I can see no justification for excluding such persons from holding and, for that matter, excluding them for life. It seems to me that this provision is mistaken in equating a potentially serious offence with a seriour offence. I appreciate that with the consent of the Governor in Council it would not apply in individual cases. Nevertheless, subject to the point made immediately below, I consider a restricted exclusion along the lines of the present Section 17(3) to be much more suitable and defensible.
It is difficult to defend exclusion for life. You may wish to consider whether, as is customary elsewhere, it would not be preferable to limit disqualification to a fixed period, say of five years, from date of conviction. Again I appreciate that under the discretion given to the Governor in Council some such rule could be applied administratively, but I consider it desirable that there should be provision in the legislation to this effect.
Clause 13
It is not entirely clear in what circumstances the Registrar might think it necessary to move under the new Section 17(2)(c). If, for example, the union indicated a wish to leave the vacancy unfilled, what considerations would lead the Registrar to apply for a court order compelling fresh elections to be held?
Clause 25
In the case of so important a step as the issue of a notice of intended cancellation of registration I would prefer that publication in the Gazette was an addition to the process required by the provisions of sub-clause 63(1) rather than a permissible substitute. This purpose could be achieved by inserting after the word "may" in line 3 the words "in additi on".
4.
I should be grateful for your further views on these points.
N