Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to respond to yesterday's intervention by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. I can assure the House that I will not take 50 minutes for my intervention.
In his submissions yesterday, the member canvassed the 1966 case of Mr. Berger. I want to briefly distinguish between that case and the present circumstances, both of which are very different.
In that case, Mr. Berger had failed to file any expense return. There was no doubt about that fact, nor was there any doubt about the legal requirement to file a return, a condition precedent for triggering the 1966 equivalent of today's subsection 463(2). Mr. Berger had sought an order from the superior court permitting him time to file a return after the deadline.
The present case is entirely different. It represents an accounting dispute. The Chief Electoral Officer had requested that each of the hon. members for Selkirk—Interlake and Saint Boniface make amendments to the returns they had already filed, and that those amendments reflect an interpretation by the Chief Electoral Officer as to evaluation of materials used in the election.
They each dispute that interpretation. As a result, they are seeking rulings from the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba in that regard.
There is a very clear distinction. They have filed their returns. They are in the process of attempting to resolve interpretation questions. It is entirely different from the case of Mr. Berger who had filed no return.