1970-06-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General, for whom I am acting, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of National Revenue, I beg leave to table a copy of the report of the commission of investigation established under Order in Council P.C. 1970-402, dated March 4, 1970, which authorized the appointment of His Honour Judge Ernest J. C. Stewart as a commissioner under Part II of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon the circumstances in which three persons, namely, Charles Allen Leonard, Earl Hockett and John Kreeger, who entered Canada from the United States, were on or about January 25, 1970, returned to the United States. The government makes no comment at this moment since the ministers concerned are still studying the report.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies in English and in French of Volumes V and VI of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
[English1


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in the two official languages of the series of papers on foreign policy the government indicated would be produced before the end of the present session.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, because of the recognized interest of many members, together with the interest of the livestock people involved, I would like to advise the House that permits providing for this year's importation of European cattle will be issued within the next ten to fifteen days.
As was the case last year, it is expected that 615 head of cattle can be imported from France and Switzerland this year and discussions are progressing aimed at establishing satisfactory veterinary agreements with some other European countries, including Italy.
As in the past years, many more applications were received than can be accommodated within our maximum security quarantine facilities. More than 1,200 people asked for authority to import approximately 7,000 head of cattle.
Each application must be supported by a project proposal indicating the purpose to which the imported cattle are to be put, and a committee of four geneticists then examines these project proposals advising the department on which, in their view, would contribute most to the development of the livestock industry in Canada. The permits are then issued on the basis of this priority rating given by the genetic committee.
Because applications for permits are assessed upon the basis of breeding projects, stipulating particular breeds, those receiving import permits will be restricted to purchasing the breed designated in their project proposals.
Export restrictions against imported animals will be eased this year. Many Charolais animals imported in 1966-67 have made their contribution to developing this breed in Canada and it is now felt that up to 50 per cent of these animals, which have been in Canada for at least 36 months, can now be released from the embargo.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Department of Agriculture is allowing the importation of these European cattle. Since 7,000 head of cattle
June 25, 1970

Importation of European Cattle have been applied for but only 615 head are to be imported, we hope that all applicants will be treated fairly. We do not think the allocation should be on the basis of how big the operation is of the farmer or livestock man who is asking for the importation. We feel that the small farmer has a contribution to make to agriculture as well as the large one.
# (2:10p.m.)
We hope these factors will be taken into consideration in granting these permits and that the permits will be divided equitably among those who are interested. Because of the large number of applications, it is hard to understand why the importation of only 615 head will be allowed when as many as 7,000 could be handled. Perhaps the minister can explain why this big reduction was necessary. After all, 7,000 cattle spread across this country would not be too many to import in one year. We hope that in another year, after this program has been studied, larger importations will be allowed.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the program of importing breeding stock to improve the production ability of the Canadian farmer is under way and that there is a proposal to extend it. The Canadian producer will now be more effective and competitive.
I would have been pleased if the minister had also stated what is being done about a problem that is now blowing up in the United States. It was stated on the CBC farm broadcast today that United States cattlemen are pressing for import quotas on the shipment of Canadian beef into the United States because Canada is allowing so much Australian and New Zealand beef to be trans-shipped through Canada to the United States. I have raised this matter in the House before. Our beef producing industry is being endangered. If our imports into the United States are restricted, we may bring in as many high quality breeding animals from Europe as we like but our price structure will decline and our marketing problems will increase.
I urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture to announce to the House before it rises what they are going to do about the situation that is now building up because importation of beef from New Zealand and Australia has been encouraged. When I asked a question I was told that it was mostly processing beef. It is not processing beef and it is not processing
(Mr. Muir (Lisgar).]
beef when it passes through Canada on the way to the United States market.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has just announced that permits will be issued to authorize the importation into Canada of cattle from Europe in order to promote their breeding here. To my mind, the minister should also give particular attention to Canadian breeds of horses and cattle.
At the present time, the emphasis is on European imports. The minister does not seem to know that the Canadian government has refused to keep at the Ottawa experimental farm the only cross-bred stock of the last 75 years.
In fact, horses and cattle of Canadian stock have no place in Canada today. This stock is indigenous to our country and today Canadian breeders are compelled to pay the costs of breeding and of advertising outside the country.
I suggest that the minister is well-advised to give Canadian breeders the opportunity to obtain specimens of European stocks, but, in co-operation with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the minister should give particular attention to our own Canadian cattle and horses, unkown in other countries and for which there is great demand. Unfortunately, breeders must themselves pay the costs of advertising and transport when they take part in shows in South America and elsewhere, where this stock is unkown. The Department of Agriculture could do much to develop trade in this field, especially in Canadian cattle and horses.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to make under the terms of Standing Order 43 which Your Honour will recall requires unanimous consent before it can be put. I would hope that the Prime Minister, in his wish to see matters conducted expeditiously, can muzzle the more negative members of his cabinet and permit the motion to be put.
A recent report entitled "Death of a Delta", prepared by the University of Alberta resources committee and presented to the gov-
June 25, 1970	COMMONS
ernments of Canada and Alberta, has underlined the extreme seriousness of the reduced level of the Peace River following construction of the Bennett Dam. When the Liberal government betrayed the long-range interest of the north by allowing the British Columbia government to construct this dam without any protection under the Navigable Waters Protection Act or otherwise, the present situation became inevitable.
For at least two years the level of the Peace has been down, endangering water supplies to municipalities. The present report emphasizes the immense danger to the ecology of the area between the Peace and the Athabasca and the very likely effect on the McKenzie and the Great Slave Lake water system. Wildlife, transportation and the livelihood of people are all at stake.
Finally, our failure to deal with this problem makes our grandiose proposals to safeguard the far north something of a mockery and is bound to adversely affect our efforts to persuade the United States and other nations that we have any genuine concern for the north.
I would therefore move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward Hastings (Mr. Hees), if unanimous consent is given:
That the report of the University of Alberta resources centre be forthwith referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for study and report before the end of this session, and that the representatives of the government appear before the committee to indicate the position of the government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms cf the proposed motion which requires unanimous consent before it can be put to the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour also knows, for a motion to be proposed under Standing Order 43 urgent and pressing necessity must be shown. These qualities will be evident in my motion, and I believe this time I have one which will find support on all sides of the House. The fact is that nothing I
DEBATES	8555
Canadian Citizenship Act can think of seems to have been able to move the government with respect to the plight of our senior citizens and therefore, perhaps in desperation I ask leave to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Winch);
That in view of the fact that the maximum amount payable to old age pensioners, including the additional payment available as a guaranteed income supplement, is $111.41 a month, this House is of the opinion that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be required to live on this amount until he brings in legislation to provide a substantial increase in the amount of the old age pension.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard at least one dissenting voice. The motion cannot be put.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-266, amending the Canadian Citizenship Act (Minimum residence requirement).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that bill is to reduce from 5 to 3 years the minimum residence requirement in Canada for people applying for a citizenship certificate.
In addition to enabling immigrants to take part fully in the affairs of the country as Canadian citizens, this bill will also enable landed immigrants who exercise a profession to be recognized more quickly by the various professional associations in the provinces, and it will correct existing anomalies in several provinces where certain professional associations resort to the Canadian Citizenship Act as a pretext to prevent some qualified professionals from practising in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker:: Before calling the next item of business I have the honour to lay before

June 25, 1970
Motions to Adjourn
the House an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House of Commons held at Ottawa on Tuesday, June 23, 1970.
Again, before calling the next item the Chair should advise hon. members that two notices under Standing Order 26 were received by the Chair at approximately the same time. Both motions deal with a similar subject and are phrased in similar terms. The fact that one came in perhaps a few moments ahead of the other leads the Chair to recognize first the hon. member for York South, after which I will allow the hon. member for Hillsborough to put his motion.



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE ACCELERATED DISRUPTION OF SERVICE-FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the new situation created by the acceleration and spread of the rotational strikes by postal employees, thus creating a new threat of a nation-wide postal strike, the failure of the Treasury Board to negotiate a settlement to end the disruption of postal services, and the urgent need to debate the serious situation before the House adjourns for the summer recess.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26. The matter is the disruption of the postal service, the indication that a more serious abridgement of normal delivery service is contemplated, and the failure of the negotiators to make progress toward a settlement of the dispute. In the face of such a serious diminution of an important service to which the Canadian public are entitled and the expected early adjournment of the House for the summer recess, I believe it is of urgent public importance that this House discuss this serious matter of public interest.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said a moment ago, both the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Hillsborough have filed the notice

required by Standing Order 26. All hon. members will recognize the importance of the situation alluded to in the proposed motions. Indeed, on a number of occasions during the last month or so the suggestion has been made that there should be an emergency debate under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing the postal situation. It might well be argued that this fact alone or in itself would preclude the holding of a special debate since we are dealing essentially with a continuing situation. On the other hand, both hon. members have presented the argument that there has been a change in the situation, in particular an acceleration in the rotational strikes by postal employees, and they have alluded also to the fact that the House is likely to adjourn within the next few days.
Because of the very special circumstances it may well be that hon. members would want to agree that an opportunity be provided for such a debate before the summer recess. Since there will have to be some measure of planning and consultation between House Leaders for the orderly conduct of parliamentary business during the days ahead, I would hesitate to propose to the House a debate under Standing Order 26 without further consideration and consultation with the House Leaders.
In view of all these circumstances I propose, under the provisions of section 6 of Standing Order 26, to defer my decision until later in this sitting.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, now that the House is presumably approaching the time of adjournment I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister to say whether the government proposes to take any further measures to increase job opportunities in the country? I ask this question especially in view of the high rate of unemployment and the apparent small percentage of students who are succeeding in obtaining employment, as well as the failure of the Minister of Finance to indicate any such measures.
June 25, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question I cannot repeat all the many measures which have been given to the House by the various ministers involved in tackling this problem over the past many weeks.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the government to continue its policy of slowing down the economy and running the economy substantially below its potential until the government's 6 per cent guideline on wage and salary increases has been accepted by organized labour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows that several days ago the Minister of Finance, after his meeting with the provincial treasurers in Winnipeg, indicated that government policy now was to ease up on the magnitude of our attack on this problem by spending part of the surplus for which we have budgeted.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Minister of Finance to say it was not possible to do very much until labour had accepted the 6 per cent guideline. That is why I asked the Prime Minister that question today, to which I got such an unsatisfactory answer. I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has any definite plans to meet with provincial authorities at an early date in order to determine the extent of student aid that will be required this autumn and to consider methods of providing the aid that will be required in order to reduced to a minimum the number of students who will have to drop out of school or college because of inadequate earnings during this summer?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no plan for such a meeting for such a purpose.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Hon. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Have certain persons been lent from private industry to the Prices and Incomes Commission? If so, approximately what number have been lent, from what sections of industry have they come, and to what areas of investigation are they applying their efforts?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course this is the kind of question which normally is assigned to the Order Paper. I realize at the same time there is a possibility that the House might recess in the foreseeable future. Perhaps in the circumstances the minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker,
although I should like to check the precise figures again, I am informed that there are six people working for the commission from private industry, three from accounting firms and three from industries. As to the specific industries from which they come, I do not have this information on short notice but I shall be happy to check. I understand the arrangements in respect of such people are that they work on matters totally unrelated to the industries from which they come.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the salaries of these persons who are on loan from private industries are paid by the industry from which they come or are paid by the government from the vote for the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I understand that the three people from accounting firms are paid their salaries by their firms and that the firms are reimbursed for the salaries. The others are paid travelling and living expenses.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary. If these persons who are on loan from private industry are performing a useful function, why are they not paid by the Prices and Incomes Commission as are other employees?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question is argumentative.



TERRORISM


[Stage Direction]
BUILDING-REWARD	FOR INFORMATION

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, a grievous event occurred in the national capital: a bomb blast killed one person. Could the Prime Minister tell us if, in order to facilitate the inquiry now going on,

June 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry he intends to offer, as did the province of Quebec, a reward to those who could give information leading to the arrest of the persons responsible for the bombing?

Kon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be allowed to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister and on behalf of the Solicitor General. I think the bombing yesterday was a savage, cowardly and insane act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I am sure all members of the House share my feeling of outrage. An innocent woman, Madame Jeanne D'Arc St.-Germain, was killed by the blast and two other employees were injured. On behalf of the government and I am sure on behalf of all members of the House I want to express to the family of Madame St.-Germain our deepest sympathy.
Yesterday the Minister of National Defence visited the site personally. Later in the day I visited the site of the blast accompanied by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and by Mr. Ken Fogarty, the Mayor of Ottawa. We inspected the damage and received a report on the progress of the investigation. As a matter of fact, I spoke to Corporal Vallance who was on duty less than eight feet from the site of the blast at the time the blast occurred but who miraculously survived except for a few cuts.
The investigation of this incident is being carried out by the Ottawa City Police at the present time with the full assistance and cooperation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Forces Military Police, investigation section, and the Ontario Fire Marshal's office. In respect of the specific question may I say that I have had informal discussions with the Attorney General of Ontario and the Mayor of Ottawa concerning the possibility of a reward. The government, however, wants to consider the answer to this question in light of the progress of the investigation. I want to assure the hon. member and the House that we will do everything necessary to push this investigation to a successful conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



OTTAWA-BOMB EXPLOSION, NATIONAL DEFENCE BUILDING-INCREASED SECURITY MEASURES

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I

should like to ask the minister whether he has anything to say about action the government has taken to prevent the recurrence of this sort of thing. What increase in security arrangements has been made by the Department of National Defence and other departments?


John Napier Turner: The Minister of National Defence of course is reviewing the security provisions. I think the hon. member will realize how difficult it is to prevent this type of occurrence with complete certitude, but the entire security procedures are being rechecked and reconfirmed.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker I have a question for the minister or the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that National Defence headquarters may be a fairly natural target for terrorist attacks of this kind, could the matter be looked into of arranging that offices which are occupied during the hours of darkness would be offices on the inside of the building rather than on the outside where bombs of this type can readily be thrown in?


John Napier Turner: I will note the representation made by the hon. member and of course relay it to my colleague.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Justice. Will similar security measures be taken for all National Defence Department buildings throughout Canada?


John Napier Turner: I believe so, Mr. Speaker.



PROVISION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR BOMB BLAST HOMICIDES

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals not with rewards for information but with penalties for these crimes. As a result of this horrible crime, will the minister promptly introduce amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada which would call for capital punishment for all persons found guilty of homicide resulting from the setting of bombing devices and other acts of terror?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the hon. member's representation.
June 25, 1970


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, since several members have voiced their regret at having voted for abolition of capital punishment, I would like to ask a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Does he intend to restore the death penalty in order to put an end to the recent wave of bombings?


John Napier Turner: I believe I have already
answered that question, Mr. Speaker.



CRIMINAL CODE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the government submitted a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada concerning a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding the breathalyzer test. Is the minister now in a position to say when the Supreme Court of Canada will hand down its answer, which we are all breathlessly waiting for, to this question?


John Napier Turner: would say, Mr. Speaker, that the answer probably concerns some more than others. I am led to believe the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will be handed down tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, whatever the judgment may be the major question is, has the government yet decided on a breath container to be given to alleged wrongdoers? What is the position in this regard because whatever the judgment is it will not have very much importance until the government determines this question?


John Napier Turner: Well, I think I would prefer to deal with that question when the judgment is rendered, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has the government made any decision in this regard? I shall not ask what it is because I know how secretive the government is.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is too good a lawyer not to know that while the matter is before the court my reply necessarily is a limited one. We have considered the question of approving a machine or a sample container
Inquiries of the Ministry that would be suitable, to be an urgent one. I have ordered acceleration of the research to improve some of the machines which have been submitted to us.



MEASURES TO ASSIST EXPORTERS FOLLOWING FREEING OF DOLLAR EXCHANGE RATE

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of the government in the near future to announce measures to assist Canadian exporters in view of the very severe disadvantages that have been imposed upon them and our inability to make sales in the export market by reason of the Canadian dollar having been unpegged and also because of the real advantages given to United States exporters, our chief competitors in the export field by President Nixon's announcement a short time ago?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am quite sure the hon. member is aware of the success of our exports at this time. It is one of the factors that led to the revaluation of our dollar. I think that things are going fairly well now with a 15 per cent growth for the year and a surplus of $1 billion in the trade balance as of now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that the figures he just produced were achieved before the dollar was placed on a floating rate and that our exporters have been placed in a very precarious position by this action of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A debate seems to be arising between the minister and the hon. member. Perhaps we should go to the next question.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has simply brushed off my question by making a statement that has no basis in fact because he knows perfectly well that the export figures he gave refer to a period long before the unpegging of the dollar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Oshawa-Whitby.


George Harris Hees: The minister's answer was no answer, and he knows it.

June 25. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
MEASURES to assist automotive industry already in cabinet committee. I will convey to suppliers following freeing OF dol- the appropriate ministers the message of the LAR exchange rate	hon member


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: I hope the minister will be relevant in his reply to a relevant question. Has the minister taken any particular steps to ensure that suppliers in the automotive industry will not be disadvantageously affected by the unpegging of the dollar so that the favourable trade that has already taken place recently as a result of the automotive pact will not be offset due to the new conditions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was just trying to show that we were operating on a very strong basis and consequently people who have developed this trade in the past are now in a better position to face the present difficulty with respect to revaluation.


John George Diefenbaker: Nonsense.


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I have said, we are very eager to study any particular difficulty experienced by Canadian exporters at this time. We have a collection of programs to help them in this difficult, hopefully temporary, position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister please answer the question I asked?



WATER RESOURCES


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the light of the report about which I spoke earlier, which relates to conditions both in the province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories, would the Prime Minister ask the appropriate ministers, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-if the latter can be detached from his duty of firing continental ballistic missiles at the United States-the need to discuss with the government of B.C. the possibility of releasing at the appropriate time adequate waters through the Bennett dam to repair the very serious condition which has now been brought about in the north?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that this subject has been discussed
[Mr. Hees.l



PEACE RIVER-EFFECT OF WATER LEVEL ON ECOLOGY

Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister conduct an inquiry into the extent to which this shortage of water, and the situation in the delta, is affecting the ecology, the birds and wildlife in the Wood Buffalo National Park, as well as the water transportation system of Great Slave Lake and the Northwest Territories?



PEACE RIVER-SUGGESTED DEMAND B.C. APPLY FOR PERMIT UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Public Works, since he is in charge of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Would the government consider making a formal demand on the province of British Columbia to apply for a permit under that act, which it should have done when the accord with British Columbia was originally signed?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): I think that if history were uncovered it would indicate-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't uncover too much history.


Mr. Laing:: I know the Leader of the Opposition would not want too much history uncovered because the construction of the dam was started in the days of the Diefenbaker government.


An hon. Member:: Touche.


An hon. Member:: What about the construction that is going on now?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is quite wrong.


Arthur Laing: Representations have been made to the government of British Columbia and releases of water have been made. Unfortunately, the situation there is compounded now by an unusually low rate of precipitation last winter. In addition to that, we have the assurances of the government of B.C. that as far as possible they will make releases until such time as the reservoir is filled, which it is anticipated will occur by May, 1971.
June 25, 1970


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is usually very dependable, but today the statement that he made was the precise opposite of the truth. In point of fact, the arrangements were made between the hon. Paul Martin of the Pearson government and the government of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: The minister is ready for the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we should engage in a historic debate at this time. The right hon. gentleman has risen on an alleged question of privilege. I am not sure that it was really a question of privilege. I do not think the matter should be pursued further. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will soon be running out of time.


Gerald William Baldwin: But we are running out of water.


Mr. Speaker:: We would need 40 hours, rather than 40 minutes, if all the putative questioners were to be given an opportunity to ask questions.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Despite the reference to previous prime ministers, may I direct a question to the present one. Last Monday I asked him about the 6 per cent guideline, in view of the telegram sent by the (provincial treasurer of Ontario to the civil service association of that province with regard to that matter. The Prime Minister said that he was not aware of the report, that he understood that when the Minister of Finance met the provincial treasurers and ministers of finance in Winnipeg some weeks ago, the provinces agreed to abide by the guidelines. He said: "If there is a contradiction here I will try to see..." etc. Could the Prime Minister now inform us of the position of the respective provincial governments on this point?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said I would refer the question to the Minister of Finance. It has been referred to him. I would prefer if the hon. member asked the
Inquiries of the Ministry question of him. I do have some information on it. I understand that Mr. Robarts' position now is that he would accept compulsory federal controls if such were to be instituted. But I do not have any specific report on what Mr. MacNaughton might have said. If the hon. member would ask the Minister of Finance in the House tomorrow, he might get an answer to that part of the question.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION-SECONDING OF OFFICERS OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS

David Lewis: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-one which is perhaps related to earlier questions-and ask the minister whether the government approved the action of the Prices and Incomes Commission in having seconded to it officers of private corporations to be paid by the corporations during the time that they worked for the commission? Did the government approve of that arrangement?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the arrangement, yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the same genial Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether it is the view of this government that it still has a guidelines policy of 6 per cent?



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As we are witnessing in Canada an unprecedented increase in the number of bankruptcies, causing loss of capital as well as loss of revenue to governments, will the minister tell the House what steps have been taken so far to eliminate such bankruptcies, particularly fraudulent bankruptcies?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that not all bankruptcies are fraudulent. There are a great many causes for bankruptcy. With regard to increasing the effectiveness of our enforcement, we are working on a revision of the Bankruptcy Act and I expect to receive the

June 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry final report on that very shortly. In the last month, I have appointed official receivers in the cities of Quebec and Hull in order to upgrade our enforcement of the provisions and the administration of the Act.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, but in view of his necessary absence from the House and the urgency of the question, may I direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Has the minister received protests from the unions concerned regarding the chartering by the CNR of a British ship with a British crew to operate between North Sydney and Port Aux Basques, thus replacing a Canadian crew. If so, will the minister investigate immediately and report to the House tomorrow, in view of the large scale unemployment in the Atlantic area and the possible repercussions that could take place as a result of this action by the CNR?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the Minister of Transport as early as tomorrow.



USE OF BRITISH CREW ON VESSEL REPLACING &quot;PATRICK MORRIS&quot;-POSSIBLE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister acquaint himself with this problem with a view to using his good offices in future to make sure there is no disruption of this most vital service?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention, Mr. Speaker. I shall instruct our industry specialist, Mr. Art Gibbons, who has had much success in recent weeks in eliminating similar disruptions, to investigate and I shall report to the hon. member if the House happens to be convened at that time.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the great concern being felt by employees of the British Columbia subsidiary of the Skil Corporation of Chicago with respect to the possible closure of this branch plant, is the minister able to report any action by this government to attempt to forestall such an eventuality?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this morning we heard from the newly appointed general manager of that company that the company will continue its operation in Vancouver, producing professional chain saws for domestic and world trade and even adding a lightweight chain saw to its present production line. I am sure all members from the Vancouver area will be delighted with this development.



PENITENTIARIES


John Napier Turner: I should add that the coroner did not order an inquest in this case.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the Minister of Justice for his courtesy in replying. May I ask him to suggest to his colleagues that over the summer a real effort should be made to provide more psychiatric help in Canadian penitentiaries. I think this is one point about which members of the justice committee felt strongly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry which arises from the meeting of the minister and some of his colleagues with the chairman of the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. In view of the failure of Canadian and U.S. officials to meet the International Joint Commission recommendations for an international body, with policing and regulatory powers over the Great Lakes, is there any plan for a further meeting to try to come to some agreement on a regulatory body for this area?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we must pursue every avenue for close co-operation with the United States including our fisheries treaty with that country, with respect to the Great Lakes but there are no specific plans in that connection being advanced.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is a further meeting planned for the near future with the same or other officials?


John (Jack) Davis: There are no immediate plans, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of the designation of the shipbuilding industry as a government mistress because it is 22478-511
Inquiries of the Ministry urgently required at times and discarded when the urgency has passed, will the government now make an honest woman of the industry and continue subsidies at 23 per cent until 1973 as recommended by the Robertson Committee on Shipbuilding?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am in no position to make an announcement on that subject today, but the report prepared by the Shipbuilding Committee is presently the object of a thorough study.



SUGGESTED AID TO BURRARD DRYDOCK

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary or related question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Have any representations been made to him regarding the Burrard Drydock in North Vancouver, where of the 850 employees some 500 have been laid off? May I ask the minister if his department is investigating to see whether economic stimulus can be provided to put these men back to work?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do that immediately after my meeting with the shoe industry this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member a further supplementary but I suggest that then we should eliminate supple-mentaries and give another ten or twelve members the opportunity to ask questions.



SUBSIDY FOR VESSELS CONSTRUCTED IN ATLANTIC AREA

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: My
further supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's announcement in this House some time ago that a 35 per cent subsidy would be paid through his department and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on ships constructed in Atlantic Canada, when can we expect that this motion will receive ratification by the cabinet and be put into effect?
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and
Forestry): Mr. Speaker, this already has cabinet approval and regulations are being finalized right now for it to be put into effect in the industry.

June 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



POSSIBLE LIFTING BY BRITISH GOVERNMENT OF EMBARGO ON ARMS SHIPMENTS TO SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he has recovered from the pangs of issuing the white paper today. The question is one which I put to the Prime Minister on Tuesday.
There has been a suggestion that the British government is contemplating lifting its embargo on the shipment of arms to South Africa. In the light of the recommendation of the United Nations on this subject, and the danger that such action might lead to the break-up of the Commonwealth, will the Canadian government make its views known to the British government on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the policy of Canada with respect to the shipment of arms to South Africa is known throughout the world. It has been emphasized on many occasions, both in the United Nations and in the Commonwealth. Of course, I do not know, any more than does the hon. member, whether the British government intends to change its policy.



IMPORTATION OF MILK POWDER

Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister acquainted with an incident that took place at the Borden Milk Company Limited plant at Ingersoll when members of the local National Farmers Union obtained sample bags of whole milk powder which the company had imported from the Republic of Ireland?
My second question is, was any whole milk powder shipped at any time to the Republic of Ireland on which the Canadian government paid a subsidy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, inspectors of the Department of Agriculture were at the Borden plant in Ingersoll at ten o'clock this morning. I could give a detailed answer to this question, but I should just like to advise that no whole milk powder has been subsidized by the Canadian Dairy Commission for export to any part of Europe, and no skim milk powder has been subsidized for shipment to Ireland. With

respect to the changes in labels on the bags, I have a report from my inspectors on that but it would take more time than I am permitted to give the details.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. W. C. Scoff (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. The question concerns the bidding on the satellite portion of the Canadian Domestic Satellite Communications System. Would the minister tell this House the status of the competitive bidding on the satellite, particularly the bids submitted by RCA Limited and Hughes Aircraft Company of California?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. We have received two bids and they are under study.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Communications. Does the minister expect there will be a shakeup at the senior levels of the communications department. If so, when will this take place and when will an announcement be made?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Bearing in mind the fact that the white paper on unemployment insurance benefits will not find its way into legislation until the next session of the House, can the minister say whether he is prepared to amend those sections of the act pertaining to expense exemptions to fishermen, in order to help increase the benefits to these Canadians before the end of the present fishing season?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the personnel of the department will be considering legislation proposed for this fall, and a complete review of procedures, to make sure that unemployed people are afforded the dignity to which they are entitled. In addition, we shall review the regulations. In view of the representations of the hon. member, both in the House and out of the House, I am favourably disposed to giving priority to this particular problem of
June 25, 1970

ascertaining whether any real difficulty is being placed in the way of fishermen and whether we are unintentionally penalizing these people.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since there is no reference to the matter in the white paper just tabled, will the minister make a statement on motions tomorrow, prior to the closing of the House, indicating the government's long awaited policy regarding financial support of the United Nations program to assist those countries which request help for family planning and birth control?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been made by the government and I should hesitate to make a statement in the House until that has been done.



TERRORISM


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that an investigation has revealed that in some of the bombings in Canada, the clock movements used had been made in China, can the minster tell the House whether they were smuggled into Canada or whether they were traded for Canadian wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Edmonton Centre.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government now reinstated the sugar rebate to the Caribbean states, in accordance with my suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, although I recognize the representations made by the hon. member, the matter has been under discussion for some time within the government. On the twenty-third, the Prime Minister sent a message to the meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government in which he said that if the Commonwealth countries wished to have this reinstated, we would be prepared to comply for one year.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appeal to the hon. member's sweet reason and ask him to postpone his supplementary question on sugar until tomorrow.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Government of Canada made any representations to the Government of Brazil concerning the torture of prisoners in that country, who include political prisoners and persons wearing religious garments?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have made no direct representations.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the very serious situation in the Middle East and Canada's attitude thereto. Can he advise if his recent statement in a letter to the editor of a Montreal newspaper to the effect that he had "no opposition to the sale of military aircraft to Israel" represents a change of government policy, considering that previously the minister had said this country was opposed to the sale of arms to both sides?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The letter that appeared in a newspaper-I wrote to the Canadian Jewish News-was founded upon the statement I had made previously to the House in reply to a question from an hon. member. I was asked whether I had made a statement in Rome about the sale of Phantom

June 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
jets to Israel. I said I had made no statement, offices of the Prime Minister, all cabinet min-and certainly had not expressed any isters, the leaders of the official opposition, opposition.	both of them-


Mr, Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Went-worih):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hoot, hoot, hoot.


Mr. Gibson:: At the risk of sounding a bit owlish, may I ask a serious question. Since June 10 a Canadian citizen who is a resident of Hamilton, John Lansky, has been in custody in Czechoslovakia while visiting that country, on some vague and unrelated charge. We do not know with what he has been charged. Will the minister make representations of the strongest possible nature to the government of Czechoslovakia to secure his release and return to Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it would not be appropriate for Canada to interfere with the process of justice in another country anymore than we would like other countries to interfere with the process of justice in Canada. We will make appropriate representations to the government of Czechoslovakia to ensure that this man receives fair treatment and is released if he is innocent.



INFORMATION CANADA


Hon. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, on June 22 the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster asked, with his usual good humour, if it was the policy of Information Canada when requests are received for photographs of prominent Canadians, to send pictures of the Secretary of State and of myself. I have looked into this question, with the help of the hon. member who was kind enough to refer me to the inquiry to which he referred, and I am now able to assure him that that is neither the policy nor the practice. When requests for pictures are received, these requests are referred to the offices of the persons concerned. In that particular case, they were the


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -and the Leader of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -for the time being.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister. I indicated to the House a moment ago that there were just a few minutes left in the question period. I think that the question has been answered.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thank the minister for his diligence. Will he add to this list the two most important officials of this House, the two official whips who make this place tick?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbel: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder if the minister would indicate if he has had time to study the report of the Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in children. In view of its scathing indictment of present facilities, which give adequate treatment to only one quarter of the million children requiring attention, what steps does he intend to take to radically reorganize these services in Canada?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are I know, aware, this is primarily the responsibility of the provinces. However, we in the Department of National Health and Welfare are involved in constant consultation with the provinces in order to see how corrective measures can be taken in this area.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE ATTAINMENT OF FOUR BUSHEL QUOTA BY ALL DELIVERY POINTS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the
June 25, 1970

Canada Elections Act
Wheat Board. On many occasions during this session, in debates and while answering questions, the minister expressed confidence and certainty that there would be sufficient movement of grain to allow the delivery of a four-bushel quota before the end of July. Can the minister now assure the House once again that there is sufficient movement of grain to allow the delivery of a four-bushel quota by all points under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated before that the movement of grain underway, would allow the movement of a four-bushel quota from all points. However, we have now indicated also that should there be any problem in relation to a specific point, some extension or other arrangement would be made to be sure that farmers at that point do not suffer any disadvantage. However, I think it is still important that the railways and elevator companies should co-operate to the full and be sure that the equipment gets to the right place because there is enough demand to move the four bushel quota from all points.



OATS-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE ON DELIVERY OF CARLOAD LOTS

George Robson Muir: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Sask-atoon-Humboldt. Will the minister discuss with the Wheat Board the advisability of extending the deadline on the delivery of carload lots of oats so that many producers who will be unable to do so before July 1 will be able to deliver up to July 15?


Otto Emil Lang: I will be happy to look into that, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose, clause 47, subclause 1, which appears at page 122 of the bill and the amendment proposed
by the hon. member for Skeena, page 8545 of Hansard for Tuesday, June 23, was under discussion.
On clause 47, subclause 1-Manner of voting by qualified whose name is not on the list in a rural polling division.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I rise on a point of order which may be helpful to the committee. There have been long deliberations in the standing committee, and consultations with my colleagues. This is probably the only time they will let me speak for them. If it is helpful to other members, I wish to say that we in the official opposition have amendments to clauses 98, 99, 62 and 105. With reference to all other clauses, we are quite prepared to see them go through as put forward. We will, of course, listen carefully to amendments other members wish to put forward.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, my remarks do not apply to the point of order raised by the previous speaker, but rather to another one. I do not know whether we should dispose of this one, but in any case, last Tuesday, when we were considering subclause (6) of clause 33, at page 96 of Bill C-215, I moved an amendment which as a matter of fact was unanimously agreed to. It read as follows:
That Bill C-215 be amended by deleting the period at the end of subclause 6 of clause 33, line 18, on page 96 thereof, and adding thereto the following:
"and that the central polling place be set up in such a way that the electors may get easily to each polling station within the central polling place."
Mr. Chairman, after discussing the matter with legal advisers, I have come with them to the conclusion that the amendment then proposed by me and subsequently agreed to would apply much better to subclause (9) of clause 33.
Therefore, with the agreement of the House, I would suggest that the amendment which I shall read again not apply to subclause (6) but rather to subclause (9). Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 36 on page 96 and substituting the following:
'other suitable public building and shall locate the polling station, or the polling stations in a central polling place, at a place or places in the building that will provide ease of access to electors.'
On the whole, Mr. Chairman, the amendment remains the same but applies to subclause (9) of clause 33, instead of subclause (6) of the same clause.

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hillsborough.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I thought the hon. member for Hillsborough had made a suggestion. I did not realize there would be further comment on it. That is why I recognized the hon. member for Abitibi. Maybe we should dispose of the proposition put to the committee by the hon. member for Abitibi. I take it the committee has heard the suggestion. If there are no further comments, I will ask if the committee is agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On what?


James Hugh Faulkner: I can again put the proposal of the hon. member if a certain member of the committee did not hear it. The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 36 on page 96 and substituting the following:
"other suitable public building and shall locate the polling station, or the polling stations in a central polling place, at a place or places in the building that will provide ease of access to electors."
Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: I apologize to the committee. I did not realize there was to be discussion on the point raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough. The hon. member for Skeena may now comment on the point.


Frank Howard: I wish to make a few comments by way of general agreement with the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Hillsborough. However, I can foresee one difficulty in tying our hands that much at this moment. As we proceed, hon. members may come across a clause as a result of a debate on another clause that they think will require amendments. We would be precluding that secondary aspect of seeking to amend clauses of the bill. I agree with the general proposition, namely that we should try with some dispatch and expedition to proceed through the bill as quickly as we can. We are and have been from the start prepared to curtail the debate which seems to be unnecessary and in this way try to expedite matters. Perhaps by approaching it that way we will get along very well.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: If that is the end of the discussion on that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise another one.


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not think there is much the Chair can do. My interpretation of the point of order of the hon. member for Hillsborough is that it is an indication of what members of his party intend to do. The committee is now aware of the suggestion. I do not think there is anything further I can do, other than to ask the committee to take cognizance of it.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Your Honour is perfectly correct. There is no procedure for making an official offering of this kind. This is how I had to do it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I say for the information of the committee that we will be moving amendments to clauses 52, 53, 66 and 92. If our amendment to clause 92 were to pass there would be two consequential amendments affecting clauses already standing.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Laflamme:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. While considering subclause (4) of clause 23 of the bill, an amendment of mine was allowed to stand by the committee. Now, after hearing a few arguments, especially those of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and as the motion was meant to give the Speaker a status which should as much as possible be agreeable to hon. members and parties of the House, I am willing, with the consent of the House, to withdraw this amendment which, under the circumstances, may be premature.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It will be
recalled that when the committee was last considering clause 17, the hon. member for Don Valley had a considerable number of amendments outstanding. Advantage of the interval has been taken to do some redrafting in connection with the changes proposed by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin which will have an effect on the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Don Valley. A new text has been prepared, and it is my understanding that the hon. member for Don Valley would be agreeable to withdrawing his amendments on the understanding that the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin will be moving a number to replace them.
June 25, 1970


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee agreeable to that proposition?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. St. Pierre:: If I may move those amendments at this time-


James Hugh Faulkner: I believe there is simply an understanding that at some point these amendments will be moved.
I take it the committee would like, now, to consider the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena to subclause (1) of clause 47.


Frank Howard: When I moved this amendment initially, I stated quite clearly that I was not absolutely married to its wording and contents. I was attempting to make the point that electors in urban polling divisions whose names did not appear on the list should have an opportunity to cast their ballots on election day after being vouched for by someone else.
It was then brought to my attention that the fount of all good things resides in Nova Scotia-I might accept that notion except to the extent that it relates to the fishing industry-and that the elections act of that province provides a way of enabling this objective to be realized. I was not, myself, familiar with the legislation but I understand it has worked fairly well. It may, therefore, provide a basis for an alternative suggestion. If the idea seems to gain some acceptance we might stand the clause before us now, together with the proposed amendment, to see whether or not we could develop something in the interim which would be satisfactory.
Under the Nova Scotia act, to recapitulate, a revising officer in cities or town having a population of more than 5,000 is authorized to sit on ordinary polling days at the headquarters of the returning officer. This official may be approached by a person who is qualified to vote and whose name is not on the list. After swearing an oath he is given a certificate which he takes to the polling station, accompanied by another person whose name is on the list for that polling division. The latter vouches for him and he is then able to cast his ballot. I agree there may be difficulties in very large communities in connection with this procedure since it might be impracticable for people to travel long distances to the office of the returning officer, but this is not an insurmountable problem.
If the procedure I have outlined seems to be a more practical way of affording those whose
Canada Elections Act
names are not on the list an opportunity to cast their ballots, and if it is accepted that it contains sufficient safeguards against abuse, I would be happy to accept such an alternative, or, indeed, any other alternative which the President of the Privy Council, perhaps after consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer, believes would be a satisfactory way of ensuring our objective which is, of course, to provide, as far as we possibly can, the widest opportunity for electors to cast their ballots on polling day.


Mr. Forreslall:: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena has some appeal to me. I shall not repeat the points I made when the committee last sat with regard to the Nova Scotia procedure, but if the President of the Privy Council would agree to stand this clause we would welcome any change which might extend this privilege to the electors, making sure that all voters may exercise their franchise as far as lies within our power.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Having heard the hon. gentleman's proposal, it seems to me that a problem still exists with regard to the
very large communities. I have in mind the difficulty attached to making sure that the procedure of vouching is not abused. Undoubtedly, the process described by the hon. member would be effective in small communities.


J. Michael Forrestall: Halifax is not a small community.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: However, in very large metropolitan centres such as Toronto and Montreal, there would be no way for the various individuals concerned to check the validity of the form of registration. It is not without significance that in Quebec, the province which, of course, would draw up the provincial voting law for Montreal, the procedure of vouching does not exist at all, either in urban or rural polls. In Ontario, they are working in the other direction from that suggested to the committee now, and taking away even the limited form of vouching which has existed so far, in the urban polls on the assumption, I take it, that there has been abuse of this procedure in the large urban centres.
I respect the efforts of the hon. member to find a solution, but the difficulty here is the anonymity of people living in the large urban communities and the difficulty of making certain that the individual who pre-

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
sents himself to the returning officer is who he says he is, and who resides where he says he does.


J. Michael Forrestall: But the principle of the act is that we accept a man's word and do not challenge it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is a process of challenging inherent in the ordinary preparation of the list; that is the reason for sending out the voters' list to the registered electors. Among other things, it gives them a chance to check whether there really are houses corresponding with addresses given and that people are living there.


J. Michael Forrestall: Is that the function of the list? I thought it was to enable electors to see whether their names were on it.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It can hardly be the function to see whether your name is on it, because you would not get one if your name were not on it. One of the purposes is to make certain that other people who should be electors, and on the list, are in fact on the list. Equally, it provides a safeguard to prevent registration of people who are not in fact, entitled to be electors.
I still see the difficulty, but I do not know the answer at the moment to the problem of vouching. I repeat, I am concerned with this, because it does seem to me that owing to no negligence on the part of a voter he can still be left off the list. He can miss the revision dates through absence from the city, and subsequently he will find that he is unable to vote. However, I do not see any solution in large metropolitan areas.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the President of the Privy Council, what is the protection now, in the procedure before the revising officer at the court of revision? Are these protective mechanisms too cumbersome to apply to election day, if the same officer were used? There may be some difficulty in the period between the court of revision procedure as presently proposed under the act and the actual election date.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would remind the hon. member that under the revision procedures if the revising officer is not satisfied, he has accredited to him a number of agents who can investigate the matter. There is an objection procedure that can be used in the time available, the theory of which is that

the political parties themselves will police each other in this regard. There is opportunity given the political parties to scrutinize names added to the list, in the same way that the original list is scrutinized so as to make certain that the names are those of real human beings living at that address, not mere additions added for the purpose of circumventing the voting system. The difficulty with taking this action on election day is that the time and opportunity do not exist, even theoretically, to make this kind of check.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am not really arguing the point; it is the intent that I want to get across. May I take the liberty of asking the committee to give me authority to withdraw the amendment?


James Hugh Faulkner: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 47 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 47 agreed to.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have forgotten the number, but we stood the clause that resulted in a consequential amendment being made today. Unless it offends against the procedures that you are following, perhaps we could deal with this now. I think it was clause 17 that was stood.


James Hugh Faulkner: Was it subclause (2) of clause 39 on page 105 of the bill?


Frank Howard: Yes, that was the subclause.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause (2) of clause 39 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Subclause (2) of clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
On clause 17, subclause (9)-Clergymen, teachers and persons in fishing industry.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, could we now follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena and deal with clause 17? As I indicated, there has been a substantial job of redrafting and a certain amount of consultation with regard to an alternative proposal which I believe the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin has to make.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Chairman, this amendment arises from the general agreement
June 25, 1970

reached among the parties on Tuesday night as to the intent of the amendment I moved at that time. Again, it was a simple matter of changing a few words, though, of course, nothing is simple because there are either not enough lawyers here or too many. I have a rather lengthy series of amendments to move, and I can only assure the committee, as I have been assured, that their intent is the same as the intent of my amendment, which was to reduce the time for temporary residence to 20 days and to extend the privileges previously given to priests, teachers and a few other categories.
Without going over the ground that was previously covered, I would simply move the amendment, which is somewhat lengthy. The amendments affect several different portions of the bill. First of all, I move:
That Bill C-215 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 27 to 43 on page 28 and lines 1 to 25 on page 29 and substituting the following :
Exception '(9) For the purpose of a general election only and notwithstanding anything in this Act, any person who, during the period between the enumeration date and polling day, changes his place of ordinary residence from one polling division to another polling division in the same or another electoral district, if he is otherwise qualified as an elector and so elects,
(a)	may apply in person,
(i)	where he has moved to an urban polling division, to the revising officer appointed for the appropriate revisal district, or
(ii)	where he has moved to a rural polling division, to the rural enumerator appointed for that polling division,
during the sittings for revision, to have his name included in the list of electors for the polling division in which he is ordinarily resident at the time of his application; and
(b)	upon the inclusion of his name in the list of electors for the appropriate polling division, is entitled to vote at the polling station established for that polling division.'
(b)	by renumbering subclause (11) of Clause 17 on page 29 as subclause (10);
(c)	by striking out line 38 on page 29 and substituting the following:
'(11) At a general election, a person shall be deemed to be'
(d)	by striking out lines 8 and 9 on page 30 and substituting the following:
'therein since the date of the issue of the writ ordering the election;'
22478-52$
Canada Elections Act
(e)	by striking out lines 15 to 26 on page 30 and substituting the following:
Wives or '(12) The wife or dependant of aper-dependants son mentioned in subsection (11) who of	has come to a polling division for the
temporary purpose of occupying residential quar-workers ters during the course and as a result of the services performed by that person shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident on the enumeration date in the polling division, if that wife or dependant has been in continuous residence therein since the date of the issue of the writ ordering the election.
Exception (13) Where a person
(a)	would, pursuant to subsection (11) or (12), be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a polling division except that he has not been in continuous residence therein since the date of the issue of the writ ordering an election,
(b)	is temporarily residing in the polling division on the twentieth day before polling day, and
(c)	is otherwise qualified as an elector and elects to vote in the polling division,
he may apply in person,
(d)	where he has moved to an urban polling division, to the revising officer appointed for the appropriate revisal district, or
(e)	where he has moved to a rural polling division, to the rural enumerator appointed for that polling division,
during the sittings for revision, to have his name included in the list of electors for the polling division and, upon the inclusion of his name in the list of electors for the polling division, is entitled to vote at the polling station established for that polling division.'
(f)	by striking out line 36 on page 31 and substituting the following:
'on the enumeration date at the election.
Idem	(18) For the purpose of a by-election
only and notwithstanding anything in this Act, any person who, during the period between the enumeration date and polling day, changes his place of ordinary residence from one polling division to another polling division in the same electoral district, if he is otherwise qualified as an elector and so elects,
(a) may apply in person,
(i)	where he has moved to an urban polling division, to the revising officer appointed for the appropriate revisal district, or
(ii)	where he has moved to a rural polling division, to the rural enumerator appointed for that polling division,
during the sittings for revision, to have his name included in the list of

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
electors for the polling division in which he is ordinarily resident at the time of his application; and (b) upon the inclusion of his name in the list of electors for the appropriate polling division, is entitled to vote at the polling station estab-blished in that polling division. Limitation (19) Rules (50), (51) and (52) of Schedule A to section 18 do not apply to any application made pursuant to subsection (9), (13) or (18).'
There are other amendments consequential upon this one, and frankly I must say I am not sure to which parts of clause 17 they apply.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They come later.


Paul St. Pierre: Then, that is the only amendment I can move at this time to clause 17. I am sure the officials will tell me whether that is correct.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr.   De Bane@: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
May I be allowed to point out to the House the presence in the galleries of an important group of cadets from my riding who have been awarded several national trophies and who have come to visit the House of Commons. They are the Cadets of Saint-Norbert de Cap-Chat headed by Captain Jean Cote and Captain Jean-Yves Berube.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee has heard the proposition. Is there any further discussion?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I might say that we appreciate the courtesy extended earlier today, through the offices of the Privy Council, of having someone deliver to us the amendment now before us. In this way, those of us who have participated in the consideration of the bill thus far have had an opportunity to examine the amendment and give endorsement to it without a great amount of debate. We find the amendment quite acceptable.
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. As the hon. member mentioned, he has a number of consequential amendments. I do not know what the preference of the committee would be, to take all the consequential amendments in one piece or

wait until we get to them seriatim. Perhaps if we took them all in one piece there might be less risk of overlooking one.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul St. Pierre: I thank the committee very much for this consideration as it will make my task much easier. These are consequential amendments, and they refer to schedules, etc. I shall simply read them.
The first is to rule 42 Schedule A, Section 18 as follows:
On clause 18, Schedule A, Rule 42.


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads:
That Bill C-215 be amended
(a)	by striking out the word "and" in line 33 on page 52;
(b)	by striking out line 39 on page 52 and substituting the following:
'him;
(/) in the case of a general election, personal applications made by electors who have moved after the enumeration date to the polling division from another polling division in the same or another electoral district; and
(g)	in the case of a by-election, personal applications made by electors who have moved after the enumeration date to the polling division from another polling division within the same electoral district.'
That is a motion within itself, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we could vote on that and proceed to the next one.
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to.


Paul St. Pierre: The next is an amendment in respect of rule 16, Schedule B to section 18 as follows:
On clause 18, Schedule B, Rule 16.


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads:
That Bill C-215 be amended
(a)	by striking out the word "or" in line 7 on page 70;
(b)	by striking out line 11 on page 70 and substituting the following:
'appears on the list;
(d) in the case of a general election, add to such list in the index book the name of any person who has moved after the enumeration date to the polling division from another polling division in the same or another electoral district and who personally applies to have his name added to the list; and
June 25, 1970

(e) In the case of a by-election, add to such list in the index book the name of any person who has moved after the enumeration date to the polling division from another polling division in the same electoral district and who personally applies to have his name added to the list.'
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to.


Paul St. Pierre: The next amendment is to Form 19 Schedule I as follows:
On Schedule I, Form 19.


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads:
That Form 19 set out on page 215 of Bill C-215 be amended by adding thereto, immediately before the heading "Certificate" appearing on page 216 thereof, the following:
'The following names have been added to the urban preliminary list of electors on the personal application of electors who have moved to the polling division after the enumeration date:
Name of Street (or as the case may be)	Street No.	Apart- ment No.	Name of Elector (Family name first)	Occu- pation	Remarks
					
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to. Form 19 agreed to.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Chairman, the next amendment is to Form 26 Schedule I.
On Schedule I, Form 26.


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads: That Form 26 set out on page 221 of Bill C-215 be amended by adding thereto, immediately before the heading "Certificate" appearing at the top of page 222 thereof, the following:
'The following names have been added to the preliminary list of electors in the index book on the personal application of electors who have moved to the rural polling division after the enumeration date:
_ Name (Family name first)	Occupation	Post office address
		
Canada Elections Act Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to. Form 26 agreed to.


Paul St. Pierre: The next one is to Form 42, Schedule I.
On Schedule I, Form 42


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads:
That Bill C-215 be amended by deleting from clause (4) of Form No. 42 of Schedule X on page 233 the following words:
'That you are a person described in subsection 17(9) or 17(10) of the' and substituting the following words:
'That you are a person described in subsection 17(9), 17(13) or 17(18) of the'
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to. Form 42, Schedule I.


Paul St. Pierre: The next amendment is to Form 43, Schedule I.
On Schedule I, Form 43


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads: That Bill C-215 be amended by deleting from clause (3) of Form No. 43 of Schedule I on page 233 the following words:
'That I am a person described in subsection 17(9) or 17(10) of the Canada' and substituting the following words:
'That I am a person described in subsection 17(9), 17(13) or 17(18) of the Canada'
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to. Form 43 agreed to.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Chairman, the next amendment is to Form 52, Schedule I:
On Schedule I, Form 52


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads: That Bill C-215 be amended by deleting from clause (4) of Form No. 52 of Schedule I on page 240 the following words:
'(or)
That you are a person described in subsection 17(9) or 17(10) of the Canada Elections Act;
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to. Form 52 agreed to.


Paul St. Pierre: The next is to Form 53,
Schedule I:
On Schedule I, Form 53


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads: That Bill C-215 be amended by deleting from paragraph (c) of clause (5) of Form No. 53 oi Schedule I on page 241 the following words:
'(or)
is a person described in subsection 17(9) or 17(10) of the Canada Elections Act;'
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to. Form 53 agreed to.

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act


Paul St. Pierre: The next is to Form 74 Schedule I.
On Schedule I, Form 74


Paul St. Pierre: The amendment reads:
That Bill C-215 be amended by
(a)	deleting from Form No. 74 of Schedule I on page 261 the following words:
'(or)
I am a person described in subsection 17(9) or 17(10) of the Canada Elections Act and I was ordinarily resident in the above mentioned
urban polling division on the	 day of
	 19  (naming the date of the
application by the elector to be included in the list of electors for the polling division).*
; and
(b)	deleting from the said Form on page 262 the following words:
'(or)
is a person described in subsection 17(9) or 17(10) of the Canada Elections Act and was ordinarily resident in the above mentioned
urban polling division on the	 day of
	 19  (naming the date of the
application by the elector to be included in the list of electors for the polling division).*
Amendment (Mr. St. Pierre) agreed to. Form 74 agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
On Clause 21, subclause 2-Exceptions.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is consequential to an amendment adopted last Tuesday. It was moved by the hon. member for Selkirk, and added paragraph 14 to clause 23. The effect of the amendment was that every employer subject to the Canada Labour Code had to grant leave of absence to an employee who wanted to be a candidate at an election. This consequential amendment would add paragraph (h) to 21(2) and would read as follows:
(h)	an employee who, under subsection (14) of section 23, has been granted and is on leave of absence to seek nomination as a candidate and to be a candidate at an election.
The necessity for this amendment is not apparent, but according to the law officers of the Crown it should be made in order to prevent contestations or litigation in the future. It is consequential to the one that was adopted Tuesday night.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I had a brief opportunity to look at this amendment and, initially, I did not have any difficulty when attempting to ascertain why this was necessary. As I understand it, subsection (2) of 21, which is sought to be amended here, contains the saving feature about ineligible 
candidates. Clause 21 provides that certain persons are not eligible to be candidates, and subsclause 2 says that the application of subclause 1 shall not render certain other people ineligible. I presume here that some difficulty might arise. Again, I might point out that one needs a few moments to follow this.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For the sake of argument, suppose a person should be found guilty of a corrupt practice and thus declared ineligible for a period of five years next after the date of his being so found, reported, declared guilty and so on. Would this declaration override that provision, as would paragraph (g) of subclause 2 which relates to employees in the public service or paragraph (f) which concerns members of the reserve forces? I realize that one is not supposed to ask, nor is a minister of the Crown supposed to give, legal opinions about matters but I believe there must be an exception in this case bceause we are dealing with a bill that is above and beyond government policy. It relates to the right of people to choose candidates. Without having had more than just a moment or two to read the amendment and lit it into clause 21 of the bill, this thought immediately came to mind. Other thoughts may develop as one reads further on in clause 21 in respect of certain people who are declared to be ineligible as candidates.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman is right. I did not see the necessity for this amendment in the first place, but it was presented at the suggestion of the law officers of the Crown. The hon. member has a point as to whether it overrides other subparagraphs of the same clause. Perhaps we could stand it and have a second look at it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 21 stands.
On clause 48-Time for Employees for Voting.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have not written an amendment in respect of this clause but it would be easy to do so. This relates to the matters that were put before the committee when we were dealing with the clause concerning the time during which the polls would be open on election day.
As hon. members will recall, I raised the question concerning loggers on Vancouver Island, and in other parts of British Columbia, who may spend up to two or two and a half
June 25, 1970

hours getting from their place of work to their place of residence which of course would be where they would vote. A slight difficulty like a flat tire or difficulty in respect of the "crummy", the bus which brings them back into work, could under some circumstances mean they would not get back home in time to vote because of this three-hour provision. If, for argument's sake, the polls closed at eight o'clock by virtue of the daylight saving time provisions and the employee was permitted three consecutive hours free from his employment in order to vote, and this period of three consecutive hours started at four o'clock, under the circumstances which I related he would have three hours in which to get from his place of work to the polls to vote. If it should take him two and a half hours in normal circumstances he would have a very narrow period in which to establish his opportunity to vote.
I wonder whether there would be a disposition to make a change in this provision. Initially, I put this proposition forward as a suggestion, but I am fully prepared to move an amendment if there should be general agreement to the idea that we change the three consecutive hours to four consecutive hours in order to take account of this situation. I point out from my memory of the British Columbia provincial law that it provides for a four-hour period in order to take account of the situation which exists in that province. I realize it is a bit parochial to speak of loggers in British Columbia, but there may be similar situations in other parts of Canada. I put forward the proposition to see whether it meets with some agreement. If so, I would be happy to move the appropriate amendment simply to change the wording "three consecutive hours" to "four consecutive hours" wherever it appears.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I may say I have no objection to making it half a day, which would be four hours.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the committee would give me just a moment.


James Hugh Faulkner: I take it that the hon. member for Skeena is now preparing the amendment in writing to put before the committee.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe this relates only to subclause (1). I
Canada Elections Act
have not gone through all the subsequent subclauses but if it should be necessary to amend any other subclauses we could do so when we reach them. I have worded the amendment a little differently than normally. I have not referred to the pertinent lines and so on.
I move:
That subclause (1) be amended by deleting the word "three" wherever it appears and substituting therefor the word "four".


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee has heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) agreed to.
Clause 48 as amended agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
On clause 50-No person to approach poll armed.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee shall now consider subclause 1 as revised.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to present any amendment but it seems to me it is ludicrous that we should have a regulation prohibiting anybody from having a gun within half a mile of a voting booth. I just wished to make that observation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is it was even more ridiculous before it was redrafted in this way.
Subclauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 51, which is to be found at page 128.
Subclauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 51, subclause 4-Limitation.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on this clause probably lead into the short general comment I wish to make on third reading of the bill, namely, the necessity to engage in sort of an educational program in order to acquaint people with the provisions of the law. The earlier section gives some direction to the voter by saying that he shall proceed into the compartment and, if I recall the words, with the black lead pencil provided therein mark his ballot, perhaps it even says "with an X or a cross". Subclause 4 runs counter to that and reads:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
No ballot paper shall be rejected pursuant to subsection (3) by reason only that-

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
(b) it has been marked with a writing instrument other than a black lead pencil or with a mark other than a cross, if the mark does not constitute identification of the elector.
I appreciate that it would be difficult to give instructions to the elector to mark the ballot with any kind of instrument he likes. This would be inviting trouble. We would have finger prints and I do not know what else indicating the vote on the ballot. But I want to draw to the committee's attention the fact that this provision might create confusion in the minds of the electors and certainly will create confusion in the minds of the deputy returning officers and poll clerks. For many years, both under the provincial and federal law, these people have been used to the idea that a ballot can only be marked by a cross made with a pencil. On election night, therefore, if someone marks a tick with a red pen, for argument's sake, there might be a big argument. The ballot might be invalidated because it was marked that way, not taking into account the fact that it may be identifying the elector.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This tendency to discuss becomes contagious. I said earlier how much I was indebted to the hon. member for Leeds who sold me on the broadminded attitude toward marking the ballot. As I was saying at an earlier stage, this in fact should be called a Code amendment. I do think that it is extremely important that we try somehow- and this will come up later-to get across an educative process. 1 regret to say that in the six parliaments I have served I have not seen a measure of such public importance as this one so poorly and inadequately reported by the press of the country, so it will be all the more necessary that something be done.


Frank Howard: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I had thought, however, that the forms in the back illustrated how the ballot was to be marked, whereas this clause indicates that departures from that model do not invalidate the ballot. So, I am not so concerned about this. I have still a lingering doubt about paragraph (a) which could be an invitation to some slaphappy deputy returning officer. It reads:
No ballot shall be rejected pursuant to subsection (3) by reason only that
(a) it has on it any writing, number or mark placed thereon by any deputy returning officer:
Deputy returning officers should not be placing marks thereon, and I wonder more thought was not given by all of us to looking at this provision more seriously. But if others

in the committee here today rest content with it, and I know it appeared in the earlier Act, I will allow my conscience to rest.
Subclause 4 agreed to.
Subclauses 5 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 51 as amended agreed to.
On clause 52-Communication of vote.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a small amendment to clause 52. I propose that it be amended by adding a new subclause (3) which reads as follows:
The returning officer upon receipt from the chief electoral officer of the information respecting the number of votes cast for each candidate under the special voting rules shall, where possible, release such results together with the results of at least one of the advanced polls established in the electoral district.
Without going into it too deeply, may I explain that this is simply to add a further measure of protection to the secrecy of the franchise of the voters under the special voting rules, that is to say, the Canadian armed forces voters. We have taken substantial steps to try to protect the secrecy of their franchise in the amendments we made to this bill, and this is just one minor addition. In most instances, this provision could be followed without any difficulty at all. It is recognized that it cannot be followed in every instance because of special circumstances, but I think that inasmuch as we have started, as my friend the hon. member for Hillsborough is wont to suggest, to civilianize the armed forces vote, this is another and I think useful step that could go a long way towards that objective.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sure the hon. member who just spoke knows I support the amendment, because as all the House knows I had an amendment to this effect. The President of the Privy Council was good enough to acknowledge that he thought what I had said on second reading was a good idea and he was disposed to agree with it. All I can say is that I support the amendment but I dislike the discourtesy of the hon. member in moving in and taking it over.


J. Michael Forrestall: Sit down. What are you talking about? What does he mean by discourtesy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre indicated, I was very sympathetic to the notion of the somewhat broader proposition that he had put, namely that the election reporting system
June 25, 1970

should be structured in such a way that not only on voting night but even in the blue book which results ultimately from the election, there would be no indication to an outside observer of what part of the total of the advance poll and the service vote, was the service vote. He suggested that this should occur in this case just as it does with certain polling divisions which are grouped with larger numbers so as to assure the secrecy of the ballot. I had the opportunity to discuss this at length with those responsible for running the elections, and they pointed out to me the shortcomings of the broader proposition to which, as the hon. member indicated, I had given some approval at second reading.
The procedure, as I understand it, is as follows. The returning officer will be receiving from each of the advance polls a ballot box with the ballots in it, and for the purposes of controlling the legitimacy of the vote at each of those advance polling stations the ballot box is counted by itself. Then, the advance poll is the aggregate of each of the individual counts from those ballot boxes. That ballot box is opened and counted in the presence, not only of the chief returning officer and his clerk, but also in the presence of such representatives as the parties want to appoint.
The service ballot is handled in a somewhat different manner. This is where a further difficulty arises. It is not the same type of ballot as the other. What had appealed to me was the possibility of working on a system whereby all the ballots might be so intermingled that in the actual act of counting it would be impossible to differentiate. So far as the service ballot is concerned, it is not the standard ballot marked with an X or other distinguishing mark opposite the appropriate name but rather a ballot on which the name of the candidate selected is written in. So there are two different types of ballot, and the intermingling proposition would not work. What we have, therefore, for reasons of security and integrity of the poll as an identification at least for those working inside the returning officer's office is a breakdown as between the advance poll and the service vote because the advance poll has been counted and also because the service vote is a different kind of ballot.
[DOT] (4:10p.m.)
What would happen, therefore, in the case of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is that all people working on the polling staff, including
Canada Elections Act
representatives of the parties, would know what the service vote was. The purpose, in effect, would be to prevent the press from finding out, but they could find out quickly enough by asking around.
By this reasoning, I have been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that this kind of anonymity which I had hoped to give is not possible. It would be possible to put some controls on announcements on election night, I agree, but when the official count is being taken there would be an opportunity for the representatives to check on the advance poll and by the simple process of subtraction to find out the service vote. Under the present system, I do not see how you can ensure this ballot protection.
My understanding is that the member for Dartmouth-Halifax East was rather less ambitious in his amendment. He is really not purporting to give an instruction to anybody who is involved not to reveal what they have seen; he is giving an instruction to the returning officer which is effective only on election night. The instruction to the returning officer is that in announcing the advance poll he will commence it and the service vote together, even though he and some other people will know what the difference is. That seems to me to be a legitimate objective and I would be prepared to accept it. Perhaps it would be only fair to hear what the hon. member would have proposed had he been on his feet first.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is almost identical to that of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. What I said on second reading and at an earlier stage may have been misunderstood because I said it badly. I realized you could not combine these results in the official returns in the blue book, and that they would have to be accounted for in separate ballots in the polls. As I understand the reasoning of the President of the Privy Council, he feels this would not be practical. The armed forces and overseas public service vote will be counted and communicated by the Chief Electoral Officer to each returning officer, so it seems to me it is no problem for the returning officer to hold that result until such time as all results in the advance poll come in. He does not reveal the vote on the advance polls until he has the total count. I assume the advance poll will be counted on the night it is held and the results transmitted to the office of the returning officer. Upon receipt of those results, they will be combined with the results he has received by

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
telephone or telegraph of the armed forces and overseas public service vote, to make one total for each candidate. This is what will be released from the office of the returning officer on election night and thereafter, of course, the advance polls and the polls of the armed forces and overseas public service vote will be separated.
I agree that anonymity should be protected as far as possible on election night, but thereafter it is the same as any other poll. We do not have to worry about identification of groups.
Instead of "at least one of the advance polls" my amendment reads "the total number of votes cast for each candidate in all of the advance polls". In other words, if there were six advance polls there would be one total. The returning officer would release the vote in a manner similar for the advance armed forces and overseas public service vote, so there would be one figure for each candidate. I see no problem here in the light of the mechanism used for counting the advance poll; the kind of ballot surely has nothing to do with this. I think the mechanism can be handled quite well by the returning officer in his office that night.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I understand the difference between the two proposals and the one by the member for Dartmouth-Halifax East seems to be the less drastic. There may be some circumstances when the service vote would be known and the count of most of the advance polls would be known, with the exception of perhaps one. The amendment of the member for Dartmouth-Halifax East would enable them to be bunched without having to wait for all of them. This seems to give more flexibility to the situation than waiting until all are in.
Amendment (Mr. Forrestall) agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 53, subclause 1 to 6 inclusive.
Subclauses 1 to 6 agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 53, subclause 7, amended.
On clause 53, subclause 7-Application for recount by returning officer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for what can be called an automatic recount. In the case of a tie in the number of votes, instead of the returning officer casting a deciding ballot that night, he shall petition

for a recount. Only after recount, if there is still an equality of votes, will the returning officer cast his deciding ballot. This takes the pressure off the returning officer and it means that the cost of the recount is borne by the Treasury instead of by a candidate who lost by one vote. It does not go quite far enough, however. Everyone will agree that uncertainty and indecision have no place in an election. The electoral process should allow for a recount to be conducted under certain other conditions.
I should like to move that clause 53, subclause 7 be amended by deleting the first paragraph and substituting therefor the following:
Where on the official addition of the votes, there is an equality of votes between two or more candidates and an additional vote for one of such candidates would entitle one of those candidates to he declared as having the largest number of votes, or where on the official addition of votes there is less than 25 votes difference between the candidate having the highest number of votes and any other candidate, the returning officer shall
The intent of this amendment is that where there is a difference between the leading candidate and one or more other candidates of 24 votes or less, the returning officer would automatically petition for a recount. The most obvious reason for this is that the costs of a recount are borne by a candidate and his party. We felt that where the difference was more than 24, the cost should be borne by a candidate and his party. We felt that this was a reasonably low enough figure to allow for a better way of getting the decision confirmed by that recount and could possibly save some time as well. It is almost certain that when a vote is close in any constituency, one or more of the candidates will petition for a recount. If there should be a small difference between the numbers of ballots cast for the leading and second candidates, the process of recounting will be undertaken more quickly. It will be done under the authority of the electoral laws and electoral officers, and you will avoid partisan activities in connection with this matter on the part of one or more of the candidates or political parties. I hope that the members of the committee will agree that this will be an improvement.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Sometimes, when seats are won by a margin of a handful of votes there are arguments and legal proceedings, and unfortunate feelings are sometimes generated in electoral districts while these proceedings are going on.
June 25, 1970

It seems to me that if, instead of petitions on the part of political parties and candidates for a recount, the matter could be undertaken by election officials and the courts, there would be a great improvement in our electoral process. Although the election results might be delayed for a few days, this matter would be much better handled than under our present system. 1 hope this amendment commends itself to the members of the committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we will be disposed to accept the amendment. There have been suggested to me a number of drafting changes. We accept the principle and the wording will be almost the same. After the drafting changes the amendment will read somewhat as follows, if I can focus the attention of hon. members on it: "Where, on the official addition of the vote (a) there is an equality of votes between two or more candidates and an additional vote for one of such candidates would entitle one of those candidates to be declared as having the largest number of votes or (b) the number of votes separating the candidates is less than 25, the returning officer shall," and (c) and (d) would follow. It is the draftsmen's sense of elegance which dictates this rather than the substance of the amendment.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I have no strenuous objection to this at all. Of course, it puts out of bounds the candidate who, for good and sufficient reasons, does not care for a recount. I remember that in a certain strong Highland section of a certain province a candidate came close to winning, and certain people suggested that he should seek a recount. His response was, "If my people thought I was such a poor sport that I could not win on the hustings and therefore tried to win in the judge's chambers, they would not support me again." He did not have a recount and the next time he won the seat for his party for the first time in 50 years. Of coruse, I do not suggest that as a reason I might be against it.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall I put the redrafted amendment to the committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is some lightning redrafting going on. Possibly we might go to another subclause.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is it agreed that subclause 7 of clause 53 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause 7 stands.
Subclause 8 agreed to.
Canada Elections Act


James Hugh Faulkner: Clause 53 stands, is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 54 to 61 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 62, subclause 1-Appointment of official agent.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to subclause 1 of clause 62 concerning the legal capacity of one who acts as an official agent. We have already adopted clause 20 saying that a candidate must be 18 years of age or over, and there is no provision in the act regarding the capacity of the official agent to act in certain instances. I can envisage a case where a candidate might be 18 or 19 years old and, in certain instances, he would be somewhat restricted in his legal dealings. He might also have an official agent who might also be 18 or 19 years old, and serious difficulties might arise. I am not as familiar with the laws of other provinces as I am with those of Quebec. May I remind the committee that the official agent is the one who, on behalf of the candidate, engages in contracts for printing, advertising and other matters which involve electoral expenses. If he were to plead his minority in certain instances I can see that difficulties might arise. To prevent these I wish to move the following amendment:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out lines 13 to 19 on page 156 and substituting the following: "an official agent
(a)	who shall be a person who is capable of entering into contracts in the province in which the electoral district of the candidate is located, and
(b)	whose name, address and occupation shall be
(i)	declared to the returning officer, in the nomination paper in Form No. 27 by or on behalf of the candidate, on or before nomination day, and
(ii)	published in the Notice of Grant of a Poll in Form No. 32."
I think it will be useful to take the precaution of putting a provision into the Act saying that the official agent is a person who is capable of entering into legal contracts.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, the last amendment emanating from the founts of legal wisdom got us into a little difficulty. I am concerned about this one. I know what lawyers will probably say. I feel we are

June 25. 1970
Canada Elections Act
moving toward the isolation of the candidate as an infant in the eyes of the law. I wonder if we have to build up this new status for the agent. What do we do about his principal, the candidate? Can the candidate be 18 years of age if the agent must be 21 years of age?
We are in the process of setting up a category of people who will in fact become the fathers of the Elections Act, namely, the new members of the House of Commons. Is it necessary to single out certain people to be in an age category different from that of the candidates? If we allow a candidate to be someone less than 21, he enters into contract control. I think the deposit has a certain legal validity. The candidate is the principal of the agent who has many returns to which he must attest and swear.
I wonder about isolating the agent and requiring more of him in terms of accumulation of years over the candidate. I was proposing later on in the proceedings to move an amendment to delete the requirement that the returning officer be 21. If the end product, the candidate and potential Member of Parliament, can take on all the plenitude of powers which will follow at the age of 18, I wonder why the lesser lights along the way must burn for three extra years. That may be a bit metaphoric.
There is an area of legal distinction here. I do not want to get too far away. I hate to think that the provinces of this country can curtail, inhibit and restrict us in regard to granting the franchise and appointing officers at the age of 18. I am a little concerned about all this.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have some doubts about the wisdom of proceeding in this way, partly because of what the hon. member for Hillsborough has said and partly because what we want to do here is to ensure that whatever contracts are entered into are considered to be valid. The hon. member for Missisquoi and the President of the Privy Council want to ensure that when a person enters into a contract he will be legally able to do so. Perhaps there is a desire, as mentioned by the hon. member for Hillsborough, to do this without setting up two different groups and elevating the position of one over that of the other. Possibly it would be simpler to say that for the purpose of the Canada Elections Act contracts entered into by the official agent are deemed to be valid.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not prepared to concede this, Mr. Chairman. It is out of an abundance of caution as to the authority of the federal Parliament in federal elections to infringe upon the unquestioned power of the provinces over contracts. Rather than have some doubt about the matter, it seems desirable to make this kind of change. In this way the outside world, in dealing with a particular campaign, may at least look to one person who can be made legally responsible for the debts in question. I draw the attention of the committee to clause 62, subclause 2:
In the event of the death or legal Incapacity of any official agent, the candidate shall forthwith appoint another official agent-
The same type of amendment would be required in the clause anyway. Eor many years the Canada Elections Act has acknowledged the importance of the official agent as being the one legally responsible. I hazard the opinion that the general principles of principal and agent may not apply to these particular circumstances. This is a rather particular kind of agent whose status is defined by clause 62. Therefore the situation would be, as I stated on second reading, that of caveat vendor, let the seller beware. When he is dealing with the candidate, let the seller beware if the candidate is or is not legally responsible. We are taking a further step here to make sure that in dealing with the official agent, which essentially is the basic form of contracting in an election system, at least one of the persons in the situation should be capable of being held legally responsible.
This probably is true with the law of Ontario. I will not hazard a guess as to the law of other provinces. However, when a minor is a candidate and the agent has reached his majority you do not have the opportunity of suing both principal and agent. You are confined to suing the agent and taking your remedies against him. This is a preferable situation in terms of contracting if one of the two is to be legally responsibile under the law of the province. It is on that basis, to make the new situation consistent with the inhibition under clause 2, that I recommend this amendment to the committee.


Frank Howard: There is a certain hazard in trying to pose queries in legal matters when one is a layman and the other is a lawyer. I will exhibit my ignorance as a layman by posing a question to the President of the Privy Council. It is in terms of the extent to which the federal Elections Act may
June 25, 1970

be able to make incursions into the field of provincial jurisdiction, namely, the making of contracts. It seems that we already do this. At least it appears this way in subclause 7. I presume the contract referred to is what we are talking about. Subclause 7 reads:
A contract whereby any expenses are incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of an election is not enforceable against a candidate unless made by the candidate himself-*
If the candidate is 18 years of age or less than the age of majority in the particular province where he is running and makes a contract related to expenses, which presumably he is legally entitled to do under this Act, then that contract is enforceable against him regardless of whether he is under the age of majority. I wonder if a federal law can go into a field of the province, namely, the making of contracts? It seems that is the case. Why can we not do it in the case of the official agent? Following upon on subclause 7, you cannot draw the official agent or his subagent into it unless they are authorized in writing to enter into such contracts.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Again, in subclause 12 on page 158 we are probably making another invasion of the field of provincial jurisdiction relating to contracts, because we say that all expenses incurred by or on behalf of a candidate in connection with contracts and management of the election shall be paid within 50 days, and so on. In other words, regardless of what the law relating to such contracts in the provinces concerned may say, we insist that payment must be made within 50 days. This is another example of the committee, and presumably, Parliament, exercising jurisdiction as far as federal elections are concerned, and presumably doing so quite properly under the constitution of Canada. If these are valid points I am making-and I do not really know whether they are or not, in a legal sense-then surely we could make certain provisions with regard to contracts entered into by an agent, regardless of his age.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Subclause 12 is really a penal provision directed to the official agent and telling him when he has to pay. It may be argued that this affects the ability of those responsible for the campaign to make their own arrangements in accordance with provincial contract laws; I have not gone into that question. I think the point is well taken on the basis of subclause 7 but I am still not satisfied in my mind as to how far the federal
Canada Elections Act
election law can override the contractual law of a province. In any event, we shall have to do something about subclause 2 when we talk about the legal incapacity of an agent. Presumably, under the law of Ontario a succession of 18-year-olds would have to be replaced because they are regarded as legally incapable. For policy reasons my view would be that the official agent should in all circumstances be persons who are legally responsible and I would so recommend to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: support the position taken by my hon. friend from Skeena. I understand the caution which the President of the Privy Council wishes to exercise when he suggests we should not lord it over the provinces as far as the electoral law is concerned, but if he is proposing that we adopt the amendment put forward by his parliamentary secretary there is, it seems to me, one flaw in his presentation. The amendment, I take it, would provide that no person in Canada can be an official agent unless he is 21.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No. It depends on the law of the province as to the majority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: see. In that case the point I have been trying to make has been recognized and I will cut my speech short.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I think that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) as well as his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Forest) are right in being cautious as regards this section of the Elections Act and if we abide by subclause (4) of clause 62, which states that the official agent alone can make payments, receive contributions for the candidate and sometimes even enter into contracts in his name, I think this role gives him fairly important duties in the conduct of an election.
As in some provinces the legal voting age is 21, the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary seems appropriate to me.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I shall not tarry long on this subject but I still have the feeling that buttressing the role of the election agent has the effect of weakening the status of the 18-year-old candidate. I also wonder why, in the various provincial jurisdictions, it was not necessary for them to make this distinction between the age of a candidate and the age of

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
an official agent. Perhaps we are being more cautious than they are. I suppose the whole answer will be forthcoming if and when something is done some day to lower the age of majority and, perhaps, to strike the same figure in each of the provinces. I shall not hold out on this.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 65 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 66-Corrupt inducement of voters.
Frank Howard: I thought you would call each subclause separately, Mr. Chairman. That is why I hesitated. I have a proposition to put forward in connection with subclause 2.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


The Deputy Chairman:: Very well. Shall subclause 1 of clause 66 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause 1 agreed to.
On clause 66, subclause 2-Application.


Frank Howard: In order to appreciate the point I am making I think it is necessary to consider briefly subclause 1 which we have just passed. Subclause 1 says no one shall offer food, drink or the like, or any money or valuable consideration to anybody in order to induce him to vote or refrain from voting. In other words, no one may bribe people to vote in a certain way or not to vote at all.
However, under subclause 2 we make it permissible to provide, as I understand it, sandwiches, cakes, cookies, non-alcoholic beverages and other light refreshments in an attempt to influence people into voting or refraining from voting. In other words, we say it is permissible to engage in bribery of a sort as long as it involves non-alcoholic beverages, cakes, cookies and light refreshments generally, provided they are supplied by an official agent, by any person other than a candidate or official agent, at his own expense, at a meeting of electors assembled for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate, or by any person to an election agent at a polling station. The assumption in the first part is that the meeting is held to promote the election of a candidate. It would seem that the provision of coffee, cakes, tea and the like is a necessary extension of the public meeting and the exhortations that would take place at that meeting.

Paragraph (b), which is the one I want to get to, provides that such refreshments can be provided in order to induce people to vote in a certain way or to refrain from voting-in other words, to engage in a legalized sort of bribery at a meeting of electors called for the purpose of promoting a candidate. We carried subclause 1 but subclause 2 makes an exception of non-alcoholic beverages, sandwiches, cakes and cookies that are provided, under paragraph (b), by any person other than a candidate or official agent who at his own expense provides such refreshment at a meeting to promote the election of a candidate. We have recognized that this is a form of bribery, though not quite so underhanded and illegal as we conceded the situation might be as described in subclause 1. By proscribing against this sort of bribery in subclause 1 we have recognized that it might take place, that it does influence people and that it is an illegal and immoral thing to do.
By extending this concept to subclause 2, paragraph (b), we should recognize that without limiting the activities of people other than the candidate or official agent and everyone within the political party, the organization itself which would want to advance the cause of the candidate in question, cakes, cookies and so on would be provided through the official agent. While the official agent is an agent on behalf of a candidate, he is also an agent on behalf of an extension of the political party to which the candidate belongs. This is part of the campaign, and we seek to endorse it by permitting the official agent and those who are identified with the candidate in an open way to engage in this sort of activity in an attempt to convince voters to cast their vote in a certain way.
Once we go beyond this and permit any other person without restriction to provide refreshment, we are overstepping the bounds of the sort of ethics we want to see contained in the Elections Act.
I am of the view that there should be no provision in this regard, but I realize this would be asking too much because this sort of inducement does take place today. Since it is recognized that it takes place, some sort of restriction should be placed upon it. The amendment I propose to move is not much different from the present wording of paragraph (b); it simply puts a limit of $100 on the expenditure that may be made for such purposes. I am proposing a new subparagraph
June 25, 1970

(b), in substitution of the present provision, and it reads as follows:
That clause 66 be amended by deleting paragraph (b) of subclause (2), and substituting therefor the following:
"(b) by any person other than a candidate or an official agent who, at his own expense not exceeding one hundred dollars, provides such beverage or refreshment at a meeting of electors assembled for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate: or"
Then subparagraph (c) follows immediately. I admit that this amendment is not as foolproof or as confining as we would like it to be, but I nevertheless commend it to the committee for favourable consideration.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I kept asking myself while the hon. member was speaking whether he was really serious or just kidding us about this whole matter. I cannot see any possibility of achieving the result he has in mind by placing a $100 limit on the provision of sandwiches and cookies at such a meeting. I do not see how one could get any accounting. I appreciate the merit of his idea but I do not think his proposal would be effective in any way. Some meetings are larger than others, and some people put on a bigger show than others.
When the Act was last amended the committee felt at that time that it would be unreasonable to limit the expenditure by candidates, their agents or any particular group of people, who might want to put on, for example, a lunch at a public meeting. I do not think it would be practical to try to limit this sort of thing.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am a little disappointed with the hon. member because I thought he was going to move quite a different amendment. Under the elections act in the province of Ontario it is possible in the course of an election campaign not only to provide coffee and cookies but also to get a drink. I was rather hoping that we might be opening up the Act here to make it accord a little more closely with what is the practice at least in my own city. I thought he was going to delete the prohibition against the provision of non-alcoholic beverages and get down to the real thing.
I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I cannot really see electoral snoopers attending a meeting to count the cookies, do a quick audit and decide whether or not the expenditure involved amounted to more than $100. I do not think electors can be bought by cookies or
Business of the House even by a couple of good stiff drinks. They attend two or three meetings held by the different candidates and make up their own minds in that way. I think we should move in the opposite direction and that there should be less of a restriction in this regard.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I partly agree with what the President of the Privy Council and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka have said in regard to the enforcement of this proposal, but I do not think this was the intent. If more than $100 were spent at a public meeting, this would have to be shown as an election expense by the official agent in his return to the Chief Electoral Officer.
What does concern a number of hon. members is that the party with the most money, or the party that has the supporters with the most money, has an unfair advantage. In my own constituency I can visualize instances where the president of a company-


Albert Béchard: Order, please. It being five o'clock p.m. it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there would be any disposition on the part of the House to suspend the private member's hour for this day's sitting so we can continue the business in progress before five o'clock?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, this would commend itself to us.


Frank Howard: That is completely agreeable, Mr. Speaker. However, I want to make one point. The business for the private member's hour that we are suspending consists, first, of Private Bills, of which there are none, and then Notices of Motions (Papers), of which there are dozens and dozens. This points up the complaint we have made on many occasions, that these motions were simply transferred for debate by the government in order that they could hide them and not deal with them. They are now asking us to participate in hiding them and therefore not being able to proceed with them. I want

June 25/ 1970
Business of the House to indicate to the President of the Privy Council through you, Sir, how very generous we are.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who is not in his proper seat, I should like to indicate our agreement to go ahead with the Canada Elections Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TIME OF EMERGENCY DEBATE ON POST OFFICE DISPUTE

Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, two motions were made earlier today under Standing Order 26. I indicated to the House I would consider the matter and consult with the House Leaders. I have given consideration to the matter and feel that in view of all the circumstances the benefit of the doubt should be given to the hon. members who have moved these motions. I gather it would be the desire of all hon. members to have an occasion to debate this matter before the House recesses, whenever that may be. In view of the circumstances for today and tomorrow, it is my view that the debate should be held tomorrow afternoon at four o'clock. I suggest to hon. members, however, that there could very well be discussion among the House Leaders. I gather such discussions have already taken place and that there is a possibility the debate might be held this evening rather than tomorrow afternoon. I should like to leave this aspect of the negotiations in the hands of the House Leaders. I see the hon. President of the Privy Council is anxious to say a word and perhaps it is on this subject.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions as you have indicated. It seems to me the critical question is whether we can complete our work on the Elections Act today so that the bill may be sent to the other place for its consideration and possible passage tomorrow. What I should like to suggest is that the actual determination of the time for this debate be left until six o'clock in order to see whether we have made such progress on the Elections Act that we might reasonably expect to go ahead with the other debate this evening.
The hon. member for York South suggested to me that in the interest of moving the legislative program along the House might make a special order to start the adjournment debate
[Mr. Howard (Skeena).I
at ten o'clock this evening. As you will recall, the sitting in any event will go through to eleven o'clock. If we make the requisite progress on the Elections Act, perhaps that could be done. I think we might know within the hour whether we can do that or not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the order could be amended to read that we would take up the Standing Order 26 item at ten o'clock or at an earlier hour if the Elections Act has been completed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member knows, there are one and perhaps two other bills with which it would be desirable to deal with before we rise. If it would be possible to deal with them from nine o'clock to ten o'clock, or at least one stage, that would be desirable. I wonder whether we could not leave this matter until ten o'clock to see whether we have made sufficient progress. This will leave a little flexibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could it be ten o'clock subject to renegotiation?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the Elections Act ought to be completed first before we go on with any other business tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously there is no agreement, so the decision of the Chair will stand subject to any agreement which hon. members may be prepared to arrive at among themselves.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that there is a question to be considered at the time of the adjournment which is the following: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Fisheries-Manitoba government offer of financial assistance to establish processing plant in Selkirk.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-215, respecting the franchise
June 25. 1970
[Stage Direction]
Canada Elections Act
of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: When the committee rose it was considering an amendment by Mr. Howard to clause 66.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I think bothers a number of members is the fact that the Act refers to any individual other than a candidate. That individual might be someone who could afford a $5,000 expenditure for non-alcoholic light refreshments, including ice cream, etc., for a picnic or rally the day before election day. On the surface at least this is an advantage to someone who has a wealthy supporter or contributor. This really is somewhat of a perversion of the democratic process. If that kind of expenditure is desired, why should it not go through the hands of the official agent and be reported as an election expense on the documents which must be filed? It seems to me this kind of expenditure is not accountable in any way under this section. That is the reason we want the $100 limit. It would not, of course, apply to small meetings. No one is going to run around counting the cookies and cups of coffee which are served to see whether the $100 limit is exceeded.
The intent of this section is to allow within reason those expenditures by an individual for refreshments of this kind at a meeting or gathering. Surely it is not unreasonable to place a limit on the amount. No one is going to worry about it unless the amount is blatantly in excess of $100. Then someone could take the matter up under the Elections Act and lay charges accordingly.
If a candidate or an individual on behalf of a candidate wished to spend $100, $500, $1,000 or $5,000 for this purpose he could very easily do so at a large outdoor function. That money should be given to the candidate's official agent and accounted for as an election expense. The official agent should report it accordingly. It seems to me this is a much better and more proper manner of doing it. That is the real reason this group submits this amendment for the consideration of hon. members.
We are not particularly worried about small meetings and gatherings that hon. members hold in many places in their respective constituencies. We feel we should guard against the abuses that can and undoubtedly will take place in some areas under this type of provision. When this happens it is unfair to
other parties and other candidates. As I said earlier, this is a perversion of the electoral process. The amount is not accounted for and does not appear before the eyes of the public for examination.
We hope the President of the Privy Council and other hon. members will reconsider this matter and will be willing to accept this restriction as a proper one under the Elections Act.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, it seems that the amendment really attempts to do things under the Elections Act which should properly be reserved for an Act controlling election expenses. It puts a limit on one function carried out during elections, that of holding a gathering at which refreshments are supplied. It places a limit on expenses of not more than $100. This type of function is singled out without consideration being given to the fact that one could make a contribution by the giving of an outdoor sign or a gift of printing or almost anything one could think of. I find the amendment objectionable in this instance because it does not fit this type of a clause but belongs in a statute having to do with the control of election expenses.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two very brief comments. I think I understand clearly what the hon. member is getting at and I have some sympathy in respect of what he has said. Perhaps I am a little more practical in one sense. In any event, the only substantial point I wish to make is that all this discussion is hypothetical. The committee recognizes the difficulty involved here and the great anomalies and conflicts which exist. We have reached the point of naming a special committee to look into the whole field of election expenses and public involvement in election expenses. I think any attempt to amend the Act substantially at this stage is a little premature. Perhaps we should wait until we have the report of the committee on election expenses before us and then take a substantial whack at this situation based on the recommendations of the special committee when it reports.


Mr. Caoueiie:: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see the importance of this amendment, which aims to limit to $100 expenses incurred for alcoholic beverages served at an election meeting.

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
To begin with, should someone decide to spend $150, who will be able to determine this? I believe that the act will eventually set an amount for allowable election expenses. And before the committee has completed the study of this question, I do not see how this amendment could serve the cause of a candidate.


Albert Béchard: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena which reads as follows:
That clause 66 be amended by deleting paragraph
(b)	ol subclause (2), and substituting therefor the following:
"(b) By any person other than a candidate or an official agent who, at his own expense not exceeding one hundred dollars, provides such beverage or refreshment at a meeting of electors assembled for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate: or"
Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas 5; nays 26.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman', I am looking at subclause 2 of clause 66 and the words:
-does not apply in respect of the provision of-
I draw particular attention to these words:
-non-alcoholic beverages and sandwiches, cakes, cookies and other light refreshments-
There is not a member of this House of Commons who is not obligated to some party worker and who at one time or another during the course of an election has entertained people and served a drink-wine with cheese, a glass of beer, or something of that kind. If all of us here were called to task under this clause our elections would all be declared void and the whole House would be filled only with loyal members of the WCTU. This is hypocrisy, and we have no intention whatsoever of adhering to it. I think we ought to face up to the facts of life. This is not a difficult fact to face up to. I therefore move that:
Subclause (2) of clause 66 be amended by deleting "non-alcoholic beverages and sandwiches, cakes, cookies and other"
So we will just be dealing with light refreshments and it will be left to our good supporters to decide in their own wisdom what those refreshments shall be.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I will drink to that.


J. Michael Forrestall: I think I will join the President of the Privy Council.


David Réal Caouette: I think I will also join the party, Mr. Chairman.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I am as thirsty as my colleagues but I should like to throw out a word of warning that unless the committee on election expenses really deals with this matter and comes up with something before the next election many of us will regret this provision.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in light of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver "Quandary" and in light of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has graced us with his presence, I wonder whether the amendment, if carried, would permit the providing of pot and other like substances at these meetings.


Grant Deachman: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Skeena recently has taken to calling my riding the riding of Vancouver "Quandary." There is no quandary in my riding. The word "Quadra" refers to a Peruvian explorer who mapped most of the area in the constituency of the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: On the question of privilege may I say I was only following the designation given this constituency by a Liberal member the other day. I thought it had been changed.


Grant Deachman: He referred to it as "squan-dary" which is even worse.


Albert Béchard: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Deachman) agreed to: yeas 29; nays 3.


Albert Béchard: I declare the
amendment carried.
Shall clause 66 as amended carry?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, in order to make clause 66 consistent I think subclause 3 should be amended by inserting the following words preceding the words in the clause as they now read:
Except as authorized by subsection 2-
June 25, 1970


Albert Béchard: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 as amended agreed to.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise on a point of order. There was a disposition earlier to accept an amendment that I had suggested to clause 53 (7) on page 136. I have the rewording, if the committee would like to return to that clause.


Albert Béchard: Is it the pleasure of the committee that we revert to clause 53?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 53, subclause 7-Application for recount by returning officer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I should like to submit the new wording of the amendment which, as I said earlier, seemed to be acceptable. It reads as follows:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out lines 1 to 13 on page 136 and substituting therefor the following:
"(7) Where, on the official addition of the votes,
(a)	there is an equality of votes between two or more candidates and an additional vote for one of such candidates would enable one of these candidates to be declared as having obtained the largest number of votes, or
(b)	the number of votes separating the candidate receiving the highest number of votes and any other candidate is less than twenty five, the returning officer shall
(c)	apply for a recount to a judge to whom an application could be made pursuant to section 56; and
(d)	give written notice to each candidate at the election or his official agent for a recount."


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee agreed on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 as amended agreed to.
On clause 67-Liquor not to be sold during polling hours.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to say a few words on this clause. I do not do so because the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has whetted my appetite, nor am I referring to the state of mind of my constituents. We were very concerned about provincial jurisdiction a while ago, and if I recall my constitutional history the role of the Dominion Parliament in the whole question of liquor came under
Canada Elections Act
scrutiny in Russel v. The Queen wherein Their Lordships indicated that in times of great concern for public safety, such as a flood, pestilence or plague, if I recall correctly, or where public safety was endangered, the Dominion jurisdiction might prevail. I find it slightly repellent that after all these years we still have this jaundiced view of the capacity, the tastes and the morality of our people on election day. I wonder why the power which we were given by judicial decision under such stringent and rather frightening circumstances should be in the Canada Elections Act year after year.
In fact, we are intruding upon an area of civil rights. We say to provincial governments in effect that they shall not sell liquor, and now we are suggesting that they may sell it only until a certain time, and so on. To be more practical, if there is any suggestion of having a dry-out it is pretty ridiculous because if the stores are open until nine o'clock the night before the election, it does not require a great deal of ingenuity, effort or concerted action to obtain that which is referred to here in such delicate terms. I mention this as another aspect where our legislation has trailed behind our mores and we are retaining in our Act something which the social conditions at the time of the Scott Act prompted in our legislation. This backwardness is reprehensible to me.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clauses 68 to 91 inclusive agreed to.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 92.
On clause 92, subclause 2-When advance polls to be open.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move what I am sure the committee will be happy to learn is our last amendment to this bill. As has been pointed out many times, during meetings of the Standing Committee, on second reading and in committee of the whole, it is the desire of all hon. members to widen the provisions of this act so that the maximum number of people can attend at the polls and vote. It is our view that this can be achieved by the advance poll, and therefore I move:
Advance polls shall be open between the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and eight o'clock in the afternoon of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday, the eleventh, tenth, ninth and seventh days before the ordinary polling day, and shall not be open at any other time.

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
The purpose of this amendment is to increase the number of days of the advance poll from two to four. It may be argued that little or insufficient use is made of the advance poll to merit increasing it. I think this is because the public have not been well informed on the use of the advance poll; also, previously there were restrictions on who could vote at the advance poll. But it seems to me it is now possible for anyone to cast a ballot at the advance poll, and therefore greater use should be made of it. I am sure the Chief Electoral Officer will now do a much better job of informing the public of their rights in regard to the advance poll and the manner in which it can be used. This should encourage the use of the advance poll and offset any argument about the expense involved.
I appreciate that to increase the advance poll from two days to four days would decrease the time available for the revised lists to come from the revising officers to the deputy returning officer, but if this amendment is accepted I will move two consequential amendments. These are to rules 39 and 58, schedule A, clause 18. They were introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk and allowed to stand. The amendments would move the last day of revision back to the fourteenth day before polling day rather than the thirteenth day, thus allowing three days instead of two for the transmission of the revised lists from the revising officers to the deputy returning officer. I hope hon. members will agree that this amendment will widen the opportunity for people to cast their ballot and I commend it to the committee.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up much of the time of the committee. I support this amendment. It will improve the opportunity for people to vote at advance polls. I understand the system has been very unsatisfactory in the past. In the case of my own riding, it has served very few people. Even with this amendment, however, I am afraid the improvement will be slight because advance polls apply only in a few areas and not in some of the more remote areas of the country. It is an improvement, however, and I urge the committee to support the motion.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I must say, Mr. Chairman, and not just because it is the hon. member's last amendment, that I also support this amendment. In many parts of the country four days would not be necessary, but because in some parts this amount of time is

necessary, and being desirous of widening the opportunity for people to vote conveniently, I think this is a helpful suggestion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to the attention of the committee some of the consequences of this amendment, in terms of formal procedure, which have been brought to my attention. The principal concern about our having advance polls on four days instead of two is that it would increase the risk of tampering with ballot boxes. The ballot box is made available and set up on the first day of the advance poll and under our present system the poll only has to be reopened once. With this amendment the poll would be reopened two additional times and it would be around for that additional period. In the view of the Chief Electoral Officer, this increases the risk of the ballot box being tampered with.
The cost would be exactly double, but perhaps that is not the most important consideration. One of the most important changes in the section is one which the committee recommended to subclause 3 of clause 92. Under the present provisions of the act, notice of the advance poll is published only on the twelfth day before the ordinary polling day which is only two clear days before the first day of the advance poll.
It is proposed by this amendment that the notice will be published on the thirtieth day before polling day, so that much longer notice will be available. This is perhaps the most significant amendment to the advance poll proposal. One consequential amendment to which the hon. member referred would create a further problem with regard to transmitting the revised list of electors to the advance poll. The notice of objection to the entry of an elector on the revised list, which must be mailed on Friday, would certainly not be received until Monday and therefore would be virtually useless. In other words, the possibility of objection proceedings under the revisions system would be effectively reduced by this change. I hope the committee will consider these procedural and administrative problems which could arise if the amendment were adopted.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
[ Translation]


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) is interesting, I think, because it gives Canadians a greater possibility to exercise their franchise.
June 25, 1970

However, it goes without saying as the Pres-sident of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) would say that it could bring about some technical problems and in some ways jeopardize the integrity of the vote and the safety of the ballot boxes.
There is another point which I should like to mention, namely that advance pools will be open on a Saturday and a Monday. If people are absent on polling day or on the Saturday and Monday, advance polling days, they cannot exercise their franchise.
If a great deal of publicity comes directly from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, with regard to advance polls, people will certainly have more opportunities to go and vote there. As members of Parliament, we are responsible for finding all possible means which will allow a greater number of citizens to take advantage of their right to vote. I am concerned about the possible technical effects of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre and therefore before giving it my support, I should like to know about the consequential amendments.
I am not ready yet to agree to the passage of this clause as proposed because it restricts the chances of the citizens to avail themselves of their right to vote. I have always considered this as a basic principle: We must offer every citizen every opportunity to exercise his franchise.
I should therefore like the member for Regina-Lake Centre to introduce his two other amendments, that hon. members might know his overall proposals with regard to advance polls and thus be enlightened.
I should also like the President of the Privy Council to tell us whether or not he intends to increase the publicity on advance polls, that the citizens might know they exist. Going by my very limited personal experience, I feel several persons do not use their franchise on election day because physically they cannot do so or because they do not know about advance polls. Adequate information in this regard may depend on the political organization of the various parties or else on that of Parliament. It seems to me those two solutions stand too far apart and that perhaps a happy medium should be found.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that the Chief Electoral Officer intends to give more publicity, in particular, to the matter of advance polls; he advises me that he will endeavour to obtain more credits to do so
Canada Elections Act
with a view to ensuring especially that all citizens know they are entitled to vote at the advance polls.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a short comment about the proposition put forward. Where there is a will there is a way. If the President of the Privy Council wanted to do this, it could be done. The technical and administrative problems which have been talked about are not insurmountable. There may be some difficulty about Thursday, the eleventh day before polling day.
If there is a disposition to accept the idea in principle-I put this forward purely as my own suggestion and not as one endorsed by my colleague for Regina-Lake Centre-I submit, bearing in mind what the President of the Privy Council has said, that if we persist in proposing four days the amendment may well be defeated; therefore, the committee may well consider three days before polling day, namely, the Friday, Saturday and Monday, the tenth, ninth and seventh days before polling day. I point out that at one time advance polls, under the authority of the Canada Elections Act, used to be open for three days. They were, I believe, the Thursday, Friday and Saturday of the week preceding the week in which the election was held, or the weekend before polling day if polling day was on a Monday or a Tuesday.
That provision did not appear to present any tremendous difficulties so far as tampering with ballot boxes is concerned. I tend to discount such difficulties. I submit that if someone wants to tamper and fly in the face of the legislative sanctions which are designed to prevent abuses, he will tamper. Expanding the time to four days will not increase the likelihood of people tampering and will not really, I submit, increase the time in which there may be tampering. I did not fully grasp what was said about the time factor and about notification reaching officials in time. Rather than run the risk of seeing the entire proposal defeated, may I suggest an alternative proposal, namely, that the committee consider the Friday, Saturday and Monday, the tenth, ninth and seventh days.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the alternative suggestion reduces the risk by at least one half; it reduces it by at least one occasion. The risk about which we are concerned is still there, and is there even for two days. In the propos-

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
al, the risk is 50 per cent greater than it otherwise would be. With regard to the time element, this is eased by one day but it would still be very difficult for the objection procedure to operate.


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


Frank Howard: Before you put the
motion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think the President of the Privy Council in effect endorsed what I was saying, although he was pessimistic and said the alternative proposal would increase the risk by 50 per cent. Actually, it would reduce it by 50 per cent with respect to the proposition which had been put forward. Although he suggested that the administrative difficulties would be much the same, 1 would move an amendment to the amendment, to delete the words "Thursday" and "eleventh". If carried, the subamendment would say, "Advance polls shall be open between the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and eight o'clock in the afternoon of Friday, Saturday and Monday, the tenth, ninth and seventh days before the ordinary polling day, and shall not be open at any other time."


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee has heard the subamendment. The question is on the subamendment.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Howard, Skeena) negatived: yeas, 9; nays, 16.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the subamendment
lost. The question is now on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 18.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment
lost.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Subclauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clauses 93 to 97 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 98, subclause-1-Who shall not
be appointed election officers.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment in substitution of paragraph (e) so that the description of the judges who are not eligible to act as election officers will be more up-to-date, so I move:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out lines 11 to 18 on page 190 and substituting the following:

"(e) judges and deputy judges of any superior, county or district court or any bankruptcy or insolvency court and, in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, police magistrates;"


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do
not want to comment on the amendment; I use the occasion to ask a question. What is the rationale for excluding from these offices ministers, priests and ecclesiastics?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether it is because they are regarded as being of such unimpeachable integrity that it would be undesirable to expose their integrity to impeachment, or the opposite. I know the provision has been there for quite a while.


Frank Howard: I am not advancing their cause here particularly, but I wonder about it. If it does not appear to have any sense or rationale which can be advanced by the President of the Privy Council, why not remove it? In very remote areas such a person may be the only one available who might be able properly to operate the election machinery.


J. Michael Forrestall: With all due respect to the clergy, we all know that these appointments are mostly political. I would not like to be
guilty of submitting a list that includes a lot of church people, because it might be misconstrued.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Some men of the cloth who come to mind are also highly political. I cannot offer the rationale for the clause; therefore I cannot offer the rationale for continuing it. The hon. member may want to move an amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is wrong with us, anyway?


James Hugh Faulkner: There is now an amendment before the committee. Perhaps we could dispose of it before we have a further amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Forest) agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Are there to be further amendments to this clause?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another reason that might be advanced is this: I know of no group who need to earn a few extra dollars more than some ministers. I move:
That paragraph (d) of subclause 1 be deleted.
June 25. 1970

Amendment (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) agreed to.
Subclauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 98, subclause 3-Age of returning officer.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a sacrificial offering to the committee by announcing that the amendment that I indicated I would propose, regarding the age of returning officers, will not be presented. This has nothing to do with my judgment as to the prospect of its being carried.
Subclause 3 agreed to.
On clause 98, subclause 4-Exceptions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As a result of the amendment to paragraph (d) of subclause 1, the first three lines of subclause 4 do not apply in the electoral districts mentioned in schedule III, and should be deleted. It is no longer relevant. Perhaps I can prepare an amendment in those terms.
Clause 98 stands.
On clause 99, subclause 1-Political broadcasts forbidden.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to this subclause, but I notice it is now six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock clause 99 (1) was under discussion.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, this time I intend to proceed with a promised amendment to subclause 1. I have myself distributed to the various parties copies of this concise and incisive amendment, which reads as follows:
That subclause 1 of clause 99 of the bill be amended by striking out the words "one day" in line 7, page 191 thereof, and substituting therefor the words "two days".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This amendment will, of course, if adopted, have the effect of returning the Elections Act to the state in which it was before the last election campaign as far as this particular area is concerned.
Canada Elections Act
Hon. members will recall that the Broadcasting Act was amended some years ago, reducing the blackout period or moratorium on broadcasting in political campaigns to the day before election day, plus election day itself. The Elections Act as it stood at that time had a broadcasting blackout which was operative for two days before polling day. During the last election campaign there was some doubt on the part of all parties about which provision was most binding. Some acted on the assumption that the Elections Act was applicable because it was the specific law which applied, while others acted on the basis that the Broadcasting Act was applicable because it had been most recently passed in time.
To a degree, then, this controversy will be resolved by reason of the fact that the Elections Act will now be the most recent. For my part, I would be inclined to agree with the decision of Parliament in the sixties. I do not really follow the merit of the two-day moratorium and I would be glad to hear argument on this point. I believe the committee did not deal with the question at great length.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, My recollection is that the reduction from two days to one is a proposal by the government which differs from the recommendation of the committee. I presume the committee members here are convinced, as I am, that the original proposition did have merit. This provision has proven in many cases to be a valuable and-I believe the electorate would say-a valued reprieve from heavy electioneering. Whether the people who own the networks would prefer a 24-hour period to a 48-hour period is immaterial to me as one who has been involved in wondering how in heaven's name the bills for television and radio were ever to be paid in any case.
[DOT] (8:10p.m.)
Considering that the election campaign period has not been diminished by the introduction of a permanent voters' list, our people are subjected to a campaign lasting something like eight weeks, during which time the bombardment through the media becomes quite intense. I think there is great value in having what one might call an intellectual cooling off period. I have talked this question over with many of my colleagues in various parties and we have found the 48 hours to be very valuable to constituents as well as extremely useful to the organizations as a means of taking

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
one's breath, as it were, on the Friday night, with a full day Saturday and then the sabbath. By Monday people have mulled over all the issues and the time has come for personal contact. I have also checked with people in provincial election campaigns where there is no specific blackout under the Broadcasting Act, and they expressed a pretty strong feeling that they wished to heaven the period of blackout had been 48 hours rather than 24 hours. On the aspect of expense alone, this matter is extremely important and it does clear the air of argument.
The committee may recall that it was originally thought there was value in the blackout in preventing any last minute feedback with no opportunity to straighten out any distortion or to challenge an outrageous allegation. There is still value in this. I have the feeling that after the poor public have been hammered at for eight weeks, a 48-hour respite before they go to the polls is not too much to ask. If I might discuss another piece of legislation, I think the logical step at some time is to make the Broadcasting Act consistent with the Canada Elections Act. I have never heard of any member of the public being so thirsty for an extra political speech that he had requested an extra day. I hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce suggesting something over there.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He said, "You don't know the people in Drummondville".


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Some places offer purer springs and perhaps thereby inculcate a heavier thirst, but I think God was always able to convince my intelligent people, within the last 48 hours, what course of action they should take. But seriously, to avoid last minute contradictions, last minute pollsters, last minute repetition of Gallup polls, last minute influencing and particularly last minute bombardment of the public, I think the 48-hour blackout, which has worked very well, should be restored.


Mr. Caiik:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he like to see all forms of advertising in broadcasting, such as broadcasting by loudspeaker, eliminated; or is he thinking of a two-day moratorium for radio and TV only?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I do not want to sound like a geront on this matter, but in 1960 there was some discussion of this question. In fact, an amendment was made and many members of the committee, those from the province of

Quebec in particular, pointed out that prohibiting broadcasting by loudspeaker even on the Sunday was very unhelpful because the pattern in the province of Quebec when there were gatherings on the Sunday before election day was to use a loudspeaker, which was thought very helpful. I remember the hon. member for Carleton saying that he was quite in favour of that but it would not do him any good to have a Sunday meeting in his constituency. I remember we removed that provision from the act. However, at the moment I am thinking only of radio and television. I know of no way of giving the newspaper publisher a slack day; all I had in mind was the radio and television media.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I would put a question to the President of the Privy Council. I do not understand why there is this kind of restriction on radio and television but no restriction on the use of loudspeakers or on newspapers. What is the reason for that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is well taken. I suppose there is a feeling that newspapers do not have the same immediacy and impact as the broadcasting media. There is a restriction on loudspeakers operating on polling day. I suppose it is a question of the immediacy of its effect. The assumption I was making was that newspaper advertising, particularly on election day, has less impact than radio and television. Loudspeakers would probably not be used on the Sunday for reasons of good taste.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of factors involved in this question. Many people take the view that because there has been a containment within the Elections Act, broadcasting by radio and television has not been permitted up until now during the 48 hours preceding polling day. This has carried with it in the minds of many people the implication that no campaigning should be conducted during the same period. I am sure every member of the House has heard someone say that he thought the campaigning ended on the Friday night, either at eight o'clock in the evening or at midnight, and that there was this period of the Saturday and Sunday, with an election being held on a Monday, as is usually the case, for quiet contemplation of the issues. The companion feeling was also expressed that the people wish this to be so in order that they have a respite from the inundation of radio and television propaganda, news propaganda and last minute efforts to convince people to vote for one party or another.
June 25, 1970

Perhaps this has been brought into sharp focus by the introduction of television into the communications media which is, in effect, a sort of invasion of a person's home and privacy-though he can, of course, repel that invasion by simply switching off the set. It has also been brought into sharp focus by the activation of political party propaganda mechanisms to the point where they will have maximum effect. The conclusion has been drawn that the maximum effect will be felt nearer to election day rather than further from it, though the general public has reacted against this. As I assess the situation from what people have said, they appreciate and enjoy the 48-hour prohibition. This prohibition is that during the last two days of an election campaign privacy shall not be invaded by political propagandizing on radio, television and the like.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
There are elements within the newsmedia that do not do this. Some elements have up to now interpreted the prohibition in the Elections Act in respect of radio and television broadcasting to apply to news generally and have refused to distribute election information during that 48-hour period. They recognize the fact that the general public at that stage has had enough of inundation, advertising, promolion, propagandizing and exhortation by way of radio and television. They want a period of tranquility and non-invasion of their thoughts; they want a period when there is no political pushing and promoting.
Many people have probably made up their minds by this time. I think if you were to draw a graph of the situation you would find that as you get closer to polling day fewer and fewer people remain undecided. Perhaps the majority would say they had come to a decision and determined how they would vote. For this reason they do not need to be exhorted any longer, they do not need to be told any longer about the values of this party or the weaknesses of that party, they no longer need to be told the virtues of this candidate as opposed to another candidate, because they have decided. The people who have not decided are fewer and fewer as you get closer to election day. I think we must give cognizance to this fact.
The President of the Privy Council has said there is a proscription within the act and on election day one shall not use loud-hailers, loudspeakers or travelling microphone-amplifier systems to exhort people to vote a 22478-53
Canada Elections Act
certain way or not to vote a certain way. The admission is that even on the day of polling there should be quietude without propagandizing through the news media. The government has also admitted that on the day prior to polling day there should be a broadcasting quietude; that is a day when there should be no radio or television promotional activity. It is hard to draw a line as to how long this period should be. One might suggest two days, three days, four days or 56 hours. Whichever one you pick is an arbitrary period, admittedly, but the fact is that for many years we have had in the Elections Act the concept that there should be a two-day period, usually a Saturday and a Sunday.
Most elections fall on Monday. I think the last election was deliberately designed to take advantage of St. Jean Baptiste Day. It was held on a Tuesday. That was a political decision. As far back as I can remember, and for many years before that, elections have been held on Monday, with the concept that the Saturday and Sunday should be days of tranquility, with relief from political pressure, propaganda, advertising, pushing and promoting. The general public appreciates the tranquility and enjoys this period. During the last week and a half or the last two weeks, depending on the judgment of the candidate and the party, there is a concentration of pressure. This two-day period of Saturday and Sunday should be a time of relative sanctity without one being subjected to the intensity of political campaign pressures. It should be a period of quietude and reflection for the voters. I endorse the idea of retaining this provision which has been in our Elections Act for many years.
Apropos the question asked earlier as to whether this proscription should apply just to radio and television-we are dealing with a particular section of the act that directs itself only to radio, television advertising and promotion-I endorse the idea that newspaper advertising and all other forms of political campaigning should cease on these days. I realize at the moment of saying or even thinking about it that it is hard to define what is political campaigning. Election day itself involves political campaigning. The fact that a candidate is present at a polling station, smiling and saying hello to the people, is political campaigning. Unless you remove the candidate and all his campaign workers you cannot have anything but campaigning right up to the last ballot being cast. There is cam-

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
paigning even after the polls are closed, by candidates who go around to thank the deputy returning officer. These candidates are looking to the future.
There should be some sort of legalistic or legislative cut-off date after which inundation by propaganda and information is prohibited as much as possible. Much of the information is false. I do not use that word in its true sense, because political campaigning is designed to advance the cause of one party or one candidate over another. There should be such a period of rest. I think the Saturday and Sunday before the election on Monday, the normal polling day under the Elections Act, is a sufficient period. We must also remember the view expressed by the Standing Committee. It had a majority of Liberal members. The committee studied this and many other questions in depth. That committee did its best to bring about a good Elections Act which was fair, just and equitable. The Committee was made up of Liberals, Conservatives, NDP members and members of the Ral-liement Creditiste, who 1 might say were not in attendance very often. The committee made an attempt to treat this matter in a non-partisan way, without advancing partisan objectives.
The majority of the members of the committee felt that a two-day period was sufficient. The members thought we should be developing electoral law and should not succumb to the view expressed about the provisions of the Radio Act in relation to the Monday or a 24-hour period.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Frank Howard: My friend may not ask a question at this juncture. When I have concluded my remarks I will entertain questions and do my best to answer them. The fundamental point is the one I made at the outset. The general public appreciate this period of quietude, tranquility and noninvolvement, without pressure through propaganda on radio and television. This fact should have the greatest impact on us. I think we should pay attention to the desires of the electorate in this regard. So far as I have been able to assess the situation, their desire is that all campaigning should end on the Friday night. Most people have made up their minds by the Friday night preceding an election and they should have this period of noninvolvement, tranquility and quietude. They

want this period in order to reflect and make a determination about how they should vote on election day.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, I listened with some interest to the remarks of the hon. member. I agree with his observation that the committee, in looking at this matter, was not guided by partisan considerations. I believe, however, that the consensus of the committee is in the report which is before us. After considerable discussion on the point, the majority view was that the period should be one day.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where does this appear in the report?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I attended the committee meeting at that time. I was not consistently a member. I recall the vote being put during the proceedings that day. I could find the reference, but I do not think my memory is wrong in this regard. I think the majority opinion was that it should be a period of one day before election day. Members of the committee recognized the fact as expressed by the hon. member for Skeena, that our federal elections are held on a Monday and will continue to be so held in the future. I do not believe there is any indication to the contrary. The prohibition against campaigning on Sunday is not contained entirely within the Canada Elections Act; it is also contained in municipal ordinances. In addition, many voters take exception to any political activity on Sunday. The problem is that usually there are a large number of activities on the Saturday before the Monday election.
The committee was anxious to be uniform and not discriminate among the news media. The newspapers were perfectly free to print everything they wanted to print on the Saturday before the Monday election. Door-to-door canvassers also were perfectly free to invade what the hon. member called the sanctity of the voters, including a number of supporters of this party. In this regard there was a considerable amount of confusion and discrimination among the news media. It was felt that if we were to apply the 48-hour rule consistently, across the board, we would have to apply it to newspapers and that in respect of the Broadcasting Act we would have to upset long-established practices which have been built into our electoral system since the beginning of this country. This was a decision of the majority of the committee after consid-
June 25, 1970

Canada Elections Act
erable debate and after listening to many arguments. It was advocated that there was only one way in which to be consistent, and that was to put the one-day rule into effect and rigidly enforce it.
The idea is that there will be no campaigning on the Sunday before election day, no advertising and no door-to-door canvassing or use of sound equipment. This rule in no small part would be enforced, as would any general rule, by the standards of good taste in the community and a desire not to offend the electors, as much as by the prohibition which would be written into the act. No matter what members think, the fact is that if the two-day rule were put into the act, this would not stop most of the activities described as reprehensible, and there would be some discrimination between the press and other activities. On balance, members of the committee thought that the one-day rule would be enforceable and would be consistent with the good taste of the community. Any other rule, in the opinion of the committee, would not be enforceable.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I have a small reaction to the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I do not think this provision refers to the use of loudspeakers at public meetings. To that extent there is no effort made to curtail what in fact is the amplification of the human voice at a political meeting. Also, it should be borne in mind that there are communities in Canada which have Sunday newspapers. Even the 24-hour blackout will not cure this problem. I am very sorry this question has caused division in an otherwise harmonious day, but as I understand it there has been the thought in this one area at least that we could cut down some of the raucous, cacophonous sounds which are part of a healthy political campaign. Of course, this in itself would not stop the hon. member for Skeena travelling about his constituency on the Saturday. He might even do so on Sunday, though I as a God-fearing Presbyterian go to church on Sunday and hope for the best.


An hon. Member:: Not all day.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Not all day, but after being involved in politics so long, I need it. One has to be pragmatic about this matter. It cannot be suggested that by moving from 48 hours to 24 hours we are bringing in a foolproof measure, and that with the 24-hour period we will have a total blackout for 24 22478-534
hours whereas with the 48-hour period we had only a partial blackout. I say again that the 48-hour period would work. If this means amending the Broadcasting Act, I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that it should be amended. It is no more difficult to amend the Broadcasting Act than it is to amend the Canada Elections Act. I have studied this question very carefully and I see no reason why this avenue should be left open any nearer to the actual day of decision. I should like to think that the Canadian people make up their minds after reflection and consideration. I think they are helped, as the hon. member for Skeena said, by having their living-rooms and lawns to themselves, in so far as the electronic media are concerned for that weekend, the Saturday and Sunday. There are many fine Canadians to whom Saturday is in fact the Sabbath day.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena said there are many people who would like to have a 48-hour prohibition against television and radio. I suppose there are a great many people who would like to have an eight-week prohibition against television and radio in an election campaign. But I am wondering about the sanctity of this one day. The gentleman from Skeena said that the day before the election, the Sunday, should be sacred, quiet and peaceful. He suggested that it should not be interrupted by dirty politics. I think this is the root of the whole question. There would seem to be the connotation that political activity on television or radio has some semblance of dirty business.
At one time, possibly, politics was dirty business and if one were a Presbyterian like the hon. gentleman for Hillsborough, one would wish to avoid politics at all costs, especially on Sunday. Now we have this clamour for a 48-hour prohibition so that the Sunday would be peaceful, especially on television, and so the people would not be interrupted by politics and would be able to enjoy the hockey games, "I Love Lucy," Ed Sullivan, the "FBI" and all the other programs which are shown on television on Sunday. The reason is that politics is just too horrible a subject to contemplate on a Sunday. Now they want to include Saturday.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Frank Howard: No.


Steven Otto: You want not only Sunday prohibited but also Saturday. Under this provi-

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
sion there would be a 24-hour prohibition, not a 48-hour prohibition. I suggest that a large number of people who are quite busy during the week, especially the week before an election, would have no objection to sitting at home on Saturday, if that is the day they want to sit at home, listening to the arguments put forth by all sides. Maybe on that day they would make up their minds. If they do not want to listen to the program, they can easily go out or switch to another channel; not every channel is carrying the election. I think the argument makes no sense. I think the 24-hour prohibition under the act is enough.
People do not contemplate politics on a Sunday, believe me. They contemplate many other things, the least of which is politics. If they had made up their minds on the previous Saturday, it would make no difference. If they had not made up their minds, possibly the Saturday within the 48-hour period would give them the opportunity to do so and would be of great benefit to them and to the country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment which would in effect reinstate the provisions of the present Elections Act regarding the 48 hours prohibition rather than changing it, as proposed, to 24 hours. I do so because I rely on my memory as well as does the hon. member for Ottawa West. As I recall-I stand to be corrected on this-the committee was badly divided and it may well have erred, because there is nothing in the report concerning this item. I have gone over the report hurriedly and I may have missed it, but as far as I can see there is nothing in it on this item.
As I recall, the committee was badly divided on this question. By a slight majority it agreed that we would revert to the 24-hour prohibition. The lack of unanimity crossed party lines. The House has already set up a special committee on election expenses. I suggest this is another item-arguments were presented along this line earlier today-that might well be left until we have a report with recommendations from the committee on election expenses. The present act contains a provision for 48 hours. I think we should leave it that way until we have the proposed legislation.
I am not of the same opinion as my friends the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Skeena regarding time for quietude and time to meditate on how I am going to vote on the Monday. I suspect that I,

like most voters will head for the lake that day and I am not likely to think about how I shall vote on election day. I would rather put it on more hardnosed, realistic grounds.
This provision will give aid and comfort to the broadcasters, who will get another 24 hours of selling broadcasting time to political parties and candidates who might be suckers enough to blow some more money, because in fact most of them will have run out of money by that time, in a last-gasp, panic effort to stay elected or become elected. I also put forward a similar argument to the one I presented earlier today, that this provision would give an unfair advantage to a party or candidate who happens to have some money or supporters who can throw in a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for a last minute broadcast. The last effort to grab the voter demeans and perverts the electoral process. I understand that the Broadcasting Act provides for one day, while the Elections Act provides for two days. It seems to me that the Elections Act should take priority over the Broadcasting Act. Therefore, the Broadcasting Act should be amended, not the Elections Act, particularly until the recommendations and report of the committee on election expenses have been made.
Like the hon. member for Ottawa West, I am only relying on my memory but, as I recall, the committee agreed that in this regard the Broadcasting Act should be amended rather than the Elections Act. Either one, or both of us could be wrong on this point. That is why I think the committee of the whole should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hillsborough until we receive the report of the committee on election expenses and the proposed legislation. I see no reason why this committee should give aid and comfort to the broadcasting industry, which will only add another 10 per cent to its tariffs because it happened to be an election period. I think we should do everything we can to head off and limit the last minute, panic, exorbitant expenditures by candidates of parties, no matter who they may be. I hope we will adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Hillsborough and leave the act as it is. We can go into the matter in greater detail at the next session of Parliament. I hope the committee will support this amendment.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I know it is not the usual procedure to harp back to the proceedings of the Standing Committee, but I take exception to what the hon. member from across the way
June 25, 1970

suggested when he said that the Standing Committee supported the one-day blackout. In my firm recollection, endorsed by what my colleague the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has shown me, it was the other way round.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member may well be right. If I am not correct, I withdraw what I said in that respect.


J. Michael Forrestall: I would like to make one of the greatest speeches ever made in the House and say la meme chose, me too; Dartmouth-Halifax East wants 48 hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
does Winnipeg North Centre.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Macquarrie) negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 25.


Mr.   Chairman@: I declare the amendment lost.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate all those on the government side who obviously did not know what was going on or what the situation was, but solidly voted with the government

with the exception of the hon. member for Sarnia, of course. I did not quite grasp-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I do not think this procedure is correct. If the hon. member would like to contribute to the discussion on the clause, of course he may; but I do not think it is proper to comment on the voting practice of members.


Frank Howard: It may not be
proper, Mr. Chairman, to comment on the voting practice and the way the vote went, but I simply wanted to congratulate those "blind" people on the other side.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, on this point I found it much easier to grasp the issue than hon. members did in explaining what they had in mind.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, that is obvious. When one takes direction, as the hon. gentleman did, one does not have to grasp anything.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 99, subclause 1,
Canada Elections Act
in order to clarify a point that is rather vague. In respect of the definition of "broadcasting" in the fourth line on page 191, clause 99, subclause 1, after the word "broadcasts" I should like to insert the words "via radio, television, or loudspeaker". Most of us have agreed that there should be a period of peace and quiet in which people can decide how to cast their ballot. Although I think one day is sufficient, other hon. members may think there should be two days. In any event, if we allow messages to be blasted into the homes of unwilling listeners, this is not ensuring peace and quiet. If there is an argument for a moratorium on radio and television, surely there is a greater argument with respect to the use of loudspeakers. At least radio and television can be turned off, but this is not possible in respect of broadcasting from a car the day before the election. I suggest that this amendment should be adopted.


Steven Otto: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. In his interpretation, does loudspeaker include a loudspeaker at a private meeting? A microphone is a loudspeaker. How did the hon. member define loudspeaker; must it be a loudspeaker attached to a moving vehicle?


An hon. Member:: You are a loud speaker yourself.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Chairman, there are many definitions of loud speaker; many people have accused me of being one without my having any electronic aid. I had in mind a moving loudspeaker which is taken out onto the highways and byways. I do not intend to prohibit in any way the use of a microphone by those who require it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I should make it clear that the word "broadcasting" is used here in the sense that is defined in the Interpretation Act and in the Broadcasting Act, that is, it is confined to broadcasting by electronic means. This amendment might be appropriate in another clause of the bill, but I suggest it is not appropriate when we are talking about the specific issue of broadcasting.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Would the President of the Privy Council care to suggest in which clause such an amendment would be appropriate?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed that a government backbencher asks the advice of the government front bench on a matter that is not government policy. The

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
matter I wish to raise is of more serious consequence, that is, the matter of prohibition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
abolished that this afternoon.


Frank Howard: Apart from the fact that everybody but the hon. member for Ontario knows that television is included in the area of broadcasting, surely we must consider this question in terms of campaigning. Maybe this is what we are getting at, a period in which to reflect. I think the member for York East put the matter in perspective when he asked what kind of loudspeaker was meant, and was it one that runs up and down the street. That point was not clarified. Is it one in use at a public meeting? This type is permissible.
This raises the question of ordinary canvassing when someone comes knocking at the door early in the morning. Are we going to proscribe this? Is it less an invasion of privacy than the loud-hailer travelling up and down the street? Which is more offensive? Telephone calls soliciting votes are also more offensive than the loud-hailer on the street, in my opinion. At least the loud-hailer passes by and sometimes is gone before one hears the message.
I think this point puts in perspective the question of having a period of quietude. To say that broadcasting should be prohibited takes the question beyond radio and television. But the member for Ontario talks about loudspeakers without defining what he means. Does he mean the mobile loudspeaker? His amendment does not clarify that point. We are here to enact law, not to interpret what somebody means. A court will not pay any attention to what the member for Ontario meant but will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that a loudspeaker used in a hall to broadcast outside the hall is the same sort of thing as a loudspeaker which is mobile because it is mounted on a truck. If we are to talk about prohibition we must be inclusive. Consider candidates campaigning in northern climes. If we have an election in the middle of winter, why not ship us off to Florida for three or four months?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: We might make the prohibition operative for two or three weeks before election day. This is what we are talking about. We are also talking about the

effect of a campaign in an urban area1 as distinct from a rural area. As the member for York East said, one can turn the television switch to a channel being broadcast from somewhere in the United States, or you can hook up to a mechanism which we do not have at home, cablevision.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The law that we will pass provides that you shall not broadcast from outside the country a political program or political exhortation into the country, and the only news items and the like shall be carried. So it may be all right for the hon. member for York East to make his proposals: he comes from the Toronto area and Toronto is almost a province by itself. It is an enclave and its people have little knowledge of places such as British Columbia. The reverse of the situation is also true. But people in Toronto who are involved in election campaigns have no knowledge of the situation that may exist in rural areas-in Skeena, for example.
Allow me to relate the situation of my neighbour who represents the constituency of Prince George-Peace River. The area is served by one television station which is a CBC affiliate. That is all. You cannot turn to another channel; you turn your set on or off. We know that people like to watch television programs. But most of the people in northern Canada are captive. People in the far reaches of British Columbia are captive to an even greater extent because there the CBC decides not only what to show but shows it in package form. In some parts of the province we see on television hockey games that were played three weeks before. We get late in the evening, afternoon programs that are designed for the housewife. Children's programs, designed to be shown in urban areas in the monring, are shown in parts of British Columbia at supper time or early evening. That shows how captive we are. In these areas there is a reactiion against certain types of political broadcasts and the inundation of political ideas because there is no alternative to them.


Mr. Chappell:: Will the hon. member permit a question at this time? I was wondering if the hon. member for-


Frank Howard: Skeena.


An hon. Member:: See, they don't know British Columbia.


Hyliard G. Chappell: -Skeena has considered that the mobile loudspeaker would offend anti-
June 25. 1970

noise bylaws in every reasonably developed municipality. You might say that a charge could be laid, but by the time the charge is heard in court, one month after the event, the election will be over and the fine probably will be $50. Is it fair that a politician should be able to offend that bylaw and pay a $50 fine? Should we not recognize that such noise constitutes pollution and annoys people? Should we not put into this act, where it can be meaningful, the provision that the election of candidates who break the law in this respect-people with mobile loudspeakers- may be put in jeopardy?


Frank Howard: I do not, on principle, disagree with that statement. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that the party he supports knows a lot more about pollution than most others and is doing less about it than anybody else. The greatest offenders in the area of noise pollution are hon. gentlemen opposite. If the question of the hon. gentleman opposite has any validity, I submit that this prohibition is valid two days before an election even more than it is on the day before an election. My hon. friend will not accept that because he has been told by the President of the Privy Council to do as he is told.


Norman Augustine Cafik: That is not true.


Frank Howard: It is true.
I tell my hon. friend from Ontario that the proof of this will be found when he votes. The proof is not in what my hon. friend says.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Chairman, I absolutely
resent the hon. member's suggesting that I have been ordered by the President of the Privy Council or anybody else to vote any way on this or any other issue that I have had to vote on. It is just not true. The hon. member seems to think he can say these nasty things and get away with them. I say that he jolly well cannot.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Perhaps we could return to the proposition before us. Has the hon. member for Skeena concluded his remarks?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Frank Howard: I thought I had, Mr. Chairman, but the fact is-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I would caution against continuing the dialogue that has
Canada Elections Act
just started. I do not think it is in our interest to continue it. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with you more, because it is the hon. member for Ontario who started this conversation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: The fact is that the hon. member for Ontario must have been completely blind to the situation, because I was not referring to him at all. He must be extremely sensitive about this matter. He must be just protesting against the fact, because I was not thinking of him at all. I know he is an independent member and I know he will tell the cabinet what he thinks.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


Frank Howard: I know he will do this.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Yet here he is, standing up-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I have
already invited the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment before us. The same applies to all other hon. members. It seems to me that not only is this the correct procedure but it is the procedure that is likely to yield the best results in the course of this evening's debate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with you more, with great respect. I wish you had taken that tack when the hon. member for Ontario ran away with himself, but you obviously did not want to do that.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I ask
myself, where has the sweet harmony of this afternoon gone? I expected that when the hon. member for Ontario rose he would suggest that we abolish even the 24-hour blackout, since we have heard how virtuous a matter is the exposure of the public to the electronics media. I am somewhat concerned-I hope the hon. member for York Centre will be satisfied with my presentation, because he commented on this matter earlier-by the suggestion that we broaden this prohibition. There is sometimes great wisdom in taking things step by step, rather than making sweeping, all-embracing moves.

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
In radio and television we knew exactly the type of media we were considering. When you start moving into other areas, you must ask yourself questions. What about the small meeting held by a gentle, mild candidate like myself, with a low voice, so low that even if there were only 40 people in the room he might need a microphone? Might this not be described, perhaps, as an electronic device? One could not use a pre-electronic age megaphone because that would be rather cumbersome.
I still think we are naive in expecting to pass anything in this piece of legislation which will stop people from assembling together on a Saturday; and when they have assembled together it would be rather strange, in this electronics age, if we inhibited the use of those devices which make it easier for one to communicate with those who are about him. So I feel that we are embarking upon an area that is very, very difficult to define. I think we cannot go too far in this area and be productive. I mentioned earlier the question of newspapers and the fact that some publish on Sunday, although I must confess we have only a few. We shall not cover the whole bag here and we must be content with what we have. I regret very much the increasing acerbity of the debate; I trust it will not continue. I have always looked upon the Elections Act not as something designed to give advantage to this side or to that side. I am not reflecting on the vote, but I was a little surprised at the fate of the last amendment. If we look upon this as a piece of legislation which all of us as individuals, irrespective of our political label, are approaching with a desire to make as good as we can, we will make a good deal more progress.
e (9:10 p.m.)


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I intended to second some of the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena. However, the debate became so provocative that I will try to imitate our philosopher from Prince Edward Island; I will try to be very quiet in my presentation to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot support the amendment of the member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) for reasons that seem obvious. In view of my experience in my own province, I feel that several candidates, in rural ridings, on the very last night before the elections, and at times in the morning, when mass comes out, have to convene people

from five or six neighbouring municipalities to give them a last message. There is no other way of reaching them.
The citizens in rural areas are pleased to be invited because it often happens that they are free on Saturday afternoon, or Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening and they enjoy attending local or regional political meetings to hear the arguments of the candidates. In any event, almost all the candidates in the province of Quebec hold similar meetings.
In Quebec, in almost all rural areas and even in small cities such as mine, there is an old custom whereby the night before elections a last meeting is held where loudspeakers are used because in most cases there are more people outside the hall than inside.
As for me, I am very sorry I cannot support the amendment of the member for Ontario.
On the other hand, I should like to move another amendment, because I feel the member for Ontario is totally inconsistent if he intends to forbid propaganda over the radio and television, on the eve of election day and, on that day, when it is allowed in the newspapers.
I cannot admit that a well-to-do candidate could buy a whole page of advertisement in the Sunday newspapers or in papers published on election day while another of lesser means could not do so. It is unfair for all candidates and in my opinion, clause 99 which prohibits publicity the day before or on election day is inconsistent.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment. I apologize for having scribbled it down in such haste. I thought other hon. members would have moved it. I therefore move the following words be added in clause 99, after the words "any entertainment or advertising program":
[DOT]-or publishes, distributes or causes to be distributed an advertisement in the newspapers, or circulates printed during that same period-*
In my opinion, it would be only fair to standardize advertising in this respect.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. There is now an amendment before the committee. All that would be admissible at this point would be an amendment to the amendment. Possibly the hon. member would like to wait until the committee has disposed of the amendment and put forward his amendment at that time.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Chairman, remarks have been made regarding the use of a loudspeak-
June 25, 1970

er in conducting a meeting inside a building. I explained that was not my intention. I drafted the amendment rather quickly. I do not think anything should be in the act to prohibit such action on the part of a candidate. I feel that in view of the very strong arguments put forward by hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Skeena, regarding the importance of privacy and reflection on the day prior to casting their ballot, the amendment should be accepted. I am surprised that the member does not think that the use of portable loudspeakers outside a building constitutes an invasion of privacy and interferes with that quietitude he seems to want.
I am surprised that this amendment has provoked so much discussion. I would be willing to have the amendment changed with regard to loudspeakers used outside a building, in order to qualify what I meant. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the question will be put. I know there are many other important points. This is certainly not one of the most significant. Perhaps there could be a vote on it.


Gerald William Baldwin: This chamber is full of
loudspeakers!


Frank Howard: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: I cannot understand the objections of the Liberal backbenchers to what I am saying. I did not realize that so many backbenchers do not appreciate the fine qualities of the President of the Privy Council. Obviously some do not. I am trying to point out that we are not here to write views, impressions, opinions or legal words. In many cases when the courts interpret the law, they completely disregard what someone in Parliament said about what was intended. They look at the law and try to interpret it precisely as it is worded. We cannot talk about intentions and high-sounding ideas.
The member for Ontario is now circumscribing the prohibition of the use of loudspeakers on the day prior to the election by saying what he really means is loudspeakers that are not used within a building. What about loudspeakers being used at a picnic- are we prohibiting them? The member can chatter all he likes from his seat. Get it on the record. Don't be obstinate; don't be afraid and don't be frustrated. If the member for Ontario wants to express views which are contrary to government policy, he should express them in precise terms so we will know what he is attempting to do. If the hon. member from Ontario or any other Liberal member would set out precisely what he thinks, he would find no difficulty in this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, this is obviously a hard night for a philosopher. I endeavoured to suggest earlier that we were entering upon an issue of definition which would be extremely difficult. I ask the hon. member for Ontario to consider this situation: A candidate holds a political meeting in a large hall, using microphones. An overflow audience has gathered outside on a summer's evening. The moment he instals a loudspeaker to bring the message to the people outside, he is contravening the act, if the act is written in the way the hon. member suggests. I do not want to be didactic or to sound like one

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
of the gerontons of this committee, but we are getting into finicky areas when we begin making distinctions of this kinds.


James Hugh Faulkner: Hon. members have heard the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ontario. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Cafik) negatived; Yeas, 4; nays, 49.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost. Shall subclause 1 of clause 99 carry?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to repeat the explanations I gave earlier but I would still like to see my amendment accepted if it is in order. If it is not, I will gladly abide by your ruling bceause, as I say again, it is totally illogical to allow election advertising in the newspapers while it is blacked out on radio and television the day before the election and on polling day. As I have said, this is a case of serious discrimination towards less well-off candidates which makes it possible to come out at the last moment with a so-called scandal which can affect the results of the election.
I move once more, if I am in order, that after the words "any entertainment or advertising program", which appear in clause 99(1), the following words be added:
-or publishes, distributes or causes to be distributed a newspaper advertisement or distributes printed matter during that same period.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) pleases me. Along with my colleagues who are in agreement with me, I wish to assure him that this is really a valid amendment which certainly deserves careful consideration.
I would certainly blame myself, as a representative of a splinter party in the House with a near total lack of financial means, if I did not say publicly how happy and in agreement we are with this amendment.
Since 1962, in every election because adequate financial means are not available to us and especially because we' are fighting financial interests, we suffer from the advertising in some newspapers paid out of well-filled electoral funds. In fact, attacks are made against people or programs taking exception to this system but we have no financial means
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
available to answer them. Since these attacks are launched at the last moment as was said by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, it is physically impossible for us, even with adequate financial means available, to reply.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is important and I urge my colleagues to give it their support.
During the last provincial election campaign, a striking thing happened in the constituency of Arthabasca. The campaign had been an honest one on all sides up to then- and I give this example to give my colleagues something to think about-except that at the last minute, on the eve of election day, a newspaperman wrote, in collusion with a certain political party, an article that was used as an editorial by a newspaper, and the political party concerned had copies made of that article and distributed them from door to door as well as in automobiles. Mr. Chairman, I would not say such a practice was fraudulent as it was in accordance with the law, but I do not think it was fair play.
I also believe that if we agree on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, it will show not only that we respect minorities in Canada, but that we provide equal opportunities to everybody, especially to those who do not have sufficient financial means.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am not sure that I understood the purport of the amendment correctly; I do not have a copy before me. But if my understanding is correct, the effect would be to prohibit advertising in newspapers on the Sunday preceding an election and the distribution by hand or any other means of election material. This prohibition would prevail when the election is on a Monday, that is always except when a holiday intervenes. If this is a correct understanding, I have no reason to object to the proposition.
A great many people are doing other things on Sundays than peddling pamphlets. I imagine that people who still believe in the Lord's Day Act, and there may still be a few in this country, would automatically support the hon. member's suggestion, which strikes me as a reasonable one. The newspaper impact would be very small. I did mention earlier that there were some Sunday newspapers but, arguing the other way now, I am bound to say they are few in number. If the purport of the amendment is as I have stated it, I would find little difficulty in giving it my support.
June 25, 1970


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: That is exactly the purport of my amendment, and I would ask that the question be put now.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, we do not have copies of the amendment and it is difficult to follow these proposals simply by listening. The hon. member for Trois Rivieres explained the amendment carefully, but I suppose the purpose of giving three readings to a bill is that hon. members may have the chance to hear a thing three times. If he would repeat what he said, no doubt we shall understand what he means by it.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I should apologize for not having had the time to get an English text prepared; to do so I would have required the help of very good translators. The purpose of the amendment is exactly what the hon. member for Hillsborough has stated-no advertising in newspapers or written advertising in circulars on the day of the election or the day before, that is, during the same period as the period in which advertising on radio and television is prohibited.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that this was the force of the hon. member's proposition. But we do not legislate intention; we must deal with precise words, and this is the aspect in which I am interested. We were discussing this point with the hon. member for Ontario. What is meant and what is said are often very different things. I would enjoy hearing what the amendment itself says.


James Hugh Faulkner: I think we may hope for a very precise translation. I will invite the Clerk Assistant to read it because I am finding some difficulty in doing so.


Frank Howard: Slowly, please!
The Clerk Assistant:
to add after the words "any entertainment or advertising program", the following words: "or publishes, distributes or causes to be distributed a newspaper advertisement, or distributes printed matters during that same period"


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, while we are on the amendment introduced by the member for Trois-Rivieres, I am pleased to support it and to express my satisfaction about it.
I have kept in my files newspaper advertisements published during past elections, more particularly that of 1963. I have here a full page advertisement published in Montreal's ha Presse two days before the general election of 1963, paid for by the Liberal party
Canada Elections Act
of Canada and full of lies which we were never able to refute because we were too close to polling day.
On whole page of advertising for which the Liberal party paid over $5,000, we recognize the alleged opponents of that time. It is quite interesting to note what those people preached eight years later. They are the same who, in 1963, spoke on behalf of the Liberal party in an attempt to run down Social Credit. The statements appeared on the eve of voting day, so that we were unable to deal with them, and that misled the electorate.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
On that page, for instance, I see the picture of Mr. Adrien Plourde, President of the Canadian Federation of the Printing Industry, who was a Liberal candidate at the last provincial election in Quebec. I see also the picture of the hon. minister, then president of the CNTU, our Catholic unions back home


Mr. Marceau:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe my hon. friend for Shef-ford (Mr. Rondeau) is obviously out of order. This is no time to make an electoral speech but to adopt a legislative measure on which most hon. members agree. We are not here to speak disparagingly of one another but to pass a new piece of legislation. I think my hon. friend is out of order.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. The amendment does refer to material distributed oi circulated as printed material during the period immediately preceding an election and the hon. member is attempting to illustrate a point that he is trying to make. It is very difficult in situations like this to draw the line. I strongly suggest that the hon. member limit his intervention to the amendment that is before the committee. Not only is this the correct procedure, but as I pointed out earlier it might at the same time assist the committee in dealing expeditiously with the bill before us.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I thank you very much for your remarks, Mr. Chairman, but in my opinion, that amendment is quite to the point, important and urgent, especially for us who have been the victims of fallacious publicity in the past, particularly just before an election. That is why I want to base my arguments on evidence.

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
I see at least fifteen pictures on this page of La Presse which I have here. If that amendment had then been implemented, great falsehoods would never had been published. The day before the election, the Liberal party even called upon the help of a Conservative senator and former minister, the Hon. Jacques Flynn. In addition, at the last minute, they resorted to Father Bouvier of Sherbrooke University. His picture was published in La Presse and he was credited with some comments that he never made.
Afterwards, Father Bouvier received thanks which he must have appreciated. That page was swarming with lies that we never could deny. And now, it is too late.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Mar-ceau)-I know that this bothers him, because truth is hard to take and hurts, especially as he is directly involved-benefited from such publicity.
Father Bouvier is even reported as saying such and such a thing. Later on, we received letters denying all that. Some last minute advertisements to which we could not reply and the contents of which the person concerned could only deny after the election, harmed us. Here is an excerpt, and I quote:
A monthly salary of $300, under a Credltlste administration, would quickly boil down to a purchasing power of $100. It would lose two thirds of its worth.
Now Father Bouvier never made such a statement. We keep in our records a letter condemning that ad, but the election was over, and the Liberal party benefited from the lies that cost over $5,000 a page.
That is why we cannot but approve unreservedly the motion of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, and we hope that if his colleagues are as sincere as he is, or if they have changed their approach since 1963, they will likewise. At that time, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), then professor of constitutional law at the University of Montreal, and student at the London School of Economics, was reported as having said that Social Credit was thus filling an ideological vacuum in the minds of some people whose political intentions were better than their knowledge of economics.
I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to record this page of the newspaper La Presse in Hansard in order to show that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is proper, because this proves beyond all possible doubt that we have been in the past the victims of false propaganda.

Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to have this newspaper item printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I hope the motion is put right away and passes. I commend the hon. member for his objectivity in moving it. The motto of the Liberal Party in the past has always been that having sufficiently confused the voter it will now allow him to vote.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Shefford had sought leave of the committee to include an extract from a journal as part of his remarks in Hansard. As I have pointed out several times before, this is not a practice that has been allowed in the House but, as the hon. member knows, all sorts of things can happen by unanimous consent which otherwise cannot happen. So I must put it to the committee. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilegee (9:40 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: I will finish my remarks in two or three sentences. I think the voters of this country need to spend one day in meditation, contemplation and even prayer. If they had done that at the last election there would have been fewer votes cast for the Liberal Party and it would not now be holding office. I think it is a wonderful idea that we should have 24 hours free of all the nauseating nonsense perpetrated by political parties. I think this amendment is a good idea and I am glad the hon. member had the courage to move it. I support it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not think we have satisfactorily disposed of the point raised by the hon. member for Shefford. I am sorry I did not understand exactly what he was proposing. I thought he wished this document to be included in Hansard with his remarks. I pointed out to him and the committee that this is a practice which the Chair has always cautioned against. However, the hon. member sought to do it by way of unanimous consent. I was prepared to accede to the request and I
June 25, 1970

put it to the committee. Unanimous consent was denied. If the hon. member has a further point of order, I will certainly hear it.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to you that, if I remember well, you have allowed in the past that documents be tabled and put on record.
I can remember one debate on housing when you agreed to the tabling of statistics, without the unanimous consent of the House. I therefore beg of you Mr. Chairman, to ask the unanimous consent so that we may know who is opposed to that.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out to you that I would have liked to have this fine page of advertising of seven years ago printed in Hansard. I cannot see why the Liberals refuse to have their own publicity put on record.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Unfortunately, this avenue has been closed to the hon. member. He may wish to circulate the document among the members of the House.


Mr. Deakon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the mover of this amendment. I wonder whether the hon. member could clarify the situation. Would his amendment take into account editorial comment by newspapers or other communications media containing recommendations as to candidates who are seeking office, and would it also include caricatures on the day of an election or the day before?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am thinking, of course, of paid advertisements and announcements. I do not think we can prevent the press from commenting or making sketches and caricatures. I had in mind paid announcements by a candidate or his agent.
Amendment (Mr. Mongrain) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 26.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I point out to you that while the vote was being taken an hon. gentleman who certainly should know better because he has participated in these matters before-the hon. member for Chambly-came in, sat down and subsequently rose to vote. I
Canada Elections Act
think that is shameful on the part of that gentleman, who knows better. I think we should discount his vote.
Subclause 1 agreed to.
On clause 99, subclauses 2 and 3-No broadcasts outside of Canada.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.
In subclauses (2) and (3) the words "during an election" are used.
For instance, at line 17 of subclause (2) and at lines 26 and 27 of subclause (3).
Does this mean on the day of the election or during the election period?


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe to page 1 of the bill where the expression "during an
election" is defined, as follows:
-includes the period after the issue of the writ for an election, or after the dissolution of Parliament or the occurrence of a vacancy in consequence of which a writ for an election is eventually issued, until the candidate obtaining the highest number of votes is returned as elected;
-which normally happens a few days after polling day. That is what "during the election" means.

Subclauses 2 and 3 inclusive agreed to.
Subclause 4 agreed to.
Clause 99 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 100 to 104 inclusive agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: The committee will now consider clause 105, to be found at page 194.
On clause 105, subclause 1-Premature publication of results forbidden.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I indicated to the committee this afternoon that it was the intention of one of my colleagues to present an amendment to clause 105. That was my colleague the hon. member for Cumberland. His amendment was to deal with the taking of public opinion polls, a device which he thinks not very helpful to the electoral process. Regrettably, my colleague is not here tonight and will not be moving his amendment. The committee may be relieved to know that I do not intend to present it for him.
I think the pollsters have suffered a greater setback as a result of a certain event in

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
another country than they might have suffered as a result of anything we could do for or against them in this piece of legislation. However, my colleague will be able to deal with this question at another time. I simply wanted to tell my colleagues, who with bated breath must have been waiting for my intervention, that once again I am being the sacrificial lamb and I am withdrawing a pregnant amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In order that this might be on the record for the hon. member for Cumberland, I should indicate that this subject was dealt with by the Bar-beau committee in its report and the special committee will undoubtedly be studying it. The hon. member will have an opportunity before long to make his point particularly in connection with the events of June 18.
Subclause 1 agreed to.
Subclause 2 agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
On clause 106-Variation of times at by-election.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Yves Forest: 
James Hugh Faulkner: The committee has heard the proposal. Is it the pleasure of the committee to accept the proposal?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, on such short notice we do not appreciate the full force of the amendment. But normally the hon. gentleman from Missisquoi is lucid and careful in his presentations, although he was not in regard to a previous clause. We are willing to accept what he says as being the necessity for this omission from the bill.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, it is not an omission from the bill. No date mentioned in this clause concerning when a candidate for election can desist and retire in a by-election.
Amendment (Mr. Forest) agreed to.
Clause 106 as amended agreed to.
Clause 107 agreed to.
On clause 108, subclause 1-Act to apply in votes taken under Canada Temperance Act.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might ask the President of the Privy Council to enlighten me concerning when a vote was last taken under the Canada Temperance Act.


J. Michael Forrestall: And when he anticipates the next vote to be taken under it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I regret to say I have not followed that particular statute very closely. I regret I cannot give the hon. member this information, and neither can the Chief Electoral Officer.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think the Chief Electoral Officer would have to be a great deal older than he appears to be, to remember it. I wonder why we carry on this type of provision in such an omnibus type of bill. I think the provinces have firmly fastened on to the liquor trade in this country and I cannot understand why this clause should be cluttering up our legislation.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question appropos this matter. I am sure I will receive an answer similar to that received by the hon. member for Hillsborough. Can the President of the Privy Council tell us what the Canada Temperance Act is?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am told it is the result of considerable legislation. I do not know what it did for temperance, but it did quite a bit to Canadian law. I gather the aim
June 25, 1970

was to control the use of alcohol, if it could be controlled by law. I gather the statute is virtually not in use now, and I for one am glad of it.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether there might be any thought on the part of the government to expanding the provisions of the Canada Temperance Act to take into account matters which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is considering.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps the hon. member and I could meet over a drink and discuss it.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 108 carry?


An hon. Member:: No.


James Hugh Faulkner: Did the hon. member say no?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


James Hugh Faulkner: The question is on clause 103.
Clause 108 agreed to on division: Yeas, 38; nays, 18.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the motion
carried.
Clauses 109 to 111 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 112, subclause (1)-Northwest Territories elections to be conducted in accordance with this act.


Frank Howard: This clause, Mr. Chairman, relates to the election of members to the Council of the Northwest Territories and to the Council of the Yukon Territory. We have within the Canada Elections Act machinery for electing members to the Northwest Territories Council and the Yukon Territory Council. I do not disagree with the machinery and the opportunity available to the people in the territories to do this; I simply want to raise at this stage my objection to the idea that the government itself wants to maintain the power to appoint people to bodies which have political jurisdiction over people with whom they have no sort of democratic affiliation, when the people have no opportunity to dissent or remove the appointees from office. That is all I wish to say on the matter.
Subclause (1) agreed to.
Subclauses (2) to (4) inclusive agreed to.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 agreed to.
On clause 114, subclause (2)-Continuation in office of certain persons.
Canada Elections Act


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting item. I refer particularly to subclause (2) which reads as follows:
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.
This is an interesting solicitude for office holders. Some time ago I sought information concerning the continuity in office of returning officers. I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council has obtained information concerning the survival rate in respect of returning officers who held office in 1960. I would be interested to know how many of them survived the Representation Act and other measures, moves and endeavours which to my mind would scarcely be categorized as efforts on behalf or in support of continuity of election officials. If we had the background in this regard we could more judiciously appraise the item which is before us. Perhaps we are entering a new era in respect of the protection of public servants of this type.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, in 1960, 263 returning officers were appointed! Of those 263, 79 were reappointments, that is to say, reappointments as a result of all the returning officers being discharged, under the law, in that year. In 1966, 258 returning officers were appointed. Of those, 62 returning officers were reappointments and of those 62, 31 had been initially appointed between 1963' and the proclamation of the general order of 1966, meaning that 31 were previous appointments.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Do I take it that at the present time in our 264 constituencies we have a grand total of 31 returning officers who have been there from 1960?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That would be correct.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That is a remarkable survival rate. I am surprised that conversion came so late to this virtue of continuity in office, but I suppose what is done cannot be undone, and who knows what may happen.
Subclause (2) agreed to.
Subclauses (1) and (3) agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.

The Depuiy Chairman: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on clause-

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act


André-Gilles Fortin: On what clause, Mr. Chairman?


Albert Béchard: -Clause 114?


André-Gilles Fortin: I would have liked to say a tew words on clause 114, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Order. Clause 114 was agreed to a moment ago. Does the hon. member wish to speak to clause 115?


André-Gilles Fortin: I said on clause 114, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Since I sit close to the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I noticed that he rose while we were on clause 114. Unfortunately, Your Honour did not see him. I think we should take that into account.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on clause 114.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. colleagues for allowing me to speak to clause 114.
I only have a word to say about this clause, and it is to protest against the solicitude and concern shown for returning officers.
Mr. Chairman, we have nothing against these appointments, but it seems to us that, in general, our opinion should be taken into account, there it is: We believe that in order for the people to have real confidence in our electoral system, it has to have confidence in its election officers. The Chief Electoral Officer has the confidence not only of hon members but also of all Canadians, and his reputation is to be envied. But the same is not true of every returning officer, precisely because several of them are known, before being appointed, as belonging to such or such a political party, for their political background.
As a result, in many a riding, the electors have less confidence in the returning officer, because they see in him an opponent or a person who would be more inclined to cooperate with his own party rather than with all candidates.
We simply want to show our concern about the reappointment, under the present legislation, of all returning officers now holding office. We firmly hope that, in the future, such appointments will have no political undertones but will be based on the competence of the appointee.
[The Deputy Chairman.]

Clauses 115 to 118, inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 119-Coming into force and repeal of certain provisions.


Yves Forest: I have a certain minor amendment to clause 119 which deals with the coming into force of certain provisions of this Act. It is in line with what we have already adopted in this bill. The motion is as follows:
That Bill C-215 be amended by (a) by striking out lines 18 and 19 on page 200 and substituting the following:
"119. (1) The provisions of this act relating to the minister, the appointment, remuneration"
We have provided that the minister will be designated by order in council and will not be the Secretary of State, as was the case in the previous Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: What do you have against the Secretary of State?


Yves Forest: Nothing, but we have already-adopted a provision that it would be the minister designated by order in council. The amendment goes on to read:
and
(b) by striking out line 28 on page 200 and substituting the following:
"qualify as electors and as candidates shall come into force on"
We have changed the minimum age not only for electors but for candidates. This provision would apply in case of a by-election before the next general election. This is in line with what has been adopted in the bill.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Forest moves:
That Bill C-215 be amended-


Frank Howard: May I ask the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Mis-sisquoi, what section of the act is it whereby the minister may be designated by order in council.


Yves Forest: It is clause 3, subclause 3.


Albert Béchard: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Forest) agreed to.
Clause 119 agreed to.
On Clause 18-Preliminary Lists.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I believe that there was an amendment by the hon. member
June 25, 1970

for Selkirk to clause 18, schedule A, rule 39 as well as to rule 58. I wonder if they could be put now.


Albert Béchard: Does clause 18, schedule A, rule 39, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Rule 39 agreed to.
Rule 58 Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B, rule 16 agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
On Clause 21-Ineligible candidates.


Yves Forest: I believe that, following the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena, we should amend clause 21 (2). The hon. member for Skeena said at the time that the provisions of this subclause would supersede the provisions of the first paragraph. This would apply also to the other people mentioned in the other paragraphs. To clarify the bill, I have another amendment which reads as follows:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 25 on page 77 and substituting the following:
- (2) Paragraphs (c) and (f) of subsection (1) do not render in ..."
That would clarify the act and would make it clear to whom it applies.


Albert Béchard: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yves Forest: The other motion would have to carry also. We are on clause 21 (2).


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 21 (2) carry as amended?


Frank Howard: There is some doubt as to what you are putting. As I gather, the parliamentary secretary said something to the effect that the other amendment would have to carry. Did he mean by that the amendment which he originally proposed relating to an employee? I wonder if he would make that clear?


Albert Béchard: The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-215 be amended by
(a)	striking out line 9 on page 78 and substituting the following:
"consequence of war" and
(b)	striking out line 15 on page 78 and substituting the following:
"candidate at an election; or
Canada Elections Act
(h) an employee who, under subsection (14) of section 23, has been granted and is on leave of absence to seek nomination as a candidate and to be a candidate at an election."
9 (10:10p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
When the amendment of the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Forest), on subclause (2) of clause 21, was put to the House, the motion was read in English. We were given the English version and the Chairman read it very quickly in English. I then rose to find out what it meant exactly.
I tried to listen to the interpreter who is doing excellent work, but I could not understand. I would like to hear the remarks again to know exactly what they mean.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Forest moved:
That Bill C-215 be amended by
(a)	striking out line 9 on page 78 and substituting the following:
"Consequence of war" and
(b)	striking out line 15 on page 78 and substitute the following:
"candidate at an election; or
(h) an employee who, under subsection (14) of section 23, has been granted and is on leave of absence to seek nomination as a candidate and to be a candidate at an election."


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to trouble you, but I was not referring to this amendment but to the previous one. You declared it carried, although if you had looked in this direction you would have noticed that I was standing. I would like to know what it meant in French. The amendment to subclause (2) of clause 21 was given to us in English only, Mr. Chairman.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the fact that, as the amendment was drafted at the last moment, no translation is available; it is however easy to understand. It follows up the other amendment to subclause 2 of clause 21. As a matter of fact, on Tuesday we adopted an amendment moved by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) providing that an employer was required to grant leave of absence with or without pay to an employee wishing to seek nomination as a candidate.
In accordance with the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, we moved the amendment to subclause 2 of clause 21 so that this class of people would be mentioned in the act. And, following an objection raised by the

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the government decided to indicate clearly in the act what classes of persons did not become ineligible according to subclause 1. Paragraphs (c) and (f) deal with the ineligibility of the classes of persons mentioned in subclause 2.

Clause 21 agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Shall subclause 4 of Clause 98 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
On clause 66-Corrupt inducement of voters.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I suggest there should be some amendment to clause 66, subclause 2 in line with the motion that was adopted this afternoon after the amendment presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra concerning beverages and alcohol. I move:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 6 on page 169 and substituting the following: "such refreshments as an elec-" striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 169 and substituting the following:
"expense, provides such refreshments at a meeting of electors'*
I have another amendment to put at this time, although they will have to be taken separately, Mr. Chairman. I move:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 40 on page 169 and substituting the following: "beverages to any person, except as provided by subsection 2, or has paid, in-"
These two amendments are consequential to our approval of the motion by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra this afternoon.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: They seem to be in the
spirit of the thing!


Albert Béchard: Order. I imagine the hon. member for Lotbiniere has understood the Parliamentary Secretary's explanations. The latter tabled the following amendment:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 25 on page 77 and substituting the following:
2. Paragraphs (c) and (f) of subclause (1) -do not render ineligible
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, since these amendments are introduced in English only and that we find it difficult to understand the interpreter because you read them too fast, may I ask you to read them more slowly so as to give the interpreter-I repeat, he is doing his utmost to perform his work as best he can, and I am grateful to him for that-a chance to give us a translation so that we might understand what is going on. Otherwise, we shall leave for our holidays this very evening.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Forest moved: That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 6 on page 169 and substituting the following:
"soft drinks-[DOT]

Striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 169 and substituting the following:
"expense, provides such refreshments at a meeting of electors"


Yves Forest: I must point out to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that we do not have French copies of the amendments, because they have just been handed to me in English. The amendment now under consideration is only designed to strike out the words: -beverages or-
-in accordance with an amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) and carried this afternoon.


Albert Béchard: Is the amendment carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Albert Béchard: Is Annex I on page 201 carried?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Forest) wants to move an amendment with reference to page 190.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, we have passed today an amendment to strike out the names of ministers, priests or ecclesiastics of any religious faith or worship, from the list of persons who cannot act as election officers and, consequently, a new amendment becomes necessary.
I	therefore move, Mr. Chairman:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line-
June 25, 1S70

It might be better if I moved the amendment in English but the line in the text may not be exactly the same-

On clause 66, subclause 4-Proof of intent.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Forest moves:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 40 on page 169 and substituting the following:
'beverages to any person, except as provided by subsection (2), or has paid, in-'
Amendment (Mr. Forest) agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
On clause 98(4)-Exceptions.


Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 41 to 44 on page 190 and substituting the following:
'(4) paragraph (e) of subsection (1) shall not be con-'


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, after looking very quickly at this, grasping its significance and appreciating that it is one of those fine, technical points that most hon. members would miss, I think it behooves us, not only with regard to this matter but also for other reasons, to pay our respects to the Chief Electoral Officer for his full and completely thorough understanding of the Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: I think that without his eagle eye, full knowledge and intimate understanding of it, we would have goofed and missed this.
Amendment (Mr. Forest) agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules I to III inclusive agreed to.
Rules 1 to 15 inclusive of Schedule IV agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On the preamble.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about the preamble. Since this bill relates to the democratic process, to elections and to the opportunity and the right of people to decide who shall make the laws governing them, I think we ought to change the preamble. It begins with the words "Her Majesty", which some may argue about. It seems common at the moment to object to them. I will not go into that matter at the moment. At any rate, the preamble says:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Canada Elections Act
I think that we should in this law completely eliminate any mention of the Senate, because it has no business here whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: We should certainly not give any consideration to a body that has no responsibility in a political or democratic sense for the people over which it has political authority, and it should have no say whatever in the electoral laws of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: I see that there is almost unanimity on this position. I expect that there is an obstacle somewhere along the line to our reaching agreement on this. I should like to move:
That the preamble be amended by deleting therefrom the words "Senate and".
Mr. Fair weather: That would make the bill unconstitutional.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says that the bill would be unconstitutional. I am not one of those who is stuck on history and tradition.


Mr. Fairwealher:: This is not a matter of history.


Frank Howard: I am inclined to think that the thing we should make unconstitutional is the Senate. Let us proceed on that basis. Let us not try to preserve this antiquity.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Let's not talk about it at 10.30 at night.


Frank Howard: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: There is laughter about this. This is a serious matter. The applause that I am receiving is from those people who do not normally agree with me. This indicates that for once they are on the right track.

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: While the Chair is considering the proposed amendment, perhaps I could take the opportunity to say some words of appreciation to a number of people who have been connected with this rather voluminous bill. First and foremost, I wish to express my appreciation to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -who, as the hon. member for Skeena has said, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of both the act and electoral processes has been of much assistance to this committee, the standing committee and myself in particular, with my responsibilities for the bill.
I pay particular tribute to the draftsman of the bill, Miss Edythe MacDonald, for preparing this very extensive and complicated bill. With unfailing courtesy she provided amendments to members on both sides of the House, often drafting them at great speed and under considerable pressure. I draw to the attention of the committee that at the same time Miss MacDonald has responsibility for a second bill before us this session, which if anything is more complicated and nearly as voluminous. I refer to the Canada Grains Act. That will give some idea of the heavy responsibility she has been bearing while being of assistance to us in such good spirits.
I express my appreciation to the chairman and the members of the standing committee for their work. I pay special tribute to my Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Missisquoi, who has been of great assistance to me. I also wish to pay tribute to others who have been of great assistance to me in preparing the position for the bill, our former colleague Professor John B. Stewart of St. Francis Xavier University and my present legislative counsel, Mr. Yvon Marcoux. To all of these and the members of this committee, particularly those who were present this afternoon rather than necessarily those present this evening, I express my appreciation in putting through a difficult bill.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I know it is not necessary for me to fill in time because I am sure that Your Honour has found that which he was seeking. In this instance, I would like to add my voice and sentiments to those put forward by the President of the

Privy Council. He is one member of the House with whom I do not find myself consistently in agreement. In this instance, I echo his sentiments.
I have the highest regard for the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to legislation and even more so with respect to the administration of his most important office. I am glad to make the acquaintance of Miss MacDonald. While I do not look forward to reviewing this act soon, I hope it will not be too long before we have her with us again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There is a great deal of work involved in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Under the old rules it stood in the premier position among the standing committees. Now, committees are listed alphabetically, a practice with which I do not agree. We used to be the premier committee of the House. It is an onerous task to study the Canada Elections Act. I have done it on two occasions. I think much has been accomplished. While the result falls short of the objectives some of us cherish, we are confident that much lias been achieved. Before I take my seat, I wish to observe with reference to the Senate that it just happens in this country we have a bicameral Parliament. That seems to be about it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On behalf of my party, I wish to echo some of the words of the hon. member for Hillsborough and to add a few. In addition to our thanks to the Chief Electoral Officer and to the charming lady who aided members on both sides of the House with amendments, as well as improving the look of the Chamber a great deal, I want to express our thanks to the President of the Privy Council. I never thought I would live long enough to say that, in light of what occurred a year ago.
We in this party are extremely pleased with the degree of participation, discussion and co-operation. We appreciate the patience and tolerance exhibited by the President of the Privy Council towards the amendments that have been moved and accepted. I may catch hell for this tomorrow, but I sincerely say that in the last number of days on this bill we have had an exercise in the democratic process. It has been an education for all of us in this Chamber and, I hope, an education
June 25, 1970

for people outside the Chamber. I hope we can do this more often on other major pieces of legislation that affect all Canadians in so many ways.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my party, I should like to mention our satisfaction with respect to the work done by the committee on privileges and elections and by the committee of the whole, which reviewed the Elections Act in order to improve it.
We cannot miss this opportunity to express also our regards for the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff. That man is not only at the service of the hon. members, but also of the whole population. He is responsible for the Elections Act being at the service of the people. I wish to thank him for that and to assure him of our support and co-operation.
I would also like to extend my regards to Miss MacDonald and to thank her for her excellent work.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Following all these laudatory remarks it is with some reluctance that the chair must end on a negative note on the final amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Didn't anyone thank Your Honour?
s (10:40 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: The ruling is not related to the fact that no one has mentioned the Stirling work of the Chairman. However, this is an entirely objective ruling. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena arose in part, probably, from a slight technical error. In the standard form available to the Chair, which we have used in calling the votes, by a small clerical error the words "Shall the preamble carry?" are included. In this case, as hon. members will note if they look at the bill, there is no preamble. To clarify the nature of a preamble for the purpose of this ruling I would refer to the definition to be found in a parliamentary dictionary at page 151. A preamble is there described as an introductory paragraph giving reasons for introducing a bill as set forth. In fact, this is an amendment which seeks to amend the enacting words. On this point, May, at page 548, states:
Furthermore, amendments cannot be moved to the granting or enacting words of bills for granting aids or supplies to the Crown, or to the enacting words of other bills.
Canada Elections Act
With regret, therefore, and on this somewhat negative note, I must rule that the amendment cannot be put.


Frank Howard: I sincerely appreciate that you gave your ruling with regret, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed a few moments on third reading to say that in addition to the congratulatory words expressed earlier in committee of the whole there is, I am sure, a feeling shared by many members in all corners of the House that more must be done than has been done in this chamber and will be done by the printing of a new act. Some effort must be made to acquaint the Canadian public with what is new in the electoral law, a law which we have revised in a major manner.
I should like to make a plea to the government and to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) in particular to see that the budget of the Chief Electoral Officer is doubled or trebled if necessary to enable him to acquaint the Canadian public with their wider rights and privileges under this law, rights which will enable them to exercise their franchise in what I believe to be a new and better manner than ever before in the history of this country. I believe expenditures for this purpose ought not to be criticized by any party or by those who write columns in the news media. In fact, I hope that the office of the Chief Electoral Officer will be encouraged in this work by editorials and by articles of a voluminous nature immediately before and during the next election campaign.

June 25, 1970
Canada Elections Act
The new law is not all new, but unless this kind of exercise is carried out there is likely to be a great deal of confusion and possibly, after the election, ill will which will harm the effect of what I believe to be some worthwhile improvements to the act. It is incumbent upon government and Parliament to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the funds and facilities to enable him to do this job.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party I should like to say that we believe we have made a major error in neglecting to provide some method of absentee polling, no matter how restricted. As soon as it became apparent that because of the relatively small size of our population and its scattered distribution we could not draw up a permanent electoral list, there was a tendency on the part of too many members both in the committee and in this House to throw out all possibility of an absentee ballot. The experience of a number of provinces whose populations are thin and widely scattered shows that an absentee balloting system could be made to work in the absence of a permanent voters' list. I still feel we could have provided an absentee polling system for at least certain groups in certain circumstances. This would have obviated the necessity for many of the other provisions we have been obliged to include in order to widen the opportunity for people to cast their ballots.
In other words, when we eliminated the prospect of a permanent list we threw out the baby with the bath water. I believe we could have introduced some form of absentee ballot, albeit limited. I hope that in another session of this Parliament, perhaps following the report of the committee on election expenses, we can amend this law even further to provide a method of absentee balloting. This will enable us to do away with many of the other facilities we have tried to incorporate in the bill. In any case, I do not believe they will prove to be all that workable. I specifically mention the system of proxy voting and repeat what I said on second reading. I hope I am wrong, but I predict that it will prove to be cumbersome from an administrative point of view and extremely inconvenient for voters. We may still have to go through this experience for one election in order to learn the lesson, but I hope that we shall decide to re-examine this bill next session and provide a system of absentee balloting.

I close by thanking members of my own party and all other members who sat on the Standing Committee and took part in what I think have been several wonderful days in committee of the whole in arriving at this legislation. I believe it to have been one of the better exercises carried out by this House and regret very much that it should have received so little attention and publicity outside this chamber.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I shall moralize but briefly at this stage of the important measure before us. We tend to harp upon our own particular string. I have not yet been convinced that we were wise in not making provision for a permanent voters' list. Even that vast nation, the subcontinent of India, is now in process of compiling a permanent roll. I agree this has been a most excellent debate. However, I believe it is fundamental that efforts be made to publicize the important changes we have introduced into our electoral machinery. As I said this afternoon, I much regret the inadequate attention which has been given to this important debate by the press gallery and by the media. In the six Parliaments in which I have served so far, never have I seen a measure so important receive such inadequate and inferior treatment.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This makes it all the more important that the suggestion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) should be carried out. I think, too, that the weight of the work we have borne demonstrates the importance of frequent review of our electoral machinery. We should not allow years and years to pass and then have a ponderous exercise in redrafting. It is extremely important, I think, that we keep our electoral machinery well tuned and sharply honed to the needs of a vibrant, healthy majority.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
Having said that, I think we have done well here. Perhaps this debate was neglected by the media because it was so lacking in partisan sharpness and so much given to something a little above partisan cut and thrust. But I have no sorrow on that score at all because I think we have acquitted ourselves well. I think this piece of electoral legislation is a vast improvement, though not quite so
June 25, 1970

good as legislation I would have evolved had I full scope to do so. However, as I say, it is a great improvement and I trust it will serve Canada well.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join others at this stage in adding one or two brief comments. First of all, may I express to the members of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and the members of the House my personal appreciation of the thoughtful consideration they have given to taking the first meaningful step forward in many years to further the protection of the secrecy of the franchise of the Canadian forces voters. What we have done should indicate to this particular group that we are indeed concerned about them, that we did address ourselves to the question of absentee voting and to other methods by which the secrecy of the franchise might have been assured in even greater measure. Regrettably, and perhaps for a variety of sound reasons, at this particular time we were not able to go to the extent we might have gone in this regard. However, we have made meaningful progress.
The two previous speakers addressed themselves to the importance to the Canadian people of the measure we are now concluding. Like the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), I too hope it will not be ten years before we return to the bill. As he and others particularly the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) pointed out, there are still deficiencies in the manner in which Canadians are given an opportunity to exercise their franchise. Similarly, there are glaring deficiences with regard to the elderly and those who by virtue of their occupation are net able to qualify for or to be present at the advance poll or on the day of voting, or to avail themselves of the proxy vote.
I must differ with my friend from Regina-Lake Centre in his pessimism about the practical appreciation of the proxy vote. Another great province, the province where all great political wisdom was born well over 200 years ago, has implemented this provision and it has worked. There has not been the abuse of the system that some hon. members have feared, perhaps with justification as a result of their own experience. The proxy in our province has not been abused to any widespread extent. Indeed, it has afforded to thou-
Canada Elections Act
sands of Nova Scotians who otherwise would not have been able to do so for reasons of physical incapacity or of employment, the opportunity to exercise their franchise.
I also think the extension of the right to vote to Canadians of 18 years and over is another meaningful step. As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said, it is important that this and all the other very meaningful aspects of the changes that have been made, both in committee of the whole House and in the Standing Committee, be communicated to all Canadians. The method of doing so has been discussed in the Standing Committee. If there was no direction given there, there was at least clear evidence relating to the wishes of the committee and in this respect there was some degree of unanimity.
If it is not too late, I should like to join previous speakers in expressing my own appreciation to the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff for the tremendous assistance they have given us, and also to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) for the manner in which he conducted the deliberations of the Standing Committee when it had this measure before it. I think it is a measure of the wisdom and maturity of this House that the bill was dealt with on a non-partisan basis. Unlike some comments made earlier this evening, perhaps partly in jest, I did not suspect more than once or twice that the President of the Privy Council was trying to lead anybody. On the contrary, I think he did an excellent job and should be commended for it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) telling us about how much the province of Nova Scotia is the fount of all wisdom, dating back some 200 years, and how we the Parliament of Canada have now adopted this very wise provision relating to proxy voting that his province has put into effect, may I be permitted to point out, because I know the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) would be too timorous and humble to do so, that the province of Nova Scotia undoubtedly adopted the proxy system from Ontario, where it has been in effect since some years prior to its introduction in Nova Scotia.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
June 25, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it looks very much as though we might not make further progress this evening, so I should like to advise the House of the proposed agenda for tomorrow. The first item will be Government Order 107, Bill S-23, an act to deal with the pilotage provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. This will be followed by Government Order 89, the report stage of Bill C-204 with regard to the Fisheries Act. This will be followed by Government Order 47, the report stage of Bill C-163, an act to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada.
Before resuming my seat may I express my thanks to hon. members for their kind words.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) whether he had yet received an offer from the government of Manitoba of additional incentives to encourage the continued location of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation processing plant in Selkirk. At that time the minister indicated that he had not yet received an offer. I assume he now has the offer and that he will be able to give at least a preliminary opinion on it.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
In our last encounter on this subject I am afraid that both the minister and myself were guilty of casting more heat than light on the subject of the optimum location. I in no way wish to suggest, in saying this, that I was wrong in asserting that the matter of location of the plant, because of the possible conflict of interest between the 6,000 fishermen whose incomes are being attended to by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the needs of some 20,000 people living in the interlake and coming under an ARDA-FRED [Mr. Howard (Skeena).l
agreement, is properly a matter for a specific government policy decision and not for an administrative decision on the part of the corporation.
My remarks provoked the minister to suggest that I was engaged in a special pleading; that I simply wanted the plant in my constituency rather than in someone else's; that I was prepared to sacrifice the best interests of 6,000 fishermen on the altar of 120 to 150 jobs for Selkirk. First of all let me disabuse the minister of the assumption that Selkirk is the largest centre in my riding. As a matter of fact, better than 66 per cent of the voters in the constituency of Selkirk live in metropolitan Winnipeg, the site currently favoured for the location of the plant. Rather, my support for the Selkirk location is based upon the following four considerations. First, 150 new jobs in Winnipeg, while desirable, would have only a marginal effect on that city's economy, whereas the loss of a similar number of jobs in the town of Selkirk through the relocation of the plant would represent an economic disaster of major proportions; second, the relocation of the plant would have a powerfully adverse effect upon the ARDA-FRED development plans for the entire interlake area, based as they are upon agriculture and the fisheries; third, the relocation of the plant would involve the loss of compatible employment for the Indians and Metis of the interlake area. Here it is interesting to note that at any given time 40 per cent to 60 per cent of the employees of the Selkirk plant are of Indian or Metis descent and that the income of at least one entire Indian village is almost totally dependent upon the existence of the plant in Selkirk. Fourth, the movement of the plant to Winnipeg represents one more step in the direction of the concentration of the industry and the population of Manitoba in metropolitan Winnipeg, a step which is socially undesirable both from the point of view of increased urban congestion and from the point of view of a further decline in the vitality and quality of life in the rural and semirural regions of the province.
The minister also charged, as I noted earlier, that I was willing to sacrifice the economic well-being of 6,000 fishermen distributed throughout the west and northwest in order to keep 120 to 150 jobs in my constituency. Far from it. My argument was that the economic benefits of the Winnipeg location had not been proved, and that even if there were an economic disadvantage to the Selkirk
June 25, 1970

site, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant which has been offered more than offset it.
Moreover, I argued that it was a case of weighing the certain harm to the economic development potential of the entire interlake region of Manitoba against a largely hypothetical disadvantage to the fishermen. In respect of the economic consideration let me quote from a brief prepared by the Manitoba Department of Industry and Commerce, prepared for presentation to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in early June. It states in part as follows:
The location cost comparison conducted by the Manitoba Department of Industry and Commerce based on information provided by the FFMC, and accepted by the FFMC, concludes that economic factors favour a Selkirk location. Considering the minimum grant differential offered by the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion the cost saving in Selkirk is $17,752 per year over the optimum Metro Winnipeg site which is St. Boniface. This annual saving is equivalent to an initial amortized capital difference of $151,123.
It continues:
Within the past week it was revealed by the FFMC that the grant differential offered by DREE may be as much as 40 per cent higher than the figure used in the Dept, of I & C study. This larger grant, equal to $5,000 per job, would result in a total cost advantage to Selkirk of $52,287 per year or an initial saving of $445,123.
Even without considering the Department of Regional Economic Expansion grants, the hypothetical advantage of St. Boniface over Selkirk could only amount to a total of $34,048 per year, the brief indicated. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation's case for a Winnipeg as opposed to a Selkirk location for the new plant would now seem to be based upon considerations of cost and speed of transportation vis-a-vis Winnipeg and Selkirk, and upon the hypothetical assumption that the movement of fish will shift from truck to rail. Such an assumption, I suggest, is highly questionable but I do not propose to debate it. Rather, I would refer to the offer from the government of Manitoba in response to the Minister of Fisheries' (Mr. Davis) demand that the government "put up or shut up".
The government of Manitoba has now indicated that in order to assure a Selkirk location it is prepared "to accept the actual costs of transhipping if it exceeds the amount defrayed by DREE." In short, the government
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Manitoba is prepared to cover any increased costs of shipping that might be incurred by the corporation through locating in Selkirk. I suggest that this offer removes the last remaining objection to a Selkirk location. I would therefore earnestly entreat the minister to use his power and influence to ensure that the processing plant remains in Selkirk. The social advantages of such a course are manifestly obvious and any potential economic obstacle has now been removed.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) has said, there is a lively interest in new fish processing capacity on the Prairies and this is true because that industry is expanding rapidly. My own forecast now is that we will have at least two big processing plants in Manitoba. In other words, we will have one at Transcona and continue to have one at Selkirk. The main reason the Selkirk location has been questioned, in my view, has been the decline in recent years, essentially in the 1960's, of the resource in Lake Winnipeg itself and to a lesser extent in the interlake area. This can be revived, and the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the Fish Research Board have planned to utilize other species which, up until now, have not been regarded as commercial. We believe the plant now operating at Selkirk will be operating at or near capacity for a number of years to come.
Hopefully, I expect the Manitoba government will not be called upon to subsidize the plant in Selkirk because its economics are improving all the time in respect of an operation which will utilize fish coming from Lake Winnipeg and the interlake area. At the same time we will look again at Manitoba's offer to equalize costs as between Selkirk and Transcona. But I must remind the hon. member that we do have a competent board of directors appointed by provinces other than Manitoba and including representatives of Manitoba, and their concern is about an optimum location for the main processing plant for fish from all over western Canada including the territories and western Ontario. Their view, after many meetings, is that it should be at Transcona. I will, however, bring the latest submission from the Minister of Industry and Commerce of Manitoba to their attention and ask them to consider it serious-
June 25, 1970
8618	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ly, which I am sure they will. My own fore- employment in Selkirk will probably increase cast is that there will be two plants, an old and not decrease in so far as fish processing is one and a new one. The old one at Selkirk concerned.
needs to be rehabilitated and this will take Motion agreed to and the House adjourned place beginning next year. I also expect at 11.12 p.m.

Friday, June 26, 1970