1970-06-16

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave Your Honour notice a couple of hours ago. It is true that what I shall be saying arises out of events of the last few days concerning which there have been two or three interventions, but I assure Your Honour that I am now raising a new question of privilege, one that I believe affects every member of this House and also affects the working of this Parliament.
My question of privilege relates to the fact that it is now clear that when a crisis arises involving the unauthorized publication of a document that has been in the possession of the government, Parliament seems to have no recourse; there is nothing it can do to cope with the crisis. It is because we face this situation, and because it greatly hampers the working of this House of Commons, that I feel we should come to grips with this issue and call upon the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to go into the matter and make a recommendation to the House.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
In order to outline the situation, Mr. Speaker, may I take just a moment to remind Your Honour of what has happened. As everyone knows, when the present government came into power the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) laid down very strict rules regarding cabinet secrecy and made clear to his ministers what would happen if these rules were broken. For some time now we understand the cabinet has had possession of the report of the Le Dain commission but that the cabinet has kept possession of it on a secret and confidential basis. However, certain bits of information have leaked out and, as was indicated in a question of privilege at six o'clock last evening, Time magazine has published a report
which seems to be based on possession of the document or at least on possession of a summary of what is in the document. In other words, secrecy and confidentiality have been broken.
Now, sir, it seems to me this type of thing interferes with the efficient and proper working of a democratic institution such as this House of Commons. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that I think it interferes greatly with your position. I fully respect the rulings you have made on the interventions that have been raised in the last two or three days. I believe you have followed precisely our Standing Orders and procedures. Yet I think I would be less than honest if I were not to admit that Your Honour has looked uncomfortable because of the crisis which has been facing the House of Commons.
Your Honour has ruled against any motion under Standing Order 43 or any motion under privilege for the tabling of the report of the Le Dain commission. You have said that the only thing a member can do is to file a notice of motion for the production of papers, and Your Honour admitted from the Chair that at this stage of the game that is a rather unrealistic vehicle.
Your Honour has ruled against a request under privilege or under any other device for an inquiry into this whole matter which, as I say, is serious to us all. Personally, I well remember an incident of some 18 years ago. My friend the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will remember it very well also. At that time there came into my possession the original version of a document known as the Currie report.


An hon. Member:: How did you get it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: friend wants to know how I got it. To this day I do not know the chain of hands through which that copy went but I do know that within days after I produced it the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were put on the trail and charged an unemployed printer.


Mr. Baldwin:: Were they on horseback?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This unemployed printer spent 30 days in jail. There are times when an inquiry or an inves-
June 16, 1970

Publication of Le Dain Report tigation can be made but those times seem to be limited to occasions when the government takes the initiative. But the government is responsible to Parliament. That is the kind oi a system under which we operate and yet we seem to be stymied. There would seem to be no way by which we can have an investigation made into this matter to determine whether someone in the cabinet is responsible for an unauthorized leak, whether there has been thievery or what have you.
I suggest that this matter hangs like a cloud over Parliament and that it ought not to remain that way. However, I have already said I do not quarrel with the rulings Your Honour has given from the Chair. I may have presented argument on the other side but when Your Honour made the rulings I felt they were correct. But I think that in Parliament we ought not to find ourselves in this kind of a situation, frustrated as we are, when there is something in the nature of a crisis which affects the workings of Parliament. Yet we are asked to sit here helpless, unable to do anything about it. Instead of looking like the highest court of the land we are made to look like a barrel of monkeys.
I submit we should not be in this situation. There ought to be a way by which we can find out how this report came into the hands of Time magazine. We ought to be able to find out who was responsible. I suppose I should also say that we ought to be able to find out if Time magazine does have the correct report. It should not be made a matter of mystery and uncertainty, hanging like a cloud over Parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, despite your rulings of the last few days that it is not a matter of privilege to refer to a committee the question of the source of this report in Time magazine and that it is not a matter of privilege to seek an inquiry into the whole matter, I do ask Your Honour to consider the difficult spot in which the House and you as our presiding officer are placed because of the fact that when a crisis of this kind develops there seems to be nothing we can do. If you find that in the name of Parliament I do have a prima facie case of privilege in what I have stated, I would then be prepared to move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That the lack of any redress on the part of the House of Commons when a confidential document in the possession of the government is made public without authorization be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for consideration and report.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word or two in support of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I reiterate that this whole situation was brought by the leaking of the report and the subsequent interpretation and opinions expressed by Time magazine about the contents of the report or about the contents of a resume prepared in the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare for presentation to cabinet. Either way, the situation has arisen because a private group outside of Parliament obtained the report or a resume of it and expressed opinions about it, thus giving what may be an unclear and distorted view to the general public and to Parliament particularly.
The report may well have been leaked out so that the Minister of National Health and Welfare could strengthen his hand with the obstinate members of the cabinet who disagreed with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: The minister, a man of high integrity, I am quite sure would not have done this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member is now straying some distance away from the very limited point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre well, he has raised an entirely new question of privilege. If it were not a new question of privilege, he would not even be entitled to put the question to the Chair and to the House. The hon. member is essentially reiterating the arguments which he put forward last evening and which were followed by a ruling of the Chair. If he wishes to address the House, it should be on whether there is a matter which should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Frank Howard: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. I was just laying the groundwork in order to lead up to a citation from Beau-chesne which I believe substantiates what is being attempted here. I point out that the cabinet knew two or three days before the Time magazine article was published that it was in fact going to be published. Thus the cabinet created the situation deliberately by refusing to make the report public and maintaining Time magazine's exclusive position. It makes one wonder whether the Prime Minis-
June 16, 1970

ter's declaration that we should have "a little bit of pot" in every chicken has permeated the whole cabinet.
I submit that citation 106(2) of Beauchesne provides us with the opportunity to accept this question of privilege because it points out that "the dignity and independence of the two Houses are in great measure preserved by keeping their privileges indefinite", in other words, not spelling them all out but permitting the opportunity for each case to be dealt with on its own merits. Because there was some ineptitude, fumbling and incompetence on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the handling of this report, or on the part of one of the flunkies in his office in distributing it for an unauthorized purpose, I submit that Your Honour should look upon this question of privilege favourably and provide Parliament with an opportunity, through the Committee on Procedure and Organization, to discuss ways and means whereby Parliament can deal properly and fully with such a situation in the future.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall not add too much to what has been said.


Mr. Trudeau:: You never do.


Gerald William Baldwin: Our position in this party, despite the rude interruption by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who did not learn too much when he was out west, has been well stated on a question of privilege I raised some time ago and through questions by my leader and by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). We therefore think there is a question of privilege.
I do not intend to add to the words uttered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, should Your Honour hold that there is not a question of privilege and that this might well be in the nature of a substantive motion which would have to be put in the usual way-I hope you do not do so-may I suggest an alternative because no legislative body should be frustrated and inhibited by its own rules when an important matter like this arises. Should Your Honour so hold, and I hope you will not, possibly by unanimous consent the hour devoted to private members' business this afternoon might well be set aside for this particular motion with a provision, to which unanimous consent could also be given, that
Publication of Le Dain Report the question would be put at the end of the hour set aside for private members' business.
This is a very important question, and obviously it has been established that there is a roadblock somewhere in the proceedings of the House. The three judgments that Your Honour has rendered in connection with the questions which have been raised clearly indicate that. Possibly Your Honour may, by the exercise of great ingenuity and aided by the words of wisdom you have listened to this afternoon, find your way clear to get out of the jungle where we now rest. However, if this is not the case I would hope there would be unanimous consent-I am looking directly at the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald)-to set aside private members' hour for this very reasonable motion so that it can be debated for an hour and the question then put. In that way, by the time the next session rolls around the House would have come to a wise and sensible decision on tlie question with which we are now faced.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond at once to the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that the cabinet knew that the report was in the hands of Time magazine and that it was going to be published. I can say that was not the case, and that is not a true statement.


Frank Howard: How about some of your colleagues' statements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can only point out to the hon. member that cabinet did not know and I can instantly rebut what he has said. I can confirm on behalf of the government that we too would like to know the source of these particular leaks, and we too would favour the kind of examination of this procedure that has been suggested by the hon. member's motion.
I would say, in response to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), why wait for five o'clock? Why not do it now? In other words, Mr. Speaker, I would make two suggestions to avoid your having to make a ruling on the question of privilege. First, perhaps by unanimous consent this motion could be regarded as a motion under Standing Order 43. Second, perhaps we could equally unanimously agree to pass it right away so that the matter could be referred to the committee at once.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 16, 1970

Publication of Le Dain Report


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps before a ruling is made by the Chair I should obtain the views of the party leaders on this suggestion. I have to say, in fairness, that the Chair has been advised by the Leader of the Opposition of a proposed motion under Standing Order 26 which might further complicate matters. However, if there is unanimous agreement of the House that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be put and debated at this time, the Chair could put the motion and if it were agreed to unanimously it would have the effect of sending this matter to the Committee on Procedure and Organization. Since this would have to be done by agreement perhaps the Chair might be guided in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, we would be quite satisfied if the House would unanimously agree to have this motion moved under Standing Order 43 and passed by unanimous consent so that the committee can look into the whole question of how Parliament has redress in a situation such as that we are facing. This does not, of course, deal with the basic problem of an investigation at the present time into how the interim report by the LeDain Commission got into the hands of persons outside the government and outside Parliament. As a first step, however, certainly the reference of this matter to the committee will deal with part of the problem. The problem of an investigation still has to be dealt with, however, and I hope it will be dealt with some time today.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous agreement that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be considered a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. The motion reads as follows:
That the lack of any redress on the part of the House of Commons when a confidential document in the possession of the government is made public without authorization be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for consideration and report.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
An hon. Member:: Fire the minister.
Another hon. Member: Fire Munro.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, on this day more than any other, should find it within his responsibility to attend upon Parliament and set the record straight by taking action to table the interim report of the LeDain Commission on the non-medical use of drugs, particularly in light of the publication yesterday by Time magazine of either an excerpt from that report or from a resume which was prepared in the minister's office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much whether this is a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member if I have interrupted him too soon but I have a strong feeling that it is not a point of order. If the hon. member has a citation or any Standing Order that he would like to refer to, I will certainly allow him to do so.


Frank Howard: I was going to do that, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it necessary to do it in perspective and show how the minister is ignoring the House. Maybe he is afraid of it as he was yesterday. Maybe he does not want to be in the same place as the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member indicated that he would refer the Chair to a particular Standing Order. I wish he would do this as he has not offered any evidence of a legitimate point of order up to now.


Frank Howard: I was distracted by the noise on the other side, Mr. Speaker. I do not say this facetiously but with great respect: I wish Your Honour would protect me from these people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are afraid.


Frank Howard: Standing Order No. 5, Mr. Speaker, reads as follows:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here. He may have got leave of the House to be away but I do not know how he
June 16, 1970	COMMONS
did it or when he did it. I submit that there is a valid point of order and that the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be noticed by Your Honour and you should say that there is a valid point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member, I am sure, cannot seriously suggest that the Chair should take judicial and official notice every day of the absence of a member of the House of Commons. Standing Order 5 does not apply only to cabinet ministers; it refers to the attendance of hon. members. This point has been raised from time to time.
I recognize that the Standing Order is there. I have felt also that perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization should look at Standing Order 5. I have suggested that before but for some reason the members of the committee have thought that the Standing Order should not be interfered with and that it should be allowed to stay. According to my information, the last time that Standing Order was applied was back in 1875. I would not think, after all these years, that this Standing Order should be referred to to signal the absence of any individual member of the House. I do not think that the point is well taken.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Broadbenl:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will have to raise another point of order because the Chair has already ruled on this point of order. Of course it cannot be discussed after the ruling has been made.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the ruling just given.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have just indicated to an hon. member that he cannot raise a point of order in respect of a ruling which has just been given. I can quote to the hon. member the Standing Order which says that that is not in order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to the absence of cabinet ministers from the House. This is a direct violation of Standing Order 5 in that their absence from this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: -is being interpreted-
DEBATES	8153
Tabling of Le Dain Interim Report


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has brought this point up on a number of occasions. I have made a ruling on the point which he brought up. That ruling having been made, I suggest to him respectfully that the point cannot be brought up again.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is right, Your Honour. I find it a peculiar point of privilege that I must raise with Your Honour this afternoon. When Your Honour, tells this House and the Commoners of this House that we have in our Standing Orders Standing Order 5 which is so obsolescent, so ridiculous, that it has not been invoked since 1875, I consider that a reflection on my intelligence in sitting in this House. As long as we have Standing Orders that are so ridiculous I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with all respect-


An hon. Member:: What intelligence?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the hon. member had been in this House long enough and knew a little bit more about parliamentary procedure, he would get up from his seat and off his brains when attempting to speak. The point is, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Is that all?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is not all. This is a very serious point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This strikes at the whole spirit of this institution. Those people across on the treasury benches who have not been in the House long enough to know what this institution is for are those who lead the catcalls of the jackals behind them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree with Your Honour that, taken by itself, Standing Order 5 is rather ridiculous and stupid. The hon. member for "Barley York" or "Barley Dan-son" or York North (Mr. Danson) can speak at any time, if he dares to and if he has permission. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I believe this rule by itself is rather ridiculous. You cannot stand up each day, point to empty
8154	COMMONS DEBATES	June 16. 1970
Publication of Le Dain Interim Report seats and say that certain members are absent in violation of Standing Order 5. But when an hon. member stands up in this House and uses this order to ask Your Honour to call the attention of the House to the absence of a member of the treasury benches, I find it rather difficult to reconcile Your Honour's ruling with the Standing Order. That is my point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AVAILABILITY OF LE DAIN INTERIM REPORT TO &quot;TIME&quot; MAGAZINE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter I put forward does not relate directly to what the hon. member for Skeena raised a moment ago. The fact is that there is not yet a resolution before the House relating to the determination of the source of the cabinet leak. Standing Order 43 provides that in cases of urgent and pressing necessity a motion may be moved if unanimous consent is given. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity is the publication yesterday by Time magazine of purported extracts from the interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs.
This report has not yet been made available to members of this House and the public at large. It is, therefore, still a confidential cabinet document. By publication, cabinet confidentiality has been breached by someone in or close to the cabinet. At best this constitutes an unethical breach of parliamentary practice and at worst there may be illegality involved.
Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask leave to move, seconded by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House is of the opinion that the government should conduct an immediate investigation to ascertain how the interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs came into the possession of Time magazine and to report its findings, either interim or final, to the House not later than June 26, 1970.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. It can only be proceeded with if there is unanimous agreement of the House. The Chair must inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement and the motion cannot be put at this time.


Mr. Woolliams:: The Prime Minister said no again.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 43 in order to discuss immediately the emergency resolutions required on steps to be taken to remedy the situation of the Canadian footwear industry, which I consider very precarious.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the study of this question justifies an emergency debate considering that since January 1, 1970 shoe factories have been closing down at the fantastic rate of nearly one a week and, considering that between 1956 and 1969, Canada's footwear production has decreased by 1 per cent whereas imports have jumped by 568 per cent, considering that the industry now employs 3,260 fewer workers than in 1966 and considering also that the government seems to have lost control of footwear imports into Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the unemployment rate depends mostly on the great number of unskilled workers on the labour market. Since a large number of employees of the footwear industry are in that category, I dare urge Your Honour to allow a debate to be held as soon as possible on ways to solve the pressing problem of that industry.
On June 2, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) announced to the House that talks were under way aboul restrictions of footwear imports and I believe the same measure is urgently needed regard ing the footwear industry.
I therefore ask Your Honour and hon members to consider, if possible, the motion to adjourn I am proposing to that effect.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the member for Richmond suggesting the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43, in order to discuss an urgent question concerning the situation of the footwear industry in Canada.
June 16, 1970

The member cannot proceed with that proposal nor discuss the motion, without the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous agreement, so that the motion cannot be put.



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, following the tabling of the third report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, the government has made a full analysis of the impact of the recommendations in that report upon the many thousands of statutory orders and regulations issued by government and its agencies, and upon the procedures followed in preparing and reviewing regulations. The government has now determined a proposed course of action for responding to the report.
Due to the nature of the committee's recommendations it is not practical, nor is it reasonably possible, to proceed with their implementation by any one means. Rather, implementation of the committee's recommendations will require action of three different kinds: First, legislative action by Parliament to replace the existing Regulations Act by a new statutory instruments act; second, a number of cabinet directives to implement several of the recommendations which cannot be dealt with by general legislation and, third, amendment of the Standing Orders for the purpose of establishing a scrutiny committee to review regulations.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The government accepts fully the principle that both Parliament and the public are entitled to be fully informed of, and to have convenient access to, regulations and other instruments made under the authority of Acts of Parliament. The legislation and other measures that will be proposed by the government will be guided by this paramount principle, and only demonstrably necessary and carefully defined exceptions to the general requirements of the law relating to the examination, registration and publication of such instruments will be permitted.
22478-26J
Statutory Instruments
The new statutory instruments act will update the present Regulations Act in light of the committee's recommendations. We will recommend that the definition of a regulation be expanded in order that certain subordinate legislation that is now excluded from the application of the present Act will come within the scope of the proposed new law. It will be proposed that the review procedure of proposed regulations that is conducted by the Clerk of the Privy Council in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice be given a statutory basis and that the fundamental principles in light of which the review is conducted be set forth in the legislation. A new system for registration of regulations will be provided and the date of registration will, in most cases, be the day on which a regulation will come into force. The Canada Gazette will be recognized by statute as the official gazette of Canada and powers to make regulations with respect to its publication will be provided. Other matters such as the requirements of the law to publish regulations and the right of members of the public to have access to and obtain copies of regulations will be dealt with in the new Act.
It is the intention of the government that the committee's recommendation No. 6 which is concerned with the publication of departmental directives and guidelines be dealt with by means of a cabinet directive. Departmental directives and guidelines that might reasonably be interpreted as affecting the rights of members of the public in a legal sense will be required to be submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice before they are issued. The Deputy Minister of Justice will make a report to the person desiring to issue the document indicating whether the proposed directive or guideline is essentially legislative in its nature and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to incorporate it into regulations or, where there appears to be no authority to do so, whether the relevant statute should be revised with a view to conferring such authority.
With reference to the committee's recommendation No. 7, which is concerned with the general principles that should govern the conferring by legislation of regulation-making powers, a cabinet directive will be issued to all ministers directing that, in future, all such enabling legislation should be drafted in accordance with the principles proposed to the committee as acceptable to the government by letter dated September 30, 1969,

June 16, 1970
Statutory Instruments
addressed to the chairman of the committee and signed by myself as President of the Privy Council.
The government agrees with the general recommendation of the committee that a scrutiny committee should be established for the purpose of reviewing regulations. During the next session of Parliament the government will recommend that such a scrutiny committee be established and that by the proposed statutory instruments act all regulations, with the single exception of regulations the disclosure of which would be injurious to international relations, national defence security or federal-provincial relations, will stand permanently referred to such committee. After consultation with representatives of the parties, the government will put forward an order of reference in the next session to enable Parliament to establish a scrutiny committee.
Mr. Speaker, the limitations of a statement of this nature do not make it possible to give a detailed response to all of the committee's recommendations and, as a result, the foregoing is only a general outline of the manner in which we intend to implement the recommendations of that committee. In conclusion may I, on behalf of the government, express my gratitude to the chairman and members of the special committee for the contribution they have made by their report.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, what the President of the Privy Council has said today bears out a maxim with which I became familiar in the early days of my practice of criminal law-that no matter how black the heart appears to be or how desperate the character there is always a glimmer of light and virtue if one waits long enough for it.
I congratulate the President of the Privy Council on making this statement. We have been waiting for it a long time, but obviously when it comes to good things the period of gestation of this government, like that of the elephant to which the Prime Minister refers from time to time, is very lengthy. For myself and for some others in the House it is the end of a ten-year period during which we have attempted to bring ourselves to a point at which we could hold up our heads and say that together with other democratic countries, particularly the countries of the Commonwealth, we have obtained some reasonable measure of ability to scrutinize statutory instruments and regulations.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
This is a most essential thing that we do. The trend in modern legislative practice to delegate authority to the government is increasing. I know the reasons for it. I do not like it. But we have to live with it. We also have to learn to contend with it and place some brakes upon it, some means of scrutiny. We are happy, therefore, that the President of the Privy Council should indicate that the position taken by the government offers to be one of almost complete compliance with the report of the committee. The trend to which I have just referred has developed under this government and Parliament from what was a fair-sized river to a flood. The extent to which we in this House have been and are being asked to delegate to the government powers to deal with the people of this country is simply staggering, and precautions of the kind outlined today are a condition precedent to the maintenance to the kind of law and order for the individual which is needed in a democratic society.
There are one or two points I should like the government to take into account. It was proposed by the committee that the Minister of Justice should have over-all authority with regard to the examination of all regulations to decide whether or not they came within the category of those covered by the hon. gentleman's proposal. I appreciate that the minister was not able to deal with all the committee's proposals, which are minute and detailed, but the one to which I have just referred was among the main aspects which the committee considered.
Second, the question of the openness of disclosure is tremendously important. The minister told us in his statement, as found on page two, that "the government fully accepts the principle that both Parliament and the public are fully entitled to be fully informed of, and to have convenient access to, regulations and other instruments." I almost read "commission reports" into that as well but I am glad I stopped there.
In addition, the question of the establishment of a scrutiny committee is one with which the House should be particularly concerned. There is a scrutiny committee operating in other jurisdictions. There is a particularly good form of committee in the United Kingdom. I had the opportunity to attend the proceedings of that committee when I was in London not long ago. In the first instance, in the United Kingdom the chairman is a member of the opposition. The chairmen of both the Public Accounts committee and of
June 16, 1970

the scrutiny committee dealing with delegated authority are both members of the opposition. I tried to get the special committee to go as far as that but was not altogether successful. The committee did say, however, that in order to make the objectivity of the committee apparent there should be some rotation among the parties as to the chairmanship. I do not know what the government intends to do in this regard, but if it does not go at least as far as the committee proposed the value of this work of scrutinizing regulations and so on will be seriously lessened.
Now a word about the kind of officials who should assist the committee. A great deal of work has to be done; there is a vast area to be covered. In the United Kingdom Sir Robert Speed, counsel to Mr. Speaker, advises the committee and examines all the statutory instruments closely. In the absence of assistance of this kind, the value of the committee will be entirely lost. Assistance must be given at a very high level in order that it may function properly. There must be adequate staff.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I particularly call to the attention of the government and members of the House the need not only to deal, as the committee did, with academics and people learned in the law but to hear from those people of the country, the millions of little people, businessmen and farmers, who are affected by delegated legislation and authority. These people do not know what Orders in Council have been passed and are not aware of them until the long arm of the law reaches out and touches them.
This is a tremendously important step and on behalf of myself and my party may I say that if the government will co-operate with us we will co-operate with the government 100 per cent in seeing that these proposals are implemented in an orderly and reasonable fashion. In particular, we will see that the type of committee set up to scrutinize statutory legislation is one that will function efficiently and properly, one that will do for the people of this country that which for so long has been left undone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) was our member on the committee, the report of which is referred to in the statement, and if he were here today he would be making this response. He did not get permission under
Statutory Instruments
Standing Order 5 to be away, but it is interesting that by coincidence he is appearing before the Immigration Appeal Board which deals with matters that arise as a result of the exercise by a department of delegated authority. When I showed the advance copy of the statement to my colleague this morning, his comment was not unlike that which has just been made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), namely, that once in a while something good does come from the government now in power. This is one of those rare occasions.
We welcome the statement by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) that the government is prepared to implement the basic principles of the report made by the committee on statutory instruments. I support the general principles that have been laid down so well by the hon. member for Peace River, and we look forward to the promised legislation being introduced as early as possible.
There are just two or three comments 1 should like to make which might be of a critical nature. First, we find it strange that regulations dealing with federal-provincial relations should be put in the same category as regulations dealing with international relations or national defence security. We see no reason why these matters should be grouped together. Surely our provinces are not sovereign states to be treated like foreign powers. Surely relations between Ottawa and the provinces can be carried on on the kind of level that would produce regulations which would not be injurious to the unity of this country. We strongly urge that regulations relating to federal-provincial relations be deleted from this category.
The second comment I should like to make is that in this statement made by the President of the Privy Council there are two references, but only two, to cabinet directives that are to be made governing certain aspects of this whole process. If the picture were one of multitudes of things that had to be dealt with by cabinet directives, then maybe a case could be made for it. But if there are only two matters under this general heading that are to be dealt with by means of a cabinet directive, I suggest it would be far better to have those matters dealt with in the legislation itself.
My final comment is that it seems to me that the scrutiny committee which is to be established-this is the heart of the whole

June 16, 1970
Statutory Instruments
matter, the part of the statement that we welcome most-should have referred to it just not Orders in Council and regulations but also the various departmental directives that are promulgated down the line. These directives can have the force of law just as much as regulations, Orders in Council or statutes of Parliament. We find it difficult to understand why they are not included among the items which will be referred to the scrutiny committee. In this regard I might go one step farther and say that ministerial press releases could also be referred to the scrutiny committee, because many a time a ministerial press release relating to something that is going to be done is practically a case of promulgating law.
These points can, of course, be reviewed when the government presents the legislation, I presume at the next session. However, our general position is one of welcoming this forward step in the control by Parliament of the law-making process, which is as it ought to be.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we are satisfied with the announcement of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) who just told us of the decision of the government to accept the recommendations concerning the proceedings of committees and the recommendations of the Committee on Procedure and Organization, which has been sitting for months, in order to suggest to the government the use of more flexible methods to formulate laws and let the public know about them.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to repeat here the proposals of the previous speakers, but we entertain doubts as to the future formulation of laws, as a result of the recommendations made to the government after consideration in committee, the object of which is to give wider powers to the executive.
At the present time, we do not know to what extent this legislation will interfere with our democratic institutions and increase the powers of the executive. In fact, we are well aware that time and again in the past we have had to deplore the attitude of certain ministers who announced the tabling of legislative measures of which committees had had no prior knowledge and of which hon. members were only informed at the time the bills were tabled.

We are convinced that certain recommendations must be accepted but we also believe that some of them must be very seriously considered before they are submitted to Parliament and eventually incorporated to our Standing Orders so that debating and legislating procedures have to conform to them.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills. First reading of Senate public bills. Government notices of motions.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, having given Your Honour notice of a motion under Standing Order 26 I simply wish to indicate that I do not intend to proceed with it. I am so struck by the co-operative spirit shown today by the President of the Privy Council that I am hopeful that the Prime Minister will be equally ready to straighten out this whole affair when I ask him in a moment whether he will agree to tabling the LeDain report promptly and also to giving satisfaction regarding the leak that has taken place. It is with this hope that I do not proceed with the motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, particularly in view of the apparent leak of the LeDain report that has occurred and the resulting state of confusion in the public mind, he can now assure the House that this interim report will be tabled promptly, and by promptly I mean within a day or two? Can he give the House this assurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. I believe the matter of the leak has been dealt with substantially in the motion put earlier, to which we agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are as anxious as any member of the opposition to find out what
June 16, 1970	COMMONS
has leaked and from where it has leaked. There is no certain indication that the report itself has been leaked. Perhaps the leak comes from someone who has knowledge of it, but if the House can assist us in making inquiries into the way in which this might have happened, as the President of the Privy Council said we would be very happy to do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am very happy to be able to assist the government in any way I can, but I have not yet been asked to assume the responsibilities of my right hon. friend. I would ask him whether the government has launched an inquiry into this incident?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand we are asked to pass a motion which will make sure that the House-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am told by the Leader of the Opposition that we must assume the responsibility. We did not ask the Opposition parties to move this motion. We felt that they wanted to move it and therefore we agreed to the procedure. We are not asking them to assume responsibility for this motion, but if they want to assist us, fine.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion passed by the House does not refer to this incident in particular. If I may remind Your Honour, it reads as follows:
That the lack of any redress on the part of the House of Commons when a confidential document in the possession of the government is made public without authorization be referred-
It is the lack of redress on the part of the House that was referred. Again I put my question to the Prime Minister and ask him not to evade on a matter such as this. Would he indicate to the House whether the government has launched an investigation into the apparent leak of this report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Very simply, the answer is yes. I discussed the matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he had already begun to launch an investigation to find out from where the leak might have come.


Donald MacInnis: Is he investigating himself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I repeat that, to his knowledge, the document itself was not leaked but perhaps someone who knew of its
DEBATES	8159
Inquiries of the Ministry existence and some of its contents did leak this information. I can only say that we have assumed this responsibility. I am glad to hear that the opposition parties are now supporting the government in its position that leaks should not occur from cabinet concerning confidential documents, and that they are prepared to assist us in this investigation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from the right hon. Prime Minister that the only investigation launched so far has been some sort of personal inquiry the Minister of National Health and Welfare is conducting on his own?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think he has put on gumshoes and personally gone to find out. May I just remind the House that the last time a leak of this kind occurred it had to do, if my memory is correct, with parts of the B and B report. At that time, we were chided by the opposition parties for putting the police on the tail of the organization which had published such confidential documents. Now, apparently we are not reacting strongly enough; we should attack the press and put the police on their tail to track down these people. I am not sure what the opposition wants.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow a supplementary question to be asked by the Leader of the Opposition, but I think in fairness we should allow the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to put his question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am only asking a supplementary question because of the false imputation by the Prime Minister. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not feel that it is within the sphere of responsibility of the government, not to attack the press but rather to conduct an inquiry as to who may be responsible for this incident within the sphere of the government and its officials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, but the way to find out who might be responsible, I suppose, is to look at the nature of the leak and at its source. I repeat that when the leak to which I referred occurred this is exactly what we suggested we should do, that we should try to find out how the publisher got hold of that confidential document. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition cannot suggest any more effective way than that.
June 16, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In view of the fact that it is quite apparent from the article which appeared in the June 22 issue of Time magazine, in which there were extensive quotations from what purports to be the interim report of the LeDain Commission, that whoever wrote the article is in possession either of a complete copy of the report or a very full summary of it, and in view of the fact that this appears to be a breach of trust which puts a cloud of suspicion over the head of every cabinet minister, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare and members of his staff-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -as well as the members of the commission and their staff and the Queen's Printer, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in fairness to all who have had access to the report, he will not order an official investigation so as to ascertain how this report came into the hands of an unauthorized person?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly consider the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, although I must point out that many of the assumptions made by the hon. member are not correct. Suspicion does not fall on all members of the cabinet because very few members of the cabinet saw the document. But it is true, of course, that many other people, such as employees, printers and so on, have seen it, including members of the commission themselves. Therefore I will gladly entertain the suggestion of a full-scale investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police into this very regrettable leak. I just hope that the House will remember this the next time we order such an investigation on the grounds of maintaining cabinet secrecy, and I hope that at that time they will not attack or ridicule the government for going after the press, as happened on a former occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister could have saved himself and the government a good deal of embarrassment by tabling this report when it came into their possession, may I ask the Prime Minister now whether we can expect to have this report tabled during the present week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if this
were a way to avoid a great deal of embarrassment I take it we would also table every cabinet document. There would be no such thing as a confidential document in the government's records.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers this to be a cabinet document. Is it not instead a report of a royal commission to which Parliament and the people of Canada have a right to have access?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member was
making a suggestion to avoid cabinet embarrassment. I tell him that the reasons for having secrecy respected have nothing to do with embarrassment of the cabinet but rather have to do with an efficient way of running a government.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): There has not been much evidence of it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: While I am on my feet, I should like to add to an answer I gave a few minutes ago when I indicated that all ministers did not have a copy of the LeDain report. This was true as of the end of last week, at which time the obvious publication was being prepared. I am told that since the end of last week all cabinet ministers have been given a copy of the LeDain report.


An hon. Member:: They did not have Time.



LE DAIN COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT-INVESTIGATION OF LEAK BY JUDICIAL INQUIRY

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and his government are insisting on keeping the LeDain report secret at this time, and as he has talked about an inquiry, will the Prime Minister be prepared now to set up the machinery for a judicial inquiry into the leak of the report which is now appearing in all newspapers from day to day like a soap opera serial? Mr. Speaker, may I put the question-
Some hon. Mmebers: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising to ask a supplementary question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I will rephrase it. Would the Prime Minister now agree to a
June 16, 1970	COMMONS
judicial inquiry into this whole matter so as to take away the clouds which have resulted from this leak?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this suggestion is one for escalating this matter beyond the degree to which we thought it necessary to escalate it at the outset. We are making an inquiry now, without the benefit of a full-scale judicial inquiry, and the House has just put through a motion which will lead to means of redressing this situation. We hope that the standing committee will assist the government in finding out how this particular leak occurred. If the step that the hon. member suggests eventually proves necessary, of course we will take it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Whatever inquiry the
Prime Minister and his government do conduct, would he be prepared then to come here, and make a full statement on the results of that inquiry to see if a judicial inquiry will be necessary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I made the statement just now that if such an inquiry proves to be necessary and useful and possible, we will of course make it. But I am not prepared now, without knowing the facts, to state whether this will be necessary and useful. We may find out things that will indicate to the contrary.
I just want to repeat that we are very grateful for the opposition's insistence that cabinet and other secret documents be respected by all concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.



LE DAIN COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT-UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION-&quot;TIME&quot; MAGAZINE SUBSIDY

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Post Office. In view of the fact that a purported portion of a secret and confidential report in the government's hands was carried in a foreign-owned and controlled publication while Canadian publications did not have an opportunity for equal access-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I have to rule that this is not a supplementary. I will come back to the hon. member in a moment. I believe the hon. member for Peace River has a supplementary.
DEBATES	8161
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the questions which have just been asked of the Prime Minister. It is a supplementary to another minister on exactly the same subject. I wonder, whether I may complete my question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it might be useful to tell the hon. member that if Canadian publications do reproduce what this publication has carried they will be reproducing a great many false words.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I did not understand the hon. member's supplementary correctly. In the circumstances, he should be allowed to complete the question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact that equal opportunity of access to this information, secret or otherwise, was not available to Canadian publications, will the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications advise the House whether he and the Post Office Department will give consideration to removing the almost $750,000 subsidy received annually by Time magazine?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know precisely what equal access to secret information means, but the answer to the latter part of the question is no.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister one supplementary. If a judicial inquiry is held and a report is made, will the results be concealed, published, or leaked to the public?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



LE DAIN COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT-POSITION OF MAGISTRATES AND JUDGES FOLLOWING LEAKING OF INFORMATION

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to direct to the Prime Minister. I am wondering if the right hon. gentleman does not agree that since parts of the LeDain Commission report have been given wide circulation through one means or another, magistrates and judges are placed in a very awkward position. Does this, therefore, not make it more urgent than ever for the government to evolve a policy on this important matter?
June 16. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that his very interesting supplementary question is rather an argument. I would not think it is in order as a question.



LE DAIN COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT-DISTRIBUTION TO ATTORNEYS GENERAL

Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the questions which were asked earlier. Could he indicate whether copies of the LeDain Commission report have been circulated to the various Attorneys General, in light of the confusion that now exists, and whether or not it is the intention of the Prime Minister's office to take this step so as to eliminate any possibility of confusion with respect to all of these reports to which the Prime Minister has alluded?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the suggestion is made in a constructive vein, but if I can be equally constructive I could perhaps remind the House and the Attorneys General that, although I did not read the Time magazine article myself, I am told by the minister that much of it is incorrect and leads to false conclusions. I know that the opposition parties are just yearning to state their positions on this whole question of the legalizing of drugs, but I must warn them to wait a little while because if they are too hasty they may be basing them on a false report.



LE DAIN COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT-SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION OF LEAK

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, but first may I say that we wanted to have the report tabled and tabling would have prevented this situation from happening. In any event, the Prime Minister said that currently an inquiry is being conducted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and that some other cabinet members, I think he said a few, not all the cabinet ministers, had access to the report itself. Is the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in this inquiry confined to his own office, his own department, or does he have authority to inquire into the offices of other ministers and their office staffs, and the staff of the Commission- in short, all those who had access to the document?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not be doing this alone. He will be asking for the assistance of other ministers, and I take it principally that of the Solicitor General under whom the RCMP comes.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister, why does he refer to what he calls a false report as a leak?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the opposition that has been asking questions about leaks, not the government.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, all during the afternoon while questions were put to the Prime Minister he continued fo refer to this as a leak. He now refers to it as a false report, and he has cautioned the opposition not to push this matter because of further leaks to come.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY

[Stage Direction]
INFLATION-INCREASE IN BANK PROFITS______

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the financial statements of chartered banks show a net profit of some 27.7 per cent for the past six months, does the Prime Minister intend to make representations to them in order to have them lower their interest rates on loans to Canadian individuals and companies so that they may efficiently fight inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly refer the question to the Minister of Finance, but I might add that he dealt with the matter in reply to a question put last week. In fact, to the best of my memory, he mentioned among other things, that certain chartered banks had lowered their interest rate.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-FARMERS' CANADA PENSION PLAN PAYMENTS

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. The question arises from the difficulties of western farmers in remitting their payments under the Canada Pension Plan because of low quotas imposed trader Operation Lift. Has the government set up any special provisions to meet this unfortunate and unjust situation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is presumably referring to a situation related to a quota system which will come into effect on August 1, but of course he is stating it completely inaccurately when he refers to low quotas under Operation Lift. The eight bushel per acre quota for wheat, for instance, will bring forward the full amount of grain required.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister misunderstood my question. I pointed out that some provision must be made to enable farmers to remit payments under the Canada Pension Plan in order that they may get benefits from the plan at a later date. Has any arrangement been made with the other departments in view of Operation Lift and the consequences thereof?


Otto Emil Lang: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not yet understand any additional implications of the question the hon. member is asking.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, my further supplementary has to do with the inability of farmers to remit payments under the Canada Pension Plan as they have done in the past, with the result that they will not be able to participate in the benefits. Has there been any discussion between the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board and other departments of government to offset this injustice?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I say again that I know of no change in the pension regulations, but I will be glad to discuss them with my colleague. The hon. member referred to a quota problem arising out of Operation Lift. There is no such quota problem, so I do not see the basis for his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point or order? I suggest that since there are a number of supplementaries we might hear them.

Inquiries of the Ministry WHEAT-FURTHER CONFERENCE OF EXPORTING COUNTRIES RESPECTING PRODUCTION


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: 1
should like to ask a question of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In light of the continuing high levels of United States wheat production and recent reports that the United States is headed for another banner crop of both spring and winter wheat, is the minister planning to call another conference of the wheat exporting nations in order to avoid Canada being left as the only country with a significant reduction in wheat production?


Otto Emil Lang: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously reading reports which must emanate from a very mysterious source. The last report I saw indicated that, whereas this year's United States wheat crop had dropped about 100 million bushels compared with last year, the forecast was that next year's crop would be down about another 80 million bushels.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister is not prepared to accept the information I gave him, would the minister conduct inquiries to satisfy himself and report to the House in due time as to the reduction in wheat production in other countries since that was related to the Lift program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I might indeed try to make available from time to time to hon. members some information about production in other countries since their sources seem to be so clearly unreliable. I will try to see that at least some hon. members opposite who are interested are furnished with accurate reports from time to time.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR REMOVING COVER CROPS

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the Lift program and is addressed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the uncertainty and concern of Prairie grain producers with regard to the removal of spring cover crops of oats by July 15, can the minister inform the House definitely whether or not the deadline will be set back to July 31 or some later date?
June 16, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the Minister of Agriculture stated the position with regard to cover crops and indicated that these were essentially intended as a protection against erosion. There is no new problem in that connection. We are still watching the forage situation very carefully, of course, to see whether the requirement for forage might require a change in the rule itself.



WHEAT-PROVISION OF FOUR-BUSHEL QUOTA TO ALL ELEVATOR POINTS BY JULY 31

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio relating to quotas. Since the latest Canadian Wheat Board report of June 8 indicates that more than 50 per cent of delivery points in the designated area are still on a two-bushel wheat quota, can the minister assure the House and the producers that the four-bushel quota will be achieved prior to the end of the crop year, a commitment which he guaranteed would be effective?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, at the present time more than 50 per cent of the points in the Prairie region are in fact on three or four-bushel quotas. Very rapid progress is being made in the opening of quotas and the forecast movement for the remaining months is still sufficient to allow the quotas to open as predicted.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not supplementary but I have a question for the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Vegreville on a supplementary.



EXTENSION OF INCREASED BARLEY QUOTA TO ALBERTA PRODUCERS

Donald Frank Mazankowski: I
wonder if the minister would undertake to assure the House at some time that the barley quota will be increased for Alberta producers prior to the end of the crop year in order that it may equal that of the producers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the barley which was required, and for which the special quota was opened was required particularly for movement through the Lakehead. There are good forward sales for barley and therefore there

is every possibility of allowing Alberta producers as well to deliver barley in a similar manner. Deliveries of barley from Alberta are still coming in at a very rapid rate.



ADOPTION OF PROTEIN STANDARD AMENDMENT TO CANADA GRAIN ACT PRIOR TO PASSING BILL C-196

George Robson Muir: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt. In view of the intensive study required in committee of Bill C-196, the new grain act, and the full appreciation of all members of the committee of the importance of a protein standard for export grain, would the minister be prepared to ask the government to bring forward the appropriate amendment to the present Canada Grain Act, which could be passed quickly as a desirable interim measure while the new Act is being studied?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the direction of the Canada Grain Act falls more particularly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member, however, has put his finger on a very important point, that the passage of the new Canada Grain Act is in fact essential if steps toward protein grading are to be proceeded with. This is a matter of great importance to wheat producers throughout Canada. I hope the agriculture Committee and the House will be able to expedite passage of this legislation accordingly.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of the new Canada Grain Act, which is new legislation entirely, and the fact that serious study must be given to it, it is going to be impossible to bring this bill back to the House before the recess. In view of that fact, would the minister discuss with the Minister of Agriculture the importance of bringing in an appropriate amendment to the present Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is making a suggestion to the minister and he has to assume that it will be considered or taken into account.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to address a question to the President of
June 16, 1970

the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that wage settlements in the private sector continue to exceed the 6 per cent guideline, would the minister inform the House whether it is still the intention of the government to impose a 6 per cent limit in its bargaining with the Public Service in general and postal employees in particular?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of ihe Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the last part of the question, the offer made by the government to the postal workers was made some time ago and represented not an adherence to the guideline but what was thought and felt to be a reasonable offer in all the circumstances. That position has been maintained.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister's answer mean he is denying that the government is seeking to impose a guideline of 6 per cent or less in negotiations with public servants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking to deny anything. I am providing information.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question arising out of some statements made by the Minister of Labour in a television broadcast the other day. I am going to ask the question directly and not quote the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the minister, who was present if my memory serves me right at the meeting with provincial Ministers of Finance in Winnipeg recently, whether at that meeting the provincial ministers gave any undertaking or assurance or made any other kind of statement about establishing guidelines on executive fees, managerial fees and other income areas, including rent controls?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the propositions put forward at that meeting by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission made it quite clear that the policies and proposals for restraint applied not only to wages but also to salaries and other forms of income, and included also all revenues derived from increased prices. The policy of restraint was not limited to one particular area but was to be universal, and his proposals related not only to restraint on wages and salaries but also to prices and other forms of income in both the public and private sectors.


David Lewis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a point of order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I did not ask the minister what Dr. Young told the provincial ministers. I can read that. I asked the minister what the reply of the provincial ministers was to what Dr. Young said to them. He carefully evaded that question.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, is not a point of order. The hon. member is repeating the question he asked in the first instance. Apparently he was not satisfied.


David Lewis: I hoped I might obtain an answer.



CRIMINAL CODE


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Is it his intention, as he stated at Vancouver, to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code to remove therefrom the provisions regarding abortion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is not exactly what I said at Vancouver. However, I can give the House an accurate account of what the question and the reply were, since the hon. member has shown his interest in this connection.
They made up a hypothetical situation where hon. members would be prepared to push through the House in a single day a piece of legislation repealing the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code. I replied that I knew from experience-and hon. members are well aware of it-that any amendment liberalizing the Criminal Code could hardly be carried in a single day, since it took several weeks to adopt the amendments we introduced last year.
However, I repeated that, to go along with the hypothetical situation, should the House agree to pass such a bill within a single day before the end of this part of the session, I would be prepared to introduce such an amendment.
Again, I am putting the question to the House. If such is its wish, I shall assume my own responsibilities.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
June 16, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Does the Prime Minister mean that such a ence the people who need them very badly. I bill will be introduced before the House will inquire into the point raised to see if this adjourns for the summer recess?	is done without consent.
TEnglish]



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance. I do not know whether he has fled the country or whether he has been kidnapped by the Canadian Bankers Association. Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor West would answer my question. It relates to the forecast made by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of a 2.5 per cent growth rate for Canada for the current year, which is substantially below the growth rate predicted by the Minister of Finance. Does this indicate that, even with the credit restraints, having been dropped, the slowdown is greater than that desired by the Department of Finance and the minister? Also, in the view of the minister is this attributable in any way to the floating dollar?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I believe my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is expected in the House tomorrow and I am sure he will be ready to deal with the always stimulating questions of the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope so.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has reference to the delivery of government cheques by special messengers in areas affected by rotating postal strikes. Can he advise whether it is government policy for other departments to circumvent the Post Office Department and thereby, in effect, court the charge of being strike-breakers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly make an investigation of this. I believe it has been the practice in the past when a strike has been imminent to obtain consent of the unions-perhaps this is done without their consent-to deliver cheques in such ways so as not to inconveni-



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. On April 10 of this year I asked him a question about the report of the advisory committee on the pay and conditions of employment of public servants excluded from collective bargaining, which is sometimes known as the Clyne Committee. At that time the minister said the committee was being urged to complete its work. Can he tell me whether this has been done and whether the report is expected soon?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the so-called Clyne Committee has been asked to advise on a number of questions. We have received some reports from them, but their work has not yet been completed.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My question concerns the control of potential pollution sources in Canada's northland connected with oil drilling and other petroleum activity. Have inspectors from his department investigated all the sites on which petroleum exploration is being carried out, and can he assure the House that these companies are living up to all the government's pollution control regulations?
Hon J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): Mr. Speaker, in the areas under federal jurisdiction in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, questions of oil drilling, oil permits and the administration of regulations come under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is concerned with Canada's mines and
June 16. 1970	COMMONS
resources, does his jurisdiction not extend to all parts of Canada and to all petroleum drilling?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question, of course, is not acceptable in that form.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question. Does the minister's department exercise control over petroleum drilling in any part of Canada and are regulations issued by his department?


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member was on the committee and probably knows that in offshore areas the regulations are administered by my department.



OIL SPILL INTO ATHABASCA RIVER-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister is now ready to make a report on the question I asked him about the pollution of the Athabasca River and Lake Athabasca. Some of these waters fall under federal jurisdiction. The minister was going to send experts there to find out what was going on.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, my information is that apart from the national park, which comes under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and may be affected, the pipeline is completely a provincial pipeline and is administered under the Alberta act, under which immmediate action in regard to the situation that has occurred has been taken. It is only pipelines that cross interprovincial or international boundaries which come under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the National Energy Board Act.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. On June 10, as reported at page 7961 of Hansard, I asked the minister a question. His answer shows that there may have been some misunderstanding about the question. I asked whether, in view of the grave doubt that urine tests are reliable in determining the level of mercury, blood tests are being taken of those persons who eat fish
DEBATES	8167
Inquiries of the Ministry as a staple diet so that they can be assured there is no danger of any bad effect on the brain or on the nerve system?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the principal tests relate to blood and brain
tissue.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker,
may I address a question to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the undertaking the minister gave before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when his estimates were before it that he would immediately study the proposal of the Ontario government with regard to adopting the Malvern project, may I ask if the minister has completed his study and is prepared to make a report on it?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Malvern project, in its final form, has not been presented to me from the other level of government. I have put inquiries in motion to indicate that we should like to see it brought along, but until it is approved by the Ontario government I cannot put our approval on it. I am as concerned as the hon. member to see that it is dealt with quickly.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple and brief and is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Can he indicate whether he has received any acceptable proposals or offers to purchase the Bonaven-turel If so, has he taken any action on them?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to pass the buck but I think this question should be directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the same question to the Minister of Supply and Services?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of offers, but none which were acceptable.
June 16, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider making the Bonaven-ture available to his colleague, the Minister of Transport, for service between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicioria-Haliburlon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the statement made by the mayor of Montreal that he is unalterably opposed to the minister's proposal for the establishment of a national three level urban council, would the minister say whether he still plans to pursue the matter?


Robert Knight Andras: I still plan to pursue the matter.



FISHERIES


Mr. Harold Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries. The minister is aware that on April 15 he and his associates met with their Ontario provincial counterparts in Toronto and agreed on joint financial reparation for the hardship caused by the ban on fishing in Lake St. Clair and adjoining waters. Since the provincial government has already carried out its commitment, can the minister tell us when the federal government will be prepared to honour the commitment it made in this instance?


John (Jack) Davis: We have been carrying out all our commitments with respect to fishermen.


Harold Warren Danforth: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister in light of that answer. Having seen the published itinerary of the welcome visit of the Prime Minister to southwestern Ontario in a few days time, may I ask whether the right hon. gentleman would consider altering his program to the extent of providing an opportunity of meeting with the citizens of Kent County, not only to enjoy their famous hospitality but also to hear petitions and grievances?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-214, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-214, an Act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be amended by deleting from lines 12 and 13 thereof the words "one dollar and sixty-five cents", and by substituting therefor the words "two dollars".
He said: It is not my intention to provoke a lengthy debate on the amendment which has now been placed before the House but I hope hon. members will be prepared to accept it and thus make a significant improvement in the bill which has been brought in by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). Having said that in my view a prolonged debate at this stage is unnecessary, I shall not repeat the arguments I used when we discussed this bill on second reading on May 29, although I should like to use again one or two of the arguments I advanced when the bill was before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
As hon. members are aware, the bill is a very simple one in that it makes just one change in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. It proposes that the minimum wage stipulated in the Code, which is now $1.25 an hour, should be made $1.65 an hour. My amendment proposes that, instead, the minimum wage be set at $2 an hour. As we all realize, this is a statute which applies to workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction. It does not apply to the federal public service but rather to workers such as railway employees, communications workers, bank employees and the like who, under the terms of the British North America Act, come under federal labour jurisdiction. There are about
550,000	workers in Canada who find themselves in these various categories but of course the number affected by any minimum wage provision is very low, since many of them have better arrangements as a result of collective bargaining agreements.
I must, however, correct the figure I gave on May 29 when I said I thought there were
June 16, 1970	COMMONS
probably fewer than 10,000 people who would
be affected by this bill-that there were fewer than 10,000 of the 550,000 whose wages were so low that they would get an improvement if their wages were brought up to $1.65 an hour. I now find from figures which the Department of Labour has been good enough to furnish to us that the number may be as high as 20,000. Previously, I estimated that only 2 per cent of those under federal jurisdiction were affected; the figure may turn out to be closer to 4 per cent. Since this larger number of people would be affected by the legislation, it is all the more important that we should do the right thing by them.
I said earlier that I will refrain from repeating the arguments I used on second reading. But when we got into the committee there were two points which I sought to make, and I beg the indulgence of the House to make them here as well. I shall try to make them a little more effectively than I did there, in the hope that we can go just a step further. In the committee, when I moved my amendment there and it came to a vote, a tie resulted and the chairman had to decide by his casting vote that the bill should remain as drafted. I hope this will not happen today. I hope you will not be put in that awkward situation, Mr. Speaker. I hope that instead of a tie there will be a clear majority in favour of my amendment.
The first of the new arguments I used in committee involved quoting an authority we in this party do not often put in that category. I refer to Dr. John Young, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission. But even people who hold ideas with which we do not agree can, at times, have ideas which are correct. I remind hon. members that when Dr. Young issued his statement at the famous weekend meeting in Winnipeg calling for restraint in terms of there being no wage increases allowed beyond 6 per cent, he said very clearly that there were certain groups of people to whom this should not apply. One of these groups consisted of those earning less than $2 an hour. In other words, Dr. Young recognized that anyone whose wage was below $2 an hour could, notwithstanding the policy of the Prices and Incomes Commission, have that wage brought up to $2 an hour. The proposed restraint does not apply. Anything less than $2 is so low that even Dr. Young would not object to its being brought up to the figure I propose.
Surely, with all this support the government is giving to Dr. Young in connection
DEBATES	8169
Canada Labour (Standards) Code with the negative proposals he has made, the minister and his colleagues will also go along with his more positive suggestion, namely, that no wage below $2 an hour should be tolerated at all. I, therefore, call upon the Minister of Labour to help avoid the possibility of a tie, should the amendment come to a vote, by throwing his weight behind my proposal and helping to improve the position of those who are governed by the minimum wage under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The other argument which I introduced in the standing committee was one to which a colleague of mine alluded in a question that he asked during the question period yesterday relating to an example of some of the people who are getting these low wages. I confess that I was astounded when I got these figures from the Department of Labour setting out the numbers of people who are drawing wages that work out to less than $1.65 an hour. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, but of the 20,747 people who in June 1969 were drawing less than $1.65 an hour, 8,000 were employees of the chartered banks of this country. In other words, 40 per cent of the employees in this lower bracket are employees of the banks of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission has finally twigged to the inconsistency of some of the things that the banks are saying and doing by calling for an investigation into the profits of banks. A report in the Globe and Mail a few days ago carried the headline "Major banks show $275.2 million profit". That is covered by another heading which reads "27.7 per cent first half rise". That is their increase in profits in the first half of their fiscal year. If the banks of this country are making profits that run into these many millions, profits that in terms of percentage shoot high, wide and handsome through any guidelines talked about by the Prices and Incomes Commission, I suggest it is downright immoral for these people to be paying wages of less than $1.65 an hour to
8,000	of its employees. There just is no defence for this whatsoever.
By the same token, I submit that the government has no defence if it does nothing about this. All that the government has to do to correct this situation is to accept the
June 16, 1970

Canada Labour (Standards) Code amendment now before the House in my name calling for a minimum wage of $2 an hour, for all those who come under federal labour jurisdiction. In that instance, these
8,000	people would get their wages increased to $2 an hour, and there are probably a few hundred or thousand between $1.65 and $2 an hour who would also get an increase to that figure.
Not only are there the 8,000 bank employees to whom I have referred, who are receiving a starvation wage, but there are 5,675 persons in the transport industries who are receiving less than $1.65 an hour. I have grouped together several branches of transport, covering railway, air, road and water transport services. For the most part, workers in our transportation industries are covered by collective agreements, and most of the workers in those industries are doing better than $1.65 an hour. But these employees are persons in non-scheduled positions of various kinds, and there are some 5,675 of them whose present wage is less than $1.65 an hour. I should qualify the word "present" by saying that the figures I have are the latest I could get from the Department of Labour and are for June 1969. Although there may have been some improvement since, I am sure the situation has not been rectified to any great extent.
In addition, we have been told that the radio and television industries are not exactly on the rocks; that if you can get a licence to run a radio or a television station, in effect it is a licence to print money. Yet in radio and television in this country there were in June, 1969, 860 people who were receiving wages that worked out to less than $1.65 an hour. I do not think we should stand for this another day or even another afternoon.
I think there should not be any question at all about my amendment this afternoon. The House should say to the banks, to the transport industries and to the radio and television licensees that the least they must do is to bring their employees up to $2 an hour. The minimum wage proposed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) of $1.65 an hour, for a person who manges to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks in the year, would work out to $3,432. The Economic Council of Canada has selected the sum or $4,200 as the poverty line for an employee with a family today, so to say to these people that they should get by on $3,400 is selling them short by $800.
This is what this bill in the name of the minister would do, that is, unless my amend-

ment were accepted. If the amendment were accepted, it still would not bring affluence to these people. A wage of $2 an hour would mean, working 40 hours a week 52 weeks of the year, an annual wage of $4,160, which is at least within $40 of the poverty line indicated by the Economic Council of Canada. I have used 52 weeks in those figures to get the maximum amount in both cases, but I would hope that the provisions relating to vacations with pay would also apply to these people, that some of the employers who are getting away with these low wages are not at the same time getting away with practices that deny vacations to these employees.
There it is, Mr. Speaker; it is a simple proposition. I see no reason at all for the House not accepting this amendment of mine this afternoon. I know, of course, that we will be handed the usual arguments. The minister will tell us that he is trying to be realistic. I get awfully fed up with this line about having to be realistic. What about those people who are trying to live on this sort of money? What about realism for them?
I know the minister will also tell us that we have to be careful; that this matter involves the provinces as well as the question of whether industries will move from one province to another, or move from Canada to some other country; that we have to look at all these things; that we have to find some sophisticated ways to cope with the problem of poverty; that we must concern ourselves about the question of regional disparity and all that sort of thing; that maybe we will have to look at the situation of the banks as distinct from the situation of other industries. But after all these arguments have been put, we come back to the simple fact that this afternoon we are dealing with some 20,000 people employed in industries that come under federal labour jurisdiction and who are receiving less than $1.65 an hour. Probably some 22,000 or 25,000 or maybe more are receiving less than $2 an hour. I suggest that all of these arguments about federal-provincial relations, sophistication and realism do not apply.
The minister himself has said, and he said very effectively the other day in committee, that he is the kind of individual who is concerned about people. He did not claim anything for himself that he did not accord to the rest of us. But if we are all concerned about people, let us show our concern this afternoon by telling the minister that, yes, he has taken a good step by bringing in this bill to increase the minimum wage from that terribly low
June 16, 1970	COMMONS
figure of $1.25 an hour to a higher figure. But in the name of those people who are affected, and in a desire to be fair and to have some kind of just society, let us not stop there. Let us make it fair and reasonable. The other day one of the members of the committee complained about my amendment because he was afraid that if $2 an hour were agreed to this year, then in a year or two I would be asking for $3 or $4 an hour. I probably will be; in fact, I hope I will be. Progress does not stop. But it is not an answer to people who are living below the poverty line to tell them that for reasons of realism, of sophistication or of procedural difficulty, they have to stay at the same level.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the members of this House of Commons are sometimes shoved aside and sometimes feel irrelevant, but this afternoon we have the opportunity to act on behalf of
20,000	or 25,000 people. Therefore, I urge that this House support my motion, and by doing so let us raise the minimum wage in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to the more reasonable level of $2 an hour.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I never cease to wonder at the political skill and acumen of the hon. member, having myself been a member of this House since 1962. I notice that in anticipation of my arguments he either paid attention to what I had said on second reading or in committee or else reread my remarks in Hansard. I do recall the hon. member saying, with his refreshing candour, during the second reading stage that had I come up with $2 for a minimum wage I would now be faced with an amendment for $2.25.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Not a thing, except that you must be consistent. Had I brought in $2, he would have proposed $3, and he would never be satisfied. In proposing $1.65, I had to ignore some of the political arguments and some of the very humanitarian aspects in the hon. member's remarks. I must, in all fairness to the hon. gentleman, take into consideration that he is consistently in this field and is genuinely and sincerely concerned about the people to whom he referred.
However, I think the hon. member will be the first to agree that that concern is not limited to him or to members of his party. There are no basic differences between the hon. member's arguments advancing his
DEBATES	8171
Canada Labour (Standards) Code amendment and his speech on second reading or in committee the other day, nor will I attempt to come up with any different arguments in rebuttal. As I recall the debate on second reading, the one encouraging factor of course was the unanimous theme running through all the speeches made by members of all the parties in the House, including the Official Opposition, that there should and must be some increase in the minimum wages in this country. Had I viewed the minimum wage as the only instrument to alleviate poverty for certain classes of people, possibly I would have come up to $2. But when you are a minister charged with a certain responsibility you do not always have the freedom and flexibility that you may have in the opposition in taking into consideration one or two points.
Certainly, politically at least, it would be very palatable, so far as the relationship of the Minister of Labour and the government to
10,000	or 20,000 people is concerned, to bring in an amendment suggesting $3 an hour as the minimum wage. If I had that freedom, I would have proposed more than $2 an hour because it is certainly politically attractive. But as I mentioned on second reading and in committee, I have certain responsibilities and I have many other considerations which I thought I made as clear as possible.
We heard some very valuable contributions from representatives of the Atlantic provinces regarding the whole question of minimum wages. I think that in all the speeches on second reading some myths were dispelled which exist all too often in central Canada that the cost of living is so much lower in the Atlantic provinces. The fact that the people there can exist on a lower income is hardly a valid argument, but, as I pointed out earlier in the debate, I am opposed to the concept of regional minimum wages, either within a province or in a province within the nation.
So, in searching for a suitable figure, it became very obvious to me that I must come up with one that created the usual incentive, and the leadership with which the federal government has been associated ever since 1965 in establishing a minimum wage. I also had to establish a figure that did not create a distortion within a province or create unnecessary hardships for marginal industries, which may briefly be described as labour oriented rather than capital oriented. I was not unaware of the fact, through research in certain provinces, not necessarily the Atlantic provinces, that an increase in the
8172	COMMONS
Canada Labour (Standards) Code minimum wage even in the federal field could have perhaps induced a degree of rationalization in an industry which would be premature in the sense that in some cases it may have been economically advantageous to industries heavily dependent on machinery rather than labour before the regional expansion in that part of the country was sufficiently advanced to absorb displaced people.
I do have a responsibility not only to the employees but also to employers, and in many marginal industries dependent on labour rather than machinery we must take into consideration the effects which the minimum wage would have on their operation. I do not intend to refute any of the arguments which the hon. member brought forward with regard to chartered banks in this country and their ability to pay a living wage. It would seem to me that these banks would want to review their policy, taking into consideration their ability to pay, because I certainly do not consider the banks in this country to be marginal industries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I know that the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has established a very high level of debate as have other members, such as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member from Newfoundland who participated in the second reading debate as the official critic for the opposition on industrial relations, as well as other hon. members. However, I cannot help reminding the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the arguments he advanced today, persuasive though they may be, did not persuade the premier of Manitoba to reach the $2 plateau. I think he would be the first to admit that he tried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am still trying.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of my party
June 16. 1970

Canada Labour (Standards) Code will agree when I say I am certain that the Minister ot Labour (Mr. Mackasey) would like to do the right thing. But, Mr. Speaker, the right thing is obviously not $1.65 per hour. I cannot believe that the minister was really serious when he said they arrived at $1.65 per hour through some kind of scientific study concerning productivity and the cost of living. I am inclined to take a much more political and pragmatic view of how they arrived at that figure, namely, that that was the highest figure the Minister of Labour could persuade his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and a few other ministers, to accept. I point out that the President of the Treasury Board never had to worry about making a living, and that he represents the constituency of Westmount.
The minister talked about various other methods which can be adopted to raise the living standards of workers, particularly of unorganized workers who carry the main brunt of the low minimum wage. I agree with him that it is almost exclusively the unorganized workers who must live with the low minimum wage. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not much use to say to Canadian citizens, whether they live in Montreal, Winnipeg or Halifax, that some day in the future they will have pie in the sky, that some day in the future when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has worked out some of his beautiful plans, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has worked out some of his plans and make the textile industry much more efficient than it is now, their wages will go up. Unfortunately, they have to live now, and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, they have to live now on $1.25 an hour. Since the minister has rejected the $2 per hour suggested by my colleague, they will have to live on $1.65 per hour in the future.
The $1.65 per hour figure means that a married man with a family, if that is his wage, will receive an annual income which is $800 a year less than the Economic Council of Canada has set as the figure which divides those people who live in a state of poverty from those who live with some kind of decency. As I said on second reading, Mr. Speaker, this minister ought to be ashamed of himself for making such a niggardly proposal.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I was glad to hear the minister substantiate the claims of members from the Atlantic provinces, and others such as my own, that

the cost of living is not much lower in the Atlantic provinces or Manitoba than in Ontario or Quebec. That simply reinforces the argument of those of us who say that the minimum wage, both federal and provincial, is too low and ought to be higher.
The last point I wish to deal with, and the one that brought me to my feet, is the suggestion or criticism-if it was a criticism- which the minister made of the government and the Premier of Manitoba because that government, which is NDP, had not moved immediately to a $2 minimum wage. The minister knows very well why that government has not moved. The minister knows that in every province there are marginal industries and if the minimum wage were increased in one province before another, it is likely those industries would be pushed out of business.
There is a very important garment industry in Manitoba. Most of the workers in that industry live in my constituency and that of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The minister knows very well why the government of Manitoba has not unilaterally increased the minimum wage to $2 an hour, just as he knows that the minimum wage was increased to $1.50 on a temporary basis. It has been announced that it will probably be raised again in the fall. The government of Manitoba would like nothing better than to increase the minimum wage and I am sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is aware of that, Mr. Speaker. But this cannot be done until other provinces with similar industries increase their minimum wage. It is for this reason I am so critical of the minister for this miserable increase he is proposing and which he wants us to support today.
Just speaking from memory and subject to error in some small detail, Mr. Speaker, I point out that when the federal minimum wage was set at $1.25 five years ago, no province had a minimum wage of more than 90 cents. We knew, of course, that there were not many employees coming under federal jurisdiction who were not receiving $1.25 then, just as there are not many employees coming under federal jurisdiction receiving less than $1.65 today. We knew, when the minimum was set at $1.25 five years ago, that the main effect of it would be to act as a spur on the provinces to increase their minimum wage and that is precisely what happened. The minimum wage in Manitoba is now $1.50 and I believe that in Quebec it will be $1.55
June 16, 1970

an hour by this fall. The minimum wage in every province has increased substantially since the legislation was passed five years ago. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what was accomplished when the rate was set at $1.25 cannot be accomplished today when the rate is set at $1.65 because most of the provinces are already close to that rate. The benefits attained by the increase five years ago will not be attained today.
I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that to a large extent this amendment to the bill is an exercise in futility. It will not do for the workers of Canada, whether under federal or provincial jurisdiction, what the original bill did five years ago. I say to the minister that in the light of his constant speeches and protestations as to his interest and support for the ordinary people of this country-and I believe that the minister is sincere in this- and in the light of his constant reiteration of a desire to improve the conditions of the worker, the Parliament of Canada had a right to expect a good deal more from him than we are getting today.


An hon. Member:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) who is abroad on official business.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that Bill C-214, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, obviously $1.65 an hour is better than $1.25 and therefore we shall not oppose this bill, although we regret it has not been improved as we proposed. I should like to say, however, that we shall hold the minister to his promise to bring in a measure this fall to review and improve the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, including a review of the question of the minimum wage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among represen-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
tatives of the parties, and I think there might be some disposition to suspend the private members hour for today's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: 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 Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)- Pollution-Monitoring of waters receiving effluent discharges from plants using mercury; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-The Canadian Economy- inflation-Restraint on bank profits in line with six per cent wage increase guideline; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Industry-Proposed closing of Canadian subsidiary by SKIL Corporation of Chicago.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-209 to amend the Excise Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minisier of National Revenue) moved: that Bill C-209, to amend the Excise Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cote moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the
June 16, 1970
[Stage Direction]
election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mr. Be-chard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: Order, please.
Before calling the first of the many clauses in this bill, I should bring to the attention of hon. members of the committee the terms of the Special Order made on June 9 as found at page 7935 of Hansard for that date. In accordance with that order, the Chair will group any clauses containing revised provisions of the present act. The new material will be called in each case. I might add that the Chair will endeavour not to move too rapidly.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Shall subclauses 1 to 5 inclusive of clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Subclauses agreed to.
Albert Béchard: Shall subclause 6 of clause 2 as revised carry?
On clause 2 subclause 6-Election documents or election papers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should indicate to the House that the amendment here is the addition of the reference to proxy certificates which by this bill have been added to the Elections Act for the first time.
Subclause 6 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclause 7 of clause 2 as revised carry?
On clause 2, subclause 7-Election Officer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should explain that the change here is merely to delete the reference to the Representation Commissioner.
Subclause 7 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclauses 8 and 9 of clause 2 carry?
Subclauses 8 and 9 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclause 10 of clause 2 as revised carry?
On clause 2 subclause 10-Electoral district.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The explanation here is that it is to delete the reference to dual ridings which no longer applies since the last redistribution.
Subclause 10 agreed to.
On clause 2 subclause 11-Enumeration date.
Canada Elections Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The definition here is only a clearer definition of the exact date for the purpose of enumeration.
Subclause 11 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclauses 12 to 24 inclusive of clause 2 carry?
Subclauses 12 to 24 agreed to.
On clause 2, subclause 25-Political Affiliation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The definition here is changed consequential upon the stipulation further on in the bill that political affiliation will be noted on the ballot.
Subclause 25 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclauses 26 to 32 of clause 2 carry?
Subclauses 26 to 32 agreed to.
On clause 2 subclause 33-Registered party.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is a change consequential upon the registration provision introduced in clause 13.
Subclause 33 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclauses 34 to 36 inclusive of clause 2 carry?
Subclauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
On clause 2 subclause 37-Rural polling division.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The change here is for the purpose of providing a slightly greater discretion for the chief electoral officer for the purpose of designating which are urban and which are rural polls. It happens, with the shifts of population in our highly mobile society and also with the frequent annexation of rural areas as part of municipal change, that some urban polls still comprise farmlands while there may be polls regarded as rural polls under the definition which, for all practical purposes, are urban. This is to give the chief electoral officer greater flexibility in designating which are urban and which are rural polls for the purpose of enumeration.
Subclause 37 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclauses 38 and 39 of clause 2 carry?
Subclauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
On clause 2 subclause 40-Urban polling division.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is the converse of the previous change.
Subclause 40 agreed to.

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act [Translation]


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to follow you and I am wondering whether we are finished with the clause concerning the definition of the word "oath"?


Mr. Goyer:: The battle of the flags. [English]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I point out to the hon. member-and I agree it is out of alphabetical order in the French text-that it is dealt with under subclause 19 of clause 2.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, may I comment briefly on this clause?


Albert Béchard: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to revert to subclause 19 of clause 2?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Clause 2, subclause 19, "Oath".


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council.
The matter of the oath by members is presently an issue in Quebec where they are wondering whether the oath should be taken in the traditional manner of according to another procedure. Considering the constitutional and legal difficulties that this matter entails for certain Quebec members who are not sitting in the National Assembly because they do not want to swear allegiance as provided in the constitution, do the President of the Privy Council and his officials intend to examine the possibility of amending the constitution in order to change the traditional oath and select a procedure which would be more acceptable to certain Quebec members, instead of maintaining the formula which is still in the Elections Act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Whatever the merits of that particular proposal, may I draw the hon. member's attention to form No. 2 at page 202 of the draft. The hon. member will notice that the oath in that particular case is the oath to be taken by the returning officer. My understanding of the difficulty which has recently been experienced in the Quebec Assembly had to do with the oath of allegiance. That question of course does not arise in connection with this provision. As to the oath of allegiance, I agree it has been a ques-

tion of some legal nicety, but it would be clearly beyond my jurisdiction and beyond the terms of the bill if I offered my comments at this time.
Subclause 19 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclauses 41 and 42 of clause 2 carry?
Subclauses 41 and 42 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclauses 1 and 2 of clause 3 carry?
Subclauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3 subclause 3-Communication with Governor in Council.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The change here is for the purpose of increasing flexibility among the members of the Privy Council who are to be responsible for the purposes of this act. Traditionally, this has been conferred specifically on the Secretary of State for Canada, but as is now apparent this function may be assigned from time to time to another member of the cabinet. The amendment will make it possible to change this responsibility from time to time without having to make an amendment to the Elections Act.
Subclause 3 agreed to.
On clause 3 subclause 4-Salary and expenses of Chief Electoral Officer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The amendment here is for the purpose of making any change in the remuneration of the chief electoral officer independent of a direct government decision which it would be if this were left to the exclusive responsibility of the Governor in Council, or alternatively to avoid the necessity to come back to the House from time to time with a statute to increase that officer's salary as circumstances might dictate. What this means, therefore, is that his salary will be subject to any changes that may occur from time to time in the remuneration under the Judges Act. It will be recalled that virtually every year the Judges Act is opened up. Therefore, any changes that will take place with regard to judges will automatically take place with regard to the chief electoral officer.


Frank Howard: As one of those in the standing committee who supported this change, I want to endorse it of course. But since the standing committee met and I made this determination, I find that on the passage of this provision the salary paid the chief
June 16, 1970

electoral officer will be increased over what he receives at the moment under the procedures used for setting salaries. Since the committee made that decision, somebody named Dr. Young, who has something to do with the Prices and Incomes Commission, made a statement, which I understand is government policy, about limiting salary increases to 6 per cent. I am speaking as one who supported the amendment in the committee because at that time, presumably, we were operating as agents free from any prescription set by the government or the Prices and Incomes Commission. I ask the President of the Privy Council whether, as a result of this change which would establish the salary of the Chief Electoral Officer as equal to the salary of a puisne judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, the increase exceeds the 6 per cent policy announced by the government?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, it does. I think it is evident, Mr. Chairman, that there will be certain cases, and this is obviously one, where for a great many years the salary of the particular officer has been fixed. It would be reasonable to do this, therefore, to enable him to catch up with the position accorded to most other groups in society by reason of the change in the price level. Therefore, on this basis, I would acknowledge that is an exception to the general principle set out by the Prices and Incomes Commission, but I think it is one with which the House generally would agree.


Frank Howard: I think the House would find it more agreeable if the 40 per cent of people who work in banks, and who fall in the extremely low category covered by the minimum wage, had their wages increased to $2 an hour, which the minister voted against a few minutes ago.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I, too, supported this suggested amendment in the Committee and I would like to say I think that the Chief Electoral Officer should have his remuneration looked after in this particular way. I cannot help but observe, however, that the hon. member for Skeena has in fact caught the government with its inconsistency showing a bit.
Subclause 4 agreed to.


The Chairman:: Shall subclause 5 of clause 3 as revised carry?
On clause 3, subclause 5-Superannuation and compensation.
22478-27}
Canada Elections Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the change here is to bring up to date the statutory provisions with regard to the superannuation of the Chief Electoral Officer, in line with the provisions for others in the public service.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, might I be permitted to inquire of the President of the Privy Council what regulations are referred to, or what is the connection with the regulations that may be made pursuant to section 5 of the Aeronautics Act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: These, Mr. Chairman, are the flying accidents regulations of the Aeronautics Act. The effect of them is that where members of the public service are flying under air arrangements which would not normally be covered by policies of insurance, for example on non-scheduled airlines, they are accorded insurance under the provisions of the Aeronautics Act.
Subclause 5 agreed to.
Subclauses 6 to 12 inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: We are now on clause 4. Shall subclause 1 of clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carry.
Subclause 1 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 2 of clause 4, as revised carry?
On clause 4, subclause 2-Power to adapt Act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, this is really a redrafting for greater certainty. By way of indication of the types of emergency or unusual circumstances referred to, it is my understanding that after the last general election there was a postal strike, or threat of postal strike action, which made it difficult to forward the returns by way of postal services, and they had to be returned in that case by way of air express. Rather than have any contest on that particular question this amendment is to make it clear that the Chief Electoral Officer may use all possible means to communicate this type of information, or any other type of information, where ordinary services of communication have been interrupted for any reason.
Subclause 2 agreed to.
Subclause 3 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 4 of clause 4 as revised carry?
On clause 4, subclause 4-Exception.

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we are including here a provision which is analogous to one already found in the Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba elections acts. What is involved here is really to provide a little flexibility for the Chief Electoral Officer where, for example, there happens to be a bomb scare in a polling booth, perhaps at five o'clock in the afternoon, and where as the result of safety precautions it may be necessary to clear the poll for several hours and therefore run the risk of disenfranchising a number of voters. It is subject to an over-all time limit so that the poll in total will not be open for a longer period of time, than is general under the act but this does permit that particular poll to remain open for a longer period of time than is usual. The discretion is exerciseable by the Chief Electoral Officer on the advice of the returning officer.


Frank Howard: I realize we probably cannot cover every contingency and possibility here, but there is a provision elsewhere in the Act that no one shall publish the results of the election in one part of the country until the polls have closed in another part of the country, taking into account the time differences. Here we have a situation where a particular polling station in a particular polling division may be kept open beyond the normal closing time because of an emergency, or something unforeseen that may happen, in order to give the people in that polling division substitute time in which to cast their ballots. I am wondering whether the other provision relating to the sanction against publicizing the results of the election is included in this, or will it be permissible to publicize them in this instance? Will it be an infringement to publicize them if a polling station has to be kept open until midnight, or until three or four hours after the other stations close?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I understand that the inhibition elsewhere in the legislation applies to an entire electoral district, so that the general publication of election results elsewhere in the electoral district would not be an infringement of the statute if one or more polls were left open. I think the over-all logic is that it would be difficult to hold up the whole country while two or three polls voted.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I was not raising this for the purpose of objecting to it, because I think it would be an impossible situation. Take the case of an accident, or of a riot, or of something of that kind hap-
[The Chairman.]
pening half an hour before the polls close. You cannot possibly get that information all across Canada in that period of time. But I just wanted to ask the question so that the information will be on the record, because presumably the Chief Electoral Officer and other people may be reading the proceedings here, and if this is set out in Hansard there will be a clear understanding of what it means.
Subclause 4 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 5.
Subclause 1 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 2 of clause 5 as revised carry?
On clause 5, subclause 2-Superannuation and compensation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the changes to apply with respect to the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer are the same as apply to the Chief Electoral Officer himself, that is to say, with respect to changes in the public service benefits.
Subclause 2 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 6, subclauses 1 to 3 inclusive.
Subclauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
[DOT] (5:30 pun.)


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 6, subclause 4 as amended.
On clause 6, subclause 4-Returning officers to act to enable elections to be held.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, there has been a general revision of the criminal provisions in the bill and this will appear later. The revision really reflects the changes in so far as they pertain to the returning officers being able to act.
Subclause 4 agreed to.
On clause 6, subclause 5-Withdrawal of writ.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to present, for the consideration of the committee, on clause 6, subclause 5, paragraph (c). I assume this subclause means that in the event of flood, riot or other disaster that would prevent the holding of an election within the electoral district, the Chief Electoral Officer may cause the writ of election in that electoral district to be withdrawn and a
June 16, 1970

new writ to be issued later. The provisions of paragraph (c) of subclause 5 now read:
a new writ ordering an election shall be issued within six months-*
I am sure that the Chief Electoral Officer, the President of the Privy Council and all members would agree that for a general election the decision should be made at the earliest possible date. Therefore, it seems to us that in this case six months is not necessary. I would therefore like to submit an amendment for the consideration of the committee. I hope and trust that the President of the Privy Council and other members will agree that the amendment is suitable for this purpose. I move:
That clause 6 be amended by deleting paragraph (c) from subclause 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"(c) a new writ ordering an election shall be issued within three months after publication of the notice of withdrawal of the writ in the Canada Gazette-, and that such writ be returnable within three months after issue; and"-
Then it goes on to the succeeding paragraph. The intention of this amendment is that when a writ had been withdrawn in an electoral district because of a disaster or emergency, the Chief Electoral Officer would cause a new writ to be ordered by the Governor in Council within three months, the writ to be returnable within three months after issue. In a general election the vacancy would be filled within six months, instead of taking six months to issue the writ and then whatever period was necessary after that to hold the election. I urge that this amendment be accepted because it seems more fitting and proper to conduct the election process in this manner, particularly in a general election when all electoral districts should be settled as early as possible.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the substance of the amendment would be acceptable, but in terms of the procedure I have one objection. The subclause provides that the election shall be conducted according to the procedures prescribed in this act for all elections. I would advise that at by-elections, writs are not returnable; therefore, the final line of the hon. member's amendment will appear not to be consistent with our procedure. I would suggest that we stand this particular subclause, consider any consequential effects it may have on the wording throughout the rest of the bill, and return to it after the dinner hour, if that is agreeable to the House.
Canada Elections Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause 5, paragraph (c) stands.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to present for the consideration of the committee. It would have the effect of adding a new subclause to clause 6. Many of us have been concerned over the years about the length of time it has taken to fill vacancies in Parliament. In years gone by vacancies were filled in a manner which nowadays would be considered nothing more than political chicanery or political manoeuvring. I think members of all parties agree that the electors of any electoral district have the right to be represented in Parliament at the earliest possible date following a vacancy in the House. I believe that no party in Canada, in this modern age, desires delay when vacancies are to be filled. I appreciate that on the death of an hon. member a reasonable period should be observed, out of respect for the member, before a writ is issued. That would be natural and courteous.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think delays in the recent past have been longer than necessary. I do not ascribe any motives to the government. In the case of the former hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, who died on July 10, 1968, subsequent to his election to the twenty-eighth Parliament, eight months passed before the vacancy was filled. In the case of the former hon. member for Selkirk, who resigned from this House and was successful in seeking opportunity elsewhere, 11 months passed before the vacancy was filled. At present a vacancy exists because a member of the Ralliement Creditiste resigned to sit in another chamber.
I urge upon the members of the committee an addition to this clause. I move:
That clause 6 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
"(6) Notwithstanding anything in this or any other act, where any vacancy happens in the House of Commons a writ ordering an election of a member of the House of Commons to fill such vacancy shall be issued within three months after the receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of the warrant issued pursuant to the House of Commons Act, and that such writ be returnable within three months after issue."
I hope all members will favourably consider this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I know all of us would be interested in hearing the views of members from all parts of the chamber. I hope there is a general feeling that the day has long past when any government, of whatever party, would delay filling vacancies

June 18, 1970
Canada Elections Act
in an electoral district at the expense of Canadians who would not have representation as soon as they should.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the short-coming of the amendment is similar to the one already moved, in the sense that writs are only declared to be returnable in the case of a general election. More fundamental, perhaps, is the fact that the House of Commons Act regulates this particular situation and the membership of the House of Commons as it is constituted from time to time.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I would think that any amendment along those lines ought to be considered within the over-all context of that statute and not of this bill which seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act. Therefore, instead of making the change at this time we would be disposed to consider it in any future amendment to the House of Commons Act. Very likely, that measure will arise for consideration in the next session. We will, therefore, not make this change in the context of the bill now being discussed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I am not enthusiastic about the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. He has merely said it is likely that the Senate and House of Commons Act will be amended in the next session. In view of the number of times we have been told it is likely that legislation apropos the Canada Development Corporation will come before the House, we take the minister's suggestion with a great deal of skepticism.
I would be more disposed to listen to the President of the Privy Council if he advanced some real arguments showing why the amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is not now practical. Surely the minister does not want members of the House to think that the government needs freedom, for political reasons, not to call an election in any constituency for up to one year after a vacancy has occurred, and so leave that constituency unrepresented in this House. I have some experience of this situation. The former hon. member for Selkirk, who is now the Premier of Manitoba, asked me to look after certain matters relating to that constituency until the by-election could be held. I was happy to accommodate him, but I must admit that being a member who represents an

urban riding I found some difficulty in dealing with the difficulties raised by the farmers of the constituency of Selkirk.
The President of the Privy Council has not told us why any seat in this House should remain vacant for almost one year. The government may have political reasons; but I suggest to the minister that the democratic system being what it is, it is possible that the Liberal Party will not always form the government of Canada. There may come a time when it will be in opposition, and it will wish certain by-elections to be held even though the government of the day may not wish them to be held.
I suggest that we ought not to be playing politics in this kind of situation. We ought to enact rules saying that as soon as possible after a vacancy occurs, a by-election shall be held, no matter which party forms the government of the country. Therefore, if the minister has no political reasons for refusing the request of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, I urge him to accept the proposal of the hon. member.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out when replying to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who introduced this question, my reason for neither accepting nor rejecting the proposal put forward is that I think it should be considered in the over-all context of the House of Commons Act and not on the spur of the moment or in the manner now suggested. I would agree with the hon. member that it is patently obvious that the ability to postpone the holding of a by-election has not in any sense been of advantage to this government. The hon. member could characterize my reasons as political, but probably the sensible thing would be to deal with the matter within the context of the over-all statute and not to agree to this particular change at this time.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has brought forward a significant matter. This question has been dealt with in other jurisdictions. We seem to have developed a technique, if it is a technique, of prolonging vacancies. We have here a device whereby the executive arm of government is influencing improperly the composition of the legislative chamber. Other jurisdictions have, as a result of unfortunate experiences, found it expedient and wise to write into their laws provisions of the sort which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has brought forward.
June 16, 1970

While the suggestion may have been brought forward on the spur of the moment, in the eyes of the minister, the spirit of the suggestion is not at all new. I think events in this Parliament have served to underline the iniquity of our system whereby the executive, through inertia or other causes, can delay by-elections and thus the completion of the people's representation in Parliament.
I think any self-respecting government would wish to move as quickly as the law allows so that the people's parliamentary representatives may be installed in the lawmaking chamber. So I support the amendment, which I think would improve-and it is improvement that we are after-the efficacy of our system of representative government.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, may I join the mover of this amendment and my colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough in supporting this amendment. It seems that about every ten years we turn our attention in a substantive way to major changes to the Canada Elections Act. While I support the spirit of the Government House Leader's comments and think the matter ought to be looked at in the larger context, I hope the committee will not need to wait ten years for the consideration in that larger context to which he referred.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 14; nays, 28.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment negatived. The committee will turn to clause 7. Shall subclause 1 of clause 7 as revised carry?
On clause 7, subclause 1-Appointment of returning officers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, may I draw to the attention of the committee a related clause. I refer to clause 114(2) on page 198 of the bill which provides:
The Chief Electoral Officer, the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer and every other election officer appointed under the former act who held office immediately prior to the coming into force of this act shall continue to hold office with like effect as though they had been so appointed under this act.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Under the previous Elections Act, the statute enacted in 1960, the positions of returning officers were declared vacant, for whatever use it was at that time. It is the considered
Canada Elections Act
opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer that, particularly in light of the change in the size of the electorate and the complications which would result from having to appoint 263 new returning officers, it would be desirable to keep in office those who have had experience. This preserves the positions of the returning officers.


James Aloysius McGrath: What is the rate of pay for returning officers at the present time? I understand there is a retainer paid during years when there is no election, and a special rate during the time of an election. I also ask what procedures the Governor in Council follows when appointing people to fill vacancies in places where vacancies exist.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A tariff of fees is established pursuant to clause 61(1) of the current bill. There is no fixed sum applicable to all returning officers; the amount depends upon the number of names on the electoral list and is determined during the course of each election. As to the second question, an attempt is made to appoint someone experienced in election procedures. The hon. member became a member of the House before I did, and no doubt he is familiar with the process on his side.


James Aloysius McGrath: If that is an indication from the minister to make a recommendation to fill the vacancy in my constituency, I will gladly comply.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to propose to clause 7(1). It proposes that returning officers should be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer rather than by the Governor in Council. I make this suggestion as a result of my interest in the matter as well as on the basis of an exchange which took place in one of the earlier meetings of the Committee on Privileges and Elections at Which I was present. I should like to quote from the Minutes of Proceedings No. 2, dated October 31, 1968, beginning at page 8.


Mark Willson Rose: My question is supplementary to something Mr. MacGuigan said. He said that you and your office do not appoint the returning officers; that is done by the government.


Mr. Hamel:: That is correct.


Mark Willson Rose: You see, this brings up all kinds of interesting aspects of political patronage and that kind of thing in the appointment of these various returning officers, and I am interested in knowing what kind of recommendations you might have in this connection.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I do not have any recommendations. If you go back, I think to about 1930, the Chief Electoral Officer was responsible for the appoint-

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act
ment of the returning officers. I do not think this would be efficient because I do not have the machinery, having my office in Ottawa, if at the beginning of an election a returning officer drops dead or decides not to take the job away out in British Columbia, Alberta or in Saskatchewan, to try to find a replacement.


Mark Willson Rose: Do I understand, then, that the returning officers are appointed by the province or some organization within the province?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: That I do not know.
Obviously, the Chief Electoral Officer has to reply officially. He does not know. The record continues:


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: How they go about getting their names, I do not know.


Mark Willson Rose: It seem very strange, sir, that no one knows something as vital and as basic as this and I just cannot conceive its happening. It is like the answer we got yesterday concerning the political affiliations of appointees. I am not laying this at the door of any one political party, because I think this certainly has happened under both of the major political parties, but I think we could certainly look to some other kind of method for appointing these people, because I am convinced that not always are the best people appointed for this purpose and further, that there have been some very capable ones who have been replaced regardless of the changing of the boundaries.
This is the amendment which I am proposing, Mr. Speaker:
That clause 7 be amended by deleting subclause 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall appoint a returning officer for any new electoral district, and a new returning officer for any electoral district in which the office of returning officer becomes vacant, within the meaning of subsection 2. Such vacancy to be filled after the Chief Electoral Officer has publicly advertised the vacancy, invited applications, and held open competition for the position."
I believe our civil service operates on the basis that vacancies are regularly published as they occur in the government service. In my opinion, this is an admirable method of procedure and I do not see why it cannot be followed in this instance when it concerns the staff of the Chief Electoral Officer. I am surprised that the government has not thought it wise to ensure that these appointments are made without any hint of patronage. In the past, capable people were removed and their positions given to government supporters who were not necessarily the most competent among the applicants.
These appointments offer a small crumb to some people, but one wonders why the government has not seen fit to remove the taint of party advantage from an area which is of vital concern to everyone in our democracy. I am not moving this motion because I have been personally wronged by

any electoral officer, but I believe the government should show confidence in its Chief Electoral Officer's competence to make appointments of this type impartially.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
James Hugh Faulkner: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-215, an act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons.
When the committee rose at six it was considering clause 7, subclause 1 and the following amendment moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West:
That clause 7 be amended by deleting subclause 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall appoint a returning officer for any new electoral district, and a new returning officer for any electoral district in which the office of returning officer becomes vacant, within the meaning of subsection 2. Such vacancy to be filled after the Chief Electoral Officer has publicly advertised the vacancy, invited applications, and held open competition for the position."


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Fraser Valley West brought this amendment forward he referred at some length to an exchange that took place in the Standing Committee between himself and the Chief Electoral Officer, which seems to me probably the most effective answer to the points he was making at the time. As the Chief Electoral Officer pointed out, though I hesitate to quote him without reading his actual remarks, the system here appears to produce the most efficient way of appointing returning officers. It was also indicated at the time that up until about 1929 or 1930 they were appointed in the manner suggested by the hon. member. Then the House, nearly 40 years ago, changed the procedure so that they would be appointed by the Governor in Council and ever since that time this particular proposal has been in effect.
I understand it was the statement of a former Chief Electoral Officer, who operated under the older system, that the reinstitution of the system which in effect got him into controversy in a particular constituency by choosing the returning officer, would be a resigning matter as far as he was concerned. In other words, the law was changed specifi-
June 16, 1970

cally because of unhappy experience with the exact procedure that the hon. member is suggesting in this regard.
One other aspect of the hon. member's amendment which seems to me to be a good reason for recommending that the committee reject it is that there are other provisions in the statute-in particular subsection 5 of clause 7-for the purpose of the early filling of a vacancy, so there will not be a delay, and providing that the returning officer shall be appointed within 60 days. The procedure put forward by the hon. member, however, is a lengthy one with regard to which there can be no assurance whatever that within 60 days, or at any particular time, a vacancy would be filled. In other words, in order to carry out the procedure proposed by the hon. member, a particular constituency could find itself several weeks before an election campaign without a returning officer, and because of the restrictions that he imposes, without the ability of appointing one at an early date.
On that basis, Mr. Chairman, both because Parliament long ago rejected the proposal and because it will not provide, to adopt a term that has been used, for the efficiency of appointment, I recommend to the committee that it reject this amendment.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I think it is of the essence that every way we can find to reduce even the suggestion of partisan input into our election procedures should be welcomed. I am somewhat attracted to the proposal of the mover of this amendment. I notice that in several sections of the bill steps have been taken to put beyond question or reproach even any slight suggestion of partisanship. In the holding of an election, surely any distinction between a party in power and a party seeking power must be removed just as completely as is possible in all practical circumstances. I think it is well that we consider ways and means to reduce even the possibility of accusing a group in power of using the fact that they are in power for purposes other than the best purposes.
I am not suggesting that in our day and age elections have not been well conducted in this country, though in an earlier day that was not the case. I remember reading of an experience in the nineteenth century when nominations were made at an open meeting. The sheriff of one county did not tell the opposition party where the meeting was going to be held, and there was no one there to nominate the opposition candidates. As a result, there was an acclamation. However,
Canada Elections Act
things have been much better in recent times. If we could move toward de-politicizing-if I may use a terrible expression-our election campaigns to this extent, it would be a very good idea. When enumerators are appointed, the whole matter is carefully looked into; you have one designated by one party and one by another, so there is an assurance that you have reduced to the minimum any possible suggestion of partisanship. If we could do this with the returning officer, I think it would be a very good idea.
If I remember history correctly, I think at the time of the plebiscite that Mr. Mackenzie King called there was a procedure whereby in odd numbered polling divisions the deputy returning officer was the nominee of the government party, and in even numbered polling divisions he was the designate of the second running party. These are devices whereby you establish a good, proper, non-political basis which is of the essence in our electoral process. This is my point of view, and I support the amendment.
The minister was dilating this afternoon about the value of experience in the office of returning officer. Before we proceed further with this clause I wonder whether he could tell us how many of the returning officers who were appointed in the aftermath of the 1960 legislation are still functioning, because I agree with him that there is value in the experience of good people.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Otio:: Mr. Chairman, before we become involved in the de-politicizing, or whatever the term is, let me make some comments in the privacy of this House. I see we have complete privacy because there is no one to report us. Let us consider what the result of this amendment would be. The Chief Electoral Officer would be very careful not to choose anyone with political ideals either Conservative, Liberal or NDP. This would automatically eliminate about 80 per cent of the people who know something about politics and about the running of elections. The Chief Electoral Officer would look for someone who had never been involved in political activity of any nature and who did not know a poll sheet from any other document. Such a person would have to be trained. This is the type of person who would be a returning officer.
In addition, about five years ago the Prime Minister decided it would be a good idea to take patronage completely away from all appointments. Where did we turn? We could

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act
not go to the general field of economics or industry in order to find people, because they were involved politically with the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or the NDP. It was decided that academicians of the universities would be suitable because no one could say that they were partisan. Eventually the various commission appointments were filled by academicians-good natured souls, mind you, but people who have very little experience in the outside world. So in their little Valhalla they set down rules which in theory are perfect but which in practice have no application at all. Why should we penalize anyone who has been involved in political activity? What has such a person done that would warrant his being eliminated entirely?


An hon. Member:: No one suggested that.


Mr.   Oilo@: That is what an hon. gentleman across the way said. He said we should take politics away from these appointments. It was suggested that if a person is to be appointed as a judge, a commissioner, a returning officer, and so on, he should never take part in politics. In other words, the suggestion is: Never vote. Do not become involved. This is in fact what has been said.
I say it is time we reviewed this whole question. I see nothing evil in being involved with one political party or another. I can conceive of the Governor in Council obtaining an even better group of men from those who have been involved in politics than from those who have not.


Mr. Rowland:: Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to reply to the arguments put before the committee by the hon. member who has just spoken because he is drawing from this amendment a conclusion which should not be drawn. Such an interpretation has no place in our discussion of the amendment. The sole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the most competent people are selected to fill the position of returning officer. For obvious reasons, this would not eliminate a person merely because he had been involved in politics. Indeed, I think any intelligent Chief Electoral Officer would consider intimate involvement in politics to be a "plus" factor in the selection of a returning officer.
This amendment does not in any way indicate that a person must be non-partisan. It simply indicates that he must acquire the position as a result of an open competition. What it does mean is that if there should be a Liberal government in office, all the returning

officers would not be former Liberals; and if there should be a Conservative government in office, all the returning officers would not be former Conservatives. Similarly, if an NDP government should be in office, all the returning officers would not be members of the New Democratic Party. It simply means that there would be a competition and the most competent applicant would fill the position. That is the point; anything else is totally irrelevant to the question. On that basis I urge the committee to adopt this amendment.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Selkirk for apologizing, on my behalf, for things I did not say and for interpretations I did not mean. No one is suggesting that the appointees be political neuters: they must become that, because the law does not allow them to vote when the poll is open. I was suggesting that politicizing be withdrawn from the appointing product rather than from the end product. I do not agree that one must be partisan in order to be competent. I can conceive of the independent voters managing the Elections Act, too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member after the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I would gladly withdraw if I could be the last speaker. The hon. member would then have my permission to go ahead, but in the event that committee of the whole procedure precludes this kind of generosity, I should like to proceed. It seems to me that the arguments against my amendment have been approached from the wrong premise. I do not accept the type of argument rendered by the hon. member for York East, to the effect that my amendment means that people who have taken an active interest in politics should by virtue of their interest be precluded.
We are interested in obtaining the best possible people to fill the position of returning officer. My concern is that the best possible people be appointed by the government for the position of returning officer. I feel that the fact the government is involved in various partisan considerations might tend to make it appoint persons who are favourable to its political party.
Essentially, I am asking that there be an open type of competition in which people who have been involved in partisan politics
June 16. 1970

from the point of view of scrutineer, enumerator, returning officer, and so on, would have a free hand in submitting applications to the Chief Electoral Officer for consideration by him in his wisdom, intelligence and great experience in dealing with this type of person, rather than the appointment being made through the Governor in Council.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment, but I am not so naive as to believe that over the years governments have amended the act so that they could obtain returning officers who were more favourable to their own cause. Let us get down to brass tacks. What we need is something exactly like the amendment now before the committee. This situation is similar to that in respect of redistribution. That is something I always oppose.
It was said that judges should be appointed to the redistribution commissions because they were independent persons. Unfortunately, in various areas judges were politicians before they became judges. Therefore, we had as much politics in redistribution as we would have had had we turned the matter over to a committee of the Senate and House of Commons. If any member should stand in his place now and suggest that parties do not play politics with regard to this act, in relation to returning officers, they should examine their own conscience or their own people. They have all been playing politics. The NDP have not been in office federally, but they were in office in my home province and I did not see any non-politics there.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Dinsdale:: You should see them in Manitoba.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I would join the hon. member for Calgary North in expressing a comment or two about this amendment. I am one of those who admit to being a political animal from time to time. But I am one of those who-I have no hesitation in confessing it-in the few years that I have been here have found it a lot more enjoyable to work for people for all but two months of the four or five years that a government is in office, and at that time to be a little political.
While I support this amendment-I have no hesitation in doing so, largely for the reasons enumerated by my colleague-I think that in fairness it should be brought to the attention of the committee, its acceptance would give rise to serious questions about other procedures under the act. It is to the other procedures that I should like to direct my attention: not only to the procedure that involves partisan politics in the selection of returning officers and their clerks, but to the entire procedure to which we must direct our attention from 1970 onward.
I am not about to say that political appointees are not competent. I hope I misunderstood my hon. friend when he expressed what I understood to be that opinion, because I believe that regardless of their political beliefs, when people are considered for roles such as this they are by and large competent. But what is important is that we do not strip-I simply mention this for what it is worth-the political process in Canada of the means of adequately prosecuting general elections.
The point has been made by the minister, and I think validly so, that there are times when the returning officers must seek local advice. It is not always possible at the eleventh hour for the returning officer responsible for the prosecution of an election in a given electoral district to secure the required replacement, if that is what the problem is, and he must turn to somebody for advice and

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act
direction. There is not always time the day before the election to run an advertisement in a newspaper and to secure a list of candidates from which he can select an appropriate returning officer.
I draw this matter to the attention of the committee, and at the same time I run the risk of being contradictory when I say that notwithstanding this very apparent difficulty and the very difficult position in which we might place the Chief Electoral Officer, and indeed the voters in a given riding, it is perhaps time, in 1970, that we devised a more efficient way of securing the appropriate officers who are required to prosecute elections.
The amendment very clearly has merit. I only hope that in the wisdom of the chamber, if we decide to accept the amendment we will look with charity at consequential amendments that will have to be made, some of which will be moved by myself. I commend the amendment to the committee. I do so on the basis of 14 or 15 years' experience of dealing directly with these matters. The matter should be taken out of the hands of political organizations, because this is in fact what we are talking about.
It does not matter how much we try to hide it, it does not matter how much we try to get around the basic fact of the matter: what happens in truth is well known to all of us, and in many instances has caused some of us who have had responsibility in running elections, both on our own behalf and in assisting others, considerable difficulty, particularly during the latter stages of general election campaigns. I sincerely urge hon. members who are here tonight to reflect for a moment or two on the merit of this amendment. If in their wisdom they decide that it should be rejected, I ask each of them individually to make a plea to the Government House Leader who is responsible for the passage of this bill to make sure that this item is included in the promised review for this fall.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Rose) negatived: Yeas, 23; nays, 36.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
On clause 6, subclause 5, paragraph (c).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre proposed an amendment to subclause (c)-
[Mr. Forrestall.l


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do I conclude from the House Leader's intervention that we are moving to another clause, because I have another amendment on clause 7 which I would like to submit for the consideration of the committee?


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. The procedure, as I understand it, is that we are now reverting back to clause 6(5)(c), which was stood this afternoon, to deal with an amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, after which we will return to clause 7(1). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the substance of the hon. member's amendment was to require a new writ under this clause within three months rather than six months after publication of the notice of withdrawal. The advantage of the dinner hour has been used for the purpose of examining the legal effect of the amendment proposed. I have an alternative wording here, and if it were acceptable to him and to the committee, the hon. member's amendment might be withdrawn. The amendment suggested is as follows:
(a)	by striking out lines 30 to 33 on page 13 and substituting the following:
'(c) a new writ ordering an election shall be issued within three months after publication of the notice of withdrawal of the writ in the Canada Gazette;
(d) a day not later than three months after the date of issue of the new writ of election shall be named in the new writ as the day fixed for the holding of the poll; and
Then there is a further, consequential amendment:
(b)	by renumbering paragraph (d) of subclause 5 of clause 5 as paragraph (e).
If that meets the substance of the hon. member's amendment, perhaps he would be willing to withdraw his amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have the advice of the President of the Privy Council and of his legal advisers. My legal advisers consist of the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I may say I am glad the trial is not any more serious. I believe that the new wording the President of the Privy Council has presented means what I intended to present in my amendment, that a by-election, in the event of this circumstance, would have been completed within six
June 16, 1970

months. As long as that objective is achieved,
I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment and accept the wording of the amendment of President of the Privy Council.


James Hugh Faulkner: Does the hon. member have leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) withdrawn.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could give the hon. member the assurance that my understanding is that this amendment will mean six months plus one week.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is better than it used to be.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-215 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 30 to 33 on page 13 and substituting the following:
[DOT](c) a new writ ordering an election shall be issued within three months after publication of the notice of withdrawal of the writ in the Canada Gazette;
(d) a day not later than three months after the date of issue of the new writ of election shall be named in the new writ as the day fixed for the holding of the poll; and
(b)	by renumbering paragraph (d) of subclause 5 of clause 5 as paragraph (e).
Amendment (Mr. Forest) agreed to.
Clause 6 as amended agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now return to the consideration of clause 7(1).
On clause 7, subclause 1-Appointment of returning officers.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman,
before we proceed with the amendment indicated by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, I rise on a matter of order. I do so in a very expansive and generous way, to point out that the Chief Electoral Officer is in reality, as I understand it, an officer of Parliament and not an officer in the sense that a member of the public service is an officer attached to a particular department.
It is true that the Chief Electoral Officer is here on the floor of this House. I have some doubt about the propriety of that, but that is another matter. He is here with a very attractive young lady whose position I do not know so far as the Chief Electoral Officer is concerned. The question I want to raise is that the office of the Chief Electoral Officer being one of Parliament, it should not be one, just by proximity to the President of the Privy
Canada Elections Act
Council, to be in any way considered as a position seconded to the President of the Privy Council as a member of the cabinet.
I am sure that Mr. Hamel and the office of the Chief Electoral Officer are available during tonight's sitting, as was the case this afternoon, to any member who wants to consult them about the technicalities, legalities and other details of anything involved in this legislation. But I think that this office and its facilities, being an office of Parliament and not a partisan one-not attached to government or opposition-should be available to opposition groups who are as concerned as the government about developing the Elections Act so that it will meet the requirements and the needs of the people of this nation in their election of Members of Parliament.
I do not know whether we could arrive at some arrangement in this respect. I realize that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot be jumping from one party to another in the developing of amendments and in suggestions about them, but the office of the Chief Electoral Officer should be available to all parties and all groups in this House as easily as it is to the President of the Privy Council at the moment.
Whether it is possible to work this out at the moment, I do not know. There may be some technicalities involved in doing so. But I think it is incumbent upon us in this House, and upon you, Mr. Chairman, to look upon this question as having great validity. The hon. member for Hillsborough and the people associated with him in the Conservative Party who have spent a fair amount of time over the years, before many members came to this House, dealing with electoral reform and the Elections Act, should have available to him and to the group associated with him the expertise and knowledge that exists within the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. My friend from Regina-Lake Centre should not have to rely upon the highly incompetent legal advice that he says he gets from myself and from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He should be able to draw on something much more knowledgeable than that. I raise the point and leave it with the committee for comment. I think it is a very worth-while point that we should consider.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it perfectly clear, on behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer, that the opinion of the hon. member for Skeena is correct, that he is an officer of Parliament

June 18, 1970
Canada Elections Act
and that he is and will be available to all hon. members from time to time as they may need assistance. In terms of physical mobility around the floor of the chamber, I am open to suggestions as to how he could be made more available than he is now. But I am advised that the procedure now being followed, with the Chief Electoral Officer advising the minister who is conducting the passage of the bill, was the procedure followed when the House last had the Elections Act before it in 1960, and it was the practice followed in years before that. So I would make it perfectly clear that he is not the exclusive adviser of the government. If there are to be amendments which may involve technical advice on their consequential effect on other parts of the act, I think it might be necessary to postpone them. In terms of legal advice, may I take the opportunity to introduce to the House Miss Edythe I. MacDonald-she is no relation-of the Department of Justice, who has done a first-class job of redrafting this bill.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I may-


James Hugh Faulkner: I take it we are still dealing with the point of order. I do not know whether the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East is still on the point of order. I will hear him on it.


J. Michael Forrestall: In connection with the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would bring to your attention that just now, in the middle of the hon. member's remarks, I sought the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer. I suggest to my hon. friend, not necessarily because it strikes me as being funny, that if his feet were as big as his tongue he could have walked across the chamber and done the same thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is a very simple way of solving this problem. Mr. Hamel could sit over there, and Miss MacDonald could sit over here with us.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on clause 1, which stipulates that the governor in council may appoint a returning officer and-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am prepared to recognize the hon. member. I take it

that in the spirit of amicability, the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena has been resolved to the satisfaction of both sides; but I am not sure if that includes the proposal just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I will leave that matter to the members of the committee to work out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it does.


Mark Willson Rose: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You said a moment ago that you were not certain whether the point of order had been completely dealt with, and perhaps I could be allowed to make one or two remarks. I suggest to Your Honour that a Chief Electoral Officer must maintain as part of his office a position of complete virtue and be undefiled by any kind of partisan politics. He seems to be contiguous, in his physical position, to the President of the Privy Council. I suggest that it might be possible for him to move around or to have some kind of mobility whereby he could advise the various parties in the House on a more equal basis than is presently the case.


James Hugh Faulkner: I suggest that we have explored the point of order to the satisfaction of the committee. If arrangements of this kind are to be made, I would leave them to the members of the committee to negotiate privately.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, as I said a minute ago, I should like to make a few remarks on clause 7(1) which stipulates that the governor in council may appoint or remove from office a returning officer. This leads us to subclauses (2) and (3).
In those subclauses, we are not told what procedure must be followed to remove a returning officer from office. Paragraphs (c) (d) and (e) provide no procedure whereby reasons can be given to the government.
This means that the governor in council alone, in practice, may appoint or remove from office a returning officer, regardless of what the complaints may be. As for me, I would have valid and justifiable complaints to put forward. No procedure is provided in the law whereby I could have a returning officer removed. This is still the prerogative of the governor in council according to the legislation submitted again this year.
June 16, 1370

Actually, these amendments to the act are incomplete for they make no provision for enabling hon. members or anyone else to bring about the removal, supported by evidence, on the strength of reasonable and proven complaints, of a returning officer who might not have performed his functions normally.
I should like the President of the Privy Council to show me how one could, with proper evidence, recommend to the governor in council the removal of a returning officer who had repeatedly failed to do his duty.
I should very much like the President of the Privy Council to enlighten us on the procedure to be followed to have a returning officer removed under clause (3) (e).


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I thought at the end of the hon. member's remarks he referred to clause 7, subclause 3. I would point out that we have not yet reached that subclause.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I can understand your point of view, Mr. Chairman, but since clause 7 (1) provides that the governor in council may appoint a new returning officer for any electoral district in which the office of returning officer becomes vacant, I should like the President of the Privy Council to give me some explanations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I understood the hon. member to be referring to paragraphs (a) to (f) of subclause 3. Since we are on subclause 1, apart altogether from the Special Order of the House, I wonder if this is the right time to ask the question.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I stated earlier that I had another amendment to propose to clause 7 (1). Before I do that, I should like to congratulate government members for being here in such large numbers tonight. I think it demonstrates their keen interest in the subject of electoral reform.
I should also like to say that I anticipated the reply of the Government House Leader in negating my previous amendment and I am prepared to propose, with a great deal of magnanimity, a compromise amendment. I say it is a compromise amendment in the sense that I do not know whether my previous amendment was taken seriously. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Canada Elections Act
Prime Minister suggested to me that I was just having fun with my previous amendment. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would reply that, like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I am serious even when smiling. It was not a facetious amendment.
I think my compromise amendment recognizes that we are discussing a very thorny political point. Because of the government's reaction, I wonder if they are really sincere about ruling non-partisanship out of the vital position of Chief Electoral Officer. What partisan advantage could accrue by avoiding the appointment of returning officers by the Chief Electoral Officer, who is himself supposed to be a non-partisan appointee of the Crown? What possible advantage could accrue to the government's having the Chief Electoral Officer, in whom I have a great deal of confidence, make these appointments?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Before I read this amendment I am prepared to release it so that government members and opposition members can discuss it or at least consider it. I do not suggest that the Chief Electoral Officer should appoint people who are devoid of political experience. The appointment of electoral workers, people like poll clerks, organizers, scrutineers and district returning officers, ought to be considered. The appointment of election workers of all the parties ought to be considered. There should be appointments from the Social Credit party, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative party and the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Because these people are interested in politics, they probably know far more about running elections than those who do not care about the electoral process. I suggest that if we appoint people who have taken an interest in one or other of our political parties or who, because of their close association with one or other political party have gained political experience, such appointments would be of advantage to the people of Canada. They ought to be appointed by the Governor in Council. I therefore move:
That clause 7 be amended by deleting subclause 1 and substituting therefor the following:
(1) The Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, shall appoint a returning officer for any new electoral district, and a new returning officer for any electoral district in which the office of returning officer becomes vacant, within the meaning of subsection

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act
2. Such vacancy to be filled after the Chief Electoral Officer has publicly advertised the vacancy, invited applications and held open competition for the position.
I repeat what I said when speaking to nay previous amendment. It is important that this electoral office should remain open and available to applicants, regardless of party, who are most competent to perform this very vital task.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the alternative amendment of the hon. member meets neither of the principal points I raised when speaking to his previous amendment. In our electoral system we are not without experience in putting the Chief Electoral Officer in the position where he must seek out and select as between individuals in a constituency. As I said before, the Chief Electoral Officer who occupied the position at the time the law was changed indicated that he would think it most unfortunate if he were again put in the position of having to make that choice. He was prepared to shift the choice on to the shoulders of the Governor in Council.
The second point which I raised, and which the hon. member has not considered, is that an open competition of this kind, particularly in circumstances where a quick appointment may be necessary, will not be effective and could well leave one or more constituencies without returning officers. Under the system which is in vogue we have the advantage, as the Chief Electoral Officer pointed out in the passage taken from the proceedings of the committee which the hon. member read, that we can efficiently fill vacancies when, as is often the case, there is a great rush, and thus make certain that each constituency has a returning officer before an election is held.
It seems to me that the amendment meets neither of the two points I raised earlier. It does not really deal with those two substantial objections, both of which arise on the basis of experience accepted by this House, which has been the basis of the Elections Act for some time.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I was taken by surprise when you asked me whether I wanted to raise a point of order. I thought we would keep on discussing the remark made by the hon. member for Shefford when he said that there is no provision in this bill that

would enable me to secure the removal of a returning officer who had resorted, for instance, to unacceptable practices.
Therefore, I believe-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. A point of order has been raised in committee and I wish to comment on it. It seems that we are involved in a dispute between two hon. members on the meaning of a clause we have not yet agreed to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. On reflection, it seems to me that the hon. member for Shefford was dealing with clause 7, subclause 3, and the point he has raised should be raised when we reach that subclause. At that point I will be prepared to recognize the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression that you did not understand the meaning of my remark. There was certainly no intention on my part to try to pick a quarrel with the hon. member for Shefford, far from it. He asked a question to which I replied in a very friendly way, giving him at the same time a source of references. That is all. Let us leave it at that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I would support the amendment that has been moved by my hon. friend for Fraser Valley West because I think it represents the sort of compromise that is required if we are to circumvent the sensitivity that is involved in straight political appointments of this kind. The President of the Privy Council has indicated that the Chief Electoral Officer is not anxious to become involved in the process of appointing returning officers. As I understand it, under the compromise amendment put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, the ultimate responsibility lies in the hands of the Governor in Council and the Chief Electoral Officer would only be acting in an advisory capacity.
Speaking as one who has experienced eight elections, I can confirm the fact that the role of returning officer is of vital importance in ensuring the proper and efficient conduct of an election campaign. It seems to me that the Chief Electoral Officer, who has had very
June 16, 1970

close association with the returning officers and, through them, with the candidates in the constituencies of Canada, might be able to channel the experience that has been gained by those who have participated in elections by ensuring that each candidate involved in the electoral process, or the representative of each of the parties contesting a constituency in an election, is consulted. In that way they could make recommendations as to who might be the most suitable person to handle this very sensitive task. This, I think, would get around the problem which concerns all hon. members with regard to clause 7. There is an amendment which indicates that the office is now to be made permanent, subject to certain reservations. I think this is an excellent compromise. The Chief Electoral Officer can consult the candidates or the representatives of the parties who have contested the election and make his recommendation to the Governor in council. It would then be the responsibility of the Governor in Council, in the final analysis, to make a choice.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to add what I hope will be some reasonably convincing words in support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, and favourable to what we regard as a compromise more acceptable to the President of the Privy Council than the motion we moved earlier. In reality, under the terms of this amendment, the Governor in Council still has the final say. Nevertheless, a measure of impartiality would have gone into the process of selection of these senior electoral officers.
I was a little worried earlier this evening in case the idea got around outside the chamber that there was a contest to see how many of their experienced people each political party could get hired by the Chief Electoral Officer. The point we were trying to make was this: there is nothing wrong in being partisan or in having experience of the political process on behalf of a political party. But the Chief Electoral Officer has to work with whoever is selected as a returning officer, and it seems to me he should have some say in the selection. If the President of the Privy Council would accept this amendment, I could think of a person who has been for a number of years an organizer in the Liberal party and who would make a first-class returning officer. He has never behaved in a vicious manner; he has always acted in a positive and construc-
Canada Elections Act
tive way, and he probably knows more about the election law in that province than does his returning officer.


An hon. Member:: Then how is it he is a
Liberal?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The fact that he has come up against honest competition might have helped. The election law is reviewed every eight or ten years. There is not a party in this chamber or outside which does not agree the time is long past due to place in the hands of a person in whom we all have confidence the responsibility for recommending the officers he would like to work with him. The Chief Electoral Officer might provide three choices to the Governor in Council. He might recommend two or three people after considering their abilities and holding a competition. Whoever is chosen, he will have had some say as to the calibre of the people who will fill these senior positions. If the Governor in Council, in its wisdom, was not satisfied with the recommendations, it could ask the Chief Electoral Officer to submit further names. So the point raised by the minister is met by the proposal in this amendment. We would in fact present an electoral law which finally provided for a new method of selecting the 264 people who will run and supervise our election procedures in the constituencies of Canada.
If it would make the amendment more acceptable, the word "shall" in the fourth line could be replaced by the word "may". The point is to provide an element of examination and selection by the Chief Electoral Officer prior to a recommendation to the Privy Council. We believe that here is an opportunity to make an improvement in the law, in a bipartisan manner, for the first time since 1962 or 1963-and if that would not be refreshing to the public of Canada, I do not know what would be. I urge hon. members in all quarters of the House carefully to consider this proposal.


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Chairman, I can hardly believe there has been a more important bill before the Commons this session than the present measure, one which is concerned with a vital part of the democratic process. All of us have an interest in making sure it is the best statute we can possibly enact. As an important election official, a returning officer should be non-partisan in the performance of his duties and we should do our best to ensure that this will be the case.

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act
I do not know that I can support the amendment which has been made, because I have not had the opportunity to consider the practical difficulties which may be involved. I appreciate the extent of the problem mentioned by the President of the Privy Council. Nevertheless, I would urge that these should not be partisan appointments. There should be a method of ensuring that those appointed perform their tasks fairly. Since it is unlikely that this massive bill will get through the House this evening, I wonder whether this clause might be stood, to give hon. members an opportunity to see whether an amendment could be worked out which would be fair to all parties. It may be that we on this side will not hold office indefinitely, though it is hard for me to contemplate the possibility of losing it, except on the basis that all things change. I would like to feel that the important office of returning officer in any riding is determined on a basis which is obviously fair and acceptable to all members of the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Paul's commends itself in my judgment and that of my hon. friends. I hope the minister will respond to the question we asked before we conclude this matter. If he is deficient in information, I imagine he has means of getting it. If he is deficient in courtesy, I have no immediate suggestion to make.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Unfortunately, I have no record of the number of returning officers we replaced the last time the positions were declared vacant, nor do I have any record of the number replaced in 1960 when the hon. gentleman was chairman of the committee and caused all the positions to be vacated at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He was not chairman then.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am prepared to inquire from the Chief Electoral Officer whether I can get that information from him. Perhaps we could get that information for the hon. member.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
With regard to the comments of the hon. member for St. Paul's and other hon. gentlemen in regard to the importance of being able to act quickly and effectively, this is perhaps

illustrated by the following figures indicating experience during the last six general election campaigns with respect to filling of vacancies in the two-week period on either side of the date the writ is issued. In 1957 there was one returning officer appointed in that period; in 1958 there were 17 returning officers appointed; in 1962 there were three; in 1963 there were 12; in 1965 there were four; in 1968 there were 14.
I think it is clear, particularly in view of the fairly strict qualifications in terms of residence and otherwise of returning officers set out later in the section, that this is a situation wherein there has to be some swiftness. In the proposal suggested in the amendment, which deals with advertising the vacancy, in the coming and going and putting of names, having them rejected, and so on, this swiftness does not exist.
I suggest that the amendment does not effectively deal with the fact that there is a need in each election campaign to act swiftly. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West commented that he had suffered no disadvantage from returning officers, whatever the existing system might be, and this seems to me the best answer. It has operated fairly and as the Chief Electoral Officer himself has said, this is the most efficient method.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief intervention. I would suggest that the President of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer and his legal advisers, consider drafting a further subsection to cover the necessity for occasionally appointing returning officers in a crisis situation through the Governor in Council, subject to the procedure outlined in this amendment being pursued after the general election is completed. I am sure that such an amendment would not be beyond his inventiveness. I hope that this suggestion, if it has not already occurred to him, will be considered and the clause stood so that he may draft such an amendment.


Steven Otto: Mr. Chairman, I can well understand why the NDP are sponsoring this amendment, it is because there is no chance of that party ever assuming power. In 1960 the present loyal opposition were quite sure they would maintain power and they made no suggestion along the lines of this amendment. It is unfortunate that, having reached a position so devoid of hope of ever being in power, they are now supporting this amendment. However, I say to them, "Take heart; this may not be the situation forever."
June 16, 1970

I intervene in this debate because I have heard it said, on this side of the House as well as on the other, that this amendment seems to be a rational one, on the assumption that the Chief Electoral Officer wants to be burdened with making this choice, supposedly through some sort of open competition. If he were to appoint a certain number of NDP'ers or Conservatives, there would be a holocaust of criticism from the other party, and this he does not want. Where is he going to find refuge? After all, it is the Chief Electoral Officer who is now guiding the bill, with the assistance of the President of the Privy Council; I do not think it is the other way around. He does not want to be saddled with this burden.
The suggestion was made that the final choice was that of the Governor in Council. Imagine a situation where the Chief Electoral Officer has made a judicious choice of returning officers, and yet the Governor in Council-the cabinet-rejects them. This would put an officer of Parliament in confrontation with the cabinet. The fact is that the Governor in Council does not have the final choice; such suggestion is a fallacy. The choice has to be entirely the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer, and he does not want this responsibility. Members of the party in power have, by chance, been elected returning officers and they have been good ones. No one has ever complained that they were inefficient or that they had done something wrong. I suggest we have had a good system and that no one has devised a better one, one that does not involve confrontation between the Chief Electoral Officer and the government of Canada.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the experienced and inexperienced views of a number of members who have spoken on this matter. I was particularly interested in the remarks made by the last speaker. He pointed out that since the system had worked rather well in the past, it should, if I understood him correctly, be continued. I was surprised at his remarks in view of the analogous situation described by the Minister of Justice in regard to the appointment of judges. No one wants judges appointed on a partisan basis. It has been suggested that a new system be devised whereby the bar associations recommend to the Governor in Council appointees to the bench. I do not think I have heard any disagreement from anybody to this proposal. The situation there is analogous to the one here.
Canada Elections Act
This amendment suggests that the Chief Electoral Officer recommends one or two people to the Governor in Council. I cannot understand how any serious objection could be taken to this. As I say, it is similar to the proposal of the Minister of Justice in regard to the appointment of judges. I think it is a splendid idea and I cannot see why the governing party should object to it. However, under the present regime we have become accustomed to the attitude of the government that no member in any part of the House other than on the government side has any ideas of merit to put forward. There is never any disposition on the government side of the House to accept suggestions made by members in other quarters of the House.
The President of the Privy Council has very eloquently tried to explain that there might be a situation where there is no time to make an appointment. Personally, I cannot swallow this argument and I do not think anybody else can. All I can say is that the old motto of the Liberal party-power, patronage and perpetuity-has been eloquently exemplified by the President of the Privy Council and his cohorts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up very much time. I do not think we are going to change the system one way or the other. I suppose in respect of the returning officer of a district 50 per cent of the names in urban ridings come from sitting members and 50 per cent from the other parties. In the rural ridings they all come from those who were lucky enough to win the previous election.
As I see it-and I have had experience of several elections-those people who happen to enumerate someone land up in the headquarters of the particular parties they want to land up in. I do not think we should waste any more time. We know this is going to be a partisan matter. I do not mind something being partisan if I know about it. But I did not like that "independent" redistribution when we knew that certain judges were above partisanship but yet they carved up Bow River constituency into five separate ridings; and they were so "independent" they received a phone call from Pickersgill before it happened. That is the kind of "independence" that I like.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I do not mind partisanship. I have always believed we should be clean. The New Democratic Party is above reproach. We had them

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act
in Saskatchewan. They were very clean fellows. We never knew of any partisanship there. The provincial treasurer graduated with me, and we were both broke together. He left with $2 million or $3 million to live elsewhere after he was provincial treasurer. All this political morality had better end now. I am ready to get on with the other business.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Calgary North to enumerate the $2 million or $3 million situation in chapter and verse because if he is right I am sure he will want to lay charges, and back up his mouth with action, against anybody present or past in the government of Saskatchewan.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Is the committee ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I usually understand what the President of the Privy Council says, but I was not sure whether he was completely turning down the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Paul's. If he did not, I should like to press that the point be considered, namely, that this clause and the amendment thereto be allowed to stand. It will not take any more time to have the vote tomorrow than to have it now. In view of the interest on all sides of the House in the possibility of there being a draft that would meet the point of view, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would now agree to let this clause stand.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. There has been a suggestion made in the committee that subclause 1 of clause 7 stand, plus the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. The procedure is that such a suggestion is not in order unless there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Hugh Faulkner: There is not unanimous consent. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Rose) negatived: Yeas, 31; nays, 51.


Mr.   Chairman@: I declare the amendment defeated.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, many people are certainly far from pleased with clause 7 as it now stands, even if the amendment has just been defeated.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
In my opinion, the governor in council who is responsible for appointing returning officers could find a solution that would please as many people as possible, without having to make political appointments. I think we all agree on that, since we have known our returning officers in many constituencies and since in the past we have unfortunately seen too many political appointments. And if we pass this legislation in its present form such a practice might be continued.
I have prepared an amendment which, in my opinion, might satisfy everybody, if Parliament still trusts its judges. The act clearly states that if there is a doubt about the election of a candidate, it is always possible to ask for a judicial recount. We have enough confidence in the integrity of judges to assume that recounts are made honestly.
As the office of returning officer is extremely important since the result of an election depends upon him, his integrity must be above suspicion. Moreover, he must not be a recognized politician or a low-rate politician who has become famous through dubious election practices and who is being rewarded for his services by his party.
That is certainly possible, because I have seen it myself. That is why I have had to live through elections with returning officers whose ability was doubtful but whose political past was not.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if we have confidence in judges to make a judicial recount in an intelligent and honest manner, it would be normal when it comes to filling such an important office as that of returning officer to call upon the integrity and ability of judges.
It is also a fact that judges in a judicial district know many persons of impeccable integrity. They might therefore be better qualified to appoint returning officers. The governor in council would no longer have to rely on political say-so, tending to favour friends. Political affiliation should no longer be taken into account, but rather the fact that judges can best identify those who are involved in politics, when such an appointment has to be made.
That is why I suggest that a committee of three Superior Court judges sitting in the judicial district concerned be called upon to appoint the returning officer when there is a vacancy. If three judges in a given judicial district are in charge of appointing a returning officer, I will trust their good judgment as
June 16, 1970



they will certainly be able to find a competent individual.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to propose to the House the following amendment:
That clause 7(1) be amended as follows, by deleting the words "The Governor in Council" and substituting therefor "A committee of three Superior Court judges, of the judicial district concerned, appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer".
Such a committee could appoint a returning officer for any new electoral district. So, everybody would be pleased and Parliament would demonstrate that it still has confidence in the judges it has appointed.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


An hon. Member:: Would you please read the amendment, Mr. Chairman?


James Hugh Faulkner: The member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) moves:
That clause 7(1) be amended as follows, by deleting the words "The Governor in Council" and substituting therefor "A committee of three Superior Court judges, of the judicial district concerned, appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer,".

Amendment (Mr. Rondeau) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 59.
Subclause 1 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment defeated.

On clause 7, subclause 2-Vacancy.
Mr. For restall: Mr. Chairman, before we leave clause 7 I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in connection with subclause 2 which deals with vacancy. Subclause 2 reads as follows:
The office of the returning officer is not vacant unless he dies, or, with prior permission of the Chief Electoral Officer, resigns, or unless he is removed from office for cause within the meaning of subsection 3.
Could the President of the Privy Council assure the committee that he is satisfied that this provision gives sufficient leeway for a returning officer to request in writing of the Chief Electoral Officer-without going into great detail-his release by the Chief Elector-
Canada Elections Act
al Officer from his duties? Would not the act be clearer if it were amended to indicate that a returning officer could, upon written request giving cause prior to the date of the issue of the writ, be released from his duties if the cause were satisfactory to the Chief Electoral Officer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I understand the practice has been, when the request has been submitted either before or just after the writ has been issued, for no inquiry to be made as to the underlying reason and the resignation is accepted. After the writ, of course, there is a further consideration because the office has to be protected. But my understanding is that it is currently not a problem.


J. Michael Forrestall: So you are satisfied.


Frank Howard: I will start by admitting that my intimate knowledge of English grammar is scant, but the wording of the first part of subclause 2 seems to be, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put it to me earlier, a bit lousy. It reads:
The office of a returning officer is not vacant unless he dies-
Who is "he"? Is it the office, or the returning officer? Is it the office that dies, or the returning officer? Surely the office does not die, but rather the individual. I mention the point in order to reflect the opinion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is highly expert in the field of grammatical construction.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would hesitate to argue points of grammar, but it seems to me that if you refer to impersonal objects like the office, the proper pronoun would be "it" rather than "he". On that basis I think it refers to the occupant of the office; and "he", of course, under the Interpretation Act, can in the appropriate case mean "she."


Frank Howard: It is still lousy.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclause 2 carry?
Subclause 2 agreed to.
On clause 7, subclause 3-Removal from Office.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a comment in response to the hon. member for Shefford who raised a question about subclause 3. I draw his attention to page 150 of the draft, clause 59, which provides for the report of the Chief Electoral Officer including every statement referred to

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act
in subclause 2 respecting the conduct of an election or of any election officer that has been submitted to him, with such recommendations, if any, as he may see fit to make thereon. Therefore, the basis of the cause for removal would be such as is made in the report of the Chief Electoral Officer. With regard to the amendment that is being made, it strengthens the hand of the Chief Electoral Officer vis-a-vis a returning officer who may be recalcitrant in completing a revision of the boundaries of a polling division, and gives him authority to remove the recalcitrant returning officer if such should be the case. In this way, the job of revising the boundaries may be carried out effectively.
The Depuly Chairman: Shall subclause 3 carry?


Mr. Aikenbrack:: Paragraph (3) reads that a returning officer may be removed from office if he-
-has at any time after his appointment, been guilty of politically partisan conduct-
Would it not be better if the provision read, "has been found guilty by a court"? Who is to judge whether he has been found guilty of improper partisan conduct?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am advised that the phrase has been in the act for a considerable time and that there are virtually no precedents in this regard. Perhaps we can regard ourselves as having been fortunate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The provision says that the Governor in Council may remove from office any returning officer who has at any time after his appointment been guilty of politically partisan conduct, whether or not in the course of the performance of his duties under this act. It seems to me it is obvious, and I think that the President of the Privy Council knows what it means. If the cabinet, or Governor in Council, found the man was partisan, he would be out; and if they found that whatever he did was proper, he would be in.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be appropriate, particularly in reference to the point that has been raised, to bring the attention of members of the committee to the fact that this question was not lightly dealt with by the committee. Indeed, it occupied considerable time of the committee, particularly with respect to the onus which it places on the Chief Electoral Officer in being a final judge in this matter.

The final authority must be the Governor in Council, but the bill provides that the removal is on the basis of advice by the Chief Electoral Officer to the Governor in Council. Granted, the word is a permissive one; it says "may remove." I wonder if it would be wise to pass this paragraph without members of the committee being aware that in accepting the amendment we are perpetuating a system in our electoral act which places an area of judgment in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, one that I do not particularly like to mention. I am certain that the officer in question does not particularly like to have this type of onus placed on his shoulders.
For their edification I would refer members of the committee to volume 8 of the proceedings of the Privileges and Elections Committee. I have never been able to figure out the paging of these things, but it says 8:20, 8:21, 8:22 and 8:23. This question might be considered the next time the act is to be amended, even if it is in ten years' time.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the President of the Privy Council to find out if in the event of a returning officer being removed, particularly in the case of alleged political activity following his appointment to office, he has any appeal procedures open to him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would think not.
Subclause 3 agreed to.
Subclause 4 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 5 as revised carry?
On clause 7, subclause 5-Appointment within limited period.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the purpose here is to impose a sanction against any delay in making an appointment, and it states in fact that an appointment should be made within 60 days.
Subclause 5 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 7 as amended carry?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I apologize for being late, but on page 14 of the bill, under subclause 3(e), it says:
"has, at any time after his appointment, been guilty of.. .partisan conduct-"
I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council. What would happen if a returning officer were also engaged in provincial politics. That would
June 16, 1970

then be political partisanship. Would he have a right to do that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is very likely that would be political partisanship, at whatever level it is engaged in.
Clause 7 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 8. Shall subclause-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I would move a motion at this stage. I move that the bill, subject to the sections which are subject to amendment, be now approved, it having been studied by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: That procedure, in effect, as I understand it, was adopted by way of an order of the House earlier this day. Nevertheless, we should go through the clauses but without debate. That is the procedure we have adopted, namely, that the sections that were approved by the committee-and those sections, more particularly, not amended-are automatically carried. I take it that is by order of the House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If I could just make it clear, Mr. Chairman, it is either the sections or parts that have been sidelined, plus any part in respect of which a member, on rising, can say he has an amendment. So we are not confined to those sections or parts which are sidelined. If there is another part or section regarding which an hon. member intends to propose an amendment, it would be appropriate for him to say so at the start and then it would be considered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a good understanding, that basically all sections where there are no amendments, by order of the House are automatically approved; and if there are amendments to be moved, other than those that are known, if hon. members now file them with the Clerk so that they be known, we can get into debate on them. But the rest of the bill is approved. Is that what we are doing right now?


James Hugh Faulkner: It might be useful to
remind the committee of the order adopted earlier this day. I will read its final paragraph, which I think will clarify the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary North:
Provided that any clause, subclause or other provision referred to in paragraph two above-
Canada Elections Act
That is all other clauses and other provisions.
-may be brought under consideration or reconsideration by any member who rises and proposes a motion to amend any such clause, subclause or other provision of the bill that may be accepted by the Chair.
In other words, all sections are open to amendment but that would be the only consideration on which a section, not lined, can be discussed in committee. It would be by way of amendment to it.


Frank Howard: Further to that, and in order to make this determination clear, may one move an amendment to any of the clauses which are not sidelined?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe I could shorten the procedure. Could we have a list, now, of the clauses subject to amendment? Those members who are going to move amendments should name the clauses concerned so that we know where we are. Then the rest of the bill is automatically passed and we can get on with the business of the House. That is my motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I remind the hon. member for Calgary North and other members of the committee that this matter was the subject of discussion among the parties and that the House order, which after all does govern this committee, was thoroughly worked out and agreed to unanimously. One of the suggestions, when we were discussing the matter, was that there' be given in advance a list of the clauses to which hon. members might wish to speak and move amendments, but that suggestion was not agreed upon. Rather, the proposal that you have read out from the chair was what we agreed to, that we go through the clauses and call them one by one. If there is no amendment to a clause, it is carried without being put. But if a member has an amendment to make, he has a right to rise. There was no requirement in the order that advance notice be given.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I speak to that?


James Hugh Faulkner: I would point out to the hon. member the procedural difficulty we would encounter if we followed his suggestions. The committee is now governed by an order of the House. That order can only be changed by the House itself. If the hon. member wants to move a motion with Mr. Speaker in the chair, that is certainly a possi-

June 16. 1970
Canada Elections Act
bility. But I am afraid the motion suggested by the hon. member cannot be put now.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I speak to that, Mr. Chairman? I think it can be. With the greatest respect, this is a refinement of the suggestion. In its order, the House has set out those sections that are not subject to amendment and can be called, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said. If all members would come forward with their amendments to these sections, according to the House order, and approve those not in that category, we would probably complete 90 per cent of our work. With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest I am not violating any order of the House. Suppose there are 90 sections read out, and 10 are subject to amendment-we can pass 80. Surely members can get up and say what they are doing. If a certain group or party wants to deal with it clause by clause, I am ready to sit and do that. But surely we are businessmen and can run the House in a businesslike manner. I say again, we are not violating any order of the House. Those sections that are in a package may be subject to amendment in the minds of members, so let them name those sections. But let those of us who have read and studied the bill approve these clauses and get down to brass tacks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I share the desire of the hon. member to get the bill through all appropriate stages and focus upon this motion with the greatest possible speed, but I am subject to the agreement referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I feel I should adhere to it.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 8, subclauses 1 to 5 inclusive.
Clause 8, subclauses 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 8, subclause 10, as amended.
On clause 8, subclause 10-Additional election clerk.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the practice referred to here has been carried on for nearly 20 years under the discretionary powers conferred upon the Chief Electoral Officer. What we are doing in this section is putting into the statute what has been practised heretofore.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest an amendment to sub-
[The Chairman.]
clause 10, to delete in lines 22 and 23 the words "mentioned in schedule III". What I seek to accomplish can be done this way or it can be done with respect to a particular constituency. It can be done by seeking to amend schedule III when we get to it, but we thought it would be easier to do it this way because there may be other constituencies in the same situation. I present this amendment on behalf of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who was concerned about this matter because of the geography of his constituency. Regretfully, he had to enter hospital today and will be there for a few days.
As the President of the Privy Council has said, the opportunity for the Chief Electoral Officer to make these decisions has existed for some time and has worked very well. But we are now embarking on a new venture in the Canada Elections Act, namely, proxy voting. Under the proxy voting structure, in certain constituencies it was felt necessary to give the elector an opportunity to apply to the returning officer or to one of the two or more election clerks who may be appointed for the constituencies named in the schedule. Comox-Alberni is not mentioned in the schedule. It is one of the constituencies within which there shall be a nomination day or polling day. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni says this is not really necessary because of the communication that exists between constituencies with regard to ballot-boxes and the like, but he felt it was necessary because of the scattered nature of the riding.
If we were to remove the reference here to schedule III, it would permit the Chief Electoral Officer to use his discretionary powers in designated constituencies to appoint an election clerk in addition to the regular election clerk already available. This would make things easier for constituents of Comox-Alberni, many of whom are fishermen and prospectors who may wish to exercise their right to the proxy vote. There may be other constituencies falling in the same category, so we felt it better to raise the matter at his juncture. Perhaps it is appropriate to do so at this time because it is close to ten o'clock and unless it is immediately acceptable to the President of the Privy Council it affords us the opportunity to hold it over. This is the reasoning behind it. It would be of great assistance to other constituencies as well as Comox-Alberni.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The point seems to be well taken, Mr. Chairman and we would be quite agreeable to the amendment.
June 16. 1970

Subclause 10 as amended agreed to.
Clause 8 as amended agreed to.


Frank Howard: I may rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, to get the floor on what I consider to be an extremely important amendment which I hope to move when we reach the appropriate clause? I know it will require some consideration and I took the liberty of speaking to the President of the Privy Council about it a few days ago. I also spoke to the Chief Electoral Officer about it by telephone. I would indicate in an informal way what the amendment is. It would seek to amend clause 14. In order that there may be an opportunity to examine it this evening and tomorrow morning, if I am allowed to make representations now, hon. members will be better informed tomorrow when we reach the clause. I wonder if the committee would be kind enough to give me that opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 14, subclause 4, paragraph (e)-Disqualifications.


Frank Howard: I could file the amendment now so that members would have it available. At page 24, clause 14, subclause 4, paragraph (e) reads:
(e) every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any penal institution for the commission of any offence-
Subclause 4 provides that such persons shall not be eligible to vote at an election. As was indicated upon second reading of the bill, the purpose of the amendment is to afford, for rehabilitative and other reasons, inmates in our penal institutions the right to participate in the democratic process of elections.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if there would be a disposition on the part of the committee to seek the permission of the House to sit for perhaps an additional hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to get the floor to make that suggestion, since we only have 84 more clauses to pass.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is there unanimous agreement to sit for one more hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: Perhaps we might proceed by not noticing the clock. The correct proce-
Canada Elections Act
dure is to rise and report progress and then seek leave to sit for an hour. But if the committee is agreed-


Frank Howard: I think that is agreeable, Mr. Chairman, as long as it is understood that it will be one hour and that at 11 o'clock Your Honour will notice it is ten o'clock. Also, we have to consider the position of the "late show." I wonder whether there is disposition to dispose of that as well; otherwise we shall not be finished until 11.30.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: I take it that there is disposition to postpone the "late show" to another day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, I did not hear your remarks relating to the "late show". It is my view that this interesting portion of our parliamentary procedure should be cancelled for this evening. Personally, I would be in favour of that if we agreed to extend the sitting for one hour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 9 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 10, subclause 1.
On clause 10, subclause 1-Revision of boundaries of polling divisions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, subclause 1 has been redrafted. I might say, for purposes of clarification, that it has been the subject of reference in the Auditor General's report and the redrafting has been for the purpose of meeting the financial comments which have been made.
Subclause 1 agreed to.
On clause 10, subclause 2-Polling divisions with 250 electors.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the reduction from 350 to 250 electors under paragraph (b) of subclause 2 is to allow for increases in population between the revision and the election, and to prevent too many split polls. The previous figure was 350 electors. It has been reduced to 250 to make split polls less likely.
Subclause 2 agreed to.
On clause 10, subclause 3-Polling divisions with more than 250 electors.

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the explanation here is that it is possible to have a large institutional poll but, in a hospital or convalescent home where the poll is not too large, the anonymity of the vote might very well be lost. This subclause would permit the votes of such persons to be added to those of a great many others; thus there would be an attempt to preserve the anonymity of the vote.
Subclause 3 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 11.
Clause 11, subclauses 1 and 2 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11, subclause 3-Exceptions in certain cases.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we have already referred to the question of urban polls which are still rural in nature, and to rural polls which have become part of the city. This amendment is to permit the Chief Electoral Officer to make the necessary changes.
Subclause 3 agreed to.
Subclause 4 agreed to.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I did not rise more quickly, but I wish to move an amendment to subclauses 1 and 2 of clause 11. Perhaps I might read the amendment. It is as follows:
That clause 11 be amended by:
(a)	In subclause 1 after the word "more" In line 29, adding the words 'or any municipal district, or part thereof, served by postal walk.'
(b)	In subclause 2, after the word 'more' in line 34, inserting the words 'or any municipal district, or part thereof, served by postal walk.'
I move this amendment on behalf of my colleague for Fraser Valley West whose suburban constituency, in common with that of other hon. members of the House, in part is still considered rural. There are portions not incorporated into a city or town even though the population is 5,000 or more. These one or more portions are in a municipal district and are looked upon as rural districts. The purpose of the amendment is to make certain that suburban areas which are not incorporated towns or cities but which are served by a postal walk, shall be declared to be urban polls rather than rural polls. One of the ramifications would be appointing two enumerators per poll, rather than one. That will probably allow a better job of enumera-

tion to be done in those places which because of their density of population would otherwise probably be part of a city or incorporated town with a population of 5,000 or more, as defined in the act.
We felt that saying an area served by a postal walk was obviously the kind of area which is urban, even if it were in a municipal district, would allow it to be treated as such under the other terms of the bill. I hope members will agree that this amendment will be useful in a large number of constituencies where there are areas, bordering on cities or towns, which are still municipal or rural districts.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Having taken counsel in this regard, I am of the opinion that the power expressed in the clause is already broad enough to cover the objective which is sought. If, in fact, in the judgment of the Chief Electoral Officer a poll has the character of being urban, it will be so treated according to the general definition in the statute, whatever the nature of the postal service. There is power to make a declaration without the need to specify in the manner suggested. The change proposed is, therefore, already included in the power which the Chief Electoral Officer would have if this clause in its revised form were adopted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would a request have to be made, on the part of the candidate or the returning officer of the Chief Electoral Officer, to have a poll declared an urban poll, or would it be done automatically?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding is that the clause would only operate on request.


Mr. MacLean:: What arrangements are made for co-ordination between federal and provincial returning officers in the designation of polling divisions? I have in mind a situation where a given area is divided, say, into ten polling divisions by the federal returning officer; then a few weeks later the provincial returning officer divides it into nine polling divisions, resulting into a conflict of boundaries and general confusion for electors. Has any thought been given to means whereby some rationale could be established which would eliminate this confusion where possible?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon. member's attention to clause 10, subclause 2 paragraph (a), where
June 16, 1970

it states that a returning officer shall give due consideration to the polling divisions established by provincial and municipal authorities. I gather that in a practical way there is this exchange of information.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Can the minister tell me what part of the bill gives authority to the Chief Electoral Officer, at the request of a returning officer, to declare a poll to be urban? Is subclause 4 the one which covers the point?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Subclause 3.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In that case, I think we would agree to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the assurance that the power already exists.


James Hugh Faulkner: Does the hon. member have leave to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 12.
Clause 12, subclause 1 agreed to.
On clause 12, subclause 2-Lists of electors.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I point out that this is an innovation. Hitherto it was not possible to get the lists of armed forces' electors, who will now be voting under the special voting rules. Subclause 2 will make it possible for a candidate in a constituency to get a list of names and addresses of those individuals who will be voting abroad in respect of that particular constituency.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this is one of the fruits of the committee's labours of which I am very proud. I think this is a very good step toward civilian-izing the whole process of taking the noncivilian vote, if I may use that contradictory expression. It might have been better if in drafting it had been spelled out that the returning officer would make a proper transmission of these documents, but this is nevertheless a distinct improvement. I believe it will make for better liaison with this sector of the electorate which so often seems to be lost sight of by those who are seeking public office.
Sub clause 2 agreed to.
Subclauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Canada Elections Act


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 13.
On clause 13, subclause 1-Registry and application for registration.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, clause 13 introduces into our system the innovation of the registration of political parties, and I think the subclauses substantially speak for themselves.
Subclause 1 agreed to.
Subclauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 13, subclause 4-Prohibitions against registration.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, one of my colleagues has an amendment which is very important, if he can find it before I do. Since the government in its "wisdom" made a distinct change in number from 26 to 75, I think it was, there is now in subclause 4 (a) and (b) a prohibition, a restraint against the possibility of a political party changing its name. I think this is a bit iniquitous and is perhaps dangerous.
My colleague will speak to this matter once he finds his motion and moves it; but putting it very simply, he is seeking the deletion of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subclause 4. I would think it quite conceivable that a political party might want to change its name so as to include a name that is used by some other party. I cannot conceive of our party ever calling itself the old democrats, but if it did it would be unfortunate if a technicality in the act caused the Chief Electoral Officer to make this impossible of acceptance. Long before my time in this party, it was called the Liberal-Conservatives, though I do not think we would ever call the party that again. However, I would not want to be prohibited or restrained from so doing if we should become so frivolous.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member indicate in what way the change of the number of candidates from 26 to 75 would require this change?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think the mathematical fact should hit the minister fairly straight between the eyes. There is a great difference there.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment:
That section 4 of clause 13 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
The Chief Electoral Officer shall not register a political party where the name of the political party includes the word "independent".

June 16. 1970
Canada Elections Act
Amendment (Mr. Forrestall) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 34.
Subclauses 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 13, subclause 8.
On clause 13, subclause 8-Deletions from registry.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment to subclause 8, for two reasons. One reason, which is not the most important, is that we consider there is a real conflict in this clause. Paragraph (b) of subclause 8 states:
after the twenty-eighth day before polling day, delete from the registry any registered party that
Then subparagraph (ii) states:
did not, on the twenty-eighth day before polling day at the election, have candidates officially nominated in at least seventy-five electoral districts of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we believe there is a serious conflict here because in all but 21 constituencies nomination day closes 21 days before polling day, not 28 days before polling day. Any political party in this House or any political party which might be in existence and which is not now in this House could quite readily nominate 75 candidates in that seven-day period between the twenty-first day and the twenty-eighth day. In fact, this has been known to happen. In previous years parties now represented in this House deliberately planned nominating conventions in a short space of time in an effort to create a political impact on the public in a province or in a given part of Canada. I throw that out as an example of what has happened in the past and might happen in the future.
I suppose the point I make could be thrown out by saying that a political party would only need to advance its mass nominations by seven days in order to have sufficient candidates nominated before 28 days before polling day. But the essential point is, so far as the conflict in the figure of 75 and the number of days before polling day in which they must be nominated, is concerned, that there is a seven-day period during which candidates may still be nominated by a political party, but in the course of those seven days, the difference between 28 and 21 days, they will lose the right to have their party affiliation on the ballot even though they may have been before that time legally registered as a political party under the terms of the act. I put that point forward for the consideration of the President of the Privy Council and mem-

bers of this committee, to see whether there is some way in which we can solve the problem.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Now 1 would like to come to the second and more pertinent point of my argument regarding the necessity for an amendment. The Standing Committee report, under recommendation No. 29, recommended that political parties in Canada wishing to endorse candidates for election to the House of Commons should be registered with the Chief Electoral Officer. In addition, any new party that wishes to be identified on the ballot paper must have candidates in at least 10 per cent of the total number of electoral districts of Canada. If my memory serves me correctly, that was a unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee. The government in its wisdom chose not to agree with that recommendation and inserted the figure 75 instead of the figure recommended by the committee, which was 26.4 or, to round out the figure, 27, in order to retain the privilege of having the party affiliation designated on the ballot.
I appreciate to some extent the arguments put forward by the President of the Privy Council and others on second reading, that there could be a danger once this country makes provision to control election expenses, and that there would be some necessity for making safeguards to prevent frivolity of political parties such as the "rhinoceros party'' or other such parties that are formed overnight or a few days before a general election in order to secure public funds.
I submit in all sincerity that the political affiliation on the ballot of a recognized political party which has properly adhered to or abided by all the regulations of this bill should be completely separate from any consideration regarding public funds or control of election expenses. I am fully prepared to agree that there is a need for a higher level of safeguard regarding the expenditure of public funds than just fielding 27 candidates, and I would not argue on that score with any member of the House. However, it seems to me that a new political party or one that is presently in existence but is not represented in this chamber-and there but for the grace of God go any of our parties two or three elections from now when one of our parties may be in the position of having less than 12 members in the House-might not have 75 candidates nominated 28 days before election day and would thus lose the privilege that they may have held for a number of years.
June 16, 1970

It seems to me there was a great deal of unanimity of feeling among members of the committee that it is an essential addition to our election law that the party affiliation be designated on the ballot. All members of the committee wanted to ensure that there be minimal obstruction to retaining that privilege. Therefore, my amendment is as follows:
That clause 13 be amended by deleting from subclause 8 paragraph (b) (ii) in line 26, the words "seventy five" and substituting therefor the words "twenty seven".
First, this complies with the unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee which spent more hours on this bill than will committee of the whole and discussed this matter all the way from 75 down to 10 candidates in the field. In fact, I think it was even suggested that you should have 100 candidates in the field in order to retain your party affiliation on the ballot. But the committee felt that aside from any consideration of public expenditure and control of election expenses, the safeguards should be minimal so that any party with a semblance of credibility could have its party affiliation appear on the ballot.
A party that attempted to attain party affiliation on the ballot in a frivolous manner, or in a manner that would cause our electoral process to lose the esteem in which it is held, could have much difficulty in fielding even 27 candidates. I am sure many of us can think of events in past history where groups of that sort attempted to demean our electoral process or to participate in it in a frivolous manner, but they failed to field even 10, 12 or 15 candidates. I do not think 27 is too low a figure for any group to form a party, and such a party should have the privilege of having its party affiliation appear on the ballot, provided that party abides by the other provisions of the Elections Act.
I plead with the President of the Privy Council and other hon. members who spoke on second reading that there is no reason to connect this figure with control of election expenses or expenditure of public funds for electoral purposes. All of us are proud of our political affiliation. There may be times when we are not so proud in that respect, but we do not talk about them. The least we can do is make it easier for other Canadians to have that pride.
Members of a party now in this House may face great misfortune in years to come, and at that time they would still want their party affiliation to appear on the ballot. I hope the President of the Privy Council changes his
Canada Elections Act
mind a little bit, say by 40 degrees if not 180 degrees. If he cannot be persuaded to accept the figure of 27, let him look again at the 75 figure, because any party can have difficulty fielding 75 candidates in seven days.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances it seems to me that we may have something more to talk about here. Therefore, it would be good to stand clause 13(8) so that we may have further consultations and see if some agreement can be arrived at before the House sits tomorrow.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the minister seriously spend the night thinking of the number 27?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And I suggest that the hon. member think of 75.


Mr. Lailamme:: Mr. Chairman, since someone would like this clause to stand, I wonder if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), in his discussions with the other party leaders or their spokesmen, would not be well advised to look into a question which was overlooked in committee and which has to do with the political affiliation of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Unless I am mistaken, the passage of clause 13 will mean that each candidate of a recognized party will be identified with his party. At the last election, the Speaker of the House of Commons ran as an independant and, since we have decided to indicate the names of the political parties, we have done away with any reference to the address and the occupation of the candidate. In my opinion, perhaps we should consider the possibility of making an exception in the case of the Speaker and enter him as being politically unaffiliated in order to prevent someone with the same name from running as an independent candidate in the same riding.
All political parties have realized the necessity of omitting the political affiliation of the Speaker whose name and occupation should appear instead on the ballot paper.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the committee bringing this matter to our attention. We will give it further consideration.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the previous speaker for his suggestion. My impression is vague now, at

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act
10.30 at night, but I think already we have met one of the concerns within the act in terms of the ballot. It is provided that it is not necessary that any designation be placed on the ballot in connection with the name of the candidate. That might look after one point raised by the chairman of the committee.
There is one other point which I would ask members of the committee to consider. My mind is open on this amendment and I gather the distinguished President of the Privy Council's mind is open as well, which surprises me a little. When we were discussing this question in committee there was some concern that it would permit easy access to the formation of regional parties which would be coloured as such in terms of their impact on the Canadian scene. There were several excellent reasons why the figure of 75 was suggested. While this particular section is stood overnight I would ask hon. members to think about the distinct possibility of the danger inherent in lowering the number from 75 to 27. If the number were 27 it is quite possible, for example, that we in the Mari-times could become totally fed-up with the rest of Canada and would form our own party to sit in the House. I do not think that lends itself to Canadian unity. If by the suggestion that is what we are attempting to encourage, whether we express it or not I think we should give some thought to it.
Subclause 8 stands.
Subclause 9 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: The committee will now consider clause 14, subclause 1, as amended.
Clause 14, subclause 1-Persons qualified as electors.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, to bring this amendment clearly to the attention of the committee, the basic qualifications of electors are changed in a fundamental way. First, the minimum voting age is reduced from 21 to 18 and, second, it is made perfectly clear, subject only to subclause 3, that only those who are Canadian citizens will be qualified to vote in a Canadian federal election.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I have
already dealt with this question which I feel is important and which the President of the Privy Council has already answered. However, it is essential that I raise the matter

again and that I express the views of many of my colleagues.
We grant to young Canadians the right to vote at 18 and to run in an election. If we grant them that right, we must also entrust them with the resulting responsabili-ties.
The President of the Privy Council has explained-and I fully agree with him on that point-that the fact of lowering the legal age from 21 to 18 years of age is a provincial prerogative, as everybody knows. It would be logical, since several very serious reasons justify such a step, for the President of the Privy Council to obtain from the government the assurance that at one of the next federal-provincial conferences a dialogue will take place with the provinces to have them all reduce the legal age from 21 to 18. This is very important.
In fact, if a young man is entitled to vote or to run as a candidate at 18 or 19 years of age, he could, for instance, be prosecuted for libel, and his father's responsibility would then be involved. Many similar cases might occur.
In my opinion, logic and common sense require that the legal age be set at 18. Young people of 18 and over should be granted the rights that will come with their majority if they are given the franchise and allowed to be run as candidates in elections.
I know that the federal government cannot put such a clause in the act; however, I do think that I am expressing the wish of .many of my colleagues when I ask that the government take the initiative of starting a dialogue with the provinces in order that the legal age may be set at 18 as soon as possible in all provinces.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the suggestion and will bring it to the attention of my colleagues.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, in order to assist in the progress of our work I wish to propose an amendment to subclause 4. Two of my colleagues, who are virtuous men and went home at ten o'clock not knowing we were to continue sitting for one hour, wish to move amendments to subclause 3. I would be grateful if consideration of that subclause could be stood. The purpose of my amendment to subclause 4 is to add to the list of those who would be disqualified. The group of people I have in mind-
June 16, 1970


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. We are considering subclause 1.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee would agree to hearing the amendments this evening so that we could consider them overnight, even though they are out of order at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 14, subclause 4-Disqualifications.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I may be out of order, but I thought I was acting in the spirit of what we agreed to about 30 minutes ago. My proposed amendment would read, "every member of the Senate of Canada".
In speaking about this question I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not joining the crowd to my far left who are opponents of the Senate. I will join their crusade when I am 74J years old and root for the abolition of the Senate. I think for too long in this country we have downgraded the Upper House and have not really taken cognizance of the fact that our Parliament is made up of two chambers. The Senate is an integral part of Parliament. We have been led to this conclusion by the expression "Member of Parliament" which leads us to think only of members of the Lower House. Our United States friends have done exactly the same thing. When they talk of a Congressman they think of a member of the House of Representatives, whereas they ought to be thinking of both their Houses. My amendment seeks to give full credit and precedence to our Upper House, as is done in the United Kingdom in the case of the House of Lords.


Mr. Roberts:: Mr. Chairman, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I am confused about the stage we have reached in our deliberations. I wish to offer an amendment to subclause 3, and I heard the hon. member speaking to subclause 4. I wonder if at some time I could present my amendment to subclause 3?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I apologize to the Chair if my remarks have contributed to our getting out of order.


James Hugh Faulkner: We are still on subclause 1. Shall subclause 1 carry?
Subclause 1 agreed to.
Subclause 2 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 3 carry?
Canada Elections Act


An hon. Member:: Stand.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that this clause be struck out, and this, for reasons of law and of fact. I think that this act is a proposed reform which cannot suffer the maintenance of privileges. Indeed I think that the fact of maintaining a privilege for British subjects who entered the country before some arbitrary date is senseless.
In a country like ours made up of various ethnic groups, the way to ensure harmony is certainly not by maintaining privileges which cannot be justified neither in law nor in fact. It may be an unconscious provocation, but if we really want to reform the Elections Act, we will have to deprive them of their privileges all those who have not deemed advisable to become Canadian citizens.
Therefore, I simply move that subclause (3) of clause 14 be struck out.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member for Hillsborough indicated that a number of his hon. friends would like to move amendments to this clause. I wonder whether it might be allowed to stand until tomorrow so they would have an opportunity to put those amendments when the one now before the committee has been dealt with. I might say, also, that the hon. member for Skeena has moved an amendment to clause 4 in addition to that moved by the hon. member for Hillsborough. Perhaps subject to any other amendments which may turn up to this clause, we could allow it to stand and proceed to a less controversial area of the bill.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I understood some time ago, before we agreed not to call it ten o'clock, that all those clauses which were marked by vertical lines had been agreed to.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: No.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The exact
opposite is the situation. Those which are sidelined are not agreed to, but may be the subject of discussion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, we jumped from subclause 4 a while ago. I was frantically trying to rewrite an amendment to subclause 3.


An hon. Member:: It stands.

June 16, 1970
Canada Elections Act


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member for Cochrane asked me to move, on his behalf, the amendment which the hon. member for Matane has moved.


Mr. Prud'homme:: I should like to say that I agree with this amendment.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would it not be useful for the leader of the House to stand the whole of clause 14 so that we might get on with a few others?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would agree to that. If there are one or two further amendments to be considered overnight, I should probably throw my amendment into the hopper as well.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed we accept all the amendments and proceed to the other clauses afterwards?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was not clear as to the intent of the amendment moved earlier by the hon. member for Matane. Our amendment is to subclause 2. It would have the effect of delaying for a fairly short period, for a year or perhaps two years, the provision whereby British subjects who have taken out Canadian citizenship cannot vote, and thus enable these recent British subjects to cast their ballot if they meet the other qualifications of residence. However, once the act comes into force British subjects arriving in Canada would have to serve the required five years and secure their Canadian citizenship before being eligible to cast their ballot in a federal election.
It has already been represented to me by some British subjects who have arrived in Canada that one of the things they were told before departing for their new home was that after one year's residence they would be eligible to vote in elections in Canada. One person who made representations to me both by mail and by telephone lives in Ontario, and he told me that although this would not have prevented his coming to Canada, the information that had been given to him would be falsified as a result of this change in electoral law. He submitted, and I agreed, that those coming to Canada have every right to know before arriving what their rights and privileges are in this country from the very day they arrive.
I want to make it quite plain that there is no misunderstanding here. We in this party completely agree that there should no longer be in our electoral law any discrimination as to the eligibility to cast ballots as between

British subjects and those of other racial or ethnic origins. This has to stop in modern Canada. However, those British subjects who arrived in Canada between June 26, 1967, and the day on which this act comes into force should still retain their right to vote as British subjects. Those who arrive in Canada subsequent to the coming into force of this legislation will know beforehand that they must serve the five-year period and become Canadian citizens before being given the federal franchise.
However, I think we should be fair to those who arrived in Canada between June 26, 1967, and the day this act comes into force, which might be next month or next year. These people could number 60,000 to 70,000, if the immigration pattern has remained fairly constant. They should not be disenfranchised because when they arrived in Canada the legislation had not been amended. Therefore, I should like to move the following motion. I regret I have only one copy. I have rewritten the amendment because I received better legal advice in the last few minutes than I did yesterday. I move:
That clause 14 he amended by deleting subclause 3 on page 24 and substituting therefor the following:
"(3) Every British subject, other than a Canadian citizen, who
(a)	was qualified as an elector immediately prior to the coming into force of the provisions of this act referred to in subsection 2 of section 119, and
(b)	has not, since that date, ceased to be ordinarily resident in Canada, is deemed to be qualified as an elector.
As I say, I am sorry I have only one copy. In view of this I would ask the President of the Privy Council and other members of the committee to sleep on this amendment overnight and to consider giving fair treatment to those British subjects who have arrived in Canada since June 26, 1967, and before the act is proclaimed. They will still be eligible to vote without having to wait the five-year period, but if a British subject arrives in Canada after this bill comes into force he would have to wait the five-year period before he has the federal franchise.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


George Albert Proud: May I point out to my friend that anyone who emigrates to Canada, be he a British subject or otherwise, knows he will be subject to any new law that might be passed in Canada. What the hon. member is suggesting is similar to the following situation. If I were to emigrate to Canada because there was no military service here, and then
June 16, 1970	COMMONS
suddenly this Parliament decided to vote for conscription in Canada, I might say exactly what the hon. member is trying to say about British subjects being betrayed. In this situation I would have emigrated to Canada because there was no military service and I could say that I was not subject to such a law because when I came to Canada I was told by the immigration officer that there was no military service here. This could be an analogous situation. I am sure people do not come to Canada with only this incentive.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I would normally accept the proposition that these matters stand, but I understand we did agree to some of them. Normally I would have forgone the opportunity to put forward an idea in respect of this question, but it is close to the time at which we have agreed to see the clock and it might be worth while to put something else before the committee so that it may also be considered overnight. If the amendment of the hon. member for Matane should carry, it would not, I submit, remove the matter of privilege or relief-if one should want to put it another way-in terms of the eligibility to vote, because that situation will still prevail not as a result of the Elections Act but as a result of the Citizenship Act.
Under that act we do discriminate, as I understand it, against the male sex in favour of the female sex in certain circumstances. Normally a person must wait five years before applying for Canadian citizenship, but if a woman who has emigrated to Canada marries a Canadian citizen she has only to wait one year before she can apply for Canadian citizenship. I think that if the government wishes to deal fairly with this matter and bring it up to date, it should consider eliminating the five-year period and instituting a more reasonable period, perhaps one year, so that all people will have equality before the law in terms of citizenship and the right to vote.
While I generally agree with the proposition that equality before the law should not be based on having a privileged position, nonetheless there is a matter which I think should be raised, namely, that it is unfair to a group of people to remove from them a right
DEBATES	8209
Canada Elections Act
they have had up until now. In fact, the committee unanimously, and the government, endorsed that concept. They simply picked a point in time-I believe it was June 25, 1968-and said that up until that time we will respect the particular position that has been afforded British subjects. But from now on there will be an entirely different situation. What the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre seeks to do is establish another point in time, and he attempts to validate it by saying we should not make the law retroactive in removing this right.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed that clause 14, with the two suggested amendments, should stand except in respect of those subclauses which already have been carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, did I understand you to say that clause 14 would stand with the two amendments which have been proposed? I think there have been four amendments.


J. Michael Forrestall: With the exception of the two clauses that were agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Together with the four suggested amendments. Shall clause 16, subclause 1, as revised, carry?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I hope youi words "Together with the four amendments" do not preclude consideration of the two amendments of my colleague which I will ask hon. members to sleep on so that they can come back to them with their minds fresh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this would not be a good point at which to see the clock and call it ten o'clock.


Albert Béchard: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
understanding that the adjournment proceedings are deferred until another day.
At 11.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, June 17, 1970