Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:

That a special committee be appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and amendments thereto and the Franchise Act, 1934, and amendments thereto, and to suggest to the house such amendments to the said acts as they deem advisable, and, furthermore, such committee shall study and make a report on the following subjects:

(a) The proportional representation system;

(b) The alternative vote in single-member constituencies;

(c) Compulsory registration of voters;

(d) Compulsory voting;

and that the said special committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and report from time to time.

That the committee shall consist of thirty members; that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto; and that the following be appointed members of the said committee: Messrs. Bothwell, Cameron (Cape Breton North-Victoria), Clark (York-Sunbury), Dussault, Factor, Fair, Girouard, Glen, Heaps, Jean, MacNicol. McCuaig, McIntosh, Parent (Quebec West and South), Perley (Qu'Appelle), Power, Purdy, Rickard, Robichaud, St-Pere, Sinclair, Slaght, Stevens, Stewart, Stirling, Taylor (Norfolk), Turgeon, Turner, Wermenlinger, and Wood.

And, furthermore, that the minutes of the evidence and the report of the special committee appointed in the last session of parliament to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and the Franchise Act, 1934, be referred to the committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is to reappoint the committee which sat during the last session and considered the various matters mentioned in the motion, and, in general, any desirable amendments to the Dominion Elections Act. The members of the committee are the same as those who served last session, and the work to be done is exactly the same. I remember that the committee tabled a preliminary report and asked that the committee should be reappointed this session to continue its work.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me that possibly the minister might feel it would be better to provide in the final paragraph of the motion that the evidence and report submitted last session shall constitute part of the record of the committee. It was their request not that the evidence and report

should be referred to them, but that what was done last year should constitute part of the records of this house. I only suggest that.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); I have no objection.

Mr. BENNETT:

The only question is whether, if someone raises a technical point, a mere reference to the committee would make the evidence and report a part of its record. But if the minister thinks it is ample I am satisfied.

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):

Mr. Speaker, at the last session of parliament, during the discussion of a bill respecting the National Harbours Board, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) gave assurance on behalf of the government that before the next session his department would prepare a bill to enact general legislation amending the law respecting petitions of right and providing for suits in tort against the crown. I would ask the minister, has the bill been prepared and will it be introduced during the present session?

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, the preliminary work has been done, and in point of fact a draft of the bill has been prepared and is ready to be submitted to the members of the government for approval, as is usually done before a bill is brought down. As far as I am concerned my intention is that the bill will be brought down this session.

Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):

I should like to make a short statement regarding my participation in the debate on Thursday last. The hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Mallette) kindly brought this matter to my attention. On page 147 of Hansard I referred to the political liberty we in Canada enjoy. In my effort to point out that we wished to preserve all that is good in our institutions and to remove all that is bad, and in referring to the benefits we had obtained from reforms in the past, I inadvertently mentioned that the great province of Quebec had not yet seen fit to give the vote to women.

Mr. POULIOT:

What is good and what is bad?

Mr. HAYHURST:

If my worthy questioner would study the Reform Act he would find that there are many things in it that are good. I fully recognize the part that Quebec has played in the history of this country, and I have the greatest respect for its history and its people.

Order.

Mr. HAYHURST:

What I wished to say was that I may have been ungracious to the women of Quebec. I meant to imply that the finest people in this Canada of ours have not yet been given the privilege of voting.