NOTHING TO BE Written IN THIS MARGIN
W(B)L 51-7406
with disturbances, and consider that there are as good arguments against the exclusion of persons convicted of a variety of other
offences. There must be a multitude of
-
offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, e.g.,
some motoring offences, bigamy, etc.; a
person convicted of such charges might, because of extenuating circumstances, receive a very light sentence (possibly not involving imprisonment at all). I can see no justifica- tion for excluding such persons from holding office 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 serious 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