Mr. Morton:

Mr. Chairman, in respect of clause 3, as a result of a discussion when this bill was before the committee I understand the hon. member for Ottawa West has an amendment to propose. I understand it is an amendment that has to do only with the changing of wording but makes no material change in the meaning.

Mr. Mcllraith:

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 of the bill as it appears reads this way:

The three thousand shares of the company issued and outstanding prior to the passing of this act and having a par value of one hundred dollars each shall be subdivided into thirty thousand of the aforesaid shares having a par value of ten dollars each on the basis of ten shares for one. The said thirty thousand ordinary shares shall constitute the total issued capital of the company at the date of the coming into force of this act.

At the time this bill was being dealt with by the banking and commerce committee some question was raised to the language used in

this clause, although there was no difference of opinion, or no disapproval of what was being sought to be done by the clause, or what the petitioners were asking to be done. Following that discussion and because I had taken a rather active part in it in committee, I took the opportunity of consulting with the law clerks on the question of the draftsmanship of the clause and I found that some of the views I held on the draftsmanship were supported, and some additional points of view were expressed on them. I got a rather lengthy opinion from the parliamentary counsel and the assistant law clerk. I think it is not necessary to take up the time of the committee on the points raised but perhaps I should say a word or two about them. It will be noted that in the third line-that is, line 30 of the bill now before the committee-the words "shall be subdivided" are used. The provision is that the existing shares of the compnay now in existence shall be subdivided when the new legislation now before us comes into effect. Then, in the last sentence this statement is made:

The said thirty thousand ordinary shares shall constitute the total issued capital of the company at the date of the coming into force of this act.

That is, presumably, the new shares. It was pointed out that probably the difficulty in language can be corrected by simply striking out the words "shall be" in line 30 and substituting therefor the word "are". But there are still further difficulties in the language because, referring to the point of time and the coming into force of the act the expression is used in the second and third lines, "prior to the passing of this act" and then, in referring to the point of time at the very end of the clause, the expression is used, "at the date of the coming into force of this act." It will be seen that there is a looseness of terminology there. It will be further seen that in line 33 of the clause the words, "the said thirty thousand shares" appear, when there are no said thirty thousand shares. It seems to me that the use of these words is not accurate and it is capable of a good deal of confusion. The result of it all is that I think there should be new language and the suggested language which I propose to move after I have read it is the language suggested by the parliamentary counsel and the assistant law clerk, which reads:

Each of the 3,000 shares of the company issued and outstanding and having a par value of $100 is hereby subdivided into 10 shares having a par value of $10 each, so that the capital stock of the company now issued and outstanding shall consist of 30,000 shares having a total par value of $300,000.

That is the clause suggested by the officials. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy):

That clause 3 of Bill S-8, an act respecting the Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Canada, be deleted, and that the following be substituted therefor:

"Each of the 3,000 shares of the company issued and outstanding and having a par value of $100 is hereby subdivided into 10 shares having a par value of $10 each, so that the capital stock of the company now issued and outstanding shall consist of 30,000 shares having a total par value of $300,000."

Mr. Chairman, just to assure the committee I should state that after the amendment was brought to my attention I brought it to the attention of the parliamentary agent, the Toronto solicitor acting for the company, and he approved of the amendment as being satisfactory. I also checked with the superintendent of insurance, under whose jurisdiction these matters come, and he has forwarded a letter to me approving of the change. I have also checked with other officials concerned, including the chairman of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and the amendment is in order so far as they are concerned.

Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher) moved

the second reading of Bill S-ll, to incorporate the Evangelical Mennonite Conference.

Mr. Pickersgill:

Is the hon. gentleman going to say something?

Mr. Jorgenson:

The purpose of the bill is to establish a co-ordinating body for the Mennonite congregation now adhering to the group commonly called the Mennonite Evangelican Church. Incorporation is primarily for administration purposes.

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house that the divorce bills standing on the order paper for second reading be taken in one motion?

Agreed.

Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved

the second reading of Bill No. C-10, to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting at advance polls).

He said: The disconcerting speed with which we have moved in processing bills today is in marked contrast to the fate of this particular bill, because this is the fifth time it has been introduced into the house and each time it has been garlanded with all sorts of approval. Everyone seems to think there is a marvelous principle involved in this particular bill, but it is usually talked out. Fortunately today the time during which it can be talked out is not going to be very long. I am pleased to see the minister who is responsible for this particular department in attendance. I am pleased also to see the tall member for Halifax, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and the other member from Toronto, whom we usually see when bills are to be talked out. I hope they will pass around the honours today.

The Canada Elections Act is peculiarly an act that is handled within the House of Commons framework. The executive takes much less of a lead in regard to amendments to this act. This act is much more sensitive to the opinion of hon. members. It is traditional that during the first session after an election when most grievances with regard to the act are sharper the standing

Canada Elections Act

committee on privileges and elections does not sit. The sittings of this committee are postponed until the second session. I have a good hunch when the next election is going to be. It is going to be sometime in late May or early June of 1962. The reason it is going to be then is, of course, that with the great majority the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has he can call an election at any time. It will not be any later than that because if it is later he will have to go to the people with a completely new distribution of seats which will mean the losing of at least three seats in Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister comes from there and I am assuming he will not want to fight the next election on that basis, so I have deduced the date to be early June, 1962.

This does give us some considerable time to make changes in the Canada Elections Act. I think there is almost universal agreement, even amongst such generally contradictory bodies as the Canadian chamber of commerce and the Canadian Labour Congress, that we need to extend the advance polling privileges. This privilege is limited now to a few occupations. The general reason for extending the scope has to do with changes in society. We have much more mobility in our labour force; many more sales personnel on the road and wider distances to cover. People are planning their vacations to a greater extent, even planning them months ahead because it is possible to make that type of arrangement now which cannot be altered even for such a fundamental as casting a vote.

The principle involved in this particular bill is a very simple one. The amendment seeks to extend the privilege of voting at advance polls to any Canadian who is aware of the fact he is not going to be at his proper polling place on election day. This is really all the bill does, and that is the principle involved. It has been noticeable in previous debates that speakers who approved of the principle and wanted to have enough time to talk the bill out always dove into the actual provisions of the bill.

Hon. members have been critical of several points, and one of those points has been the feeling that the regulation involved in this particular bill will make it difficult in rural polls. I should like to put it to most hon. members, not so much in contradiction of that but in balance, that the people in rural polls have a tremendous advantage in so far as voting is concerned over the people in urban polls. Provided a voter in a rural poll can get a neighbour to identify him, he can be sworn in and cast his vote. However,

this provision does not apply to urban polls and it is in urban polls where the greatest pressure exists for advance polling privileges, not only because they are the more populous but because they are the polls in which there are more people who are moving in society.

The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has another bill on the order paper relating to absentee voting. This is something with which the standing committee on privileges and elections will have to deal. I should like to remind hon. members that there is a distinction between the two. I have to say, fairly and truthfully, that what we need is a complete revision of the Canada Elections Act from a fairly wide point of view. A thorough study is needed to assess the merits of the various schemes of absentee voting and voting at advance polls. The absentee voting system is really designed so that no matter where you are in Canada you can vote for a particular candidate in your particular constituency. This is not such an urgent problem as voting at advance polls, that is in the sense of a real grievance, but it also needs to be considered.

We have some marvelous examples in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and to a degree in Ontario and Manitoba, where very serious and sincere efforts have been made to extend this particular privilege to more people. I think, in the main, they have worked well. Last year I touched on one of the weaknesses of the extension of advance polling privileges in Ontario, and that was the relatively high cost in relation to the number of votes cast. However, we are going to have an election in Ontario this year. It seems to be in the cards, and I think we will find that the advance polling privilege will be used much more this time than it was last, when the people, especially the party organizations, were not so aware of it.

Now, the final point I wanted to make in so far as the bill is concerned is that the principle is a good one. I think almost everyone will recognize that there is hardly a member of parliament who has not been haunted at election time, and especially on election day, by phone calls from people who have not been able to vote because of the narrowness of the restriction of this privilege. There really is no reason why a commercial traveller or a transport worker should have an advantage in voting over someone who, because of the nature of his employment, is forced to be away on election day.

This particular lack disenfranchised hundreds of voters in my own constituency in the last election. They are woods workers and were covered and put on a poll list out

in the woods camp. It just so happened that between the time they were registered as voters and polling day these camps were closed down and the majority of the men moved into urban polls where they could not be sworn in. Hence that whole group was disenfranchised. I am not saying that this particular legislation would cure that particular difficulty but it would tend to cure it in that it would give them a longer period in which to vote. I hope it would fit in with the other changes in the election act that would give them a chance to vote such as extending to the urban polls the privilege that people now have in the rural polls.

The electoral officer this particular house has to deal with is a well-informed gentleman. He has helped to a degree in conection with almost all the bills that private members have brought in with respect to changing the Canada Elections Act. At the very least he has provided a tremendous amount of information. I hope the present minister who has the responsibility and the present chairman of the standing committee on privileges and elections are in close touch with the chief electoral officer. I know the spirit and the general attitude of the chief electoral officer and his senior officials is a progressive one; I mean it is progressive in the sense that they are as much aware as we are or perhaps more so, of the tedious administrative difficulties involved in changes in the act but also in bringing the privilege of voting and the right of voting to more people. For that reason I should like to see someone move that this bill, after the principle has been approved, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.

After this particular committee has heard from the electoral officer and from the various members who have an interest in this kind of amendment and change, this particular bill could be the focal point for considering that particular aspect of the Canada Elections Act. I think it would provide the members of the committee with a starting point that would be a good relative consideration in relation to the present regulations. Certainly I believe the difficulties involved in the consequential changes arising out of this bill are going to be encountered in making adjustments. I think this particular bill and the bill on absentee voting would be an excellent starting point for major changes in the elections act with regard to polling.

Despite what I seem to feel is a thickening lethargy and a thickening disinterest on the part of many government members on such matters, I feel that this particular change is going to come before the election in late May or June of 1962.

Canada Elections Act

Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):

Mr. Speaker, during the early part of the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) I was tempted to rise on a question of privilege; but in view of the incident which occurred yesterday it does not seem that that crowd pays too much attention to the rules of this house anyway, so I decided not to bother. His remarks were another aspect of the sanctimonious and pious attitude emanating from that corner of the house based an the assumption that anybody who speaks after the great man has let fly his pearls of wisdom simply has nothing to say; and that once this great wealth of wisdom has commented on a certain bill there is really no necessity for any of us to speak, we can all go home and that group can carry on throughout the rest of the session and pass all of the bills. As I say, that seems to be the assumption. I should like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to let the hon. member for Port Arthur know that there are certain of us who have a genuine and honest interest in matters such as this and that simply because we have the temerity to rise and speak to a bill does not mean what the hon. member indicates.

Mr. Pickersgill:

Is that the typescript of the hon. gentleman's speech?