¹ See, e.g., Goldman, Ralph M., “Institutional Hurdles to Voter Participation,” a paper read at the Conference on Election Administration, Pittsburgh, 1962Google Scholar; quoted at length in Report of the Representation Commissioner on Methods of Registration of Electors and Absentee Voting (Ottawa, 1968), 15–17.

² Stats Can., 37 Viet., c 9 and 10. Macdonald later completed the centralization of the electoral system, notably with the Franchise Act of 1885.

³ Ibid., 36 Vict., c 28.

⁴ For a fuller consideration of these matters, see Ward, Norman, The Canadian House of Commons: Representation (Toronto, 1950 and 1963)Google Scholar; The Public Purse: A Study in Canadian Democracy (Toronto, 1962).

⁵ See Report of the Committee on Election Expenses (Ottawa, 1966), esp. chaps. 2 and 3.

⁶ Fairley, Margaret, ed., The Selected Writings of William Lyon Mackenzie, 1824–1837 (Toronto, 1960), 356.Google Scholar

⁷ See Ward, The Canadian House of Commons: Representation, chap. 5.

⁸ A possible but unproven case occurred in the 1870s after Sir John A. Macdonald had gone out of office with secret service monies apparently still under his personal control. See Ward, The Public Purse, 64–6.

⁹ See Gwyn, William B., Democracy and the Cost of Politics in Britain (London, 1962)Google Scholar, for a fascinating historical account of practices in the homeland of Parliament.

¹⁰ Kemball Cook, Hartley, The Free and Independent: The Trials, Temptations and Triumphs of the Parliamentary Elector (London, 1949), 75.Google Scholar

¹¹ Angell, Harold M., “The Evolution and Application of Quebec Election Expense Legislation,” In Report of the Committee on Election Expenses, 279–319. Professor Angell's account is updated to include the actual costs of the Quebec election of 1966 inGoogle ScholarPaltiel, K.Z., Political Party Financing in Canada (Toronto, 1970), 124–32Google Scholar. The basic statute is R.S.Q. 1964, c 7, amended by 13–14 Eliz. II, c 12 and 13.

¹² Angell, “The Evolution and Application of Quebec Election Expense Legislation,” 283.

¹³ Highway Statistics, 1949, pp. 1, 6. I am indebted to an unpublished paper by Duff Spafford for this point.

¹⁴ Angell, “The Evolution and Application of Quebec Election Expense Legislation,” 310–19; Paltiel, Political Party Financing, 130; Quebec, Report of the Chief Returning Officer, General Election, April 29, 1970, pp. 423 and 462–3.

¹⁵ Report of the Royal Commission on Election Expenses and Associated Matters (Halifax, 1969); Stats N.S., 18 Eliz. II, c 40. The Nova Scotian limit on parties is forty cents per elector, and on candidates one dollar on the first 5000 electors, eighty-five cents on the next 5000, and seventy-five cents thereafter. Candidates receiving at least 15 per cent of the vote are reimbursed twenty-five cents per elector.

¹⁶ The committee never met under Mr Nobert, as he was taken seriously ill. After Mr Nobert's death, Mr Barbeau was appointed chairman in January 1965. The other members were M.J. Coldwell, Gordon R. Dryden, Arthur R. Smith, and myself.

¹⁷ The committee's recommendations, with commentary, are in Report of the Committee on Election Expenses, 37–64. A critical commentary is in Paltiel, Political Party Financing, chap. 9.

¹⁸ Report, 28.

¹⁹ Hon. R.A. Bell. See Report of the Committee on Election Expenses, 253, for an account of Mr Bell's “Popular Finance Campaign,” which cost more than it produced.

²⁰ Paltiel, Political Party Financing, 150, and letter of May 3, 1972, K.Z. Paltiel to J.D. Hoffman, commenting on the manuscript of this article. Officials of the Progressive Conservative party set the original costs at $5.5 million. See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Election Expenses, third session, 28th Parliament, Dec. 10, 1970, p. 6:53.

²¹ See ibid., Nov. 12, 1970 - June 1, 1971. On February 28, 1972, Mr Trudeau said in the House that “lack of time and obstruction from the opposition” accounted for the demise of several items on the government's agenda, including a bill on election expenses. A bill was none the less introduced and reached the committee stage, where it failed to proceed further.

²² Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 1, 1971, Second Report, p. 13:11.

²³ See Ward, Norman, “A Century of Constituencies,” Canadian Public Administration, x, no 1 (1967), 105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 1, 1971, Second Report, p. 13:9. The parliamentary committee recognized the problem that bothered the Barbeau committee, and did have a partial solution which still, however, would leave the Chief Electoral Officer where the Barbeau committee had thought he should not be. See ibid., 13:13 and 13:19.

²⁵ See Ward, Norman, “The Press and the Patronage: An Exploratory Operation,” in Aitchison, J.H., ed., The Political Process in Canada: Essays in Honour of R. MacGreqor Dawson (Toronto, 1963), 3–16.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Angell, “The Evolution and Application of Quebec Election Expense Legislation,” 286; Paltiel, K.Z., “Federalism and Party Finance: A Preliminary Sounding,” in Committee on Election Expenses, Studies in Canadian Party Finance (Ottawa, 1966), 1–21.Google Scholar

²⁷ It is relevant to note here that the Special Committee of the House of Commons cited above recommended that “non-resident individuals, corporations and unions be prohibited from making” contributions to parties or candidates. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 1,1971, Second Report, p. 13:29.

²⁸ The best account of this campaign fund scandal is in Creighton, Donald, John A. Macdonald: The Old Chieftain (Toronto, 1955)Google Scholar, chap. 5. A good journalistic account of modern television politics in the United States is Macneil, Robert, The People Machine (New York, 1968).Google Scholar

²⁹ Professor Paltiel has some useful material relevant to conventions; Political Party Financing, chap. 2.

³⁰ The publication of these total returns is not required by the law, which demands only publication within each constituency for each candidate. For years, however, MP S have moved for tabling the total returns, and the Chief Electoral Officer has since 1950 compiled the relevant information. The return for 1965 was tabled March 18, 1966, and that for 1968, November 7, 1968. The new Canada Elections Act, assented to June 26, 1970, makes no change in these provisions.

³¹ Report of the Committee on Election Expenses, 32. Professor Paltiel estimates the 1968 expenditures as considerably higher (letter of May 3,1972).

³² All these calculations, unless otherwise identified, are from the Public Accounts of Canada for relevant years.

³³ (Ottawa, 1970). The report is an admirable survey of major parliamentary costs, services and amenities, and MP S' problems arising from the unique nature of their work.

³⁴ Professor Paltiel has found that the Liberal party spent $242,000 on its 1968 convention, and estimates that the candidates spent over $2 million. The NDP convention of 1969 cost $35,000, and the candidates' total, limited by arrangement, was $50,000. He has no figures for the Progressive Conservatives, but for all three parties pro-rates total leadership costs for a ten-year period at $500,000 annually.

³⁵ Canada, Sessional Papers, 1867–8, no 41, p. 133.

³⁶ See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Election Expenses, Dec. 4, 1970, p. 4:6.

³⁷ A convenient summary of the relevant events is in Saywell, John, ed., Canadian Annual Review for 1964 (Toronto, 1965), 38 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar