passed.
Thereby we hope that in the near future the Council of both territories, will be able to come here not as councils but as provincial
Old Age Security Pensions representatives and take part in the federal-provincial conferences and work together with the federal government. (Applause)



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on June 22, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this being a day on which it seems that many motions and statements are enjoying unanimous consent, I hope the pattern will continue. I rise to ask the consent of the House to move an important motion under Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wish some of my Liberal friends in what used to be the Little Chicago area would not say no until they hear what it is.
As hon. members, even my friends across the way, are aware, a motion under Standing Order 43 must have urgent and pressing necessity. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if ever a motion had urgent and pressing necessity it is the one I wish to make. I hope that before government members just say no they will consider letting the House pass it without debate so that the government may give consideration to the request contained in my motion.
The urgency is that we are not to see in this part of the session the government's white paper on social security, and we have no undertaking that there will be legislation in the near future to assist our senior citizens. I believe that something should be done right away. Therefore I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way:
That this House urgently appeals to the government to take the necessary steps to provide an immediate interim increase in the amount of the old age security pension.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member himself has mentioned, this motion under Standing
June 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent so the motion cannot be put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said no?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the research results that have recently been published, does the government propose to change its views with regard to the aboriginal rights of the Indian peoples? Does it seek to have the extent of those rights determined by some authority independent of the government or is it still of the view that the rights are so vague and obscure as to be virtually non-existent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government policy in this field is well known and we are proceeding with our consultations with the Indians. We submitted our proposals in June of last year, and the Indians' counter-proposals have started to pour in. When we have received them all, we will be glad to enter into negotiations with them, in order to devise a policy acceptable to both the Indians, the first citizens of our country, and the other Canadian citizens.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following the presentation of the red paper by the representatives of the Indian people, is the government accepting the recommendation contained in this paper to appoint a commissioner to inquire into the treaties who would be appointed on a different basis and with much more authority than recommended in the white paper, or is this just a matter of continuing talk as far as the minister is concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important at this time to discuss with the Indians. We have no intention of imposing anything on them. Some suggestions have been submitted by the Indians of Alberta. I know that other Indian associations will make suggestions to us shortly. We will be happy to talk with them and try to develop a policy acceptable to them and which will not go against the well-known concepts of our society.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What kind of consultation does the minister consider it to be when his consultation seems to consist only of consultation within the framework that he and the government have laid down?


An hon. Member:: You are wrong. [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it would be advisable to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that since last September, consultations have mostly been held among Indians only. Discussions took place in all provinces and we were present only when invited by the Indians.



NORTHERN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE IN SECURING RIGHTS

Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the discussions which took place in northern Quebec between the representatives of the government, the Indians and Eskimos of northern Quebec indicate, through the printed minutes of the meetings, that the native people of that area very keenly desire some government assistance in securing their rights to the ownership of the resources and the land, is the government going to take that into account in its actions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should make a distinction because there are two groups of people concerned in northern Quebec. There are the Indians and there are the Eskimos. The Indians have formed a committee of Indian, of federal representatives and of provincial representa-
June 23, 1970

tives. I think they have had five meetings up until now. There were some discussions with the Eskimos, and the people are aware of the kind of discussions we have held and of the consultations. I said that we needed more consultations with the provincial government because of the change in administration. I hope to have the opportunity of meeting the new Minister of Natural Resources of Quebec soon.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the statement in Calgary by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the effect that the Canadian government would be most happy to begin exploratory discussions with the United States on energy matters. Since the government has until recently taken the position that it was not going to bargain on energy matters with a gun at its head or until the restrictions on Canadian imports of oil into the United States had been lifted, may I ask if the government has reversed its policy and is now prepared to negotiate on some of Canada's natural resources in order to secure the removal of the oil restrictions? If so, what are the energy items that are up for grabs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a tactical matter which really is not one of government policy. The minister has been in contact with his United States counterparts for some months now. I presume, on the basis that the quotas on Canadian oil have been slightly eased recently, the minister probably feels now that this means they have unloaded the gun.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister now or the minister later tell the House what energy items are likely to be discussed in these negotiations which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says he will be happy to begin. Does this cover items such as uranium, natural gas, coal and water, or are any of these items exempt from the negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the statement of the minister is what is known in negotiation parlance as an overture. I am not sure at this stage if he would want to say more than he has. However, I can 22478-47
Inquiries of the Ministry reassure the hon. member that I would be very surprised if this meant the sale of Canadian water.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since there are some apparent contradictions in the statements which have emanated from the treasury benches regarding negotiations with the United States on energy matters, may I ask whether the government will make a statement on motions or produce a white paper, so that we may know what its policy is with respect to energy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister would be putting himself in a very poor negotiating position if he were to tell the House, the country and the people he is negotiating with in advance what his final position will be before he begins to negotiate.



OWNERSHIP OF RESOURCE INDUSTRIES-CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if the minister in question was enunciating government policy when he suggested that Canada intends to pursue its policy of increasing the national content of ownership of resource industries through the medium of a nationally-owned Canadian corporation which would include some government participation? Is legislation now in the course of preparation for a Canada Development Corporation or something similar?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, about a week or ten days ago, no doubt when the hon. member had his nose buried in his papers, I said that government policy was set on this act and, indeed, that a bill was ready but that we would not be able to pass it before the end of the present part of the session unless the House were to agree unanimously to discuss it and pass it in all stages in one day.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister discuss with the Minister of Agriculture the question of vetting the members of the government from the top down for foot and mouth disease, having in mind that the government is now flying by the seat of its pants without knowing which way it is going and when it will get there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So are lots of other people.
June 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you boys hold your pants up?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has repeated his offer that he is prepared to bring down the legislation if the Canada Development Corporation bill can be passed in one day, would the Prime Minister be prepared to make a copy of the legislation available to the leaders of the various parties so that we can ascertain whether it is the kind of legislation we would care to pass in one day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the leaders of the other parties were to indicate their interest in this operation, I am sure that we could arrange a short briefing for them. If it arose that they were prepared to pass it in one day, I am sure we could find time to do it. I suggest that between five and six o'clock would be ideal.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister would be known as the one-day Prime Minister.



ROYAL VISIT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite a bit today about the loyalty and devotion of the Eskimos. That is generally accepted. Since Her Majesty The Queen will be in Frobisher on July 5, meeting with the Eskimos in particular and turning the first sod for the establishment of a new Anglican Church cathedral there, and since the Eskimos in Quebec are desirous of having representatives of their council there, I ask whether the government would provide transportation for a number of representatives of the Eskimo Council of Northern Quebec. That would be very much appreciated and would indicate that we not only speak words of approval of the Eskimos but act to give them an opportunity of showing their fealty and loyalty to the Crown.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the suggestion made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. In my opinion, it might be advisable that Eskimos from New Quebec be present. Eskimos from the Northwest Territories will 
certainly be present on that occasion and I wish to tell the right hon. member for Prince Albert that I will be there myself since I am a good Christian.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. As yet the hon. member has not shown that he represents the Indians or Eskimos, except in an official capacity. Will he arrange for transportation of representatives of the Eskimo council so that they may be present? Other Eskimos will be there. His presence will certainly not be regarded as representative of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has reiterated the question already asked.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question.
Does he intend to invite the right hon. member for Prince Albert?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members are invited, but unfortunately I do not know whether we will be able to accommodate everybody as far as transportation is concerned.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CONSULTANTS' REPORT-TOLL STRUCTURE-CONSIDERATION BY COMMITTEE

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the increasing discussion and grave concern over the future of the seaway in both Canada and the United States, will the minister indicate, before the session recesses, the position of the so-called consultants' report? Will he give every assurance to the House that no decision will be made on tolls before the committee has an opportunity to consider the matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: With regard to the report, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that it will be delivered later this week or early next week. In so far as the matter of any change in the toll structure is concerned, this must of course be a matter of negotiation between Canada and the United States. One or the other of the countries must indicate their anxiety regarding the question of tolls. Then, it would of
June 23, 1970	COMMONS
course be brought forward. I think it would need legislative approval. I am not certain on that point. I can assure the hon. member there will be full consultation.



EXAMINATION OF EXPENDITURES ON WELLAND CANAL SECTION

Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board in his overall capacity as watchdog over expenditures. Has the minister had a chance to re-examine some of the seaway expenditures in light of the new austerity program, in particular those in the Welland Canal section which many feel are reaching proportions similar to those on the Bonaventure?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Victoria-Haliburton.


Thomas Miller Bell: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, may I attempt to rephrase the question? I know that Your Honour has a particular interest in the seaway. I do also.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would like to try again.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Thomas Miller Bell: I ask the President of the Treasury Board, in all seriousness, whether in connection with his duties he has had an opportunity to reassess any of the continuing expenditures of the seaway, particularly those in the Welland Canal section?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have had an opportunity to look at these figures. I may say that I do not share the judgment of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.



OBJECTIONS BY SHIPPING COMPANIES TO INCREASING OF WELLAND CANAL TOLLS

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether he has received any representations from shipping companies that use the Welland Canal system objecting to the proposed increases? If so, will the government give serious consideration to these objections?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In view of the extraneous noise from a portion of the opposition benches, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the first part of the
question.
DEBATES	8499
Inquiries of the Ministry


William C. Scott: I will be happy to repeat it. Can the minister say whether he has received any representations from shipping companies that use the Welland Canal system objecting to the proposed increases? If so, will the government give serious consideration to these objections?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In so far as proposed
increases are concerned, Mr. Speaker, there are none. I made it perfectly clear that we have not suggested any increases in tolls. One question is being held in abeyance, subject to discussion with the United States and presentation of the report to which I made earlier reference this afternoon.
As to having received representations from the shipping interests, the hon. member knows very well that they have been quite active in that regard in recent weeks.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: A supplementary question. The Minister of Transport indicated to the House that there had been no increase in the tolls on the Welland Canal. Is this because the prime purpose of the seaway was not that of a navigational link?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps I better clarify the situation. When speaking of tolls I was referring to those which come within the Canada-United States discussions regarding the whole St. Lawrence Seaway system. The Welland Canal is a different matter. Of course, there has been a plan in effect for a number of years which is being followed. There is no proposal to change that, either.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow one further supplementary. I have, as all members have, a particular interest in the matter which is being discussed. However, we are running out of time.


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary to the Minister of Transport. Does the lack of action by the government result from the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway was not built as a navigational link?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If it is not a navigational link, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi.


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In order to enlighten the minister as to the purpose of the St. Lawrence Seaway, I suggest he read the report of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister having consultations with his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to repair some of the deficiencies that have been reported in the unanimous report concerning the city of Cornwall resulting from the negative effects the seaway has had on that city and the development of industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have had representations from very official sources with regard to the situation at Cornwall. In so far as the seaway is concerned, these representations have been considered very sympathetically. We are also working on the same problem with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.



REPAYMENT OF DEBT

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker I should also like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Canadian government has not reimbursed any of the capital and that we even have a deficit of $60 million in interest on it, could the minister tell us whether the Canadian government is considering the steps it should take to succeed in reimbursing that debt which is rather a burden on the Canadian taxpayers?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, a very comprehensive study is now being made. An interim report is due within a matter of days. One of the questions that is being considered in that report, and on which there will presumably be recommendations, is whether something should be done to the debt structure. This is one of the major matters being considered.



FISHERIES


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House


whether he has received an offer from the government of Manitoba indicating its willingness to provide the financial assistance necessary to retain the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation processing plant in Selkirk? If so, can the minister inform the House whether he is prepared to recommend acceptance of this offer and to proceed with the construction of the new fish marketing plant in Selkirk?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I have not as yet received an offer of that kind, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Charles Rowland: A supplementary. Can the minister indicate that upon receipt of the offer, which is on the way, he will give it urgent consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whil-by):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister inform the House as to whether the government has just spent $30,000 to replace new curtains and other like items in three aircraft that are to be used in the royal tour? Was this money spent to replace curtains which were recently installed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have no knowledge of this, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to take the question as notice.



REQUEST FOR BAN ON MILK POWDER IMPORTS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a
question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This question was directed to the minister recently and yesterday to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the government's present dairy policy, will the minister exercise his power under the Export and Import Permits Act and place a ban on all milk powder being imported into Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: This is under study, Mr. Speaker.
June 23, 1970



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
PRODUCERS-REPEGGING	OF EXCHANGE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My
question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the uncertainties which have developed in the beef and pork industry following the unpegging of the dollar, particularly in the field of exports, as a result of which exports of hogs from Alberta to the United States have declined to nil, may I ask whether the minister is investigating this matter and whether he intends to recommend to the government any effective measures to offset the uncertainty and the depressed prices which are adversely affecting the industry?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are entirely aware of the changes which have taken place as a result of the unpegging of the dollar.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Since the floating of the Canadian dollar is proving to be a major obstacle in maintaining a uniform degree of strength in many Canadian industries, particularly the primary industries, can the minister tell us what attitude the government is taking as far as the repegging of the dollar is concerned, or, indeed, whether it is still the intention of the government to repeg the dollar?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: can add nothing to what I have previously said in this regard.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In amplification of a statement he made earlier today, can the right hon. gentleman tell us how many experimental units there are to be, how long they will be in operation, and in which departments they will operate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the second question, I believe there was an indication given in my statement that they would operate for a year or more, presumably for between 12 and 18 months. I did mention some departments and some agencies in
Inquiries of the Ministry which they are already operative. I believe the hon. member also asked how many would be set up. I am afraid I cannot answer that question but I will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State within whose responsibility this project, fortunately, will fall. Perhaps the hon. member will ask the question on Thursday.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer as far as it goes. Hopefully, the Secretary of State will be able to indicate the departments on Thursday. I might point out that in the statement to which the Prime Minister referred a few minutes ago no departments were mentioned. My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister on a somewhat different tack. Did that statement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, when the man from Lanark, Mr. McBride-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon.
member kindly ask his supplementary?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew should be so impatient. I can understand him being a bit embarrassed, but I am surprised that he should be impatient. My supplementary on this important subject is addressed to the Prime Minister. In order to avoid any conflict or confusion, does he intend to expand his statement either here or outside the House in order to reconcile the apparent conflict between a French only policy in Quebec and a bilingual policy in the rest of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would very much like to hear a substantiation of the allegation that the federal government is applying a French only policy in Quebec. If that is the substance of the question, the hon. member should substantiate it.


Mr. Speaker:: We are running short of time and I suggest to hon. members that if we spend all our time seeking answers on one subject many hon. members will be disappointed in their efforts to get the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your admonition, but we are dealing with a most important subject in the closing days of this session. The Prime Minister has invited me to amplify my remarks and I intend to do so, despite the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew and other catcallers.
8502	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Get on with it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The basis of my question is the statement made by the Prime Minister that as far as the private sector is concerned the federal government will be pleased to play a part in the process of establishing task forces if that is the desire, and, specifically with regard to recommendation No. 42, that the federal government is certainly prepared to ensure that the French language is used in its operations in all appropriate circumstances. That may be the safeguard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member says he is raising a point of order. I am sure he appreciates that what he is doing now is debating a point. If the Prime Minister disagrees with the hon. member and the hon. member disagrees with the Prime Minister, we could go on for a long time trying to ascertain who is right. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, let him put it without delay in fairness to other hon. members.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was just about to conclude my point of order. In the time it took the Chair to admonish me I would have completed it. If hon. members would turn to page 13 of the document which has been tabled, they would find there recommendation No. 42 which says that French in Quebec should become the principal language of work at all levels.


An hon. Member:: What else would you possibly expect?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the Prime Minister intends to tell us only what he has said in this House, and what appears in this document-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Remember, this is going to be a rather interesting subject of conversation.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not allow the Prime Minister, even if he wishes to do so, to expand on what he said earlier. He cannot do so during the question period. The hon. member has purported to raise a point of order but I suggest to him it is a point of argument, a matter for debate. According to my understanding of the rules, it is certainly not a point of order. However, he has made his point and I do not think the matter should be pm-sued.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, you did allow me, as I was concluding my point of order, to

DEBATES	June 23. 1970
put a further supplementary question. My question is: does the Prime Minister intend to amplify his statement either here or outside the House to deal with what I suggest amounts to a contradiction in his own statement?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. There has been a suggestion that the British government is contemplating lifting its embargo on the shipment of arms to South Africa. In the light of the recommendation of the United Nations on this subject, and the danger that such action might lead to the break-up of the Commonwealth, will the Canadian government make its views known to the British government on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to look into this question and be prepared to answer.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since the House might adjourn this week, would the Prime Minister state whether the government intends to table the white paper on foreign policy before the session adjourns?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and not only before the session is adjourned but before this part of the session ends. The minister has informed me that he wishes to table it in the House either tomorrow or the next day.


An hon. Member:: We do not sit tomorrow.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with the proposal of the CNR to close down most of its existing railway stations in Prince Edward Island and dispense with the services of its agents. Is the
June 23, 1970
board of transport commissioners prepared to meet the unanimous request of the legislature of Prince Edward Island that the Commissioners direct the CNR to hold consultations with the provincial government, with the Prince Edward Island Produce Dealers Association, farm organizations, boards of trade and CNR unions before going on with this suggested program?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall be seeing the Chairman of the Transport Commission later this afternoon, and I shall be glad to pass these representations along to him. As the hon. member knows, there is a procedure which allows for public representations to be made in all such cases and I am sure the wishes of the government of Prince Edward Island and other interested parties will be taken into account.


John Angus MacLean: May I ask the minister whether the CNR, through him, has been in contact with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to determine whether or not the proposal is consistent with or even part of the economic development plan for Prince Edward Island?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no three-way consultations of the kind
to which the hon. member refers.



CLOSING OF CERTAIN STATIONS IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister or the CTC reviewed the decision of Canadian National Railways to close down 24 stations in Newfoundland?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I made some inquiries about this when it was publicized, and the information I have is that the CNR has not yet made a positive decision. The public statement that they made was that this is a contemplated proposal, but they are waiting to get both public reaction and, as I understand it, business reaction before moving on the matter. That is the last word I had on the subject.



FINANCE


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Finance. In view of indications that the banks are prepared to reduce interest and deposit rates but may not be able to go much farther along this path unless their example is followed by other financial institutions, can the minister say whether it is his intention to discuss with other financial institutions the need to lower their interest and deposit rates as well?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, having only just seen the statement of the banks, I will have to consider it.



POLLUTION


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carlelon-Char-lotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the federal government, in co-operation with the provincial government of New Brunswick, ascertained the cause of the oil slick found on June 15 in the St. Croix River in Charlotte county, New Brunswick, and its relative danger to fish, birds, etc.?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, but we are right after it.



OIL SLICK OFF ARACHAT COAST

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In light of the findings of Dr. MacTaggart-Cowan that a slick 30 feet long, five feet wide and three inches thick discovered on May 27 off the Arachat coast could not have come from the Arrow, has the government ascertained the source of this dangerous slick, and can the minister assure the House that measures will be taken to make certain that a similar slick will not occur in the future?


John (Jack) Davis: We will do our best, Mr. Speaker.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement on motions today and his pledge of assistance to the private sector in regard to bilingualism, is it by the granting of regional development

June 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry funds to certain areas that the government intends to assist bilingualism in the private sector and institutions in Canada?


James Aloysius McGrath: At the expense of the rest of the country.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Government House Leader. Is the Government House Leader prepared to ask the House to stay in session until Bill C-196, which provides for protein grading and for other necessary changes to the present Canada Grain Act, is passed, if it is not reported from the committee in time to deal with it prior to the proposed recess on June 26?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared	to	discuss	that question with
representatives of the other parties to see whether we can make better progress on the bill than we have hitherto.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.	M.	Forrestall	(Dartmouth-HalifaxEast): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister	of Transport.	Could the ministerindicate whether or not the departmental review of user charges and fees at airports throughout Canada has been completed? If it has, would the minister indicate whether or not it is the intention of the department to circulate	the	review	among appropriate
people in the industry for their comment before taking any further action?
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, parts of the review have been completed, but it is an ongoing process. It is our intention in most cases, where there is a significant interest on the part of the users, to make our plans known before they are implemented.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime

Minister or to the Minister of Transport. In view of the desperate situation facing 7,000 residents of the Argentia area as a result of the completion of the United States naval station phase-out in seven days, and in view of the meeting last week between the Prime Minister and his colleagues and Premier Smallwood, can the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister inform the House what immediate action the government intends to take to alleviate the very serious situation in the Argentia area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we have received the report from the task force which considered this matter and which included representatives from my department as well as others. This task force has submitted what is essentially a first report which contains a number of recommendations. These recommendations are now being considered in detail. I can say to the hon. member and to the House that it has been accepted in principle and we will take some steps virtually immediately. It is now a matter of trying to work out which of these recommendations can be put into effect most rapidly. I might add, as the hon. member of course knows, that we have already made significant improvements to the east coast ferry service as at least one move toward trying to solve the problem in Argentia.



TRANSPORT


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the Minister of Transport made reference to improvements to the east coast ferry service. Is the minister aware that the east coast ferry Ambrose Shea has been withdrawn and replaced by a smaller boat?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that is a misrepresentation of the facts. This was done in consultation with the task force and the residents of Argentia, including the head of the railroad union there, who understood the reason this step was taken. Whether this course will be adopted permanently remains to be seen. The new vessel is smaller to some extent, but the capacity of the vessel is still not being used to the full.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary
June 23, 1370

to one directed earlier to the Minister of Transport by my colleague from St. John's West. Is it the intention of the department to put the Ambrose Shea back on the eastern ferry service when the minister has succeeded in finding a suitable replacement for the Patrick Morris since the Ambrose Shea was built especially for this service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that principle is still the one we wish to follow. I advised the House the other day of our negotiations in regard to other ships. As the hon. member may know, we managed to get a vessel on a three-month short charter from the U.K., the Cerdic Ferry. She will be going on the gulf service and I hope that this will enable us to put the Ambrose Shea on the Argentia run. However, I think with the problem that has been created by the loss of the Patrick Morris there may have to be a certain amount of shuffling over the summer months in order to ensure what I know would be the hon. member's objective, that is to get as many visitors into and out of Newfoundland as possible.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the preponderance of assistance for male students announced by the minister in his statement on motions a week and a half ago with regard to additional summer jobs with national defence, would the minister say what compensating plans he has in mind for women students who are already earning less?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the general program was non-discriminatory from that point of view and is available both to male and to female students. Hopefully there will be opportunities for female students in other aspects of the program rather than that sponsored by the Department of National Defence.



INQUIRY AS TO ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the Minister
8505
Inquiries of the Ministry of Labour would like to introduce amending legislation in the fall dealing with fair employment practices, particularly as they affect women, but is apparently hampered because the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women is not yet available, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether he has had any indication when the report will become available?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I will gladly inquire again, but the last time I was asked this question in the House I was told that it would be many months before the report would come in, and that was some months ago.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board which is prompted by today's announcement of an intensification of the work stoppages by postal employees because it is alleged that Treasury Board representatives have refused to change their position one iota. Can the minister advise whether the government is now prepared to make any move toward the formula suggested by Judge Lippe?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that in respect to the recommendations of Judge Lippe there is only one issue, namely pay, separating the position of the government from that of Judge Lippe. On the other hand, the Council of Postal Unions has been and continues to be at variance with Judge Lippe's recommendations in respect of hours of work, overtime, shift premiums, statutory holidays, vacations, severance pay, medical and hospital insurance, and the duration of the contract. It is in respect of these issues that the Council of Postal Unions has not been able to move at all toward the recommendations of Judge Lippe, and it is to this that we are directing our current efforts.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question. Considering that the minister might become a better conductor than watchdog, would he think of making, to use an expression of the Prime Minister, an overture on this fairly important issue of pay in the hope of getting a counter response on the other issues?
June 23, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, no one would welcome more than I any indication from the Council of Postal Unions that they would be prepared to settle for Judge Lippe's recommendations.



PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Let me say as a preliminary, while he is returning to his seat, that an affirmative and definitive answer would be very welcome. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has had a very eventful trip round the world and another one round southern Ontario, could he give some indication that an early date might be chosen so he can wing and/or swing his way through northern British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I expect to go to that general area to visit some constituencies during the summer.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the 21st conference of agriculture ministers is scheduled for June 29 and since the Quebec egg marketing board is faced with problems, would he tell us whether he intends to discuss them with the Quebec egg marketing board?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the conference that will be held with the provincial ministers is arranged by the association of the provincial ministers. I go at their invitation. What they have on the agenda is, of course, arranged among the provincial Ministers of Agriculture.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Given the interest raised by the problems of the Quebec egg marketing board, may I ask the minister to make a suggestion about it to his provincial counterparts?
[Mr. Macquarrie.l


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I raise a matter having to do with the business of the House. In view of the general understanding that adjournment of this part of the session on Friday is our goal, I wonder whether arrangements can be made for a meeting of the House Leaders to discuss the plans for Thursday and Friday of this week? I ask this question or raise this matter particularly because of a reference made a few minutes ago to Bill C-196, and also because of the Prime Minister's reference to things like the Canada Development Corporation and legislation relating to the LeDain report that might be dealt with if there is general agreement. I wonder, therefore, whether the Government House Leader would consider calling a meeting of House Leaders. I know he is tied up with the Elections Act but could he call such a meeting to see where we are and what matters we can deal with during the balance of the week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The only difficulty is that there are discussions under way which would have the House sitting continuously until 11 o'clock at night. I envisage a little difficulty in getting away during that time but I will do my best within the time constraint.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might seek the consent of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of appointing the members of the committee to study election expenses.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
And the House having reverted to Motions:



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the members of the Special Committee on Election Expenses be Messrs. Breau, Brewin, Deach-
June 23, 1970

man, Forest, Jerome, Laprise, McKinley, Macquarrie, Nesbitt, Ouellet, Sulatycky and Walker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the House rose on Monday, June 22, clause 13 was under consideration with an amendment by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra which reads as follows:
That clause 13 be amended by striking out line 26 on page 23 and substituting the following: "at least 50 of the electoral districts of Canada."
On Clause 13, subclause 8-Deletions from Registry.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, when I moved this amendment at the previous sitting an amendment has been moved earlier that this number be set at 25. This is a case of finding something that is agreeable to the members and which will fit. One could say that a party of 75 would be too large, particularly when one thinks of the maritime provinces or the Prairies as a whole. One might think that this number is too small when one thinks in terms of a federal party within this House. We must compromise in order to arrive at the right figure. It is not really so much a matter of argument as a matter of taste. It is like Goldilocks seeking the right bowl of porridge, one will be too hot and another too cold. Some figure will perhaps be just right, and I suggested 50 in my amendment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, before I refer specifically to the amendment, let me say I had a discussion a few minutes ago with the House Leader in reference to subsection (b) part 1 of the original Act where the word "and" appears. It seems to me that with the interpretation that has been put on this section that "and" should be "or".
As I read the Act now, the fact that a party or a purported party had no representation in the House of Commons would mean it would 22478-482
Canada Elections Act
be excluded from having a party label on the ballot. From the discussions that have gone on within our caucus and, as I understand it among government members as well, this was clearly not the intent of that section. I hope this matter will be clarified very early this afternoon.
Referring specifically to the amendment, the hon. member who preceded me suggested that his proposal to alter the number of candidates to be nominated in order that a party label be attached to a person's name on the ballot, being reduced from 75 to 50, represents some kind of compromise which should be accepted. This seems to be not the type of item in respect of which we should have a compromise. There is a basic democratic right at issue here.
In any legislative matter it is sensible, and indeed desirable, in any meaningful sense of politics to bring about compromises. One may argue at a given time that a minimum wage of $2 is appropriate. This depends on the economic and political conditions. It may make sense to effect a compromise in reaching a final decision. When we are considering the proposal to recognize the right of political parties to appear by name on ballots, it seems to me we are not dealing with a type of item that should be considered in terms of compromise.
It has been recognized for a long time in our political system, since early in the last century, that wherever there is a democratic system in a modern industrial age at least there are bound to be political parties. One of the anachronisms in our society in Canada, and elsewhere, is that political parties have obtained almost no official recognition in terms of the law. One distinct advantage in terms of democracy in respect of this bill we have before us is that it does intend to give legal recognition to the existence of political parties. I believe there would be an important weakness in this bill if it did not recognize the right of any man or small group of individuals to start a new political party and present a program to the electorate, whether in one municipality, in one province or on the basis of a national appeal. The real issue is that party politics is an integral part of our democratic system. Therefore, I do not think we should weigh the electoral system against the emergence of new political and social changes in this country, no matter how insignificantly these might be regarded by the rest of us at the outset.

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
One thing we should all have learned by now, as a result of the history of the last 100 years, is that new political parties and new movements constantly occur in society. Therefore, I object to the principle of compromise on this issue and would like to see the whole of subsection 2 struck out. I do not propose any specific wording at this point. We will get around to that later. It would seem to me that the principle we should recognize in respect of this legislation is the right of one man or two men to begin a political party, obtain nomination through the correct procedure and, following that, have their name and their party listed on the ballot.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: While there is a difference of opinion between the hon. member and myself on this question, I think he will recognize that there is also a difference of opinion between himself and his colleague the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on this point. As I understood the amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre he wished to reduce the threshold to 27 candidates. The bill states 75 candidates and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra proposes what is close to the arithmetical mean of 50 candidates. In my view of the matter 50 candidates would still achieve the objective the government had in mind without being so restrictive as the requirement of 75 candidates 28 days before polling day. Therefore, I would be inclined to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
In respect of the other point, I would accept the view that subclause 8 of clause 13 does require a careful reading, but my opinion, confirmed by talking to the draftsman, is that this would not have the effect, as the hon. member would seem to fear, of excluding his group from being able to become registered. In effect these are cumulative criteria which will be operative after the twenty-eighth day.
We are talking about a group not previously recognized in this House which did not have 75, 50 or any number of candidates in the field. In essence, there are two criteria in respect of a description of a group. There might be some argument that if it was changed to "or" the hon. member's group might be excluded, but I do not quite see that particular argument. The way I read it, I think a fair interpretation of the matter, is that here we are talking about a political grouping which in the first place is not represented in the House of Commons and which in the second place did not nominate 50 can-

didates in the field on the 28th day before election. Therefore, I think it is properly "and" rather than the disjunctive "or" in the circumstances. In the circumstances, I believe the clause is quite correct as it stands.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, I am beginning to feel that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby had a point. Do I understand that a political party which had no members in this House only need have the number of candidates specified in clause (b)(ii)? Is that the intent?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. The chief Electoral Officer has no authority to delete any such grouping unless these two criteria are not met.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am impressed, Mr. Chairman, at the rather breezy and easy way in which we are playing the numbers game. Surely, there is something more serious to this than striking an arithmetical means. The government decided not to accept the recommendation of the committee that the number should be 26. The government chose 75. Surely, some thought must have been given to that. The suggestion that the number 50 is the mean point is interesting mathematically, but surely there must have been some more thought given to this than merely picking the number out of one's head.
I would have thought that the minister whose government saw fit to change the committee's recommendations might have defended the change by giving us some reason for it, so that we would be prone to listen carefully and weigh it. If this becomes law, we are introducing the suggestion that we would not countenance a group of people being independent of, or splinters of, the various parties. It would seem to me that if we are talking about a national party there should be some reason for hitting upon a number which would reflect a potential natural expression through the political process. I should like to know the special virtue of the number 50. The fact that it lies between 26 and 75 does not impress me.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more fundamental behind the choice of 50 than the committee's choice of 26 or 27. Really, what is involved is a difference of opinion concerning what a substantial political grouping should be in order to achieve recognition under our electoral law. I did take the point made by several of my colleagues on this side of the House that 75 is
June 23, 1970

obviously very much tougher to achieve on the 28th day before election than 50. There is no magic in the figure, any more than there is in respect of the voting age. I am prepared to accept it as a suggestion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the House Leader would deal with the point I tried to make that this is not the type of issue in respect of which we should try to effect a compromise, and that, in the fundamental interests of a parliamentary democracy, our electoral laws should recognize a man or a few men as constituting a political party. I cannot see any practical objection to linking the name of the party with the candidate's name. The principal argument suggests the contrary. Would the House Leader address himself to that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should perhaps say that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre seems to have been persuaded by the same argument I was. We may both be wrong, but I make the point that we are talking about national political parties and would want some expression of a very substantial political position by having the candidates nominated and put into the field.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I acknowledge that 75 was too tough. I would be prepared to lower the threshold. On the other hand, I think 27 is too low. That was the basic proposition to which the committee agreed, and apparently the hon. member does not agree with that.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think we should correct one misunderstanding on the part of the President of the Privy Council, perhaps not a misunderstanding but an attempt to be divisive. There is no basic difference between the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, myself and others in the NDP, and the position taken by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. All the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre was doing was trying to indicate that the Standing Committee had made the determination of 10 per cent. That was a unanimous decision of the Standing Committee.
Obviously, the President of the Privy Council and the government were not content to accept the unanimous view of the committee, agreed to by the Liberal members on that committee, and so came in with the counter proposal of 75, which is far above 10 per cent of the number of members in this House. The
Canada Elections Act
hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre chose the number 27 as the next highest whole number over 10 per cent of the membership of the House. In fact, 10 per cent would be 26.4 members. I will admit that there are a number of members on the opposite side of the chamber who would qualify to be placed in the .4 position. However, we wanted the next whole number, and that is why 27 was chosen, to represent the unanimous view of the committee.
Within the Standing Committee, we argued that it should not be the prerogative of one political group to make any determination about what should constitute another political group. We put forward that argument a number of years ago when a decision was pending as to where the Raillement de Credi-tiste, or Social Credit party as it then was, would sit in the House, and whether a party should have 12 members in the House before its leader could receive the additional remuneration set aside for party leaders. We have constantly advanced the argument that basically it is wrong for political groups to impose restrictions on other political groups, some of which may not have yet come into existence. Apparently the President of the Privy Council is not content to accept the sage advice of the Liberal members of the Standing Committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder who is being partisan now. I would point out that I just turned the logic of the hon. member for Skeena against his colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. The latter does not accept the fact that the threshold has to be set. He does not accept the argument of the hon. member for Skeena and asserts that one, three or five individuals running as candidates should be able to claim all the privileges of a political party. That is all I am pointing out to the hon. member for Skeena and to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who, in pressing the amendment last night providing for the number 27, accepted the principle that a threshold has to be set somewhere in order to determine what will be a national political party. I doubt very much that I can satisfy the hon. member for Skeena, but I think this amendment is acceptable to a large number of hon. members, including members of the Standing Committee.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Chairman, we should always look for a middle course. The motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
Quadra (Mr. Deachman) is acceptable because it provides that to get official recognition in an election, a party must have at least 50 candidates.
It is essential to determine a reasonable figure, neither too high nor too low, because it would not be fair to require of a new party to have 264 candidates in an election in order to be considered officially.
However, since only national parties are recognized, 50 is an acceptable figure and we support the motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, at meetings of the Standing Committee, hon. members expressed preferences varying from zero to something over 100, with respect to the number of candidates who should run in order for a group to be qualified as a political party. My own personal opinion is that the reality of the situation demands that we have a party system in Canada. I guess I can be called a party person in more ways than one, and while people have a perfect right to form a political party and run candidates, I have always resented the frivolity that we have seen the odd time in Canadian history. On one occasion a group called the Rhinoceros Party ran candidates, in either a provincial or federal election. I think that was nothing more than an attempt to demean our electoral process. If people disagree with the kind of process we have, I say they had better be damned serious about opposing it. They should be serious about political parties. This is why I, personally, felt the figure of 10 per cent of the membership of the House would be fair.
I feel that the threshold, as the President of the Privy Council calls it, should be as low as possible. I can still see nothing good about the amendment that is before us. It is perhaps better than the government proposal, but it is not as good as the one I moved. As the hon. member for Skeena said, I moved my amendment merely to make an honest women out of the government, by calling on it to implement the committee's recommendation. The Standing Committee attempted to come up with an unanimous recommendation. After hearing all the arguments we agreed on 10 per cent of the membership of the House. That did not mean all of us liked that, but we agreed to it. If the President of the Privy Council could come down a little lower than the number 50, he would make some hon. members on both sides of the chamber much happier.
[Mr. Beaudoin.l


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, in this party we don't play politics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I just want to say I am always sorry when a carefully thought out recommendation of a committee is callously and casually brushed aside by the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Then, why did you move an amendment yesterday?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am not impressed with the non-argument of the mover of this amendment. I do insist, however, despite the logic of the presentation of the hon. members to my left, that there is a point in pragmatic judgment where the state, if it is going to recognize parties, can surely say that a group with one candidate is not a national party. So, there is some basis for making a numerical decision, and because 50 is better than 75 I am going to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I hope that this will carry so that we can move on, because I have no desire to spend the first half of the month of July on this legislation.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is it the pleasure of the committee to accept the motion? All those in favour will please rise.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Is this the
amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: I am sorry, apparently some members of the committee may not be sure. The amendment is moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, and reads: that Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 26 on page 27 and substituting therefor "at least 50 of the electoral districts".
Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Deachman) agreed to: yeas, 32; nays, 2.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment carried.
Subclause 8 agreed to.
Clause 13 as amended agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
June 23. 1970


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 16, subclause 1.
On clause 16, subclause 1-Persons entitled to vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By way of
explanation, Mr. Chairman, I should make it clear that what has been done here has been to shift the date for residence from the date of issue of the writ to the enumeration date, thereby moving slightly closer to the election day the date upon which the voters' list is made up.
Subclause 1 agreed to.
Subclause 2 agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 17, subclauses 1 to 8 inclusive.
Subclauses 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 17, subclause 9-Clergymen, teachers and persons in fishing industry.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Subject to what the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin may say, I was going to suggest that we postpone consideration of subclauses 9, 10, 12 and 13 until the House arrives at the consideration of the question of proxy voting as contained in clause 46, so that we might have all in the one place those provisions relating to absentee voters within Canada.
Subclauses 9, 10, 12 and 13 stand.
Subclause 11 agreed to.
Subclause 14 agreed to.
Subclauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Subclause 17 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The question on clause 17 will stand until the subclauses are disposed of that it has been agreed will stand.
The committee will now consider clause 18, subclauses 1 to 3 inclusive.
Subclauses 1 to 28 inclusive agreed to.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, on rule 39 of schedule A to clause 18 at page 51-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He is not there yet. Unless this clause relates back to one of the clauses from 1 to 28-we have not reached the schedule yet.
Subclause 29 and 30 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider rules 1 to 3 inclusive in schedule A to clause 18, page 41.
Rules 1 to 38 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 18, schedule A, rule 39.
Canada Elections Act


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this particular rule be allowed to stand as I have a consequential amendment to make to this should an amendment that I have to propose to clause 92 be carried at a later point in the discussion which has to do with advance polling days.
Rule 39 stands.
Rules 40 and 41 agreed to.
On clause 18, schedule A, rule 42.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if rule 42 could be allowed to stand as
consequential on rule 39.
Rule 42 stands.
Rules 43 to 57 inclusive agreed to.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On clause 18, schedule A, Rule 58.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that rule 58 be allowed to stand, for the same reason as mentioned before. I wish to move a consequential amendment which would follow from consideration of clause 92. At that stage of our examination of the bill, I intend to present the amendment to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Rule 58 stands.
Rules 59 to 80 inclusive agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: We shall now take up schedule B to clause 18,
Rules 1 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 18, schedule B, Rule 16.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is it agreed that rule 16
stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Rule 16 stands.
Rules 17 to 27 inclusive agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: I will not at this time put the question on the whole of clause 18.
Clause 18 stands.
Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 23, subclause (1) agreed to.
On clause 23, subclause (2>-Manner of nomination.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I should like to propose an amendment to subclause (2) of clause 23. I should like to propose:
That clause 23 be amended by striking paragraph (j) of sub-clause (2).
Could I give a few words of explanation about this amendment. Its purpose is to

June 23. 1970
Canada Elections Act
eliminate the requirement that a deposit of $200 be posted by a candidate in a general election. I am proposing my amendment because I believe it to be wrong that a person or political party should be exposed to potential financial loss as a result of participation in our democratic process. This happens when a person has not secured sufficient support from the electorate to achieve 50 per cent of the total vote of the winning candidate.
Probably the basis of the requirement of a deposit, if we were to look at its historical genesis, is that people wanted to prevent the proliferation of political parties. I think that there are sufficient guarantees against that kind of proliferation of political parties in Canada. The first guarantee which militates against the establishment of a large number of parties and the fragmentation of the representation in parliament is the existence of single member constituencies. The second factor which militates against the fragmentation of the party system in the country is the solidity of the existing parties, the entrenched loyalty towards existing parties and the well established voting patterns in this country. These two factors militate against the undesirable proliferation of political parties in Canada, and the requirement for the deposit of $200 in no way furthers that desirable objective.
As matters now stand, the deposit of $200 is large enough to deter those in straitened financial circumstances but too small to deter those who are determined to disturb the electoral process. It acts against the poor and does not deter anyone of normal financial means from deliberately meddling in the political process and perverting its purposes. We have seen that happening. The $200 deposit requirement will become a total farce if, as I suspect, at some future date this Parliament considers legislation which will provide financial aid from the public purse to bona fide political parties. So, I would simply recommend the elimination of the $200 deposit. It is useless in that it does not achieve its purpose, and it will eventually be rendered farcical when political parties are supported by the public purse.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I listened with interest to the arguments of the hon. member. I cannot support them. I believe there is a tendency for frivolous candidates to offer themselves in an election. I respect the desire to give the maximum opportunity to those who genuinely

represent a serious point of view to participate in the democratic process. The simple truth is that in municipal elections, where there is no deposit required, it is almost routine procedure for candidates who are not serious to offer themselves for office, sometimes even those who are a little mentally disturbed. There has to be some kind of restriction on this type of candidacy.
There is another situation which gives me concern. I feel that the deposit and the return of the deposit should be tied in with meeting the requirements of the Act, including a statement of election expenses. I may possibly offer an amendment in that respect at a later stage. First, I think we have to defeat any proposal to eliminate the deposit. In my opinion it would be a retrograde step. It is a fairly nominal sum. It has not been changed for a substantial period of time. I do not think it has discouraged people with a genuine party or other interest from presenting themselves as a choice to the electorate. For these reasons, I oppose the argument of the hon. member.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wish to add a few comments to the point of view which has been expressed. My information is that the figure of $200 has been in the Canada Elections Act since the year 1882, when it was raised from $50. I do not quite agree with the hon. member in his rationale. I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West who has pointed out it is not so much in relation to the party system as in relation to frivolous candidacies, such as a group calling themselves the Rhinoceros party or individuals who are self-advertisers.
It might well be that the figure of $200 is not a sufficient deterrent or threshold. The provisions in Manitoba and Quebec are the same as at the federal level. In Ontario there is no deposit required, but on the other hand the signatures of 100 electors are required. In the province of British Columbia, the signatures of 50 electors are required. I think most members will agree the purpose is a deterrent against frivolous candidacies. I disagree with the hon. member that it will become meaningless when in time we deal with the question of election expenses.
I think my memory is correct when I say that one of the comments of the Barbeau Committee was the possibility of the deposit being raised and part of it being returned to the candidate after he has filed the election return required of him under the election expense regime. As I already said, the com-
June 23. 1970

Canada Elections Act
mittee will be considering that in due course. It seems that the basic reasons for including it in the first place continue. Indeed, the committee may not only decide to leave it at the present level, but to raise it or change the circumstances under which it is required.


Frank Howard: The President of the Privy Council has somewhat accurately described the situation in British Columbia with respect to provincial election laws. It is true that no deposit is required. The requirement of 50 signatures applies if there are 10,000 or more registered voters in a constituency. If there are less than 10,000 registered voters, 25 signatures are required for nomination. The President of the Privy Council did not mention that aspect.
I have had personal experience and Involvement in campaigns in the province of British Columbia dating back to 1952. This Involved quite a number of provincial elections. Although there may have been one or two instances, I cannot recall so-called frivolous candidates entering the race in British Columbia in any elections or by-elections that have been held since 1952. It may well be that someone could say that all of the candidates of all parties are frivolous candidates. However, that is an argumentative point. It has equal validity to anyone who puts forward that argument. My basic point is that I cannot recall any frivolous candidates running in these elections. All of the candidates with whom I have had experience ran under the label of a political party, and we have quite a number of them in British Columbia, or as independent serious-minded candidates with a large background and support.
The experience we have had in British 'Columbia is that the lack of a deposit requirement has not attracted the frivolous kind of candidate who enters the race to gain publicity or to embark on a bit of hobbycraft or a game of that sort. I do not know what the experience has been in the province of Ontario. Some members from Ontario may wish to comment on that. The argument that a deposit of any amount deters the entry of so-called frivolous candidates has a false base. The experience in British Columbia proves that it is false. There is no such monetary deterrent to candidates running in an election. As a consequence since 1952, and I am sure many years prior to that, the so-called frivolous candidates have not entered provincial elections.


Mr. St. Pierre:: I wish to take issue with the hon. member for Skeena on this point. It is rather difficult to discuss frivolous candidates without using their names. This I do not choose to do. From my experience in British Columbia, I can recall at least one totally frivolous candidate who ran in a provincial election. He invented a party for the purpose of entering a party name. That particular case involved a by-election. This man did no campaigning and had very little interest in the election, yet it cost the public money. Similarly, moving from the provincial to the civic field, for many years in Vancouver, which has a greater population than one or two provinces, candidates have run for the office of mayor whom I would consider frivolous. I recall one candidate who wanted to tear up the main street and substitute a canal. While I do not recall any frivolous candidates running under the standard party labels, I can recall the occasional oddball in other elections.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: I wish to add to the list of frivolous candidates the one in England who recently changed his name in order to run with the same name as Mr. Heath. I wish to point out how far he got.


Mr. Perrault:: The same thing has happened in parts of Canada; candidates with similar names were brought in simply to confuse the electorate. But as the President of the Privy Council pointed out earlier there has in fact been a reduction in the real value of this $200 deposit because of the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar, if for no other reason. If the 25 signatures to the petition put up $8 apiece they would finance the entry of their candidate in the election race, and it seems to me this is a minimum sign of confidence in the ability of a man or a woman to be a candidate.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Perhaps I might comment briefly on what hon. members have said with regard to this proposal. It seems to me that most of them have demonstrated that the $200 deposit does not, in fact, work as a deterrent to frivolous candidates. Otherwise, all the frivolous candidates mentioned would not have been involved. Any person who is determined to be a frivolous candidate can raise the sum. What I am saying is that serious candidates are being penalized financially for contesting an election. For example, each of the candidates opposing me in my

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
constituency lost their deposits. The sum involved is not large enough to deter people who are determined to be frivolous candidates, but it has the effect of penalizing quite sincere candidates who have honestly contested the election but failed to gain support. In any case, I believe that modifications and improvements in the method of financing candidates will soon make this provision farcical.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I want to say to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that the man who wanted to be on all fours with Ted Heath was probably not so frivolous sifter all. It is not only in the United Kingdom that similar sounding names have been used at election time. Such people have always been able to find the $200. But thanks to the wisdom of the Canadian people they have usually been discredited.
Amendment (Mr. Rowland) negatived; yeas, 5; nays, 26.


Douglas Charles Rowland: May I ask the President of the Privy Council whether, in the light of the remarks made by various hon. members in the discussion of my amendment, he would consider standing this clause so as to enable an amendment to be drafted which would allow for the refund of the deposit in all cases?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I believe this is a question which should be considered by the special committee on election expenses, and on that basis I think we ought to proceed.


Mr. Wahn:: Would it be in order, Mr. Chairman, to direct remarks to paragraphs (h) and (i) of clause 23, or has that been passed?


James Hugh Faulkner: We are on subclause (2) of clause 23.


Ian Grant Wahn: Does this not cover the provision for placing the name of the party on the ballot?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes. I am sorry. I thought the hon. member said "eight or nine". Apparently he said "(h) and (i)". It is quite in order.


Ian Grant Wahn: These two paragraphs have the effect of permitting a party label to be put on the ballot, or they permit a candidate to be described as an independent. I think all of us would agree that where the names of candidates are similar or confusing, some provision should be made for placing the party label on the ballot. Although the provision is permissive in its terms, the result in practice will be

that the party label will go on the ballot in all circumstances. This raises a question as to whether the practice is really desirable.
It is my contention that if the names are not confusing it is undesirable that the party label should appear on the ballot. My reasoning is this: there has been a tendency in recent years for political parties to be merchandised much in the same way as commercial products. However, one great problem in carrying out a successful merchandising effort has been that at the point of sale, namely, the polling booth, the party label has not been in evidence. This means that a candidate during the election has an extremely important function to perform, which is to make known to the electors that he is the candidate for a particular party. If the party label were allowed to appear on the ballot it would mean that the central organization, having the benefit of large election funds and having access to radio and television coverage, would be able to merchandise the entire party; there would be no need to get individual assistance from the candidates in establishing the connection between the large-scale merchandising effort carried on by the central office and the candidate in a particular constituency. In other words, the functions and the responsibility of a candidate would be greatly diminished.
My suggestion is, therefore, that party labels should not appear on the ballots as a general rule. If the vital function of the ordinary candidate in an election campaign were diminished it would mean that the importance of individual Members of Parliament would likewise be reduced; the degree of independence they possess would be lessened.
If there is any support for my proposal, I would move that paragraphs (h) and (i) of subclause (2) be deleted and replaced by a provision which would permit party labels to be used when there was some good reason for doing so, for example, if names of candidates were similar or confusing. To avoid wasting the time of the committee I shall not move an amendment unless I see there is some support for my proposal.


The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bechard):: It
being five o'clock I do now leave the chair in order that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members' business as set out on the Order Paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.
June 23, 1970


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been certain discussions, and I believe there is a disposition on the part of hon. members to suspend the private members' hour today and to continue consideration of the business upon which we were engaged before five o'clock.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there had been discussions yesterday, but it was my thought that I could supplement this request by suggesting that we proceed to deal with a vitally important piece of legislation, namely the fisheries bill. I spoke about the matter to the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Fisheries, as well as representatives from the Conservative party, but I notice that even though the Minister of Fisheries seemed to agree with my suggestion when I spoke to him he is not present to proceed with the bill. Neither are the people from the Conservative party who expressed some interest in the matter. Therefore, I suppose I cannot make this request.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. I understood the hon. gentleman to suggest that we proceed with the elections bill rather than the fisheries bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the conversation that I had with the Minister of Fisheries and the President of the Privy Council initially revolved around the request respecting private members' hour. I suggested this would be fine provided we could deal with this other vital piece of legislation, the fisheries bill. I gave this information to the Minister of Fisheries. I am sure he did not misunderstand it, but since the minister is not here I do not think there is any point in trying to advance this suggestion in the absence of real interest on the part of the government to proceed. Inasmuch as there is a bill standing in my name under the item "Public Bills" on the Order Paper as the first item, I think we should proceed with the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council and continue our consideration of the elections bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
House agreeable to waiving private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canada Elections Act PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security-Tabling of white paper in present form- Interim increase in old age pensions; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Communications-Grant to International Business Machines to build electronic component manufacturing plant; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Fisheries-Manitoba Government offer of financial assistance to establish processing plant in Selkirk.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mr. Bechard in the Chair.
Albert Béchard: Shall subclause 2 of clause 23 as revised carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Subclause 2 agreed to.
Subclause 3 agreed to.
On clause 23, subclause 4-Political affiliation.


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, subclause (4) of clause 23 is now before the House.
When clause 13 was being considered, I pointed out that when the bill was studied in committee, we did not consider the special status of the Speaker when looking into the possibility of indicating, over or under the title of the candidates on the ballots, the name of their political affiliation, in compliance, of course, with past decisions made by the various political parties whereby, according to our electoral system, the Speaker holds a special status and must not be involved in

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
the matter of political affiliations. I should like to move the following amendment to subclause (4) of clause 23:
That Bill C-215 be amended by
(a)	striking out the word "and" in line 5 on page 84; and by
(b)	striking out line 10 on page 84 and substituting the following:
'scribed by the word "independent"; and
(d) if
(i)	the candidate is the person who, at the election, is deemed by and for the purposes of the House of Commons Act to be the Speaker of the House of Commons, and
(ii)	no instrument or request is filed in accordance with paragraph (h) or (i) of subsection (2), the candidate shall, notwithstanding paragraph (b);, be described by his occupation or by the words "Speaker of the House of Commons".
Mr. Chairman, in order that the office of Speaker of the House of Commons may not be involved directly or indirectly in political affiliation, the ballot papers should bear an indication referring to the Speaker of the House of Commons, so as to comply with the wish of all political parties that the Speaker should be independent from all political parties.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Laflamme
moves:
That Bill C-215 be amended by
(a)	striking out the word "and" in line 5 on page 84; and by
(b)	striking out line 10 on page 84 and substituting the following;
'scribed by the word "independent"; and
(d) if
(i)	the candidate is the person who, at the election, is deemed by and for the purposes of the House of Commons Act to be the Speaker of the House of Commons, and
(ii)	no instrument or request is filed in accordance with paragraph (h) or (i) of subsection (2), the candidate shall, notwithstanding paragraph (b), be described by his occupation or by the words "Speaker of the House of Commons".
[English}


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I hate to be in disagreement with my dear friend, the able and amiable chairman of the committee, but on general principle I do not believe in writing into legislation provisions that are unnecessary and which at some future date might become somewhat unhelpful. Strictly speaking, as I understand the constitutional structure of our elective House, it is at times of dissolution that this act becomes really effective. We do not in fact have a Speaker, though according to general understanding there is such a thing as a permanent Speaker, and I personally hope very much that he who occupies that post today will be occupying it for a long time.

If this were not the case, I think the amendment would be redundant and unnecessary because we already have a provision in the bill whereby any candidate may be designated independent, as would the honourable occupant of the Chair at the present time, or he may choose not to be designated at all. With all respect to the chairman, I think it is unnecessary to add to the provision we have which will carefully cover the situation. Who knows, I hope the situation will not occur. We may not always have a Speaker who is as permanent as our Speaker now, if I may use that adjective somewhat improperly in a grammatical sense, though I am sure hon. members know what I mean. I think that this addition to the legislation would not be helpful. My primary objection to it is that it is unnecessary because the situation is already amply covered.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I point out to the hon. member the provisions of section 15 of the House of Commons Act, which provides:
The person who fills the office of Speaker at the time of any dissolution of Parliament, shall, for the purpose of the following provisions of this Act, be deemed to be the Speaker until a Speaker is chosen by the new Parliament.
Therefore, his first point that the amendment is inaccurate is not a just one. In fact, he remains Speaker of the House under the law already existing.
I think that the amendment put by hon. friend really contemplates a situation which either the present occupant of the Chair or the future one might face. In essence, I agree that he is an independent member; but also, in essence, the Speaker, at least until we make other provisions to the contrary, is faced with a particular difficulty when standing in an election. His status may not be amply known, and this amendment will give him the opportunity to have his status as Speaker made known.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the minister that he need not gratuitously read to me the elections act because I read it. I spoke about the constitution.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did not read the elections act, but the House of Commons Act.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Well, I was talking about the constitutional position.
June 23, 1970


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I apologize to the hon. member for having the audacity to attempt to instruct him on anything.


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, would you read the amendment again since copies have not been circulated and this has resulted in some confusion in this corner?


Albert Béchard: The hon. member for Montmorency moves:
That Bill C-215 be amended by
(a)	striking out the word "and" in line 5 on page 84; and
(b)	striking out line 10 on page 84 and substituting the following:
'scribed by the word "independent"; and
(d) if
(i)	the candidate is the person who, at the election, is deemed by and for the purposes of the House of Commons Act to be the Speaker of the House of Commons, and
(ii)	no instrument or request is filed in accordance with paragraph (h) or (i) of subsection (2), the candidate shall, notwithstanding paragraph (b), be described by his occupation or by the words "Speaker of the House of Commons".'
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, again it is quite difficult to follow the reading of this amendment. It would be preferable to have something to look at and relate to the bill. I wonder whether the hon. member for Montmorency would mind standing this amendment until we have an opportunity of relating the written form to the bill itself?


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, it is quite agreeable that this amendment be allowed to stand.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed that we let it stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Subclause 4 stands.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclause 5 of clause 23 as revised carry?
Subclauses 5 to 13 inclusive agreed to.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to propose which would, in effect, add a new subclause 14 to clause 23. If it is in order, I should like to move it now:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 34 on page 85 and substituting the following:
"(14) Every employer of employees to whom the Canada Labour (Standards) Code applies shall, upon
Canada Elections Act
application to him by any such employee, grant to the employee leave of absence, with or without pay, to seek nomination as a candidate and to be a candidate for election for a period ending on the day on which the candidate obtaining the highest number of votes is returned as elected or on such earlier day as may be requested by the employee if he has ceased to be a candidate."
After all the noise about the last amendment, I am embarrassed to say that I only have two copies. However, the explanation is very simple.
Under current election procedure, candidates who are able to devote a great deal of time to campaigning have a distinct advantage over opponents who are not able to do so. This amendment would simply allow a person who comes under the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to apply to his employer for leave of absence for the purpose of campaigning full time in order to give him the opportunity of contesting an election effectively. That is the intent of the amendment. I do not think I need give lengthy explanations to hon. gentlemen, since many of them have gone through more campaigns than I.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would be disposed to accept the amendment but I think it should be acknowledged that it really only applies to companies and employers essentially within federal jurisdiction. If it represents that much of an advance as a principle, I think it is worth while. Some of us who are members of this House remember a former member of parliament about whom, in an article concerning his candidacy in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science it was pointed out that when he sought leave of absence from his employer- one of those large reputable Canadian companies-to become a candidate in an election he was told to take all the time he needed. He was fired for becoming a candidate. If we can get over that kind of mentality by this kind of an amendment, then I am in favour of it and will support it.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question to the hon. member.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for
Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Could my colleague tell us how long would that period be? Actually, a candidate could request today a leave of absence for an undetermined period and say: "I am running in the next federal election."

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
Would it not be advisable to specify the length of time before nomination? Should it be as of the nomination or as of the date the candidate has made known his intention of seeking nomination? In my opinion, if it were possible to foresee six months prior to an election that a citizen is going to state his intention of seeking-

What about an individual who gets leave to become a candidate and then works full time for the party? He might well become a candidate but at that time he may be something other than a candidate. He might be on the payroll of a political party. Could we have a slight change in your proposed amendment to make provision for a certain length of time to cover this possibility?


Douglas Charles Rowland: I thought that eventuality was covered in the motion as presented. If the amendment does not effectively meet that point, I would have no objection to some adjustment of its wording. However, I do believe that eventuality is covered in the amendment as it is now worded.


Marcel Prud'homme: My problem is that I do not have a copy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could assist the hon. gentleman. This measure is certainly similar to one in the Public Service Employment Act. Specifically, the definition of a candidate is provided in Section 2 (3) of the Canada Elections Act. This would also apply to a candidate under these circumstances. The statute provides that:
"candidate" or "candidate at an election" means any person who is officially nominated as a candidate at any election, or who, after the day of the issue of the writ for an election, or after the dissolution of Parliament or the occurrence of a vacancy in consequence of such a writ for an election is eventually issued, is declared by himself or by others with his consent to be a candidate;-


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, is this amendment not redundant in relation to this bill? If I understood the President of the Privy Council this Provision would apply only to people in the public service.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, this applies to every employer under the jurisdiction of the Labour (Standards) Code, and that would include a lot of private employers such as railways, banks and so on.


David James Walker: Is there any conflict at all? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will remember that when we were passing

the Public Service Employment Act there was not just one clause but a number. I agree with the amendment but it might be wise to check this amendment against what is already in the Public Service Employment Act to see which would take precedence if some of the clauses do not jibe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: anyone reads the draft, he will see that it has been compared with the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act. I am afraid the hon. member for York Centre is under a misapprehension if he thinks there is a conflict. These two provisions refer to two completely different groups of people. The provisions of the Public Service Employment Act apply to public servants; people working for the government. This provisions applies to people who do not work for the government at all but who work in those industries which come under federal labour jurisdiction including railway workers, communications workers, bank employees; those people who are getting less than $1.65 an hour. They are covered by this. This would put these people in the same position as those who work for the federal government. I agree with the President of the Privy Council that it would be nice if we could go further and include all workers, but there seems to be some question as to whether we could include those under provincial labour jurisdiction.
I am hearing some suggestions from my friend behind me, the hon. member for Greenwood, who I think is relying on some judicial decisions in the matter. He suggests that the rights citizens enjoy in a federal election have a certain amount of priority, and that perhaps we could go further.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to oppose the amendment, far from it. I believe it is an excellent idea, but I hope that some time we will examine the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I believe we can legislate in respect of federal elections for all employees. I believe the principle that is applicable to federal employees should be applicable to any other employee in Canada who is proposed as a candidate for election.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I have only one comment. I think the substance of the amendment is excellent but being a purist, like the learned, honourable chancellor, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I
June 23, 1970

am disturbed by the position this subclause will occupy. My only argument is that 1 think there might be a better place for it in the clause.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I have read once again with interest the document given to us earlier by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and that I do not find it quite accurate. In fact, if I read clause 2 which pertains to the definition of a candidate, it does not say that a candidate could not be officially nominated as a candidate in an election, so that a railway employee for instance, could easily as of now be officially nominated as a candidate in the next general election. He would then be on a leave of absence without pay having been officially nominated.
I support my colleague, but I wonder whether he would accept, without discussion, to amend his proposal by adding after the word "period", the following:
-from the day of the issue of the writ for an election and-
The section will read then in part as follows:
-so that he may be nominated as a candidate and to be a candidate for election for a period from the day of issue of the writ or an election to the day-[DOT]
Could this suggestion be agreeable to the mover of the amendment without being itself subject to an amendment?
For clarification purposes, I shall read it in English.

"As a candidate and to be a candidate for election for a period from the day of issue of the writ for an election". Is this acceptable to the mover of the amendment? As I pointed out in French, I think it would be easy for anyone today to nominate an employee of a Crown corporation who could campaign for two years for his own election. I have no objection in principle, but I do not think this is the objective of the hon. member.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, my disposition would be to leave the amendment as it now stands, in view of the fact that it is highly unlikely someone would apply for two years leave of absence without pay. However, since the President of the Privy Council indicated his willingness to accept the amendment, I would be willing to consider the
Canada Elections Act
suggestion of the hon. member for Saint-Denis. If this particular clause were allowed to stand until we have a chance to examine it, there might be some further modification proposed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, my information, as I have already indicated to the committee, is that the wording is identical to that to be found in the Public Service Employment Act and, as such, is wording which has stood the test of at least one federal election campaign. My advice is that the addition would be redundant in the circumstances. In order to satisfy the hon. member, I would be agreeable to have the amendment stand.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, as we will shortly be asked to vote on this matter, and since I believe most members on all sides of the House are disposed to support it, I think it would be advisable for us to know what we mean by a candidate. If we mean a candidate in an election, then it is a person who has filed his nomination papers at a date set out in the election act. The duration of this period, therefore, would be very clear. It would run from the day of the filing of his candidacy until polling day. Otherwise, it might be considered to run for the duration of the election campaign, a period of seven weeks. I think there is merit in having it spelled out in the amendment so that both the employer and employee who become involved know precisely what it means.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Chairman, since we have stood subclause 2 of clause 23, and since it is an open matter whether or not the hon. member might consider making a change at a later stage, I wonder whether we could solve two problems at one time by providing an opportunity for consideration. I think it is a little more appropriate to have this provision under subclause 2 of clause 23, which has been stood. Allowing the Clause to stand would give the hon. gentlemen now debating this very worth-while amendment an opportunity to consider whether or not they wish to put further amendments.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I am disposed to allow it to stand pending consultation.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed that we now revert to subclause 4, which was allowed to stand, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Montmorency.
On clause 23, subclause 4-Political affiliation

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, now that we have this amendment before us and can see what it contains, I should like to say a word in respect of it. I am prepared to support the amendment but I make a very earnest plea that no one, and this includes the government, imagine that because we have done this we have done all we need to do about the Speakership at this time. Permission merely for the speaker to put on the ballot at election time his occupation as Speaker of the House of Commons does not make him a continuing speaker, and does not deal with the problem that arises when a person who has occupied the Chair, and has been as impartial as the present incumbent, is called upon to go back to the constituency and fight a contest at election time.
I must not become involved in a discussion of another matter, particularly a bill which stands in my name, but I do feel very strongly that this Parliament must not wait much longer before making a decision concerning the nature of the Speakership, which I think should be on a continuing basis. This proposal is not in conflict with that, but I see a very real danger that the government might say it has dealt with this matter by this amendment. It does not deal with it at all. It is all right, but there is much more we must do.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, it is a bit unusual to stand an item and then pick it up a few minutes later. I would think that standing an item meant standing it for a little more than six or seven minutes.
This is a pretty fundamental matter. I am always a little leary when we drag other pieces of legislation into the Elections Act. As the situation stands, Speakers of this House are chosen by Parliament and each new Parliament makes its choice. I believe that at the present time it is a most excellent thing that each Parliament makes the same choice, and I hope they will do so for a long, long time. But I am wondering about the device here of putting down as an occupation an honourable office which a gentleman held in a Parliament which had been dissolved. I know very well that for the purposes of the House of Commons Act, continuity of administration, matters of internal economy, and so on, certain interpretations have been made, but I think in
{The Deputy Chairman.)
a sense we have moved away from the practice and the understanding as to the way and the manner in which Speakers are chosen.
I never quite had the view that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has. I am more interested in the occupant rather than in the office. I said long ago in this House that when the time comes, the House will find a Speaker and make that particular person the permanent Speaker rather than mechanistically setting up the office of a permanent Speaker. There is quite an important question of principle here, a question of practice. I submit we are introducing things which are not necessary for the procedures whereby we elect on this hill a House of Commons and we add nothing to the permanency of the Speaker by this device. It may lead to a lot of misunderstanding which at some future date would not be helpful.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would agree this question should stand for further reflection.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 23 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 23 stands.
Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 28, subclause 1-Inspection of lists.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, subclause (1) of clause 28 before the House reads as follows:
At any reasonable time during an election, a candidate who is officially nominated in an electoral district or his accredited representative may, in the office of the returning officer for that electoral district, inspect and take extracts from the list of electors transmitted to the returning officer pursuant to subsection (2) of section 12.
Besides, in the Electoral rules concerning the Canadian Forces, paragraph 29 reads as follows:
The list of Canadian forces electors prepared by each commanding officer is no longer open for inspection by candidates or their representatives.
In this respect, I should appreciate it if the president of the Privy Council would tell us which guidelines will be given to the returning officers, and also whether clause 28 of the act will have precedence over paragraph 29 of the Rules.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman that
June 23, 1970

he is talking about two completely different lists. The one referred to in the clause under consideration is the list of the Canadian forces or special electors from all over the world with respect to the particular constituency, gathered in the hands of the returning officer for that constituency. The list the hon. member is referring to in the later part is the base list, that is to say, the list of electors on that particular military base. In effect we are talking about two different lists, one in the hands of the returning officer here in Canada listing the special electors from all over the world who are voting in that constituency, and the second list being the one prepared at the particular location abroad and in the hands of the officers responsible on the base.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Following the interjection of the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Godin), he had just insisted on the fact that there are two separate voting lists.
If a candidate can check the lists submitted by the Chief Electoral Officer, and if, on the other hand, the candidate cannot know which members of the Armed Forces are eligible to vote, does the President of the Privy Council feel this is consistent, and does he not intend to make any changes so that candidates would know from now on how many members of the Armed Forces are eligible to vote in their constituencies, what are their names and in which parish they reside.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Chairman, I may give the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) the following answer: Clause 28 provides exactly the information he is requesting, that is, the list of the Armed Forces voters in his riding with their addresses.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest) whether what he has just said may be considered as the official position on the legislation applicable to the Armed Forces, because we have had some rather unfortunate experiences with regard to the military vote. There is no doubt that, if things had been done normally, we would have two more Creditiste colleagues in the House.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I can give that assurance to the honourable member. This is a new provision and the committee has con-
Canada Elections Act
sidered the matter. This is new information that may be made available to a candidate before the election, that is the list of Armed Forces or Civil Service personnel posted abroad.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I shall therefore refer to Hansard. Our concern and our wish to obtain such an assurance will be readily understood. I therefore refer to the summary of the main amendments made to the Canada Elections Act on page 7420 of the official report dated May 27, 1970, and more particularly to item 62 which reads as follows:
62. The list of Canadian Forces electors prepared by each commanding officer is no longer open for inspection by candidates or their representatives (Paragraph 29 of the present Canadian Forces Voting Rules).
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is some inconsistency here, and I urge once again the President of the Privy Council to take advantage of the Chief Electoral Officer's presence to give us some assurance in this regard.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Fores!: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that previously, it was necessary to obtain all the lists of electors bearing the names of members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The act was amended and the candidate will now be able to obtain the list of the military personnel residing in his electoral district and voting there.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to ask a much more specific question.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that any candidate will be able to obtain the list of special electors, military or otherwise, of his electoral district, notwithstanding item 62 of the summary of the main amendments made to the Canada Elections Act which was handed to us by the Chief Electoral Officer when we began our study of this bill?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that under the amended act, an officially nominated candidate will be able to obtain the list of Canadian Forces members and public servants posted abroad who vote in his electoral district.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, it must be very later or I find it very difficult to understand item 62; I shall read it again. I regret to insist on this, but this matter is extremely important to us. It says, and I quote:
62. The list of Canadian Forces electors prepared by each commanding officer is no longer open for inspection by candidates or their representatives-

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
I refer here to section 29 of the present Canadian Forces Voting Rules.
I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council or his Parliamentary Secretary, to interpret this amendment to the Elections Act, so that we may know exactly where we stand.
I still hold, in spite of the explanations that have been given, that there is some inconsistency here.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer the hon. member to item 61 of the document he is referring to, which was formerly item 62 and which says:
61. A candidate or his accredited representative will be authorized to inspect, in the office of the returning officer, the list of Canadian Forces and Public Service electors, entitled to vote under the Special Voting Rules, who are ordinarily resident of his electoral district and make extracts therefrom-
Those are the new provisions. The hon. member has referred to the former rules which have been replaced by a formula most likely to please him and which enables a candidate to get a list of the electors in his own constituency.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I have the impression that we are not on the same wavelength. The extract from item 61 which has just been read by the Parliamentary Secretary refers to people who are in the Canadian Forces and whose ordinary residence is in a given electoral district.
As for me, I am referring to the Canadian Forces as a whole which are governed by the Special Voting Rules and I repeat my question: What is the legal meaning of item 62 and of the amendments thereto?


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give more information to the hon. member. In fact, item 62 to which he referred is related to the former system where the list of electors was prepared in accordance with the Special Voting Rules by the commanding officers of military establishments. The old system has been replaced by item 61-which I read a while ago and which the member has also read-where the candidate or his agent may obtain the list of Canadian Forces personnel authorized to vote in his riding.


Mr.   FoTlin@: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to insist, but the Parliamentary Secretary has just said three times that item 61 was being replaced by item 62. I have here the summary of the main amendments. There is an item 61 and an item 62 which aims at restricting the application of item 61.

Indeed item 61 covers the Canadian Forces members who are ordinarily resident in the said electoral district. Item 62 makes a restriction preventing candidates to know who is entitled to vote among Canadian Forces members as long as they are not ordinary resident of the said electoral district.
This means that no candidate of a given electoral district can know who has the right to vote, how many electors are entitled to vote and where they are residing outside Canada, so that after the election, the military vote can come as a surprise and change the results, without the candidate having been able to make some kind of publicity among those people nor any other canvassing in his constituency.
Mr. Chairman, I urge again the President of the Privy Council to specify the implication of the amendment in item 62 and the restrictions it imposes on the provisions of item 61.
Mr. Chairman, if a valid explanation cannot be given on that matter, we will certainly have to resort to a filibuster, because it is essential to ensure the fair election of members rather than to act on the sly, to go from item to another and say that both mean the same thing when they are evidently inconsistent.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to add a few words in the hope of enlightening the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who has been raising certain questions.
We have before us a bill that is clear enough, in my opinion, namely clause 28 which reads as follows:
At any reasonable time during an election, a candidate who is officially nominated in an electoral district or his accredited representative may, in the office of the returning officer for that electoral district, inspect and take extracts from the list of electors transmitted to the returning officer pursuant to subsection (2) of section 12.
And if my colleague cares to refer to subclause (2) of clause 12, he will read:
Within twenty-one days after the issue of the writs ordering a general election, the Chief Electoral Officer shall transmit-
It is no longer a possibility, it is an order.
-to the returning officer for each electoral district two copies of a list containing the name and current postal address of each Canadian Forces elector and Public Service elector

-of his constituency.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme)
June 23, 1970

Canada Elections Act
might wish to refer to subclause (2) of the same clause which states:
Except as authorized by subsection (1), the list referred to in that subsection shall not be open for inspection.
In that case there are restrictions somewhere and that is what we want to clarify.
In the document the Chief Electoral Officer sent us when we started studying the bill in committee of the whole, he was kind enough to include all the amendments made by the committee that studied the Elections Act.
He did not mention, in that document, what the former acts were, nor what amendments were made to them. There is a glaring contradiction between items 61 and 62, which we would like explained.
Clause 28 says clearly that the voters' list can allow one to find out what military personnel live in the riding, but it seems that it will be difficult to check the names of those who are abroad, and that is what we would like to know.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, if the
member who has just spoken understood exactly how the military personnel are put on the voters' list, he would see that clause 28, and by referring to subclause (2) of clause 12, does not deal with the military personnel who live in his riding but rather to those armed forces members who, under the Special Voting Rules applying to them, each year decide on their residence after which a list is made of their names.
The list is therefore not that of the military personnel who live in his riding, but one of those who each year avail themselves of their privilege to give their names to their commanding officer indicating their residence.
So, wherever they may be, they give their former residence and if they want to vote in my colleague's riding, they may do so. That is the list mentioned in clauses 28 and 12, and not that of the military personnel who live in his riding, for their names are usually given on the voters list drawn up by the enumerators.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

Subclause 1 agreed to.
On subclause 2-Limitation.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, we are now on subclause (2) of clause 28.
I should like to ask again the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), who seems an expert in these matters, what is the legal importance of subclause (2) "Limitation" which reads:
Except as authorized by subsection (1), the list referred to in that subsection shall not be open for inspection.
Mr. Chairman, to me the control of such a list is absolutely impossible.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, I do not claim that I am giving an opinion to the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I simply wish to call his attention to the fact that the limitation referred to in subclause (2) tends to prevent the list of all Canadian servicemen to be given to a single candidate by the returning officer.
Each candidate will have the right to obtain the list of servicemen having the right to vote in his constituency, but he will not be able to get the general list which is in the hands of the chief Electoral Officer.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I ask the President of the Privy Council whether he feels this subclause could not safely be disposed of. I would not wish to move an amendment for its deletion without having his blessing and approval. One thing that has troubled many of us here on the political scene is the wall which tends to be built up between military service voters and those voters who are in public life. That is not healthy. I know that we cannot, through the Elections Act, make for close liaison between citizens of Canada who are in the armed forces and those in public life, yet I wonder why this subclause has been included. If opening the list of electors constitutes such a breach of security that the country is no longer safe, the fact that we have had six elections in nine years will lead some of the conclusion that we gave up the ghost long ago. I wonder if it would not be just as well to strike out this restrictive subclause.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it clear that this provision is included really at the request of the Department of National Defence which, for its own reasons, does not want the whereabouts of its personnel to be a matter of outside study from time to time. I am inclined to accept their judgment in this regard, particularly since from the point of view of the Elections Act no particular difficulty is involved in this matter.

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council or to his advisers. I shall refer again to the interesting document sent to us by the Chief Electoral Officer, which is entitled:
Summary of the main amendments made to the Canada Elections Act.
Item 62 reads as follows:
The list of Canadian forces electors prepared by each commanding officer is no longer opened for inspection by candidates or their representatives.
Mr. Chairman, if that list cannot be inspected by candidates or their representatives, I should like to know who is going to inspect it and to what purpose it will be used.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, under item 62, a candidate for the riding of Lotbiniere, for instance, could have requested the commanding officer of Camp Valcartier to provide him with the list of all the military personnel stationed at the base, not only from the riding of Lotbiniere but also from the ridings of Portneuf, Sherbrooke, Missisquoi, etc.
He wants to have the list of the members of the armed forces who are casting their ballot in the riding of Lotbiniere. Under the new legislation, he will be provided with the list of all the members of the armed forces who vote in Lotbiniere whether they be located at Valcartier or in Germany.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council give me the meaning of the phrase: "special elector"?


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the hon. member means the Special Voting Rules. These rules apply to the members of the Canadian armed forces and to the members of the Public Service residing abroad who will be allowed to cast their ballot in the same way as the military personnel in the future.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I have
become thoroughly confused by the nondialogue that has been going on for the last 15 to 20 minutes. As I understand it, hon. members have been discussing nothing more than a summary, written in casual terms, indicating the amendments which have been made to the act. The process we are concerned about, as I understand it, is clear; therefore, I cannot understand what has been happening during the last 20 minutes.

Prior to the introduction of this amendment, as I understand it-I hope somebody will correct me if my understanding is incorrect-in order to secure the names of armed forces electors you could go to a base, and there was authority for you to do this, examine the voters' list and pick out the names of the people who had opted to vote in your riding. The bill says that you cannot do that now. It is no more complicated than that; you cannot do it any more. Instead, you may now go to the chief returning officer, who will give you a list of the armed forces voters in all parts of the world who may vote in your riding.
The difficulty in the past was that if you went to a base, you were given only those names which happened to be on the base commander's list. In my case, there is a station at Halifax. If I called on that base commander, and some people from my riding were stationed at Esquimalt, I would have no way of knowing from the list of the base commander at Halifax whether there was anybody in Esquimalt at the moment who might be voting in my riding. That situation has now been corrected.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock it was considering clause 28, subclause 2.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I will be very pleased to resume my seat if the non-debate of the 15 or 20 minutes prior to the supper hour has been resolved.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Is it agreed, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the statement by the hon. member is an admirable short summary of what I understand is the position.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, on this clause, I should say that we have obtained more information after the adjournment than before.
June 23, 1970


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 2 carry?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words in benedictal tones. I am very concerned about subclause 2. Had we done what I wished, namely, adopted the permanent voters' list, I would have suggested that this would be a proper stage for the lists referred to in this clause and clause 12 to be made available annually to the officers of parties registered under another clause.
I am still concerned about the manner in which we allow military service voters to be isolated from the political process until an election is called. I think that is very wrong. While I would be the last person to breach the security of the state, I do not think that the security of this country rests upon the protection afforded under the Canada Elections Act. I would be greatly mistaken if I believed there are not more sophisticated devices in the hands of foreign powers with which to glean information about our military personnel. I hope that some day we will be able to make improvements in this area. That is all I will say, now that this ecumenical effort is again settling upon us, thank heaven. I like to think of those of us who will be around a little longer.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, one question arose during the dinner hour. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council could clear it up quickly. At the conclusion of an election, what is the disposition of armed services voters' lists which are left in the hands of returning officers? Is there a requirement that they be returned to the Chief Electoral Officer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are returned to the Chief Electoral Officer.


J. Michael Forrestall: Could the President of the Privy Council find out whether the lists in that depository are available for inspection from time to time, and whether it is possible to take extracts from them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding of the arrangement is that it is up to the Department of National Defence whether the lists should be made available outside the election period; it is within the initiative of that department. I presume that in the case of a judicial contestation there would be no difficulty in having them made available; they would still be with the returning officer.
Canada Elections Act


J. Michael Forrestall: My point is very simple. I am trying to obtain some clarity. The lists of electors at large remain available inasmuch as they remain in the hands of those who have collected them. It seems reasonable to expect that the lists of the armed forces voters should also be available, having regard to the fact that they very quickly become outdated.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not prepared to contest the legitimacy of the comment made by the hon. member for Hillsborough, that perhaps this should not be our final line of defence. I feel compelled, however, to accede to the request of my colleague the Minister of National Defence. They Eire returned to the department to be disposed of as they see fit.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 2 of clause 28 carry?
Subclause 2 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
On clause 31, subclause 1-Ballotpapers.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 31, subclause 1 as revised carry?


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to subclause (1) of clause 31, to provide for a somewhat unusual case, perhaps, but that might arise and create some problems. It is only a matter of adding a new paragraph providing that if two citizens with the same surname ran for office, and if the party affiliation did not appear on the ballot paper and the candidate did not have the mention "independent" entered on it, there might be two identical names, which could cause some confusion. This amendment would allow the candidate to state his address or his occupation on the ballot paper, so that the elector may identify the one candidate for which he intends to vote.
This amendment tends to clear up matters. In committee we had not anticipated this particular case and the bill does not mention it.
This amendment could provide for the case where two citizens with the same surname would run for election. With no political affiliation mentioned on the ballots, the electors could not differentiate between the candidates. This amendment would grant the candidate the right to have his address or his occupation listed on the ballots.

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out lines 37 to 44 on page 92 and substituting the following:
'appear in their nomination papers:
(b)	the political affiliation of each candidate if any, as indicated under section 23 at the time of nomination of that candidate, shall be set out, after or under the name of the candidate;
(c)	where the political affiliation indicated by a candidate under section 23 is a registered party, the name of the registered party shall be set out in such form as has been indicated by the leader of the party pursuant to section 13; and
(d)	where,
(i)	there are two or more candidates having the same name, more than one of whom has filed a request in accordance with paragraph (i) of subsection (2) of section 23, and
(ii)	any of those candidates has, not later than one hour after the close of nominations, informed the returning officer, in writing, that he wishes to be described on the ballot paper by his address or occupation,
the address or occupation of that candidate, as indicated by him, shall be set out, after or -under the name of the candidate.'
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

Perhaps I should repeat the substance of those comments in English because we did not send the hon. Senator, the hon. member for Hillsborough, a copy of the amendment. It might happen on rare occasions that two candidates having the same family name may present themselves for election in circumstances where their names are not accompanied by a party affiliation, or where they choose not to identify themselves as independents. In such a case the candidates would have the opportunity of putting on the ballot paper either their occupation or their address so that the electors would know which candidate was which.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I appreciate the hon. member's courtesy and his kindly sentiment in calling me a Senator. I was wondering whether he had worked out a formula to determine which of these people with identical names would come first on the ballot sheet-but I suppose it is not possible to think of everything. I believe the hon. member has put forward a very good suggestion.


Frank Howard: The major factor which resulted in the committee which considered this part of the bill determining that there should appear on the ballot simply the party affiliation of a candidate was that space on the ballot sheet was not sufficient to allow all this extra information to be given. If it is now considered by the President of the Privy

Council or by whatever forces are advocating this course of action that there will in fact be room on the ballot to insert the names of the candidates, the party affiliation and, in addition, the occupation or address, then I believe the same circumstances should prevail for all candidates; each candidates should have the opportunity to indicate his occupation and address. Even though in this amendment we might be dealing with one case in a hundred, or one case in a thousand, it appears that room can be found on the ballot after all, and this being so we believe there is room for similar information to be set out for all candidates. It appears that this opportunity for additional identification by occupation or address can bring certain advantages by appealing to certain groups in a constituency, and we feel that this advantage should be equally shared. In our party we support the concept of equality.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would suggest that the hon. member's reasoning is incorrect. A situation might arise in which a candidate, though a supporter of a particular party, did not wish to indicate his support for that party on the ballot. There might be two Paul Martins on the ballot, to select a name.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, not that!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You would have two non-political, non-partisan individuals and there would be no way of making a choice between them. One of them, under this amendment, could elect to put beneath his name the word "statesmans". This would identify him. We are dealing with an exceptional case, but it appears to me it would be careless for the House not to provide for it. The difficulty could be met without doing violence to the general principle that the ballot sheet should not be a foot or two long.


An hon. Member:: Or the two men could be called Don Macdonald.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, for that matter the name could be Don Macdonald.
Amendment (Mr. Forest) agreed to: Yeas, 35; nays, 7.
Subclause 1 as amended agreed to.
Subclauses 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
On clause 33, subclauses 1 to 5 inclusive.


Frank Howard: Are we not taking subclauses 1 to 5 inclusive now, Mr. Chair-
June 23, 1970

man? With respect to subclause 5 I wish to advance a suggestion. As the bill now stands, the subclause reads:
The poll shall be opened at the hour of eight, o'clock in the forenoon and kept open until seven o'clock in the afternoon of the same day-
I wish to advance the suggestion that it be kept open from eight o'clock in the forenoon until eight o'clock in the afternoon, to follow the phraseology used. In terms of a formal motion, I move:
That clause 33 be amended by deleting lines 40 and 41 of subolause 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"of eight o'clock in the forenoon and kept open until eight o'clock in the afternoon".
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The general reasoning behind this amendment, which would have greater application in a metropolitan or urban area than in a rural area, is that it is not uncommon in these areas for people to have to drive for an hour, an hour and a half or in some cases two hours from their residence to place of work. Admittedly, there is a clause further on in the bill which provides that every person shall be entitled to a three-hour period away from his employment without loss of pay, to take account of this sort of thing; but nevertheless, in urban areas people have to contend with traffic conditions, pressures of life, and so on, and this does lead to delay.
In the community of Prince Rupert there are a number of urban polling divisions, and when the polls have closed at seven o'clock I have known of instances where in this city of something like 15,000 people voters have reached the polls too late to vote even though they have made every effort to get there before time. This amendment is an attempt to broaden the opportunity for electors to get to the polling station by providing them with a little extra time in the evening. If I am not mistaken, prior to the last amendment to the Elections Act in 1960 the hours were set at from eight to eight. I could be wrong about that. Perhaps I am thinking of provincial jurisdictions which provide for a 12-hour voting period, which does give a little extra time to those who may be inconvenienced by pressures of traffic and distance away from home to cast their ballot. Industrial workers often prefer to go home, have their dinner and change their clothes before going to the polls. This amendment would give them additional opportunity to exercise their democratic right at their own convenience.
Canada Elections Act [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing against the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) designed to extend the closing time of polling stations by one hour.
However, it seems to me that they should be opened one hour later in the morning. I wonder if the opening of the polls at nine o'clock instead of eight could not be considered. In fact, on four election days, I realized that, at least in my riding, the number of voters who show up at the polls at the beginning of the day is very small indeed. Election workers must be at the polls very early in the morning and have to wait two or three hours before voters start coming.
I would therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena proposing that polls remain open until 8 o'clock at night, and that, at the same time, an opening time of 9 o'clock in the morning instead of 8 be considered.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, usually, elections are held in summer when daylight saving time is in force. If the polls open at nine o'clock instead of eight; this would in fact mean at 10 a.m.
But, many people like to vote in the morning, on their way to work, and I suggest that, if the polls open at 10 o'clock, this would be a bit late. That would also be the case if they closed at 9 o'clock instead of 8 o'clock. The results of the voting, which everyone is eager to know, would also be delayed one hour.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection at all to this amendment. When we last made a major amendment in 1960, if I recall aright, we added one hour; it used to be six o'clock. I have had no testimony from anybody involved in the electoral process that this hour has been insufficient. I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the effect of daylight saving time.
If there is in the mind of the hon. member a real need for this extra hour, I certainly would not object to the amendment, though it would make for longer hours for poll workers and would also delay the national returns. But unless there is a fairly clearly demonstrated necessity for the amendment, I see no point in it. We must always remember that we have the protection afforded by the three-hour period away from duty.
I am not quite happy with the suggestion of my hon. friend to my far left in regard to

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
cutting off the morning hours. A lot of people vote en route to work, especially in the heart of the city, so perhaps it is not wise to leave opening time until late in the morning. Although I have no strong views either way, I am not sure that the amendment is necessary.


J. Michael Forrestall: Neither am I, Mr. Chairman, except that I would suggest that if you add an extra hour either in the morning or in the afternoon, you will have to revise your cost and fees legislation to meet the minimum wage scale and pay them $22.28 a day.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I have one argument to add to those made by my colleague from Skeena. We must remember that this act applies to by-elections as well as to general elections. I recently experienced a byelection. Despite the provision in the Elections Act that an employee must be granted at least three hours in which to cast his vote, in a by-election it is very difficult for some employees to get their employer to grant them that right. My experience was that a great many people missed voting because they were unable to get to the polling station from their place of employment by 7 p.m.. I think the extra hour would be worth while, especially in a by-election where there is no great insistence that the three-hour period be honoured.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in this debate but I rise to ask the minister whether he would consider the suggestion that has been made. He has not commented on it, but it is obvious he does not agree with it. When I was first elected to Parliament in 1962 I had been active, as hon. members know, in the practice of law on behalf of labour. On numerous occasions during elections that took place between 1950 and 1962 I was asked by union clients to telephone employers to tell them they must let their people go to the polls in time, or else.
The fact is that despite the provision in the act there are many employers in the country who simply do not observe it. I am not condemning them. There are many small employers with only a few employees who cannot afford to pay for three hours taken out of a week's work. Unless the employees or their union make a fuss, they do not get time to vote. I could go back to my files and cite many examples where precisely this sort of thing has occurred.
Nowadays work often finishes at five o'clock or shortly thereafter. Even in industrial plants some shifts finish earlier than that.
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
If there were an extra hour available until eight o'clock, there is no doubt that everybody would be able to attend the polling station. But in many cases the seven o'clock .deadline is simply too soon. I do not think anybody would suffer from the extra hour being allowed. The hon. member to my right said it would delay the national returns, and this might have been true before instant communication, before results appeared almost instantaneously across the country, subject to the time zones that have to be observed. I do not think that now presents any difficulty at all. As a result of radio and television, results are flashed across the country very quickly. They may be delayed an hour, of course, but they will not be delayed to the point where that evening the effective results would not be known to every Canadian.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The effective result as to the trend, which party is leading and how the parties rank is now known at eight o'clock if you are on standard time, one hour after the polls close, and they would be known at nine o'clock, one hour after the polls closed at eight. That is certainly not any loss to the country or to the election process, whereas to disenfranchise thousands of Canadians because of an early closing of the polls is, I suggest, a very serious loss to the country and to the electoral process. I would therefore urge hon. members, and particularly the minister, to accept the very reasonable suggestion that we extend it one hour in the evening to enable thousands more people to exercise their democratic right. I repeat, that with instant communication no one and nothing would suffer because of that extension.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I take no strong stand on this matter one way or the other, but I do not agree with the hon. gentleman. From my experience, at the times that he and I have been running in general elections in our cities I have not found there to be any difficulty at all with the existing hours in the Elections Act. I regard this as a case not proven. It seems to me that with our time span there is time enough for virtually everyone to vote. The hon. member says no one would suffer. I suppose one could say the polls staffs would suffer by having to work an extra hour at the polls.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, would the minister excuse me for asking a loaded question? Is the minister aware of the fact that before
June 23, 1970

distribution I had a section in my riding, Forest Hill Village, which did not suffer from the hours of polling. I suppose part of Rose-dale may be in the same situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let me point out to the hon. gentleman, if he thinks there is some virtue in representing a low-income area and that it is something to boast about, that my area is undoubtedly a lower income area than his. I am thinking in terms of Regent Park and other parts of the city. I do not know what his observation is in that regard.
I would only say that it does seem to me there has been no evidence of disenfranchisement. It is true that 76 per cent of the electors on the electoral lists voted in the last election. I think that percentage is right. This means that 24 per cent did not vote. I have seen no evidence, and we have had no evidence put before us this evening, that this occurred because of the hours of polling. I remain unconvinced, like the hon. member for Hillsborough, about the necessity for this amendment. I suppose on this particular point each member should vote as his experience indicates. Mine does not indicate the necessity for it.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to present a little bit of evidence I have gathered over the years. There are a great many instances where the woman of the house waits until the man gets home from work and they usually get their supper over, get cleaned up and go to the polls together. This is particularly true in a riding like mine, where a great many families have only one car or perhaps do not have a car at all. The woman waits for her husband to get home and they then go to the polls together. I know this is so because we have been troubled at a great many polls by congestion at closing time, particularly in earlier times when the closing hour was earlier. I feel it would be a good idea to add this extra hour to facilitate families-they are very numerous-where the husband and wife make a habit of going to the polls together in the evening.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I hope to make what I feel is another valid point. I am glad to note that the President of the Privy Council is not yet convinced one way or the other, or does not feel very strongly about this matter. I repeat what I know is a principle that every member in this chamber has in mind: our electoral laws must maximize the 22478-49
Canada Elections Act
opportunity for the greatest number of Canadians to exercise their franchise.
Since we were not able to come up with an acceptable absentee balloting system-and I suppose this is the main point-it seems to me we should do everything possible to increase the opportunity to cast a ballot. A few amendments have already been accepted and many ideas have been put forward. I believe this is another way, although it might be considered a small point, in which the opportunity to cast a ballot would be enlarged. Surely that is a principle with which no one in this chamber would disagree.
I support the points made earlier by some of my colleagues in relation to the extra hour in the evening, particularly because of the kind of society we now have. We live in urban and suburban areas. People start doing things when they get home from their work, and presumably on election day one of the things they will do is vote. It is more likely that they will vote during that hour because it is more convenient for them. I suggest again that our electoral laws should make it as convenient as possible for voters to cast their ballots. If I were to support any change, I would prefer to see the polls open an hour later in the morning. Our amendment still refers to eight o'clock in the morning, the same as the hour proposed in the bill, but we ask for an additional hour in the evening. A number of reasons have been put forward which I hope will convince those members who are willing to be convinced that this is a worth-while change.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, having considered this clause I feel it is very reasonable as it stands. I agree with the Government House Leader that 11 hours is long enough. Moreover, I would remind the committee that if polling day is lengthened the staff will have to be paid that much more. This will increase election expenses borne by the taxpayer. Under the modern conditions of 1970, anyone who cannot get to the polls to vote after finishing work at five o'clock must work a long way from the poll. I do not believe that many people in this day and age work so far away from the poll they cannot get there by seven o'clock. For that reason I support the clause as it is.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the matter may mean additional expenses, but it is the taxpayer we are concerned about and providing him with a fair opportunity to cast a ballot. The President of the Privy Council

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
has said that as far as he and the government are concerned they have no strong views one way or the other, and that we should approach this question on the basis of our individual experience. I think we must consider that suggestion together with an understanding of what is individual experience. Let me refer to the city of Prince Rupert, which has a group of urban polling divisions. In my experience, people there have missed getting to the poll because of the closing time and the distance they have had to travel.
Let me expand upon that by relating the situation to some rural polling stations on the coast of British Columbia. In some areas of Vancouver Island, loggers have travelling time, that is, the time it takes to get from home to work out in the bush, and vice versa. This time in certain areas ranges up to 2J or 21 hours. Some people have to leave home at 5.30 or a quarter to six to catch the "crummy" at the marshalling point and get to work out in the bush by eight o'clock.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If you reverse this situation, assuming that the polls close at seven o'clock, with standard time in existence at the time of the election the individual receives three hours off from employment, which means he would have to leave his job out in the bush at four o'clock. We might couple that with up to 2J- hours spent in travelling from out in the bush to his home where the polling division should be. There is a half-hour leeway, which is not very much when you take into account the difficulties which might arise.
I have ridden on these "crummies" in logging camps. Sometimes they have flat tires, and during the early winter and late winter there is a very inclement weather, snow or wetness, which causes difficulty in travelling. Travelling under such conditions may take two hours or more, and in such a case the individual would miss the opportunity to vote simply because he worked at a spot which was far away from his place of residence. In many cases it is impossible for him to make the journey in time, even taking into account the three hours he is permitted to be away from his employment.
This is recognized under the elections act of British Columbia. In British Columbia provincial elections the employee is entitled to four hours free time from his employment. That takes into account the additional factor of having to travel long distances in certain areas. In rural areas in southern Ontario and
[Mr. Howard (Skeena) .J
in urban metropolitan centres, sometimes a person has to travel a long distance, but the same problems are not involved. I earnestly plead that this factor be given consideration. I do not think our consideration should be based entirely on the concept of its costing so much money, because our democratic process does cost money. But I believe we have a commitment in terms of spending that money in order to provide the fullest opportunity to voters to cast their ballots.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I was not thinking of the money involved but, rather, the extra hour the polls people would have to work. However, the hon. member has talked me into it. Let us see if he has persuaded anybody else.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, the proposal of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is worthless. In fact, the act stipulates that the employer must give his employees three hours to vote. If an employee leaves at 4 o'clock and cannot get to the poll by 7 o'clock it is because he is too far away. The legislation provides that these people may vote at an advance poll a week before the election.
I wonder how the hon. member for Skeena can imagine that someone who is unable to get to a polling station before 7 o'clock, because he is absent that day, cannot report at an advance poll a week before the election in order to exercise his franchise.
I think that it will not change anything to the act, and the arguments that he puts forward in order to justify adding an additional hour to polling time may apply in all circumstances. But if somebody is able to prove that he is absent from his electoral district on polling day, he may be allowed to cast his ballot a week before at an advance poll.
Therefore, I do not believe that the argument of the hon. member for Skeena is of any value.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to come back to the question that I raised earlier.
As I consider the opening and closing hours of the polling stations, I note that the election workers have to report to the polling station, at least half an hour before opening time. And if we reckon as an average another half an hour to go to the polling stations which, in summer, open at nine o'clock in the morning,
June 23, 1970

these people will have to leave their house at eight o'clock in order to be there in time.
And after the closing of the poll, at eight o'clock, daylight saving time, it takes about an hour to count the ballots and another half hour to go back home. That means that our election workers have to put in a 14 hour-day because, at the dinner hour, there is no closing of the polls.
It is a work day far too long, since the number of electors registered at each polling station generally does not exceed 300. Therefore, if we are unable in 10 or 11 hours to get these people to vote, something is wrong somewhere. As a matter of fact, that may indicate that the polling stations are badly located and that we should endeavour to put them in the centre of the electoral district.
If the election takes place in summer, the polling stations will open at nine o'clock. I believe in winter, fall or spring they should also open not earlier than 9 a.m.
Turning to the argument just put forward by the hon. member for Skeena to the effect that the voter can leave his job at 4 to go to the polling station, I believe that if polling hours are extended by one hour he will not leave at 4, but at 5, since his employer will not have to give him an hour off. He will still have only three horns to get to his polling station.
He will be no better off. Unless it is agreed to start the polling day an hour later in the morning, I must vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena.


James Hugh Faulkner: The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Skeena.
Amendment (Mr. Howard, Skeena) negatived: Yeas 13; nays 32.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we bear a cross here on the left wing.
Subclauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 33, subclause 6-Central polling place.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 6 as revised carry?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, on page 96, subclause (6) of clause 33 reads as follows:
A returning officer may, where he deems it advisable, establish a central polling place where the polling stations of all or any of the polling divisions
Canada Elections Act
of any locality may be centralized, except that no central polling place so established shall comprise more than ten polling divisions unless it is the usual practice in a locality to establish a central polling place for civic, municipal or provincial elections and the Chief Electoral Officer has given his prior permission for the establishment of a central polling place comprising more than ten polling divisions.
Mr. Chairman, this subclause is disputable. In my constituency, I found that for two different elections at least, in a particular town, eight polling stations were centralized in the same hall. But nobody had thought of providing an easy access to that hall. It had only one door and an election worker who was posted at the door allowed the electors to enter the room only one by one. So five or six days would have been necessary to allow all electors to cast their ballots into the ballot boxes!
On each occasion, I had to discuss and argue to be authorized to open the doors and let the electors in that large hall so that they might reach the polls.
Corrective measures should be taken in this connection. I wonder whether it would not be better to make the act state that such central polling places be set up in such a way that electors may be directed by persons employed by the returning officer to the polls where they must vote, so as not to delay unduly the other voters.
To that effect, it is my intention, if this is suitable, Mr. Chairman, to move the following amendment:
That Bill C-215, an Act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons, be amended by deleting the period at the end of subclause 6 of clause 33, line 18, on page 96 thereof, and adding thereto the following:
"and that the centra] polling place be set up in such a way that the electors may get easily to each polling station within the central polling place."


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee has heard the amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Could we see the amendment, Mr. Chairman?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I understand the position of the hon. member, he feels that at least in some polls in the past there was a difficult situation when you had more than one poll in a relatively small room, with the polls all chock-a-block on top of each other. It was difficult for the elector to sort out the poll at which he was required to vote. To give a rough translation of the amendment, it calls for the addition of the following words to

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
subclause 6 at the top of page 96: "that the polling booths be organized in such a way as to provide easy access for electors to the polling booths contained in the polling centre." We might also consider subclause 9 in this connection. It seems to me that the amendment adds a further instruction to the returning officer to facilitate matters for electors, and I have no objection to accept it.
Amendment (Mr. Laprise) agreed to.
Subclause 6 as amended agreed to.
Subclauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 33 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 38 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 39, subclause 1-Who may vote and where.


Roland Godin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to subclause (1) of clause 39. Seconded by the member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) I move:
That subclause (1) of clause 39 be amended by adding after the words "to be required of him" the following:
"if he is not carrying his identification card bearing his photo and duly approved by the governor in council".
I should like to make a few remarks in this connection.
According to the present act, the persons assigned to drawing up voters lists go to every home where they ask the name of the citizens, male and female, who live there and have the right to vote. Voters lists are made up in duplicate and each voter get a copy of the list of his area.
In some rural areas, the citizens exercise their franchise in a proportion of 80 per cent. There is no problem. But, in large cities, where people lose interest in politics, the proportion may be of 20 to 30 per cent. However, it happens that citizens who are not interested in politics are interested in money and they manage to earn a few dollars by selling their copy of the enumerator's notice to elector. The cost of those copies which allows the elector to vote is usually around $5. Families of five individuals with the right to vote are very happy with the present system and they feel they are doing good business since, without even having to go out, they can make $25 on election day.
Under these circumstances, it is the party with the best election funds which will be able to buy the greatest number of copies and have its candidate elected.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
If the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) so desires, I could bring him an election organizer, a man responsible for a "telegraph office," who was in charge of outfitting about a hundred people who, on a certain election day, cast about ten ballots each. I am sure that an identity card is not as easy to trade as the registration copy for which there is such a high demand in the present system. It is to complement the bill now before us that I propose this amendment.
Since there is nothing new in this suggestion and since this method is already applied in a number of countries, I do hope, Mr. Chairman, I will have the support of the majority of the members who are still in favour of truly honest elections.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think this suggestion was first raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere during the debate on second reading. At that time I said that it might indeed be the kind of suggestion which could usefully have been brought forward on at least two occasions at the Standing Committee's hearings, first when it was considering the possibility of a permanent voters' list and, second, when it was considering the general changes to the Elections Act. However, that was not done. Since this amendment raises issues going well beyond the Elections Act, suggesting what in effect would be a compulsory national registration system, I personally would not favour it without a great deal more reflection. For that reason I hesitate to accept it at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, we have an element of difficulty in grasping what is intended. I have the English translation of the amendment, which asks that subclause 1 of clause 39 be amended by adding, immediately after the words "of the present law" the following-and it goes on to give the additional words. However, in the English version of the bill there are no words "of the present law." In the French version the last four words of subclause 1 are "de la presente loi," which is probably authorized by the act. I am not sure of the translation between one and the other, and that makes it difficult to follow. Clause 39(1) in the English version talks in a positive sense about a person, subject to his taking an oath, being allowed to vote at the polling station on the list of electors for which his name appears. The copy of the
June 23, 1970

Canada Elections Act
the negative In order to have the right to vote and that this right is not abused of, I believe the identification card is necessary.
amendment I have states in sense:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
[DOT]-if such person is not bearing an identification card showing his picture and duly approved by the Governor in Council.
I have difficulty following the English version of the amendment. The President of the Privy Council appeared to grasp what it was in the French language, but I had to listen to the translation and did not grasp it clearly. I wonder if we could not stand the item until we get a better idea of what is intended, because at the moment the amendment lacks understanding. I see no connection between the English version of the amendment and clause 1 of the bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is suggesting something additional. This amendment would be contrary to clause 45 of the statute, which states that no elector shall be required to produce a birth certificate or evidence of citizenship. His amendment requires that not only must a person appear and identify himself, if necessary by affidavit as required in the section, but at the same time he must produce an identification card. This card, incidentally, is to be provided under a system which does not now exist under federal law. Not only must he identify himself as a voter on the list, but he must do so by means of this card. This parallels the situation which existed during the war. Without arguing the merits of such a system, I personally would not be persuaded of the wisdom of adding this provision to the Elections Act.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, 1 presume the hon. member is concerned about diminishing the possibility of impersonation, but 1 feel that his suggested cure is fairly extreme. Not only would it be a highly sophisticated form of registration, but it would be almost a regimentation if we had to produce a certificate with a picture on it. Quite seriously, I think we are not quite ready for this refinement. Once again, and this begins to worry me a bit, I find myself in agreement with the President of the Privy Council.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment moved by the hon. member for Porneuf (Mr. Godin) is very timely, because in many countries, everybody has an identification card bearing his photo and must carry it with him, otherwise he could be penalized.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Godin) negatived: Yeas, 4; nays, 37.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost.
Subclause 1 agreed to.
On clause 39, subclause 2-Closed lists in urban polls.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that we stand subclause 2 of clause 39. When we get to clause 47 I propose to suggest an amendment with respect to providing opportunity for electors in urban polling divisions to vote upon being vouched for, notwithstanding the fact that their names do not appear on the appropriate voters' list for that urban division. If my amendment is accepted it will require a consequential amendment to subclause 2 of clause 39.
Clause 39, subclause 2, stands.
Clauses 40 to 44 inclusive agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 45.
On clause 45-
Subclauses 1 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
[Translation1


Marcel Prud'homme: We would just like to change one word in subclause 22 of the French text.

The English translation is very accurate for us. There is a word that is very shocking in French.

where it says, if the hon. members would kindly follow in subclause 22:
(22) Where a polling station has been established in a sanatorium, a home for the aged-

You translate "home for the aged" by the words

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act [Translation]
a "home for the aged" has been translated by "un asile de vieillards". In Canada, especially in Quebec, the word "asile" is generally associated with insanity.
We would like to substitute to the expression "asile de vieillards" the term "un foyer pour personnes agees".

Subclause 22 agreed to
Subclause 23 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 46, subclause 1.
On clause 46, subclause 1-Appointment of proxy voters.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 46, subclause 1, to extend the provisions of proxy voting. May I say at the outset that any amendment we may make on proxy voting does not indicate full support for or agreement with the whole system of proxy voting, but in view of the lack of time to do more about the elections bill we could not arrive at alternatives in the way of absentee polling. We are trying to improve the statute because we do not particularly like the system proposed.
I move that clause 46, subclause 1, be amended by inserting a new paragraph (b) as follows:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
(b) his absence from the polling division in the course of his employment in airline, railway, bus and trucking industries, provided such employment is in the actual operation of aircraft, trains, buses or trucks,
and that the subsequent paragraphs of subclause 1 be relettered.
I know that arguments could be made in favour of other groups or occupations, but we felt that here was one group involved in the operation of modes of transport which ought to be given the option of using the proxy voting system. We know that many of these employees are away from home for many days at a time, days which could include advance polling days and polling day itself, and we thought this group at least should be added to those to whom the provisions of proxy voting apply. Other occupations could be added, but we felt there would be very little trouble in adding these people to the

eligible list. I hope that members of the committee will seriously consider our proposal.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties about the proxy voting system is the increased risk of loss of control, in the sense that there may be loss of assurance of the relative fidelity of the voting system. There are two principles involved here. The first is the principle which motivated the hon. member to give to the maximum number of people the opportunity of voting in an election. There is, on the other hand, the generally desirable attitude that controls over the voting system should be relatively efficacious and that so far as possible we should prevent fraud, personation, and so on.
The problem with personation under our present system exists normally where individual A, knowing that individual B is an elector on the list of a poll and has not yet gone to the poll, goes to the polling station and represents himself to be B and votes in his stead. That is a simple case of personation. The protection against this-I acknowledge it is not very effective protection in the case of an urban poll-is the possibility that he will be recognized by someone at the poll as not being the individual he holds himself out to be. There have been a number of such cases in recent years.
The problem of proxy voting is that there is the risk of personation at one stage further; that is to say, an individual may go to a poll and represent as to a document, on which he or someone else may have forged the signature of an elector, that that is the signature of the absent person. It is difficult at the best of times to know the identity of an elector at an urban poll or, for that matter, at a rural poll and very few people-I think hon. members will recognize this from their own experience-will know the exact signature of an elector. So there is a greater risk of personation in such circumstances. For that reason I understand the committee confined itself to a relatively limited number of situations where it would be physically impossible for individuals to attend at the poll and they would have to appoint an agent for this purpose.
The case which had the greatest appeal for me and for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because of a common friend, was that of persons who because of illness or physical incapacity are incapable of leaving their residence and going to the poll. There you would be least likely to have a case of personation.
June 23, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the most important case, moreover.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My hon. friend says that is the most important case. The other two cases are occupational ones and an argument could be raised-indeed, I raised it myself on second reading-as to whether a more general wording might be applied such as, "All persons who, by the nature of their occupation, will not be able to be present either at the advance poll or at the poll on election day." It has been pointed out to me, however, that owing to the problem I have just mentioned, the risk of personation, the wording should be fairly restrictive. To the extent that we extend this provision to one occupational group we shall invite arguments as to why it should not be extended to other groups, thereby raising the risk of personation and of damage being done.
The occupations which have been cited here are fishermen, mariners and prospectors. In the case of both fishermen and mariners, you have occupations where voters are very commonly on the waters and absent from the community for a period which could cover both the advanced poll and polling day. In the same way, prospectors carry on their activities far removed from the normal places of residence in this country; that is to say, in remote areas where they do not have access to a poll.
I would express at this point my great reluctance to extending the group any further in this regard, although I will be glad to hear the views of hon. members on this point, particularly on the question whether by extending the vote to one industry we should extend it to others and thereby risk the integrity of the system.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, this is one part of the bill, and indeed one part of the committee report, which has caused me the most concern. The introduction of proxy voting is, in the minds of many members, a compromise. Certainly so far as I am concerned, it is second best. I think we will really cover people who are not able physically to be at the place of voting only when we adopt a system of absentee voting whereby these people can get their ballot to the poll without being there themselves.
I think we must bear in mind that a proxy vote is a diluted vote. It represents some diminution of the will of the person to whom the vote is extended because he cannot control, so long as the poll remains secret, what
Canada Elections Act
happens. That is why I still believe we shall achieve only second best so long as in our country we avoid what has been done in other countries, namely, the establishment of a permanent voters' list as a result of which we can establish a system of absentee voting. Then we shall not have an abridged type of franchise by means of the proxy vote. When you start enumerating lists it is quite difficult to be all-encompassing and cover every one.
I remember one election in which a very large and prominent church happened to hold its national assembly. The assembly had begun before the advanced poll began, and those worthy and religious men, except the ones that happened to be resident at the site of the convention, were not able to vote. In our mobile society this sort of thing happens constantly and is not confined to mariners, fishermen and others like them. The group I am concerned about are the patients in nonchronic hospitals-I think this provision would be very useful to them-and the people who are at home and incapable of going to the poll.
I do not like the suggestion that students should vote in this way. I cannot see a student having his "old man" or his mother casting his vote back home for him. I think that is degrading of his rights as a voting citizen. I think the former system was far better even though in 1965, because of unfortunate timing, the country lost the votes of some of these people. It is second-hand voting and, as someone else has suggested, it is not a good thing. I am more kindly disposed to the system being extended to patients in nonchronic hospitals, nursing homes and institutions of that kind. However, I see great danger in all this and we delude ourselves if we think we are extending the full franchise. We are extending something less than the full franchise. I can only accept it as second best, and not a close second at that.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Paul St. Pierre: On second reading of this bill, Mr. Chairman, I said that I intended to introduce an amendment to extend proxy voting to loggers. I have a particular concern in this matter, as do other members from British Columbia and other parts of Canada. Loggers are one group particularly discriminated against by the lack of the absentee ballot. The amendment now before us is similar to the amendment I intended to introduce with regard to loggers. I have since had time to study the lengthy deliberations of the com-

June 23. 1970
Canada Elections Act
mittee on this matter. I have had conversation with officers of the Crown regarding this matter. Difficulties present themselves in extending proxy voting to one class of citizens such as loggers, and not to others, or to a broad class of citizens. Simply to introduce the proxy vote to anyone who in the course of his occupation is likely to be away from his place of residence appears to introduce so many possibilities of misuse, fraud and impersonation that I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the extension of proxy voting beyond the very narrow categories listed here is not a very workable solution.
I have also come to this conclusion with regard to the cl mses which were stood earlier today in the committee's deliberations-clause 17 of the bill, as well as clauses 9 and 10, and specifically clauses 12 and 13. I believe worthwhile amendments could be introduced here and I intend to introduce them at the appropriate time. While they will not provide the vote to all Canadians who by reason of their occupation have to be absent from their place of registration on voting day or on advance polling day, I think the franchise could be extended very considerably by amendments to these clauses. In fact, I am particularly attracted to this way of doing it because the form of the amendments I intend to introduce will not specify loggers, construction workers or any other class of worker. However, it will have general application to anyone who by reason of his occupation must be absent from the polling division in which they are registered on voting day or on advance polling day.
With some regret I have been driven back from the position I took when I first recommended absentee balloting and absentee balloting under a permanent voters' list, which as was pointed out by the hon. member for Hillsborough is the most desirable way of meeting this situation. In its wisdom, the committee found this not to be feasible. I agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough that proxy voting is a compromise. It is not as good as we might hope for, but it is better than nothing. It has limited application.
I hope the committee will agree that I can put forward an amendment to clause 17 concerning a permanent voters' list. The system could be improved considerably to enable a great many more Canadians whose occupations force them to be absent from their polling divisions on voting day or on advance polling day, to cast their vote.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I have mixed feelings about this amendment. My basic inclination is to support it. I am aware of the difficulties of too rapidly broadening the base of voting by proxy. While we are dealing generally with these categories I wish to qualify my opposition to the amendment now before us. The committee might think of it in the context that there is one exception which had a reasonable amount of consideration in the committee. I refer to the exception of elderly or other people who for one reason or another are confined to nursing homes.
The bill requires that a medical certificate be obtained in the case of illness or incapacitation. It is very difficult to get a doctor to issue a medical certificate for an elderly person who may be in a nursing home, hospital or rest home and who is neither ill nor incapacitated but because of age and infirmity is not able to go to a poll to vote. I say there are exceptions. I do not think the President of the Privy Council should be so firm and rigid in his opposition to broadening the system where there are justifiable grounds.
When the amendment now before us is dealt with, I intend to move an amendment to the effect that after the words "illness or physical incapacity" something along the following lines be added, "a patient in a hospital recognized by one or more of the several provinces and/or a patient in a nursing home recognized in one or more of the several provinces". That will take care of people in that specific category. I think the category in the context of the present amendment is a little too broad and could lend itself to abuse. I suggest by way of contrast, that people in nursing homes and similar institutions are not in the same capacity. Many members in this chamber may have parents who are in nursing homes or other institutions of this type. We had a lengthy discussion on this clause when it was before the committee. The committee agreed to at least one useful amendment. With regard to the proposal originally considered by the committee, it was established that the committee was prepared in principle to look at occupational groups, and where there was a clearly identifiable group, the committee was prepared to include these people in their new adventure in voting. I will speak to this matter later.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I suggest this is one category that is clearly identifiable and for which there can be no broadening, expansion or contraction at the
June 23, 1970

time of the prosecution of a general election or by-election. The present amendment does not meet this requirement. It is too broad. It is conceivable that there will be people who travel, such as truck drivers, airline pilots and those in the transportation industry, who by virtue of their day-to-day work will not be able to exercise their franchise on voting day or on advance polling day. In the case of identifiable groups we should ensure, while we have the opportunity to do so, that they are not excluded. But when they are not controllable units, when they cannot be defined, we must be extremely careful not to open the door to possible abuse.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I do not want clause 46 to pass without expressing my pleasure on finding university students included in those covered by the proxy voting procedure. Hon. members may recall that in September, 1965, thousands of students in universities across Canada were disenfranchised because they were caught between the time of the issuing of the writ and the time of taking up residence. For five years I set down on the Order Paper public bills offering a method of correcting this situation.
I presume we are all glad to see it corrected now, as far as this can be done through the proxy vote procedure. I express my thanks to the members of the Standing Committee and especially to the chairman, my hon. friend from Montmorency, for permitting me to appear before the committee and appeal on behalf of students that the act should be changed so as to enable them to vote should an election again be called in the circumstances of 1965.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, when 1 was much younger and much less flabby I used to be a logger. As a result of that experience I began working toward a system of absentee balloting applicable not only to loggers but to others who followed occupations which kept them away from their ordinary residences or meant their moving from one residence to another. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin is familiar with this situation.
The hon. member for Hillsborough and I were the two members of the Standing Committee this year who were also members of the same Standing Committee in 1960 when the last major revision of the Elections Act was undertaken. In that year, those of us who advocated an absentee system of balloting were not able to get much support in the 22478-50
Canada Elections Act
committee or, for that matter, any support. As a matter of fact, I had to prevail upon the hon. member for Ottawa West to support me in order to get a motion before the committee for its consideration. I did not realize at that time that a seconder was not needed.
At any rate, after determining that there was no support in the committee for the idea of absentee balloting, for what were obviously valid reasons, I advanced the idea of a proxy system of voting because such a system existed in Ontario for mariners and perhaps for those in other occupations. Again, the idea got nowhere. I was its only supporter. When the committee began to consider this session the question of proxy voting, I wished to extend the principle to include workers in every occupation one could think of, because I was so wedded to the idea of providing a voting opportunity for as many people as possible who normally are disenfranchised by reason of the demands of their occupations.
As I began by saying, I worked in the logging industry on the west coast; I know the difficulties the loggers encounter and realize they are shared by large numbers of miners and construction workers. The Standing Committee spent a long time dealing with the principal point enunciated by the President of the Privy Council, namely, that one must be extremely cautious about extending a facility such as this, bearing in mind the liabilities which might result from such action in terms of personation, duplication of voting and the like. The opinion was expressed that proxy voting should be confined in the main to those who would not normally have an opportunity to get to any polling station.
Earlier, we had prepared amendments covering loggers and construction workers. We reflected on the matter very seriously and in the end decided not to proceed with them because of the inherent difficulties likely to result from their application. I think the present approach is probably a good way of dealing with this question as far as it concerns a large group of workers who, unlike transportation workers, do not have a set destination or a set place of employment. Transportation workers fall into a special category. Normally they work on what is called a run. They set out for the turn-around point, at which they might spend some time, and then they return to their point of origin. So I think we can draw a distinction between transport workers and larger groups of workers, which it is virtually impossible to identify except in the most general terms, engaged in work of a

June 23. 1970
Canada Elections Act
transient nature, or people who work in areas where they are located only temporarily.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I urge general support of the concept advanced by my hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre, recognizing the difficulties encountered by this large group of people who work in areas where they are only temporarily located. I hope, too, that hon. members will endorse the proposal made by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin when we return to clause 17. If we do this, we shall be moving with all necessary care and attention to preserving the integrity of the balloting system and protecting it against abuses which can and do develop within it. We shall be advancing properly and carefully in the direction we want, namely, that of providing the best opportunity to the greatest number of people to cast their ballots.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, my colleague said that I do not agree with him, but this is only partly true. I think if we are to have a proxy voting system it should be extended to as many people as possible. I am sure no one would disagree with the idea of as many people as possible casting their ballots in the way they wish. I am sympathetic to what has been said in favour of proxy votes, but I should like to extend the system. When elections are held during the school year, most students become disqualified from voting because they are away from their normal place of residence. I think we should give consideration more to a system of absentee voting than proxy voting. This would allow the voter to make his own decision.
Sometimes people are prevented from voting simply because they are incapacitated and cannot cast their ballot. There was a poem written by someone in my riding which I should like to read to the committee. Perhaps fortunately, I do not have it with me. It is about a galloping ballot box in a provincial election held in Timiskaming. One of the candidates had a big car and he conveyed the three scrutineers, the deputy returning officer, the clerk and the ballot box to a number of houses in the area to enable people living there to cast their ballots. Many ballots in that election were cast in kitchens, bedrooms and such places which were visited one hour before the polls closed, and this was because a good many people had not been able to vote. Although this was highly illegal, and at the same time somewhat hilarious, none of the candidates in the election-my father was

one-pressed any charges relating to an infraction of the act because all of them believed it had been a good idea to let Mrs. Jones vote, and also Mr. Smith who had been confined to his home with a broken leg. In effect, they moved the polling station to the homes of the voters.
I have suggested on previous occasions that elections should be held every four years at a time when they did not conflict with students' activities. But I would not like to see our enthusiastic young people take advantage of the situation. I know there is some protection in a declaration having to be made on the preceding Friday by a person who wants to vote by proxy, but with the Postmaster General handling the mails it could take two weeks or more before the notification was received, and there would be no safeguard provided. In that event, young people who are now eligible to vote would be able to vote in two places. In view of what happened in the last election, I would not want this to happen. Nevertheless, the possibility is there. You would have mother voting at home and her son voting in Toronto or wherever his college was located. There are a number of ways of meeting this objective which would be less detrimental than the present system. Many countries have adopted the absentee balloting system and I think our Elections Act should make provision for it, in favour of the present scheme.
I also think the principle of proxy voting is wrong. I can see many more abuses than advantages flowing from this situation. This seems to me a poor substitute for a system that would eliminate abuse and still make it possible for eligible voters to cast their own ballots. It has been pointed out that a number of infirm, elderly and incapacitated people will be able to vote by proxy. I think in this regard the elderly people of the nation are being misjudged. I do not think they would tell anybody how they intended to vote. In many cases they would not even tell their own spouse. They take great satisfaction from the secrecy of the ballot.


Marcel Prud'homme: We saw that in England.


William Arnold Peters: Neither are they interested in how other people voted. In England they had the same difficulty that we had during the last election; many people were not free to tell their spouses how they voted until after election day. The elderly would not ask their spouse to cast a ballot for them with any
June 23, 1970

assurance, and as a result I think this proxy voting system would be used very little.
If this is the only system that is feasible, the amendment moved by my colleague from Regina should be made applicable to those limited categories of people I have suggested, so they can exercise their franchise on election day. I would support the amendment while still being opposed to the principle of a proxy voting system, which I predict will not last more than one election. I would far sooner see absentee balloting, which I think everybody desires.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Burton:: Just a few words on this particular clause, Mr. Chairman, since I feel strongly about some of the points and principles involved. Clause 46 as submitted to the House by the government arises from the report of the committee and enunciates a new principle in connection with proxy voting. The committee, of course, wrestled with some very real problems in endeavouring to enable the greatest possible number of people to exercise their right to the franchise at an election. However, I have very serious doubts about and disagreements with the principle involved in clause 46 and, as a consequence, with the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.
I feel we must take into account the very real administrative and mechanical problems that will be involved in making this clause work in an acceptable way. All sorts of problems will exist. The hon. member for Timis-kaming has pointed out some of the problems that will arise as a consequence of this clause. Beyond that, there seems to be a more basic principle involved. It seems to me the principle of proxy voting is basically inconsistent with our democratic process, with our democratic operations, with our society and our nation. I feel it is wrong in principle and that it is inconsistent with the principles of democratic government to enable a voter to transfer his right to vote to someone else, however much we may say-and this will be the fact on many occasions-that the voter who receives the proxy will carry out the wishes of the person granting it.
I feel it is a faulty principle which enables voters to transfer what in fact must be regarded as a sacred right if we are to maintain a democratic society and a democratic government in this country. I believe that extending the principle of proxy voting as has been proposed in clause 46, with the still 22478-504
Canada Elections Act
further extension in the amendment before us, will have an eroding effect upon the election process as we know it. I feel that it will also have an eroding effect in terms of public attitude toward our functioning as a democracy.
I concur with the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming, that we should be looking at a system of absentee voting. I feel this is the principle we should be working toward. This system in fact could and would go much further than the proposals before us in fulfilling the objectives sought. We have seen absentee voting in operation in various parts of Canada from time to time. In fact, there have been occasions when problems have arisen in this respect. I could quote instances which have occurred in my own province of Saskatchewan when the government, formed by the party of which I am a supporter, instituted a system of absentee voting. It worked very well for several elections. When it came to the close election in 1964, it was found that there were certain weaknesses in the system which had been established. I suggest that those weaknesses could have been corrected by making changes in the mechanics of the system and that in fact in principle the system was very sound.
Thus, I very much regret that the committee did not come forward with a recommendation for a system of absentee voting. Therefore, I place on record my view that we should be working toward a system of absentee voting rather than a system of proxy voting as is proposed in this bill.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 28.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost. Shall subclause 1 of clause 46 carry?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, a few
moments ago I rose to indicate that I wanted to move a further amendment. Before I do so, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would address himself to the suggestion I made, in a manner which will assist those of us who must find some direction not only in the words of the measure but in the spirit and the intent of this clause. He might

June 23. 1970
Canada Elections Act
lend us of his learned and wise mind by giving an interpretation of the clause. Perhaps he would address himself to the interpretation of clause 46 (1) (b) in terms of whether this provision can be construed to include, as I mentioned a little earlier, the many thousands of elderly people in Canada who are at home, in nursing homes or special care institutions and who, while neither physically ill nor incapacitated, are not capable of going out, for example on a rainy day, on a bad day in the winter or on an exceptionally hot day in the spring or the early fall for the purpose of voting.
I do not know why the hon. member for Saint-Denis is laughing. If he does not care about the elderly people in Canada, that is fine; but I ask him not to laugh at me while I am trying to protect them.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. My friend knows very well that is not the case. I do not like that remark to be on the record, and that is why I am saying this.


J. Michael Forrestall: Well, do not laugh. I think this is a serious thing. We would be very remiss in our duty if we went to the extent we have in order to bring in this new concept of voting at federal general elections, and failed to include in the act a clear definition of what we mean. We should have an interpretation by someone in a responsible position. We would be very remiss if by failing to do either of those two things we denied to many hundreds of thousands of elderly Canadians the right to vote. I have in mind those who are mentally alert and are deeply interested in the things that are happening in their country. I think all of us, without going too far back in our personal campaigning experiences, could enumerate many instances of people who wanted to exercise their franchise but were not able to do so. I suggest we now have a vehicle by means of which this can be done.
My interpretation of the situation as it now stands-I hope I am wrong-is that a medical certificate is required. My learned friends who are members of the bar know very well that we had an interesting discussion with the chairman of our committee on this subject, and I appreciate his views. He knows very well that we shall not make a valid judgment based on an emotional matter, but that we shall make a valid judgment based on fact.
If a person should not be ill and not physically incapacitated, a doctor or other respon-

sible authority would not sign a medical certificate saying that he was. Indeed, if I were the person for whom such a certificate was being signed, I think I would resent it. On the other hand, it is quite possible that during the winter, or because of other circumstances, it might be extremely difficult for me to get out to vote. Yet we have in this bill a clause that very nearly covers such a situation. It does not, because it only covers people who are factually ill or factually physically incapacitated to the point where they just cannot get out and do what they would wish to do.
Therefore, it is a question, if not of an amendment then certainly of our hearing a few words on the question of interpretation from the minister who is piloting this bill through the House. He should tell us just what is the intent of clause 46(l)(b). This is a fairly narrow but important point because of the number of people involved. I hope the interpretation on this narrow point will be such that the individual concerned will be able to make a value judgment. The responsibility for making a value judgment which is not necessarily based on fact would be removed from the doctor, the hospital superintendent or whoever the person might be.
I do not believe we have the right to require our professional people to make this type of judgment. On the other hand, I believe there is a very clear deficiency in the clause as it now stands. If the President of the Privy Council would address himself to this point, and if his explanation in terms of what is intended is sufficiently clear and satisfactory to me, there will be no need to move an amendment. This might simplify matters.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, for what my opinion on this point is worth, I think that here we are speaking of a medical practitioner in the sense of a doctor, head nurse of an institution or some other person who is from time to time medically treating a person in the group in question-in fact, all those persons who would be making decisions in respect of the health, to use the antonym of the word in the clause, or the physical well-being of the person. These people would be required to give a value judgment which I think would hardly be a judgment of fact such as the hon. member referred.
The hon. member suggested that the medical practitioner and the officials should not give a judgment based on anything other
June 23, 1970

than fact. I think the truth of the matter is that virtually every medical judgment is made, not on fact alone but on professional opinion based on knowledge of the facts concerning the particular individual. This ultimately is a question of opinion and judgment.
In respect of the group the hon. member has in mind, and which I certainly had in mind when advocating this change to the Election Act during the course of the current parliamentary session, I am thinking of those who because of advanced years would have the greatest difficulty. In such a case, probably the advice of their practitioner would be that in the interest of their health they should not go outside their residence, or possibly even outside the room in which, regrettably, they happen to be confined. Under such circumstances I do not have any doubt that this provision would be very broadly construed. A medical practitioner should not have difficulty in signing the kind of certificate which would be required in respect of his patient, in order to give that person an opportunity to vote by proxy.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I think I could find this interpretation quite acceptable. I think it clarifies what is intended in this narrow provision. I think the point the President of the Privy Council is attempting to make is clear, and that returning officers seeking a clear understanding of what is intended by this clause would find the necessary counsel in simply reading the words of the President of the Privy Council. I will accept that as an interpretation.
Subclause 1 agreed to.
Subclauses 2 to 13 inclusive agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 46 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 46 agreed to on division: Yeas, 34; nays, 5.


Albert Béchard: I declare the clause carried.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we might revert to clause 17 which was stood for the purpose of considering the proxy voting system.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 17-
Canada Elections Act
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we have given further consideration to this clause and I would like to suggest several amendments to subclause 9 and subclause 17 which would in effect remove the rather narrow application of subclause 9 and apply it in favour of any person who changes his place of ordinary residence from one polling division to another in the same or in another electoral district during the course of a general election campaign. The same principle would apply to subclause 17 and would cover any person who changes his ordinary residence, following the enumeration date, to another polling division in the same electoral district. This would have the effect of removing the rather narrow category referred to in subclause 9 and would broaden it to include anybody who during the time period in question had moved, therefore making it possible for such persons to be put on the voters' list of the district to which they had moved. Since it probably would not be appropriate for me to move these amendments, I would ask my colleague the hon. member for Don Valley to move them in his name.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-215 he amended
(a)	by striking out lines 27 to 43 on page 28 and lines 1 to 25 on page 29 and substituting the following:
Exception '(9) For the purpose of a general election only and notwithstanding anything in this act, any person who, during the period between the enumeration date and polling day, changes his place of ordinary residence from one polling division to another polling division in the same or another electoral district, if he is otherwise qualified as an elector and so elects,
(a)	may apply in person
(i)	where he has moved to an urban polling division, to the revising officer appointed for the appropriate revisal district, or
(ii)	where he has moved to a rural polling division, to the rural enumerator appointed for that polling division,
during the sittings for revision, to have his name included in the list of electors for the polling division in which he is ordinarily resident at the time of his application: and
(b)	upon his name having been included in the list of electors for the appropriate polling division, is entitled to vote at the polling station established for that polling division.'

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
(b) by renumbering subclauses 11 to 17 of clause 17 as subclauses 10 to 16, respectively, and by adding thereto, immediately after the renumbered subclause 16, the following subclause:
Idem	'(17) For the purpose of a by-election only and notwithstanding anything in this act, any person who, during the period between the enumeration date and polling day, changes his place of ordinary residence from one polling division to another polling division in the same electoral district, if he is otherwise qualified as an elector and so elects,
(a)	may apply in person
(i)	where he has moved to an urban polling division, to the revising officer appointed for the appropriate revisal district, or
(ii)	where he has moved to a rural polling division, to the rural enumerator appointed for that polling division
during the sittings for revision to have his name included in the list of electors for the polling division in which he is ordinarily resident at the time of his application; and
(b)	upon his name having been included in the list of electors for the appropriate polling division, is entitled to vote at the polling station established in that polling division. (18) Rules 50, 51 and 52 of schedule
A to section 13 do not apply to any application made pursuant to subsection 9 or 17.'


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Kaplan) agreed to: Yeas, 49; nays, 7.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I move:
That clause 17 of Bill C-215 be further amended
(a)	by striking out line 38 on page
29	and substituting the following:
Temporary	'(11) At a general election, a perworkers	son shall be deemed to be'
(b)	by striking out lines 8 and 9 on page 30 and substituting the following :
'therein since the date of the issue of the writ ordering the election;'
(c)	by striking out line 16 on page
30	and substituting the following: 'mentioned in subsection 11 who has come'
(d)	by striking out lines 24 to 26 on page 30 and substituting the following :
'continuous residence therein since the date of the issue of the writ ordering the election.'


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member for Coast Chil-cotin had an amendment at this point to subclause 8.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment of which I gave notice to the committee earlier. It arises out of my earlier statement that I had hoped to extend to loggers the clause on proxy voting and for reasons which I need not repeat to the committee this has not proven feasible. As a matter of fact, like many other hon. members I am disturbed that one particular group such as loggers should be chosen in this connection. I have chosen them because they are numerous in my riding. Because of the nature of their occupation, they are often not in the place of their ordinary residence on polling day, or on advance polling day. There are many other people in the same category. Subclause 12 (b) could improve the situation for these workers.
For the benefit of those who are not familiar with west coast logging, I might explain to members of the committee-although I am sure this situation is repeated in respect of different occupations in many other parts of Canada-that it is very difficult for a person employed in the logging industry to be certain where he will be on a date some weeks or months in advance. A great many loggers have their ordinary places of residence in large towns, in the city of Vancouver or elsewhere. Their ordinary place of work is likely to be in extremely isolated areas, isolated by everything except air or sea transport, say, at the head of B.C. coastal inlets. The times of work are irregular. Naturally, they are under a union contract, yet there are many camps where even under the union contract a logger may work three weeks with one week off, which he spends at home. There is the further difficulty in that elections are usually held in the spring, summer or early autumn and during the summer months in British Columbia no one can foresee when a dry season will result in a complete shutdown of the woods industry. In the bill before the committee the provision for temporary residence reads as follows:
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
A person shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident, on the enumeration date for an election, in a polling division in which he is temporarily residing while temporarily employed in the pursuit of his ordinary gainful occupation-
This does not specify logger or construction worker; it merely says "in the pursuit of his ordinary gainful occupation", and this wording is good and broad. It goes on to say:
-and is entitled to have his name included in the list of electors-
June 23, 1970

Then we have paragraphs (a) and (b) and (c). Paragraph (a) deals with whether he is otherwise qualified, and (c) states as follows:
is on polling day still temporarily residing therein while temporarily employed in the pursuit of his ordinary gainful occupation.
But in (b), Mr. Chairman, it is stated:
has been in continuous residence therein for at least thirty days immediately preceding the enumeration date;
I am afraid this is an alteration of the act in the wrong direction. Under the present act the provision for residence amounts to about 56 days, but this provision of 30 days preceding enumeration date requires a residence dating back to at least 79 days before polling day. I think this is unreasonable and unnecessary, even to prevent fraud. Of course, fraud is possible in respect of everything we are passing in this committee tonight. In proxy voting there is a danger of impersonation, and in the temporary residence qualification there is the risk of fraud and impersonation. I suggest that it is the duty of the committee to make a good and sound compromise between the dangers of fraud and impersonation and the necessity of extending the franchise, most particularly to people whose livelihood requires their absence from polling divisions. I have an amendment to move to subclause 12 and, if it is accepted, a consequential amendment to subclause 13. These will not, of course, provide votes for all the people I am dealing with in my remarks, but they will considerably expand the number who will be able to vote and who in preceding elections have not been able to do so.
Like a great many members in this House, I am convinced that the only truly satisfactory system, and one which we must eventually adopt, is that of a permanent voters' list and a system of absentee balloting. At this time, however, I am not prepared to quarrel with the hard working committee which has gone into this question thoroughly and is unable to declare that to be feasible at this time. I suggest that it will become feasible when we can standardize the requirements for eligible voters among federal voters, provincial voters and, hopefully, amongst municipal voters. In this way the considerable cost of maintaining a permanent voters' list would be borne by the three levels of government and we would have an ideal system of a permanent voters' list and an absentee balloting system.
Canada Elections Act
Mr. Chairman, my amendment to subclause 12, paragraph (b) is as follows:
that section 17, subsection 12, be amended by striking out lines 8 and 9 on page 30 and substituting therefor the words "therein for at least 20 days immediately preceding polling day".
While making no fundamental alteration in the security of the ballot as it exists, I suggest a 20-day period will entitle a great many more people, specifically loggers and workers in similar occupations, to cast their ballot in the next election. I invite the committee to support this motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman,
having had a conversation with the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, and having read the amendment which he drafted earlier, I should like to indicate my support for it. The amendment relates to an earlier debate about the proxy voting system. However, I think there should be a follow-up amendment to subclause 13. This clause relates to the wife or dependant of a person. It seems to me that the President of the Privy Council had proposed amendments to precisely the same area, but I am not sure whether he actually moved them or just indicated his intention to do so. The member for Coast Chilcotin has advanced a time of 20 days before polling day, and a piece of paper which I have in my hand and which I think emanated from the President of the Privy Council states, "at the issuance of the writ ordering the election." As I say, I do not know whether he moved that amendment or not. I hope he did not, because the amendment advanced by the member for Coast Chilcotin is much less restrictive and provides greater opportunity for those people who otherwise find themselves disenfranchised by reason of following their gainful occupation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member should wait until my amendment is put and carried, and then he could move a subsequent amendment or a subamendment. At the moment it does not happen to be in that form.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do you guarantee it will pass?


An hon. Member:: How can he guarantee it?


Gerald William Baldwin: I thought he could guarantee anything.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I thought the President of the Privy Council had in fact moved an amendment which covered four parts of clause 17, and I do not know how many subclauses it relates to. If

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
the amendment properly before us is the one moved by the President of the Privy Council and he is reluctant to withdraw those sections which the member for Coast Chileotin also seeks to amend, we shall have to look at the proposition advanced by the member for Coast Chileotin if he wants to put it before us now as an amendment to the amendment, to put it in its procedurally correct position.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, while the amendment I put under subparagraph (b) would fit into the scheme of clause 12 as it exists, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Coast Chileotin will not. Therefore, all of clause 12 will have to be redrafted to take care of the actual circumstances. I am sure the hon. member for Don Valley would be happy to withdraw that part of the amendment referring to "since the date of the issue of the writ ordering the election".
I point out to the hon. member for Coast Chileotin that I thought he had taken advice on this point. The amendment to clause 12 will have to be rather more substantial than the one he has introduced. Perhaps that could be done on his behalf. I am sure the hon. member for Don Valley would be prepared to agree to withdrawing subparagraph (b) as put forward with the words, "since the date of the issue of the writ ordering the election".


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member for Don Valley is to withdraw that part, which would leave my motion with respect to paragraph (b). I assume a second amendment is required to clause 13, the effect of which is to change the time for 30 days immediately preceding the date of enumeration to 20 days preceding polling day. Am I correct in this assumption?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If someone can do the proper patching, I should like very much to support the suggestion of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, could we not stand this part while the minister considers what is to be done?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, since it appears that it will be necessary to do a fair amount of redrafting to accommodate the hon. member's amendment, perhaps we could move to another clause while the draftsmen are determining what needs be done.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: Does the committee agree that all of clause 17 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 17 stands.


James Hugh Faulkner: Does the committee agree that we turn to rule 39 of schedule A, clause 18?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, these are all amendments consequential to whatever amendments are made to clause 17. Therefore, I would suggest that we return to clause 47 and set aside for the moment the amendments moved by the hon. member for Don Valley.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 47, subclause 1-Manner of voting by qualified elector whose name is not on the list in a rural polling division.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman,
before clause 47 carries may I seek some advice as to the procedure I ought to follow? I want to move an amendment but wish to avoid renumbering all the subsequent clauses in the bill. I could classify my amendment as clause 47A in order to avoid the consequential renumbering of clauses. May I have some advice as to whether I might do that following the passage of clause 47, or can I advance it as clause 47A while we are considering clause 47? I should like some advice as to the correct procedural course to follow.


James Hugh Faulkner: Perhaps the hon. member would indicate what the amendment will be. It may then be easier to judge.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, while the amendment appears lengthy, its substance may be summed up shortly. With my amendment is a subsequent amendment affecting two of the forms in schedule 1. They are attached to the amendment and are being distributed for the sake of clarification. What you have in your hand, sir, is a proposal two pages in length. It is headed "New section 47A." There are also two other forms.
Very simply, the amendment is this: For many years there has been a provision in the act that a qualified elector in a rural polling division whose name is not upon the voters' list for the appropriate polling division may still cast his ballot after taking an oath as to who he is. In it he must undertake other obligations and give information. Also, some-
June 23. 1970

one who is a registered voter on the voters' list must appear with him, vouch for him and take an oath saying that he knows the person who seeks to vote even though his name is not on the voters' list. This is a fairly common practice in rural polling divisions and it is of advantage to those who for one reason or another are not able to have their names appear on the voters' list or at the court of revision for the rural polling division.
Some people wonder why the same provision is not available in an urban polling division and this has been a cause of concern. This is especially so in areas which at one time were classified as rural polling divisions and because of the growth and development of the area have been reclassified as urban polling divisions. People wonder why in the one case they can follow one procedure and [DOT]take an oath, and then simply because the community or polling division has been reclassified or called by a different name they cannot follow that procedure. I know that many members have been interested in developing a mechanism under which the people of urban polling divisions can take advantage of such a procedure.
Perhaps the suggestion I am making is not thoroughly acceptable. Perhaps it does not contain sufficient safeguards. I am advancing it by way of amendment in the hope that as a result of further discussion we may bring about a meeting of minds. I hope we may find a way of permitting people to cast their ballots in the way suggested, while at the same time restricting and confining those areas in which abuse might take place.
Briefly, the amendment provides that a person in an urban polling division whose name is not on the voters' list for that polling division may cast his ballot if he takes an oath in which he identifies himself-similar to the oath that is taken in a rural polling division-and if he brings along with him a person, whose name is on the voters' list for that urban polling division and who is a member of a certain occupational or professional group. The occupational or professional groups which would be acceptable in the vouching procedure are those groups which are acceptable to the passport office in cases where the identity of the person must be vouched for in applying for a passport. There are an additional two, or perhaps three, occupational categories which the Canada Elections Act contemplates are composed of people worthy of taking an oath and vouching for a person under the act.
Canada Elections Act
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
I will read the whole of proposed clause 47A. It follows to a large extent the provisions of clause 47, to make the necessary changes to give effect to what I seek to do. I move:
That clause 47 be amended by adding the following:
47a (1). Subject to this section, any person who is qualified to vote in an electoral district in which an election is pending and is, on polling day, ordinarily resident in an urban polling division may, notwithstanding that his name does not appear on the official list of electors for the urban polling division, vote at the appropriate polling station established therefor.
That is word for word clause 47 relating to rural polling divisions, with the exception that the word "urban" is substituted for the word "rural". Subclause 2 is as follows:
(2)	Any person described in subsection 1 is entitled to vote only
(a)	upon his being vouched for by an elector of any of the occupations or professions of mayor; postmaster; minister; priest or ecclesiastic of any religious faith or worship; barrister; solicitor; notary public; physician, surgeon; dentist; school principal; bank manager; chartered accountant; magistrate; justice of the peace; or a commissioner for taking affidavits in the province and whose name appears on the official list of electors for the urban polling division and who is ordinarily resident therein and personally attends with him at the polling station and takes an oath in Form No. 5XA and-
That is identical to the provisions relating to rural polling divisions, with the exception that the word "urban" is substituted for the word "rural". The clauses or provisions are enumerated, whereas in the rural system it states "any person".
(b)	upon himself taking an oath in Form No. 52A.
(3)	The poll clerk shall make such entries in the poll book as the deputy returning officer directs him to make, including the name of the elector who vouched for the applicant elector and such other entries as are required by this Act.
That is identical to clause 47, subclause 3, where it relates to rural polling divisions.
(4)	Every elector is guilty of an illegal practice and of an offence against this act who vouches for an applicant elector knowing that the applicant is for any reason disqualified from voting in the polling division at the election.
That provision is identical to subclause 4 which relates to rural polling divisions. I have included an additional, albeit arbitrary, provision as follows:
(5)	Everyone is guilty of an illegal practice and of an offence against this act who vouches for more than two electors at an election.

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
The forms in schedule I of the proposed amendment are not before us. They are simply for assistance in appreciating what the full force of the amendments would be. They simply substitute the word "rural" in the appropriate places. With respect to subclause 5, I originally thought, as a further confinement and restriction, about the potential use that might be made of this provision. In areas where there are urban polls and in which there is a great deal of anonymity among residents, a person should not vouch for more than one elector. I think there are many areas in our urban polling divisions where it would be extremely difficult to find a mayor, postmaster, barrister, solicitor, bank manager or a number of the other occupations previously mentioned. Therefore I chose the arbitrary two-for-one concept. Again, that is a method to which I am not completely wedded.
We should take some steps to offer qualified electors in urban polling divisions the opportunity to cast their ballots in somewhat the same way as the opportunity available to qualified electors in rural polling divisions, taking into account the necessity of and putting some proscriptions, prohibitions or confinements on the opportunity to make sure that abuse is minimal.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was kind enough to tell me in a general way of his intention to move this amendment. I therefore had an opportunity of reflecting on the general proposal and looking through this and the consequential amendments. As I indicated on second reading, the Ontario election law provides a certain amount of vouching in urban polls, particularly related to the fact that a person's name may be on a previous municipal list which provides certain evidence of local residence.
I was in favour of the motion as far as extending the privilege to urban voters was concerned. My colleagues have expressed concern. I suppose one's attitude in this regard is dependant upon local experience. I personally have not found any difficulty with the Ontario law, and I find vouching feasible under some circumstances. Some of my colleagues have doubts in this regard. Therefore, I have to approach any voting proposal from the standpoint of whether the concerns expressed to me can be met. I am not satisfied that they can be met by the rather ingenious method employed by the hon. member. He has chosen a rather more limited group than was available, for example, to rural electors.

He is not choosing every elector in the poll but every elector who may come within one of these occupational classes.
There are two difficulties, particularly with reference to his analogy to passport applications. A person attesting to a passport application is required to attest not only as to his knowledge of the individual but to having known the individual for at least two years. In this case there is a situation whereby an individual would present himself to a minister, barrister, dentist, school teacher, bank manager or chartered accountant and say, "I am John Jones. I live at this address, which is in this constituency. I ask you to attest for me in this poll". Unless a person in one of those categories has actual knowledge of the individual's identity and place of residence, if he were a careful person he would say, "You may be both of those things, but how can I be sure? In view of the penalties involved, I do not propose to take that risk". That is what a person in that category would be required to say with regard to a passport application. Unlike normal vouching in a rural case, this is not a case of someone who enjoys propinquity, such as a neighbour or relative. This is a stranger picked from a list. He may not live close to the individual, and for that reason may not be able to attest to his identity and normal residence.
I agree this provision would assist in a limited number of cases where a barrister, bank manager, principal or mayor of the town happened to be a neighbour and could attest to these facts. In a large number of cases that would not apply. The amendment does not get around the basic problem of vouching in urban polls; that is the problem of the anonymity of the city, the fact that people do not necessarily know their neighbours. The difficulty arises when it comes to deciding who should be added to the list, bearing in mind the need to protect the system. My inclination would be to vote against the proposal even though I am concerned that the urban voter is placed at a disadvantage by reason of the absence of the vouching power.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have not had a chance to look at the interesting document I received a short while ago. We are all concerned about the difference between rural and urban voters when an election has been called and constituents have not been properly enumerated.
I notice there are still elements of discrimina-
June 23, 1970

tion here. We are getting used to urban people receiving mail in five days and country people in six, and I am not sure I like that. But in this case only a certain group of urban people can attest, whereas in a rural poll any voter may do so. As my hon. friend, the Rhodes scholar from Edmonton-West, has pointed out, there is even discrimination in the group mentioned here. I greatly resent the suggestion that a barrister is more competent to perform this duty than a university professor. So there are internal problems.
A little more serious is the potential danger that where there is too relaxed an attitude on election day, there might be a corresponding relaxation beforehand of the activity of revising officers, and so on, so that what was gained on election day might be lost in the other stages of the enumeration process. This is the kind of consideration I should like to weigh and reflect on. I should like to consult with the sage of Peace River and others before I would be ready to say this proposal was good. It is too bad that it was not brought up in the committee, where we might have reflected on it during the long nights of the winter.


J. Michael Forrestall: Had the hon. member had the wisdom to look to the mother of all elections acts in Canada, the province of Nova Scotia, he might have found a precedent for dealing with the urban vote in a more successful way. I, too, wish this matter had been brought up in the committee so we might have given attention to it there.
The principal objection I would have to the proposal is this: In spite of the long list of those eligible for duty, albeit it does not include university professors, it would be difficult on election day to find one of these individuals prepared to do this work, particularly if one did not know a person in one of the categories mentioned. I cannot imagine going to my bank manager and asking him to do something like that for me. I am not saying, of course, that I am not grateful to him; in fact, my bank manager is one of the finest men in Canada.


Yves Forest: I will make sure he hears about what you have just said.


J. Michael Forrestall: Will you? He is the manager of the Bank of Montreal across the street, and he is a tremendous fellow.


An hon. Member:: Be sure to send him a copy of Hansard.
Canada Elections Act


J. Michael Forrestall: I might do that. I will take it in when I discuss my overdraft. There is a simple procedure which has been tested in Nova Scotia. In spite of the fears of those responsible for the conduct of elections, it has been found to be highly successful and no abuses were apparent. I suppose some abuses did occur, but my suggestion is that these were negligible in terms of what we are seeking to achieve. What I have in mind is that a procedure might be worked out whereby an elector who found that his name was not included on the list would appear at the poll and then be directed to a place where the returning officer would be sitting. There, he could make his argument and persuade the revising officer to issue a simple certificate which he could then take back to the polling station, accompanied by another elector whose name was on the list and who would be prepared to vouch for him by taking a simple oath.
This is the procedure which has been tested in elections in Nova Scotia and found not wanting. In the urban centres where it has been used, it has restored the right to exercise their franchise to a substantial number of people who would not otherwise have been able to vote. Once an elector has persuaded a revising officer that he is entitled to vote, the procedure is akin to that followed in the rural poll. The difference is, of course, that in a rural poll where there is general knowledge of the people entitled to vote in the area, it is not necessary for a voter to make an appearance at a special sitting of a revising officer or of the returning officer.


James Hugh Faulkner: It being 11 o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, since there are further drafts to be looked at, I think it would be desirable that we continue this discussion on Thursday. The hon. member for Selkirk put a proposition before the committee. I wonder whether it would meet the convenience of hon. members if we were to sit a few minutes longer to deal with his. I understand he may find difficulty in being present on Thursday.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I do not know what "his" is, but I do not mind.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not mind the hon. member for Selkirk putting forward his point

June 23, 1970
Canada Elections Act
of view if he cannot stay in the House until we rise. But the question is, for how long? This is a lot of nonsense. I should like to know how long we are going to sit. Either the elections bill will go through after sitting many extra hours tonight or it will pass in five minutes on Friday afternoon. Let us not fool around. I do not detract from anything the hon. member for Selkirk may have said, but I refuse to give consent without there being a time limit.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Selkirk and myself-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not in his seat. A proposition has been put to the House and a caveat has been entered. The House can proceed only with unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we have a time limit of 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: House again in committee of the whole. The hon. member for Selkirk.
On clause 23-


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its indulgence. The amendment I am proposing received agreement in principle this afternoon and it was agreed we would stand the clause to allow consultations to take place in order to deal with specific objections that had been made to it. I think these have now been dealt with. If hon. members would turn to page 85 of the bill, I should like to propose an additional subclause following subclause 13. My amendment is in these terms:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 34 on page 85 and substituting the following:
'Act are void.
Leave of (14) Every employer of employees absence to whom the Canada Labour (Standards) Code applies shall, upon application to him by any such employee, grant to the employee leave of absence, [Mr. Nowlan.l
with or without pay, to seek nomination as a candidate and to be a candidate for election for such period during an election as may be requested by the employee.'
As I noted this afternoon, the purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that there are no obstacles placed in the way of a candidate for election conducting an effective campaign. There were two objections raised this afternoon. The first one was raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough and was one of style. We were unable to resolve this objection in our consultations. There does not seem to be any appropriate place to put the amendment in the bill without renumbering the whole bill, so we decided to leave it where it is, stylistically inappropriate though it may be.
The other objection was one of substance. The initial amendment that I proposed did not really establish the time period within which the amendment would be effective. The amendment I am now proposing contains the phrase "during an election", which is defined in the definition clause of the bill as the period after the writs are issued. So there is now a commencement date and a termination date during which period such leave may be requested. I think this meets the objection raised this afternoon.
I therefore move the adoption of the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Rowland) agreed to.
Clause 23 as amended agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although the question of old age pensions has been raised several times since then, the question which is the
June 23, 1970	COMMONS
basis of this late show this evening was asked on Wednesday, April 22, as reported in Hansard for that date at pages 6161 and 6162. However, the question which I asked on that date, twofold in nature, has not yet been satisfactorily answered and that is why I raise it again tonight before we come to the end of this part of the session.
I said my question was twofold. In the first place, I pressed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for an early tabling of the government's white paper on social security and, in the second place, I asked that an interim increase in old age security pensions be brought in so that our senior citizens would not have to wait any longer for an increase which they sorely need.
The Prime Minister did not like the premise of my question which was that there were certain disagreements in the cabinet over this matter and hence he refused to answer it. I fared a little better with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). He at least gave me an answer. So, perhaps I might repeat my subsequent question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well as his answer. The exchange was as follows:
Will the government consider tabling now the white paper on social security so that the country can know what is in it, and will it consider bringing in an interim increase in old age security pensions?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to table the white paper at this time. It is not completed, nor has consideration been given to it in its entirety by the government. So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I do not believe it would be possible to bring in an interim increase in old age security pensions prior to the publication of the white paper.
That was on April 22. We are now on the eve of June 24, and nothing has yet been done on either of these scores, neither with regard to tabling the white paper nor making any increase in old age security pensions.
I want to say that I regard the policy of the government in this area as utterly reprehensible. To continue to tell us that nothing can be done until we have the white paper on social security is, I think, just stalling for time. In the meantime, we have had changes in some pension legislation, notably the very acceptable improvements in the pensions of retired public servants and improvements in the pensions of Members of Parliament, which some of us did not regard as acceptable.
DEBATES	8549
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
We have also had the tabling of the white paper on unemployment insurance. We have had the tabling and acceptance by the House, at least so far as concurrence is concerned, of the second report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In other words, we are getting bits and pieces of the picture so far as social legislation is concerned. Yet this document, which is supposed to be basic and fundamental to the whole story, is withheld from us. I cannot believe it is withheld because it is impossible to get the document completed, translated or anything like that. It seems to me the situation has all the earmarks of plain stalling because the government does not want to act in this field. In the meantime, our senior citizens are suffering real privation because of the rising cost of living. It has gone up now close to 18 per cent since the present level of the old age pension, plus the guaranteed income supplement, was set. The increase the pensioners have received because of the cost of living increase falls far below the increase that has taken place in the cost of living itself, so that they are being shortchanged about $10 out of every hundred.
What we are getting now, if I may use his own word, is the canard being circulated by the Prime Minister to the effect that it is the workers of this country, especially unionized workers, who are hurting the old age pensioners. He used a certain word most of us recall. I suggest this is a canard which is unworthy of the Prime Minister. It is not good enough to go to the automobile factories and tell the employees they are making life miserable for the senior citizens when it is the failure of this government to take any step in this field which is responsible for the plight of our senior citizens.
Therefore, it seems to me it is a perfectly reasonable request I have been making now for a long time that there should be an interim increase in the amount of the old age pension. I should like to see the legislation completely overhauled. I should like to see a substantial increase in the pension and see the legislation placed on a sound basis. I am prepared to admit that that would take time. In the meantime, however, there could be an increase to, say, $100 a month in the basic pension and a corresponding increase to $40 a month in the guaranteed income supplement. I suggest that nothing less than this is in order at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.
June 23. 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the government shares the very humanitarian feelings expressed by the hon. member. It is easy to go one better in this field, particularly when one does not have the responsibility of governing and implementing the recommendations made to the government.
More than once has the government voiced its interest in senior citizens. About 1,671,000 of them receive the old age pension of $79.58 and 812,000 get the supplement of $31.33, and this is costing the nation $1,730,500,000.
The government has reduced the age for eligibility from 70 to 65, thus increasing the number of recipients by 440,000. It has also granted an increase of 2 per cent to take into account the rise in the cost of living. The universal and contributory pension fund also gives an increasing number of people each year a worthwhile income.
For those who are more especially needy, the central government, because of the new public assistance act, pays 50 per cent of all additional assistance granted by the provinces to aged persons, and 50 per cent of the cost of any additional health and welfare services not covered by hospital insurance and medical insurance plans, and more especially for those who need special at-home care.
Finally, with an across-the-board medicare plan in Canada, the government also pays most medical expenses previously borne by aged persons. All those charges are now met by the state.
We recognize that there is room for improvement, and the government is well aware of it. Thus, the government is pursuing the general review of its entire social security policy. Its conclusions will be published in a white paper, as soon as the study is completed, and it will guide the government's new policy on social security towards the wellbeing of all Canadians, especially the old.



COMMUNICATION'S-GRANT TO INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES TO BUILD ELECTRONIC COMPONENT MANUFACTURING PLANT

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on June 9 I addressed the following question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans):
In view of the minister's expressed interest in the development of a Canadian controlled computer
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
and communications industry, would the minister inform the House whether he was consulted by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion prior to his announcement of a $6 million grant to International Business Machines Corporation to build an electronic component manufacturing plant in Quebec?
This question is of considerable interest to me because it is a very large grant, some $6 million, and the total estimated capital cost is only $21 million. I understand from information available that this particular plant will provide some 600 to 700 jobs within three years time. This is quite a high average in terms of the amount of money spent per job produced, but in part this is an indication of the type of industry with which we are dealing. We are dealing with one of the de luxe industries of the future, one of the most important industries of the future, when we are considering questions of economic control and economic development.
There are three major questions that need to be considered in connection with this announcement. The first is the question of a Canadian controlled computer industry. I addressed the question to the minister because on a number of occasions he has expressed great interest in the development of a Canadian controlled computer and communications industry. But, on the other hand, we now see a government department providing a very substantial grant to a foreign controlled corporation to build this plant. It seems to me that we have a conflict of policy that must be resolved at once. In addition, this subsidy to a foreign corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, will provide competition for the one Canadian owned plant which is in a similar line of production.
The second matter is the entire question of the problem of foreign ownership. I have raised this matter on a number of occasions in the House in connection with the government's industrial development incentive legislation, because apparently the government is not concerned about the implications of grants which are made to foreign controlled corporations. It apparently is not concerned that these grants will conflict with its policy regarding foreign ownership, which we anticipate some time later this year. Thus, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the government, in the policy it is now following, has not exhibited any will really to come to grips with the problems involved in the high degree of foreign ownership and control which we have in the Canadian economy.
June 23. 1970

The third question that comes to my attention is, why does such a wealthy and prosperous firm, really one of the most prosperous firms on the face of the globe, have to be given a grant? It seems to me if it were felt that a public expenditure of the size that was committed in this case, namely, $6 million to build a plant in this particular location-I am not quarreling with either one of these factors in itself-was justified, then why is there not some public control or ownership of the plant itself? It seems to me that there is a need for public ownership of this plant if we are to ensure that national objectives will be achieved in the future. One of these national objectives is to ensure that there is an adequate degree of development within each of the economic regions in Canada. After all, this is the purpose of the legislation, and of these grants, but there is no guarantee that within the foreseeable future these objectives will be achieved. Once a certain period of time has elapsed, there will be no further control over this plant or its operations.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
It seems to me there is a question of public interest that must be considered, and to date it has not been considered adequately by the government. I would urge the government to re-examine its approach to the industrial development incentive grants now being
DEBATES	8551
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion provided. I also urge the government to reconsider its position with respect to the development of a Canadian controlled computer industry. As the Minister of Communications said, this is something we need in Canada. It is one of the things that we should be working toward. There are many steps that are necessary if we are to ensure a Canadian identity in the future, so I uge the government to reconsider its position on these scores.


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, I believe that after all, this is more a representation than a real question directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
To his original question, whether the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) had consulted with the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) before announcing his grant, the answer is no. As far as all the other questions asked tonight in respect of economic expansion programs are concerned, I believe that in the hon. member's interest, he should direct them to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.


Thursday, June 25, 1970