1972-05-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 based on a deteriorating situation in the Yukon with respect to the operation of the Yukon Territorial Council. The situation is worsening to the point where 250 people jammed the corridors and hallways of the council building at the last session. Therein lies the urgency and the oppressive system that continues to exist has to be relieved. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the petition signed by 4,626 Yukon citizens being 60 per cent of the total number of eligible electors enumerated on the list of electors for the Yukon Territory for the 1968 federal election and presented to His Excellency the Governor General praying that the Yukon Territorial Council be dissolved forthwith and that a new election be held be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development with instructions that the said committee proceed to the Yukon Territory, there to hold public meetings for the purpose of inquiring into the complaints and grievances of the residents of the Yukon as set forth in the said petition, and to report thereon to this House with the least possible delay.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Therefore the motion cannot be put.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister said no.


Mr. Baldwin:: If you fellows sat over on this side, you would know how to say yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are still on motions. I believe the hon. member for Spadina wishes to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43.
25316-30J



PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA, OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
This matter concerns the criteria for the selection of projects for opportunities for youth grants, or the application of the criteria. This subject requires immediate consideration by the House in view of the rejection of the University of Toronto application for funds to build a pollution-free electrical car for the urban vehicle design competition and the acceptance for funding of similar projects in British Columbia and Manitoba. I therefore propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House do now refer the criteria for the selection and funding of opportunities for youth grants to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts and report back to the House thereon within one week.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence who is hovering somewhere in the ambulatories. I see him now coming over the horizon. My question is prompted by evidence presented yesterday to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry by a delegation of fishermen from the Newfoundland Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union regarding continuous harassment of gear by foreign trawlers within Canada's 12-mile limit on the east coast. What steps is the Department of National Defence taking to deploy aircraft and surface vessels to the area to protect Canadian nationals and the gear of Canadian fishermen?

May 19, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge we have not been requested by the Department of Fisheries to do so.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister whether reconnaissance is taking place at the present time by aircraft of Maritime Air Command over the area of the east coast of Newfoundland, and is this aerial reconnaissance reporting incursions by foreign trawlers to the appropriate authorities?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is continuous surveillance. No such report has been made to me.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is the government prepared to give consideration to the deployment of aircraft in eastern Newfoundland which would make aerial reconnaissance much more practical since it would add about 1,000 miles to their range?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's advice on defence strategy.



ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN FISHERMEN-SUGGESTED EXPANSION OF FISHERIES PROTECTION PATROL

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the obvious lack of proper surveillance, as reported to the fisheries committee yesterday, over the excessive fishing operations which are being carried on within our 12-mile limit off the east coast of Canada, would the Prime Minister consider the expansion of fisheries protection patrol by our ships in that area?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer affirmatively because I do not agree with the premise of the question. I believe the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Fisheries are better equipped than the hon. member to decide whether there should be more surveillance.



REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES ON CONSEQUENCES FOR CERTAIN COMPANIES OF POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My first question arises out of a statement by the president of the Atlantic Development Council that United States countervailing duties against Canadian imports from companies such as Michelin and McCain Foods on the basis that those companies are in receipt of government grants will seriously endanger development in the Atlantic provinces. On that basis, I ask the minister to inform the House whether the government has made representations to the American administration on this specific point or plans to indicate to them that counter-

vailing duties would have very serious consequences, particularly in the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce);: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of countervailing against McCain. I am, of course, aware of the countervailing procedures against Michelin. I have already indicated, as has the Minister of Finance, that we shall be making representations, and we have already had discussions with the United States government with respect to the Michelin case.


David Lewis: On the basis of reports that exports of potato granules, for example, which are produced by McCain Foods Limited, are the subject of investigation in Washington, and the apparently general attitude in Washington that products exported by Canadian companies in receipt of government grants are in fact being subsidized and that countervailing duties are justified, may I ask whether the department is studying this entire area and developing some approach to the Americans which might avoid the serious harm that could occur if such duties were applied in a broad way?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Of course we are studying these things all the time. The countervailing and anti-dumping measures presently being taken are taken at the request of companies. I should like to underline the fact that we do the same in Canada; these procedures are not confined to the United States. I should also like to underline the fact that to my knowledge, there is no United States global position against regional development in Canada. It is only when regional development subsidies end up in substantial exports to the United States that opposition is expressed; in other words, it is not a global complaint against regional development through industrial support in Canada. Is that clear?


David Lewis: I do not think it is mud. I think it is very clear. The answer therefore demands the following question. Do I gather from the minister that since there is no global policy, as he calls it, he does not consider the imposition of countervailing duties against products from Michelin and other companies receiving federal grants as an important matter about which his department should be concerned? Is that the impact of the minister's answer?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member is putting words into my mouth; I thought there were already enough! I simply said that as far as I know there is no United States position against regional development in Canada, against the fact that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion provides support for industrial establishment in certain regions of Canada. It is only when there are substantial exports to the United States that the Americans appear to take objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on a further supplementary, but we will have to try to move on.
May 19, 1972



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-MEASURES TO OFFSET IMPACT-POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES BY CANADA

David Lewis: May I ask the minister this question. He has told us on a number of occasions that his department and the government are working on contingency plans to deal with any adverse impact of the United States DISC program. Is he now in a position to tell us what some of these plans may be and, in particular, whether the imposition of countervailing duties by Canada against United States imports through DISC is one of the measures being considered?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought the hon. member was present the other day when the Minister of Finance read the budget speech which is considered by most interested people as a good reaction to DISC and other export subsidies in other countries in a positive way.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Champlain, and we will return to this matter later in the question period.



PROPOSED IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY AGAINST CERTAIN MICHELIN TIRES-SOURCE OF INITIATIVE

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Either the minister or the Minister of Finance said in the past seven days that he would try to find out who initiated the action in the United States against Michelin. Is the minister now in a position to inform the House what company or agency of government initiated this action in Washington.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say that. Besides, I think I should leave the matter to the Minister of Finance.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, for a long period of time my department was trying to develop a tire plan that would incorporate some of the features of the Michelin arrangement by which certain types of tires could be imported free of tariff into Canada if more exports of certain other types of tires took place. For about a full year we tried to develop such a plan, but the companies were not particularly favourable to it. Discussions continued. We were hoping to come to some conclusions as a result of these discussions in view of the relative uncertainty accompanying the Michelin situation at this time, so we think we should hold off further discussions on the subject-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister said he would reply in a nutshell. It is a sizeable nut.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The clarifying statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday with regard to the Quebec government having convinced no one, does he intend to follow up his intentions in the near future by accepting to meet his opposite number in Quebec as well as minister Castonguay, with a view to reconsidering the federal government position concerning possible agreements in the field of social affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. The opinion I expressed yesterday convinced almost no one because the citizens of the province of Quebec were already massively convinced of what I said, except for a few scattered creditistes and separatists.


John Edward Broadbent: For the minister's information it was the	[English]
Goodyear Corporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a question, not to give information to the minister.



LE DAIN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING MARIJUANA-COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER COUNTRIES IN LIGHT OF CANADA BEING SIGNATORY TO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION VIEWS OF OTHER TIRE COMPANIES ON DUTY-FREE IMPORT

John Edward Broadbent: Has the minister received the views of the Goodyear Corporation, Uniroyal and the Dunlop Corporation, to name three firms located in Ontario and Quebec, on the Michelin case, especially concerning the right to give them tariff-free entry to the Canadian market during a limited period of time? If so, what were their views on that issue and what was the response of the government?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to put my question to the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in their absence I shall ask it of the Prime Minister.


Erik Nielsen: The Solicitor General is here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then he must have just entered the chamber, but I shall put it to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that we are one of the signatories to the single convention on narcotic drugs, has there been any com-

May 19, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
munication with any of the other signatories in reference to this agreement, particularly in view of the fact that Le Dain has now recommended the legalization of marijuana? As Canada is one of the signatories to that agreement which opposes legalization, has there been any communication at this time with any other nation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take notice of this question on behalf of the ministers.



LE DAIN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING MARIJUANA-INQUIRY AS TO INSTRUCTIONS TO CROWN AGENTS AND RCMP

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put this question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that in the Le Dain Commission report there are three different kinds of recommendations, has the Solicitor General issued any special instructions to agents of the Crown under the Attorney General of Canada with reference to sentences so as to make certain that those who are convicted of or plead guilty to a charge of being in possession of or using marijuana will be fined rather than sentenced to jail or penitentiary?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, those duties belong to the Minister of Justice, but I would be happy to know which of the three recommendations of the Le Dain report is supported by the opposition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one further question which I think the Solicitor General will find within his jurisdiction? Have there been any special instructions issued to the RCMP, who have special jurisdiction in reference to narcotic control, that they should no longer use the incognito association methods they have used in the past in order to get evidence and convictions in reference particularly to possession and use of marijuana?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the duty to enforce the law as it now exists.



PRESENTATION OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING MARIJUANA

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary to the President of the Privy Council.
Since the Solicitor General just replied that he would like to have the views of opposition members on the Le Dain report, could the minister tell us if the government intends to introduce a bill shortly in the House so that the hon. members may take a position on this report?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Why not?



ELECTIONS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which I will attempt to make an honest one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the interesting entry into the other place recently of a former distinguished member of this House, can the Prime Minister assure the House that steps will be taken in so far as Ottawa Centre is concerned to see that a by-election is held there at the same time as by-elections are held in Bonavista-Trinity-Concep-tion and York West?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will certainly consider that, Mr. Speaker, and if the hon. member has any other by-elections in mind I will be pleased to look after them as well.



SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT OF ANTI-ALCOHOLISM PROGRAM

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I had hoped to put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence I hope you will permit me to ask the question and perhaps some minister will take it as notice. Having in mind the importance the Le Dain Commission has attached to alcoholism in Canada as a major Canadian drug problem, and in view of the fact that the federal government now has a net revenue of more than $1 million a day from the sale of alcohol, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare give consideration to the development of a federal antialcoholism program?


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the matter is being considered at the highest level. I believe the hon. member for Spadina has a supplementary to a previous question.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REASON FOR REFUSAL OF GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO TO PRODUCE POLLUTION-FREE AUTOMOBILE

Sylvester Perry Ryan: No, Mr. Speaker. I have a question related to the motion I posed earlier and I should like to direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. It relates to the Opportunities for Youth program. Can he inform the House why the application of the University of Toronto, which sought funds to complete a pollution-free electrical car for the urban vehicle design competition to be held in Michigan in August of this year, was rejected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether hon. members should be allowed during the question
May 19, 1972

period to refer to what I understand are the many applications under this program which have been rejected, but this one may be a special case and the Prime Minister may wish to reply to the hon. member's question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has told the House that there were something like 15,000 or 16,000 requests rejected. I cannot possibly have the answer to all of them in my head, but the Secretary of State has stated previously that anyone who wanted to know why his particular application was rejected would receive an answer in writing if he requested one.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the Prime Minister check into this matter in view of its urgency, particularly because similar projects in British Columbia and Manitoba were accepted for funding under the Opportunities for Youth program while at the same time several projects in Ontario were completely rejected? I think it is very important to check into it forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.



PROGRAMS TO ASSIST NON-STUDENTS-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. A couple of weeks ago the Secretary of State indicated he might be announcing some new programs for non-student young people. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether these programs are ready for announcement and, if so, when the announcement will be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL ADVISORY


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary arising from a resolution of the youth and community assembly convened by the Manitoba Committee of the Canadian Council on Children and Youth recently in the city of Brandon. Would the Prime Minister consider the implementation of the resolution of that assembly requesting that regional advisory committees be set up to review the ad hoc programs of the government such as OFY and LIP with a view to gearing them more closely to community needs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the prologue to the question was addressed to me I am afraid I missed it, but I will take notice of the question and see whether an answer can be provided.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



REQUEST THAT MILITIA RECRUITS' PAY BE RAISED TO MINIMUM WAGE LEVEL

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that militia recruits are paid about $1.03 per hour for the time expended by them with the Canadian forces, will the minister consider raising the rates at least to the level of the established federal minimum wage?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is presently under review and I will report to my friend when the review is completed.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Department of National Defence is carrying out a study of the pay structure for the militia, will the minister advise when the results will be forthcoming, and will the minister recommend that incentives be provided for re-enlistment and long service?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider my hon. friend's representations.



SUPPORT FOR INDUSTRIES IN MAKING REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES AGAINST IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES OR ANTI-DUMPING ACTION

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is supplementary to earlier questions. It deals with the countervailing duties which were under discussion. In a case where duties are levied or anti-dumping action is taken against a Canadian industry as a result of the government's policy of incentive grants, is it the intention of the minister to give support to those industries when they make their representations against these charges?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the question would have to be qualified. What kind of support? Does the hon. member mean financial support or support in presenting their case to United States authorities? If it is the second, indeed we are supporting them.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, to clarify the matter, I was thinking of support going beyond merely the provision of information and whether in fact the department will also provide counsel to those industries and financial support in making their cases?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, let us say that for the time being that matter is hypothetical and we will do as best we can to help if the proposed countervailing really ends up in countervailing duties having to be paid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Joliette and possibly return to the hon. member for a supplementary.

May 19, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Recently, a group of Indians from northwestern Quebec were requesting the support of the federal government in order to stop the works on the James Bay project. Can the Prime Minister say whether the government intends to answer this request in the affirmative? If not, can he confirm again that his government is still prepared to co-operate with this project within authorized limits while giving adequate guarantees to the groups concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has dealt several times with this matter in the House. The hon. member may not have been present yesterday when the minister answered certain questions.



REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES CONCERNING EFFECT OF IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY AGAINST MICHELIN TIRES ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he has had consultations with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the implications for the DREE program of the United States threat of countervailing duties on Michelin tires and if he will make representations to the United States government concerning exactly what this means in respect of our regional development program, bearing in mind that other countries exporting to the United States have similar programs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: To my knowledge there is no attack by the United States authorities on regional development in Canada. I repeat what I said previously. I did not have personal discussions with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on that subject, but interdepartmental consultations are going on all the time on this particular aspect of regional development and on the Michelin case in particular.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-INQUIRY AS TO NEW AMERICAN PROPOSALS

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact negotiations on trade between the United States and Canada appear to be in limbo, may I ask the minister whether the United States government has advanced any new proposition to the Canadian government, or whether the Canadian govern-

ment has shown any initiative in this regard, or are we going to confine ourselves merely to reaction to United States government action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of the hon. member is, of course, argumentative. It is certainly not acceptable procedurally.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question.


Mr. Speaker:: It might have been easier to have phrased it correctly in the first instance because we will be running short of time.


Harold Warren Danforth: As the minister stated in the House that there was a field of disagreement and some irritants between the United States and Canada on trade matters, may I ask him whether the United States has advanced any new proposition or taken any new initiative to solve this perplexing problem?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that no hard discussions had been resumed between Canada and the United States on trade matters. We are looking very carefully for the most aupicious time and circumstances to resume these negotiations.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is there any truth in the rumour that the Prime Minister has a very important announcement to make?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question cannot be asked in those terms. The hon. member may want to give notice of the question so that we can consider it at the time of adjournment next week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River rises on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question which my hon. friend asked, I simply want to say that the House would be prepared to give unanimous consent to revert to motions if the Prime Minister has an announcement to make.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point of order, if the Conservative Party could get a few more on the front benches I might consider that.


An hon. Member:: It is the quality, not the quantity, that counts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.
May 19, 1972



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As the Solicitor General and his departmental officials have been studying the feasibility of the placement of persons released from penal institutions in the homes of senior citizens who are willing and volunteer for the program, has the Solicitor General completed his study of this program, and what action does he intend to take?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I met with the members of the pensioners association in Vancouver and they support the program almost unanimously. However, they asked if it would eventually be extended to include all age groups of society. This suggestion is now under consideration in this new perspective.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Does the Minister or his Department intend to bring in soon amendments to the National Defence Act and Regulations with regard to Canadian Forces personnel in order to do away with what is, in my view, an unacceptable situation and a scandalous discrimination in this age of women's liberation, discrimination-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a speech. If he wishes to ask a question, he should do so without presenting an argument.


Albert Béchard: Does the Minister intend to do away with a situation whereby the single female personnel of the Canadian Forces are discriminated against, compared with that of their single or married male companions, with regard to their expenses for moving from one base to another?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not admit to the discrimination.



AIR CANADA


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade
Inquiries of the Ministry
and Commerce. Is the proposed purchase by Air Canada of tri-jet aircraft going forward at a speed sufficient so as not to place in jeopardy subcontracts flowing from this purchase to the Canadian air industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am unacquainted with the matter, Mr. Speaker. I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Transport immediately.



POLLUTION


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister concerning the Irving Whale which is a serious ecological threat to Prince Edward Island. Can he advise whether the failure to award contracts to any of those who submitted tenders for the removal of the ship or its contents resulted from the high cost of these tenders or were the reasons technological or others?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take notice of the question and submit it to the Department.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of privilege.
A moment ago, I asked the Prime minister a question that he did not answer. He merely took this opportunity to make a quip to cheer up my Liberal colleagues from Quebec. Mr. Speaker, it is most annoying to find that my Liberal colleagues are in such a state of trauma because the majority of their constituents voted for the parti quebecois that they have only one word-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the present state of negotiations between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia with regard to the offshore mineral rights issue. Which government now has the initiative, the government of Canada or the government of Nova Scotia, and which is waiting to hear from the other in respect of resolving this vital issue?

May 19, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not
quite understand the question, Mr. Speaker. However, I do understand it has to do with offshore mineral rights and this matter is being dealt with by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has had a meeting with the premier of Nova Scotia, and I am sure he would be happy to answer the question if it is asked of him sometime next week perhaps.



REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON LE DAIN COMMISSION REPORT ON CANNABIS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the House leader a question. In view of the fact we have been unable to get answers from various ministers in reference to the Le Dain Commission report and the position of the government, would he be prepared to set a day aside for a debate on that subject so we can ascertain from the ministry their position with respect to the commission report?
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we have very little government time remaining.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I would be happy to call one of the many opposition days still remaining in this supply period so that the opposition can raise the question of the Le Dain Commission report and we can all discuss it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question for the minister and I ask it in all seriousness. Will the House leader guarantee that there will be another opposition day to give us that opportunity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You will have to judge that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PRESENTATION OF LEGISLATION ON USE OF MARIJUANA

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the Le Dain report.
Is it the intention of the right hon. Prime Minister to inform the House, prior to adjournment, whether it is his government's policy to legalize the use of marijuana?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This, Mr. Speaker, depends obviously on the date of adjournment. However, perhaps I could answer-

-and to the hon. member for Calgary North at the same time that there will just as surely be some opposition days between now and the end of June as there will be government days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday, as reported on page 2352 of Hansard, I asked the Acting Prime Minister if the government was investigating the fact that food prices are rising at a time when food chain stores are showing very substantial increases in profits, and the Acting Prime Minister's answer was in the affirmative. I therefore want to ask the minister whether these investigations are being carried on, whether he intends to report to the House the results of these investigations, and when we may expect such a report?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I responded to a similar question from another member of the hon. gentleman's party the other day. I will repeat my answer to the extent of saying that if any violations of the Combines Investigation Act are brought to the attention of the director of the anti-combines section they most certainly will be investigated, but that has not occurred yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is supposed to protect consumers and that there are very sharp increases in the prices of food coincidental with sharp increases in profits by the companies selling food, will the minister himself undertake to instigate an investigation into this matter to see whether or not there is any collusion among the companies or whether exorbitant profit-taking is going on?


Robert Knight Andras: That would properly fall under the purview of the director of the combines investigation section, and if there is any evidence of this kind of action taking place I am sure he will carry out his duties in that regard.



REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATION OF HIGHER FOOD COSTS IN YUKON THAN IN YELLOWKNIFE

Erik Nielsen: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does he intend to accede to the repeated requests of the Yukon Consumers Association to conduct an investigation into the relatively higher cost of food in the Yukon than in Yellowknife despite cheaper transportation costs to the Yukon?


Robert Knight Andras: I should like to check again on that, but it is my understanding, if my merory serves me well, that an investigation has been conducted and a reply sent to the people who inquired. I will be glad to refresh my memory and respond to the hon. member at the earliest possible moment.
May 19, 1972



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Sylvester Perry Ryan: My question is for the
Minister of the Environment and Fisheries and I gave him notice of it. I understand that in his absence his parliamentary secretary is prepared to answer it. With the advent of ocean mining, and particularly the international development of the continuous line bucket system for dragging metalliferous nodules from the ocean floor, what steps is the department taking to protect our offshore environment in view of the likelihood of an international race commencing shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary may reply to the question briefly. The question is a far-ranging one and would normally invite a statement on motions. If the parliamentary secretary can reply briefly, he will be recognized for that purpose.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, a continuous line bucket system for deep sea mining is under development in the Pacific Ocean, primarily by Japanese and American interests. The earliest date for first full-scale operation is 1975, although this is considered optimistic. No significant nodule deposits are known to exist on the Canadian continental shelf or in waters where the federal government has direct jurisdiction.



DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. It has recently been announced that the Defence Research Board has achieved a significant breakthrough in gas laser technology and it has been indicated that approximately half a million dollars would need to be allocated to the project in order to fully exploit the breakthrough. Has the minister given consideration to the allocation of these funds, and what is his decision?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Defence Research Board comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect the question to the Minister of National Defence?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Defence Research Board itself decides on how it is going to allocate its funds each year for various projects. Of course, research into lasers has been a major undertaking of the Defence Research Board and I believe it is going to be in the future.
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE



ALLEGED ORDER FORBIDDING UNION MEETINGS ON FEDERAL PROPERTY

Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. I have been informed directly by the chairman of the local of the Letter Carriers Union in my riding that an order has been issued by Treasury Board through the Department of Public Works that no more postal union meetings are to be held on federal property. Is this a general policy across the country or is this just an isolated case?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Treasury Board or the Department of Public Works would issue instructions in relation to postal unions which would clearly hamper the rights of free collective bargaining.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Would this order be related to his continuing silence on current negotiations with the postal unions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, may I first reply to the Prime Minister that I was in the House yesterday when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development answered questions, but as he did not answer some questions concerning the James Bay project, I simply asked him whether he was amenable to representations made by the Indians for an immediate stop of this project, to which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has never replied clearly.
So, I call upon the Prime Minister to say whether he would favour co-operating with the James Bay project, as I think he would.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has simply repeated the question that he asked during the question period. This period now being over, perhaps the hon. member for Joliette will have an opportunity to ask his question at another occasion or another day.

May 19, 1972

Election Expenses Bill



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-211, to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and on the amendment thereto of Mr. Macquarrie (p. 2412).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
procedural requirements and this, of course, is one of them.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn my attention directly to this particular amendment. I realize that Your Honour will be considering the provisions of citation 382. This is the text on which most decisions have been based, and it, in turn, goes back to many of the old precedents in the United Kingdom. As an expert, Your Honour probably knows the citation by heart but I should like to put it on record. Citation 382 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition reads in part:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill-
I repeat those last words, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering what the wish of the Chair was with respect to the discussion which Your Honour invited on the admissibility of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). At any time Your Honour would wish to designate, we would be prepared to argue it.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say that the Chair is under some difficulty. Perhaps I might advise hon. members that in the course of discussions the hon. deputy to the Deputy Speaker has briefed himself considerably and at length on the subject to the extent that he appears to be an expert on reasoned amendments. He is quite familiar with the circumstances of this case and he would be prepared to hear argument at this time if hon. members feel this would be the right moment to discuss the procedural point. I would invite him to replace me, because from now on he will be the recognized expert on this subject.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the description which His Honour has given of your being the recognized expert we will know where not to direct our reasoned amendments from now on.
Mr. Speaker, I want to direct your attention to the amendment which was offered by the hon. member for Hillsborough yesterday. First of all, I wish to observe that on last September 13 at page 7760 of Hansard and the next few pages, this whole question was debated and a decision given. At that time Mr. Speaker indicated that, so far as reasoned amendments were concerned, he was in a quandary about the whole issue and he invited suggestions as to some way in which hon. members of the House might in due course indicate their views. I think it is a great pity, Mr. Speaker, and I say this advisedly that this session and probably this parliament is whimpering to a close without this being done. I am not going to blame my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I know he is quite eager and concerned that this and other issues be dealt with, but I do think that when hon. members from this side, from the other side and the Chair have brought to the attention of the House a number of anomalies and difficulties with regard to the operation of the new rules as altered in light of changing circumstances, it is a great pity that we are not able to leave as a legacy to the next parliament certain views on

-the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill-
I find I must repeat those words because yesterday His Honour, Mr. Speaker, in taking a preliminary view of this issue, limited himself to this statement, and I am now quoting from yesterday's Hansard, the left side of page 2412:
The so-called reasoned amendment is intended to give a member an opportunity to place on the record the reason he is opposed to the principle of a bill-
I want to make it as crystal clear as I can, Mr. Speaker, that while I agree with him as far he goes we must read into that and add to it the words that I have quoted, not only the principles, but the policy, or provisions of the bill. In other words, it is competent for a member, in attempting to move a reasoned amendment, to place on the record the reasons for his opposition to the principle of the bill, to the policy in the bill or to the provisions of the bill, because that is the only way there can be an acceptance of what is set out in citation 382.
There is a reason for that, Mr. Speaker. It goes back to the practices, the precedents, the rules and the operation of the House at Westminster over some centuries. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that we in this House and certainly the Chair, must take judicial notice, if I may use that expression, of the fact that the type of legislation with which this House as well as the House in Westminster is now dealing is different from the type of measure that contains a simple declaration of principle to which the clauses of the bill were limited. The cases in which we find that today are rare. Instead, we find that government bills are a composite of various subject matters. The subject matters, for example, embraced by certain tax bills and money bills are as far apart as the north and south poles. I am not stressing that. I insist, however, that in considering this issue it is important for us to remember now, as well as in future, that the types of bills we are examining these days are entirely different from the sorts of measures that this House or the House of Commons in the United Kingdom considered even 20 years ago.
Second, the Chair, in considering the reasons underlying its decision, cannot ignore the changes which have crept into the proceedings of the House as a result of the rules we adopted four years ago. This is neither the time
May 19, 1972

nor place to comment on the wisdom of those rules and the problems they have created. Without doubt, the approach of this House to a debate on second reading these days is entirely different from the approach this House adopted towards such debates 15 or 20 years ago, and is different from the approach that it adopted before the rule changes of 1968 and 1969.
Now, after second reading, a bill is referred to committee, after which it comes back for the report stage and is given third reading. Anyone examining Hansard and scrutinizing the manner in which this House now deals with legislation cannot help concluding that the second reading and reference of a bill to committee is far less significant now than it was before 1968. The procedures adopted by this House make it plain that remedies are available now which were not available before. For instance, we are now given the remedy of putting on the order paper amendments to be moved at the report stage. What we did in the last few days in dealing with Bills C-207 and 208, the bills concerning old age security pensions and veterans' benefits, illustrates how our new procedures and remedies work. We entertained grave doubts as to whether those bills were effective, as to whether they went far enough, and we expressed those doubts in the House as well as outside. We said, "Fine, let us try to improve those bills by the means of reasoned amendments. In any event, we are quite willing to send those two bills to committee and see them return at the report stage because, in the process, we may be able to persuade the government, or enough hon. members, to work out effective and beneficial changes." We failed, Mr. Speaker; of course, with this government, we always fail in those attempts, but that is besides the point.
What is important is that there is great emphasis placed by this House, and certainly by members of my party, on the report stage and subsequent third reading stage. For instance, we may say in the second reading debate that we do not like a bill, that it does not go far enough, that there are parts of it on which we differ, but that we support the general thrust and principle of the bill when we consider the conditions at which it is aimed and which it seeks to correct. In that case we will say, "Fine, send it to committee," knowing well that if amendments submitted in committee are not agreed to, we may move further amendments at the report stage or at third reading; knowing, also, that if those amendments are not accepted and the bill is not changed, we are justified in voting against the bill. I suggest as strongly as I can that the Chair dare not ignore that change in our procedure which has come about since 1968.
Having said that, and not wishing to take much more of the time of the Chair, I will refer again to the proceedings of September 13, 1971, at which time Mr. Speaker accepted the reasoned amendment which had been moved by my hon. and learned friend the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I spoke on that occasion and cited a number of precedents from the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. I submit that those precedents show there can be found a parallel between what we are attempting to do here and what was achieved in the United Kingdom with a number and variety of measures with respect to which reasoned amendments were accepted.
Election Expenses Bill
May I now return to Citation 382 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. The reasoned amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West was accepted because the amendment sought to indicate and to establish that the hon. member who moved the amendment did not agree to the second reading and therefore moved, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions in question. The proceedings I am referring to are recorded at page 7765 of Hansard for September 13, 1971.
In 1961, on second reading of a bill dealing with Commonwealth immigration, the following amendment was moved as a reasoned amendment in the U.K. House of Commons.
This House declines to give a second reading to a bill which, without adequate inquiry and without full discussion at a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, removes from Commonwealth citizens the long standing right of free entry to Britain, and is thus calculated to undermine the unity and strength of the Commonwealth; gives excessive discretionary powers to the executive without any provision for appeals; will be widely regarded as introducing a colour bar into our legislation; and though providing for health checks and for the deportation of those convicted of certain criminal offences, fails-
I underline these words:
-to deal with the deplorable social and housing conditions under which recent Commonwealth immigrants and other subjects of Her Majesty are living.
That amendment deals with a variety of subject matters. It deals with the policy inherent in the original legislation as well as with a number of provisions in the bill, and then ends by saying, "We decline to pass the bill because it does not include certain things we think should be in it." That is precisely what the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is attempting to do on this occasion. Having said in the preamble that he regrets that government delay in introducing Bill C-211 prevents its full operation before a certain date, he goes on to say that the bill fails to provide for adequate reform, and so on. The amendment says that the House declines to pass a bill which does not take advantage of present day advances in the mass media and transportation. Of course, having been pressed for years to bring in legislation of this kind, the government has now brought it in at a time when there is likely to be dissolution of the House, and it knows full well that it is unlikely to be passed in time for the coming election since it will not come into effect until after January 1. That, Mr. Speaker, is unmitigated gall on the part of the government; it is political fraud of the worst type. That is beside the point.
In any event, the motion proposed by my hon. friend ends by saying that the House declines to pass a bill:
-which does not take advantage of present day advances in the mass media and transportation which would provide for a shorter election period and thereby, amongst other things, substantially reduce election expenses.
If there is any principle behind this bill, that principle is that there shall be regulation of or limitation of campaign expenses. This is or may be done in a number of ways. We say that some of these methods may be all right; we say, however, that the simplest and most intelligent way, and perhaps the most desirable way of doing this, is by limiting the length of campaigns. We are saying, then, within

May 19, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
the meaning of Citation 382, that we decline to give second reading to the bill; further, we have brought forward a resolution, the one I read, declaratory of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill. We have done this in precisely the same way as it was done in the United Kingdom and with precisely the same kind of language that Mr. Speaker in the United Kingdom accepted. I suggest to Your Honour with the greatest respect that it will be necessary to very badly torture the meaning of those words which I quoted from the United Kingdom precedent and citation 382 to hold that the amendment which the hon. member has moved does not meet those requirements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that last night the Speaker raised the question of reasoned amendments at the second reading stage of a bill. I have been concerned about the gradual trend toward the acceptance of second reading reasoned amendments in the House. I remember the time I worked for the opposition from 1958 to 1962. I had been temporarily retired from the House of Commons and was working with the then Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson. One of the jobs I had was to work on the question of procedure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Your experience will come in handy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That was really the way I became interested in what I thought was a rather occult and mysterious art that could only be practised by mystiques like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, necessity drove me to the study of procedure. Over those four years we contrived to develop reasoned amendments on second reading. It was most difficult to have any of them accepted. We had good advocates on the opposition side, including the present government leader in the Senate and the present chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, who was undoubtedly the best procedural expert on our side at that time. He was far ahead of any other person, probably because he had become accustomed to the study of procedure in his years with Mr. King and Mr. St. Laurent. Even his advocacy, and that of the present government House leader in the Senate, almost always failed to have a reasoned amendment accepted on second reading.
Mr. Speaker Michener, who occupied the chair at that time, was most meticulous. It appeared as though he had to pay huge sums of money out of his own pocket if a second reading amendment went before the House. There were only a few in four years. It seems to me that it is a very desirable practice to get back to the rigid application of the tradition on second reading amendments. If it is not applied rigidly, there will be a gradual development leading to the acceptance of any type of amendment on second reading.
The tradition has always been that a member who proposes a second reading reasoned amendment is giving advance notice to the House that he intends to vote against and do everything possible to defeat the bill. It is highly contradictory for any member to move a second reading reasoned amendment, and then vote for the bill

when it is called for second reading. The implication is that you are opposed to the bill. You have resorted to a device, a second reading reasoned amendment, which, if accepted, kills the bill. That is why His Honour said yesterday that there was no doubt whatsoever that a reasoned amendment can only be an indication for the record as to why a member or a party intends to vote against the principle of the bill. I am satisfied, even though my hon. friends opposite find defects in the bill, that they will not vote against the bill. They will not vote against the principle of disclosure, the principle of assistance to candidates and the limitation of expenses.
I do not complain that my hon. friend has moved a second reading amendment. I do not reproach him. I am merely using this instance to illustrate what is involved in moving a second reading amendment. It should be preceded by a political decision by a party or a member that he or the party is going to do everything possible to defeat the bill on second reading, and then, once having made that political decision, he or the party proceeds to use this device to reach the objective. As His Honour pointed out, it is obvious that in recent times that strict application has not been followed. I hope we will get back to it.
I disagree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who argued that the 1968 amendments to the rules changed the significance of a second reading motion or second reading adoption in the House of Commons. I know there were opinions at that time that this was the case. I certainly never accepted that view. At that time, I proposed to speak in the debate if the occasion arose so that I could reinstate what I felt to be the importance of the second reading, namely that it was an adoption of the principle of a bill. That is all.
In one of his rulings, Mr. Speaker Michener ruled that there could be a principle or several principles in a bill. The authorities usually refer to the principle of a bill. Mr. Speaker said that it was possible to find a number of principles in any bill and that in order to found a proper second reading amendment, it was essential to oppose the principle of a bill or set up an opposing proposition to the principle or principles contained in the bill.
The hon. member for Peace River referred to that citation at page 527 of the 17th edition of Erskine May in which he categorizes reasoned amendments as follows:
(1)	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
It seems to me that has been the key paragraph and that in practice, the other two categories proposed by May have seldom been used to support the validity of second reading amendments. If they were, those second two paragraphs are so broad that if they were used as a foundation many more amendments would be put on second reading. I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that if those second two paragraphs are valid, the door is wide open. I say this because paragraph three reads:
It may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, or the production of papers or other evidence.
May 19, 1972

The hon. member has already quoted paragraph two. In most cases, the Chair in Canada, especially Mr. Speaker Michener, has referred to the first category as a valid definition of a reasoned amendment. This is the foundation I should like to see established in the particular case under consideration. The amendment itself, it seems to me, does not in any way put forward a proposition contradictory to the principle in the bill itself. It first of all raises a complaint against the government, a grievance. It is complained that the bill was not brought in earlier, or that it has been brought in at such a time that its provisions could only come into effect on June 1, 1973. That is a complaint which is not really relevant to the contents of the bill. If the hon. member wished to have that proposition dealt with by the House it should probably come forward as a separate motion.
The second point in the amendment relates to the election period. Well, the election period is established by the Canada Elections Act. There are provisions in that Act establishing the election period, dating from enumeration day until polling day. There is certainly nothing in the bill before us which relates to that; this aspect of the amendment, which seems to me to be the main aspect, is quite outside the scope and provisions of the bill itself.
I am not emotionally attached to the defeat of this amendment on procedural grounds. If it were accepted, it would not bother me greatly except that it seems to me the Speaker has laid the gauntlet down and said: It is time we stopped loose practices and got back to the proper interpretation of what constitutes reasoned amendments. I agree with such an approach. I congratulate him on taking that leadership. I hope that this ruling will establish for the future a proper basis for reasoned amendments and that we shall return to a strict interpretation of the rule in this regard, and, especially, that we shall all understand that reasoned amendments should only be put forward and accepted in cases where the mover and his party are out to defeat a bill. Otherwise, they should not be put forward at all.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do I take it, then, that it is the view of the minister in support of the Speaker that a reasoned amendment which otherwise might not be in order would be in order if the mover says: I and my party intend to vote against the bill on second reading. Would that preserve the legality of the motion relating to a reasoned amendment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not see how the Chair could possibly accept an amendment as being in order merely because the mover says: I am putting forward this amendment and I intend to vote against the bill itself. Besides, I do not think Mr. Speaker or any of us is entitled to ask how an hon. member proposes to deal with the bill itself. I take the position that a second reading reasoned amendment, within the British and Canadian position, is itself an indication on the part of the mover that he is opposed to the principle of a bill and that he is making a motion because he is out to kill the bill. This is absolutely clear in the authorities. It is quite inconsistent to take what is regarded as a lethal step and then, later on, to embrace the bill on second reading. It really is most contradictory and I have been shocked at the loose attitude shown toward parliamentary morality in this area.
Election Expenses Bill


Gerald William Baldwin: He might be persuaded by the eloquence shown on the other side.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What the minister has said means that the whole debating system is a farce.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as another drafter of a great many second reading reasoned amendments, I suppose I should get into this discussion for a few minutes. The President of the Privy Council was almost boasting that his batting average when he was adviser to his party on these matters was low. He indicated that this reflected the difficulty of getting reasoned amendments accepted by the Chair. I do not know what my batting average is, but I know I have been able to get quite a few of them accepted. However, this discussion has developed into an academic review of the whole subject of reasoned amendments rather than sticking to the particular one before us. That is understandable.
For my part, I like the suggestion in the hon. members' amendment that something be done to shorten elections. I thought it was ingenious of the hon. member to get that in by suggesting it might be a way of reducing election expenses. I am aware, though, of the difficulty which both he and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) are encountering in trying to persuade the Chair that the proposed amendment is in line with our precedents and positions relating to reasoned amendments.
One of the things I find odd is that in Beauchesne we are told that on third reading all amendments which can be made on second reading are in order except certain kinds of amendments. In other words, fewer kinds of amendments are permissible than on second reading. Yet, if we search the records, we will find that it is easier to get third reading amendments accepted than second reading amendments. This underlines the point that the criteria laid down for reasoned amendments on second reading are really not very clear. I therefore support the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River that despite the expertise you have achieved in these matters, Mr. Speaker, the subject should be given further thought, perhaps not only on the floor of this chamber when these questions come up, but by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
I should like to make this further point. Again, I am supporting the hon. member for Peace River and contending with the President of the Privy Council. I believe it is a fact that we slightly changed the meaning of second reading in December of 1968. At that time what was then the special committee on procedure presented two reports which were companion pieces. One of them made the actual changes in the standing orders, including the change that makes the motion for second reading read that the bill be now read a second time and be referred to such and such a committee. That report was adopted. The other companion report was by way of a commentary. I do not have it in front of me this morning but my memory of it is fairly clear.
In this companion report, we commented on the significance of many of the changes being made. One of the changes on which we commented was this very change

May 19, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
under which we say at second reading that the bill be read a second time and referred to such and such a committee. We said in that commentary that the important vote on a bill should really be the final vote, the vote on third reading. We downgraded slightly-I emphasize the word "slightly"-the significance of second reading by saying that at that point we were really simply giving general approval to the bill and agreeing to discuss it at the committee stage.
I well remember in the sessions of the committee when we were dealing with this matter that we were trying to cope with the situation that had often developed when government members on the committee would say to the opposition members: "Why are you trying to change this bill? You voted for it on second reading". Then opposition members used to say in the committee: "We voted for it in principle, in general, so that it could go to committee, but that does not mean that we have to support it in its exact detail". I think I am being quite faithful to the commentary and the report of December 1968 when I say that we decided that the time had come when a vote on second reading should not be as rigid and final a decision that the bill is okay; it should simply be a decision that the bill is generally okay, subject to "what happens to it in committee.
The change that we made was ever so slight, and I emphasize that, because if I am completely opposed to a bill, I vote against it on second reading and do not want it to go to committee. But there are many bills that come into the House that we do accept in general if only we can get some changes made to them.
I think it should be possible on second reading to move the kind of amendment that does not necessarily kill the bill but which makes it possible to put on the record the opinion that certain changes in the bill should be made. Perhaps this is not going to be very helpful to my hon. friend from Hillsborough as far as this day's amendment is concerned, but I wonder whether it would not be possible for us to develop a system under which at second reading, where the motion is that the bill be now read a second time and referred to a certain committee, it would be permissible to add to the reference to committee a phrase that would say "with the instruction that the committee give consideration to amending the bill, so as to"- shorten the election period, or what have you.
There are many instances where the opposition is not, in an outright sense, opposed to a bill in its entirety but where I think it would be good debate to have some of the suggestions made added to the reference to committee. I would hope that the next time the committee on procedure and organization gets around to considering procedural matters it might take a look at this question of the kinds of amendments that we can move on second reading.
Oppositions have trouble with all kinds of amendments. However, we know what we can do on third reading, and I think the batting average for third reading amendments is much higher than it is on second reading. But surely it is a matter of common sense that at second reading the opposition should have three choices. First, to support the bill outright. Second, to oppose the bill outright. And surely there is a third choice for an opposition, namely to say

that it goes along with the bill in general and it wants it to go to committee and be given further consideration, but that there are certain ideas not included in the bill which it wants to have included. In effect, that is what my hon. friend from Hillsborough is trying to do under the present rules and practices. I see the difficulty that he is having because of the traditions against this kind of amendment, but I hope that consideration will be given to this question in the future so we can have a little better opportunity at second reading than we have under the rules as they now stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. May I thank hon. members for their constributions to this very difficult procedural debate. May I first thank Mr. Speaker for the remarks that he made concerning the present occupant of the Chair, though I have grave doubts about some of his affirmations concerning me. As hon. members know, the occupant of the Chair does not meet on the way up the steps with the Holy Spirit; he simply does his best and at the same time has to abide by the rules of the House. I think all hon. members will agree with me that any occupant of the Chair has the advantage of having the present Speaker, pass on to him from day to day his knowledge of the rules and procedures of the House, as well as his humanities, which is very helpful. I do not know how much this is going to help me to make a decision that will satisfy hon. members, but before I give my decision I shall try to touch on some of the points that have been brought out by hon. members.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to some remarks made last September by Mr. Speaker to the effect that the House, through its committee on procedure, should look at the evolution that had taken place over recent months regarding reasoned amendments in order to arrive at a change in the rules that would define the use of reasoned amendments.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker issued a warning to hon. members in his remarks following the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillsborough. He said that the proliferation of amendments of that kind indicate that hon. members are really attempting from time to time, under the guise of so-called reasoned amendments, to bring in substantive motions. He went on, as reported at page 2412 of Hansard:
I suggest that for some strange reason it seems that in recent weeks and months hon. members have been taken with the idea that perhaps a reasoned amendment is a good way in which to propose a substantive motion which very often does not bear too much immediate and essential relevancy to the principle of the bill.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to citation 382 of Beauchesne's in which it is stated:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the Bill by Committees, Commissioners,
May 19, 1972

the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of Judges.
Yesterday Mr. Speaker mentioned that these so-called reasoned amendments are intended to give an opportunity to members to place on the record a reason for opposing the principle of the bill. The Chair agrees with this statement, but questions the interpretations put on it by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The hon. member for Peace River referred to the changes in the rules. Of course, the Chair is quite aware that there has been a rapid evolution in the rules in the past few years since 1968. Even though these rules have been amended, I am sure that hon. members will not ask the Chair to further amend these rules by making a ruling that in itself will tend to modify a long established practice in the House of Commons. The Chair would meet with great difficulties if it were asked to do so. I agree that a new practice has developed, as mentioned by the hon. member, to send more bills to the committees, making it more easy to give second reading without questioning all the details of a bill in the hope that the committee would have a better opportunity to adopt modifications. This was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said that with the change in the rules we downgraded slightly the second reading stage of a bill, but I do not think this is a reason which should prevent the Chair from making a decision based on past practice, precedent and rules of this House.
There are basic rules we have to follow. Of course, there is little doubt in the mind of the Chair that a reasoned amendment at the second reading stage of a bill involves one of the more difficult parliamentary procedures. The invitation which has been made in the past by Mr. Speaker, to have the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization look at this matter, still stands. I am sure hon. members would benefit from a discussion of this problem outside the House rather than discussing it only in the context of a particular amendment in respect of which the Chair has to make an important decision, because this could prevent some hon. members, in view of their opinion of the bill itself or the subject-matter under discussion, from expressing a clear view on the whole subject-matter; one might be defending the amendment and another opposing it. If the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization considered this matter outside of this context it might come forward with suggestions useful to hon. members, the House and the Chair.
Referring again to the difficulty met in respect of a reasoned amendment, I would invite hon. members to look at page 527 of May's Seventeenth Edition where three rules are set out concerning the form of a reasoned amendment with a description of the categories of that kind of an amendment. It reads as follows:
(1)	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
(2)	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
(3)	It may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence.
Election Expenses Bill
Such amendments have tended in modern times to become rather stereotyped and are confined generally to the first two categories.
Category No. 3 as described by the author may have become obsolete in the British House of Commons in view of our practice of referring the subject-matter of a bill to a committee.
Citation 386 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition refers to that type of amendment in the following words:
On the second reading of a Bill, the House may decide to refer the subject matter thereof to a Commission although the bill could not be referred to a Committee of the House before its second reading. (The subject matter of a Bill and the Bill itself are two different things.) On the 17th April, 1934, the following amendment was moved to the second reading of a Bill to amend the Railway Act in respect of rates on grain: "That the Bill be not now read a second time but that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada." This amendment was as much a declaration of policy as if it stated that the question of adjusting the railway rates on grain should be investigated by the Railway Board. The Speaker allowed the amendment, and an appeal was taken to the House which confirmed the decision by a vote of 78 to 44.
To go back to May's Seventeenth Edition and the citation to which I have already referred, there is a description of the types and classes of amendments which fall into that category referred to as "reasoned". At the foot of page 527 and at the top of page 528 of May's Seventeenth Edition it is stated:
The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must "strictly relate to the bill which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering", and must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the House.
The amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee; nor is it permissible to propose merely the addition of words to the question, that the bill be now read a second time, as such words must, by implication, attach conditions to the second reading.
An amendment, which amounts to no more than a direct negation of the principle of the bill, is open to objection.
In those three paragraphs, the conditions which must be met by a reasoned amendment are stated. In paragraph (1), as cited, one important condition must be met when an amendment is moved to a motion for second and third reading. This is the rule of relevancy. The amendment, according to the rule of relevancy, must relate strictly to the bill the House is considering at the time.
Coming back to the amendment before us, to my mind the first part of the amendment, referring to what the mover calls "government delay in introducing Bill C-211" is quite irrelevant to the principle of the bill. It must be said also that the motion does not claim to oppose the bill on those grounds. Actually the Chair would be tempted to ask itself, if it were accepting the arguments made by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whether any kind of amendment would be valid. By their interpretation of the rules, reasoned amendments as such would become obsolescent. Later the proposed amendment suggests that there should be a provision for a shorter election period having regard to advances in mass media and transportation. This, again, is beyond the terms of the bill before us. What the

May 19, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
hon. member proposes are amendments to the Canada Elections Act, rather than to the bill which is before us, Bill C-211. That, to my mind, is the basic weakness of the proposed amendment.
In essence, the hon. member's suggested reasoned amendment is not declaratory of any proposition adverse to, or differing from, the principle of the bill before us. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment. May I be permitted, however, to add in conclusion that I hope hon. members will understand, if the Chair has spent more time than it should have on the arguments made, that it did so in the hope that soon in the coming months hon. members will have an opportunity to look again at the question of reasoned amendments. Regardless of the decision rendered now, I invite hon. members to look at this question at other times rather than in relation to an amendment which is before the House on a specific bill. Again, as I have said, so far as the amendment is concerned the Chair cannot accept it. This ruling is mainly based on the present rules and practices of the House, on the precedents and on the previous decisions which have been taken. This is the only way, unless the rules of the House are changed, in which we can preserve this institution.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) would like to speak for four or five minutes. I would agree to lend him my allotted time, provided I am permitted to speak at two o'clock.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I endorse this bill and welcome it. Having been through a campaign in 1968 that was too expensive, I can tell hon. members from the lessons I have learned that a campaign does not have to be so expensive to succeed. With careful planning and more concern for costs, I know that my last campaign could be duplicated today for about half the cost. Nevertheless, a campaign does cost money and this is a fact that the public and the press seem to find hard to accept. For example, in my own riding which is the fifth most populous in Canada, sending a letter to each voter costs $7,200 just for postage stamps. The bill before us would permit $37,000 to be spent lawfully on the items specified. I say this limit is more than enough for anyone to make himself known and put his message across. I make no apology for the cost of my 1968 campaign. I broke no rules or customs. My accounting was complete. The money came from personal supporters, from Liberals in the riding and from the party. No contributor has held me to account. I do not even know them all.
But big campaign bills reflect on the system. They encourage the false belief that politics is a rich man's game. Hon. members know how many of us in this Chamber are rich in the normal sense. The charge of rich man's game is false. But big campaign bills tend to discredit the truth. I do not know whether this bill will be applicable to the next election. I hope it will because the right of partial reimbursement and of tax credits for contributors would be desirable. I have risen in my place today to state that, whether or not the bill is law at the time of the next election, I will abide by the provisions relating to spending limits, to disclosure and to auditing, provided that my
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
Conservative opponent also does so. I believe that this is a constructive step, one which will be welcomed by Don Valley voters and one which should be welcomed by my opponent.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, while listening yesterday to the speech of the hon. minister who is piloting this bill, I felt a glimmer of hope because he seemed to have adopted a more flexible attitude that was open to the suggestions and amendments which would eventually be brought in during the debate on this bill. Relying on the minister's straightforwardness, I think we should accept some necessary suggestions and amendments regarding this legislation.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has spoken of forthcoming general election and the impossibility for this bill to be in any way effective before then.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement, I wonder whether we should not have further considered the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). Indeed, if there is no particular urgency to adopt this legislation which will not be implemented before the next general election, why not delay its consideration so that it may be improved still more and more specifically analysed to avoid once again the necessity of constant review.
Mr. Speaker, a legislation which purports to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act in regard to election expenses has a direct bearing on the basic problem of democratization of elections, that is to say on democracy itself since elections are the springboard of democracy. If such a bill is so drafted as to relate to an actual democratization, it should rest on the principle that an equal opportunity should be offered all political parties and candidates to submit their views.
This equal opportunity is essential, Mr. Speaker, if we want democracy to operate better in this country, because experience has shown us that loud and intensive publicity may warp the opinions of the electorate.
Mr. Speaker, here are a few concrete examples; we very well know that, because of repeated advertising on television, on radio of in the newspapers, or a particular brand of soap for the dishes, all the women go out and buy that brand, simply because they have very often heard the name or seen the advertisement. Does that mean that this soap is better? Not always, Mr. Speaker.
May 19, 1972

So, when I speak of loud and intensive publicity which may warp the thinking of the electorate, I am speaking about something true, about something real, about things that do happen during an election campaign. Basically, the bill should be aimed at preventing such a situation for God knows how the members of the Social Credit in particular had to suffer from these enormous electoral machines-steam rollers you might call them-whose money is crushing everything in its way.
Mr. Speaker, does the results of the work of such an electoral machine honestly and sincerely reflect the Canadian voter's opinion? Certainly not. This is why fundamentally any policy in respect of election expenses should prevent political parties from having recourse to high-gear and noisy publicity aimed at misleading voters.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the first impression we gather from this bill is that it still rests on the underlying and hypothetical principle whereby the percentage of votes obtained by a candidate or a party is proportionate to the expenses made. I think this is what the situation is now and has been in the past.
However, what is it that should be done? To disappear? By virtue of what rights or privileges would the elected representatives of the House of Commons be so elected, if not on account of their ideas and beliefs, but exclusively on account of election expenses?
This, Mr. Speaker, is something which must absolutely be corrected through this bill, that is, to find out the true opinions of voters on a percentage basis according to election expenses. This is a mistake and this bill should not make the same mistake again.
Mr. Speaker, if the citizens of this country are to be treated fairly and equitably, we must first of all, as mentioned in the bill, examine closely this limitation of election expenses.
While studying the clauses of Bill C-211 concerning this limitation, I found that it is still much too high because there would still be many ways of obtaining good reasults without having to make that kind of expense.
Mr. Speaker, I am all the more pleased to emphasize this because once again we of the Social Credit party have proved beyond all doubt, that elections can cost practically nothing. Consequently, we set precedents in this modern age where we have been able on the sole strength of our principles and convictions, to win people over to a particular cause. It is not necessary to spend $25,000, $30,000 or $50,000 in order to avoid, as I was saying a while ago, distorting the results of an election.
We have therefore proved that it is possible to restrict these election expenses and I find that the limits provided in the bill are perhaps still too high considering-and I emphasize this-that there should not be any member who has been elected because money made up for his lack of personal qualities. No member of this House should be elected because of the amount of money spent in a given constituency.
For this reason, the authorized limits should be closer to a minimum than to a maximum and as I say this is possible. We have proved it ourselves during the last fed-
Election Expenses Bill
eral election in the constituency of Champlain, for instance, where the Social Credit candidate spent $1,344.50 while $32,000 was spent by the Liberal candidate.
Mr. Speaker, that, I suggest, is very concrete proof that stricter limits can be placed on the expenses authorized during an election campaign.
Another point involved in achieving greater fairness and justice in election campaigning for all concerned is the subject of newspaper, radio and television publicity. The bill deals with that, and even stresses the point, quite justifiably. However, I should like to add that such publicity, in newspapers as well as on television and radio, should also be equal for all parties or at least distributed according to a fair proportion. When I say "fair proportion", I want to point out that I mean almost equal proportion.
In fact, because of the extreme importance achieved by the media, television and radio as well as newspapers, particularly the dailies, it is imperative that justice be exercised for all parties in the matter of publicity.
That is why I feel that under no circumstances should time limits be exceeded. The bill indicates that a certain numbe rof hours between a given date preceding the elections up to the day before the eve of the elections would be shared between political parties, with the government reimbursing 50 per cent of the cost.
Mr. Speaker, that would be right in principle, but I suggest that an absolute limit should be set on this time, not to be exceeded, so that things would not reach the last point I want to make, rowdy, intensive publicity which can be misleading. Then, we are working towards a more equitable allotment if we limit exactly the advertising time allowed to each political party or candidate.
As the mass media, specifically radio and television, have secured their broadcasting rights from the CRTC, it seems to me that they should provide free of charge all the political parties with the time they need to inform the public of their respective programs, and I repeat, "free of charge".
They operate under privileges and rights granted to them by the federal government. Considering the amount of stupidities one hears and sees on a number of these stations, I think that, when election time comes, all of them should make free air time available to the candidates. If those periods cannot be had free of charge, then they should be reimbursed fully and not only to the extent of 50 per cent as provided for in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is a basic principle, and if we want to stick to the basic principles which should prevail in a democracy, if we do not want the power of money to elect the members of parliament instead of the power of conviction, we must reach the point where all expenses for publicity over television, radio and in the press, at least the dailies, are reimbursed in full and not only up to 50 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, one point has not been mentioned in this bill although it is of major importance: we know that it is of the utmost importance for every candidate to have a representative at the poll during a general election. That is essential if reasonable supervision is to be exercised and abuse avoided.

May 19, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
The act does not mention any expenditure relating to polling agents. This is essential if we are to obtain justice and equality for all in the field of elections.
As for the agents of political parties or candidates, it would be quite easy to solve this problem by considering them, for example, on the same footing as deputy returning officers and clerks and pay them directly in the same way as the special officers appointed on polling day.
It should be recognized that in addition to the deputy returning officer and the clerk, the candidates' representatives should be automatically paid for their services during that day by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Speaker, this point is so important that I would like to elaborate on it because this is a matter of votes in polling stations and it is extremely important that each candidate be represented.
Since elections take place either on Mondays or Tuesdays, it is sometimes difficult to find people to represent a party at the polling station without paying them. If elections took place on Sundays, this problem would not exist, but since the present law requires that elections take place on Mondays or Tuesdays it follows that candidates' agents at the polling station must lose one working day and when the candidate does not have sufficient funds to pay them, he is the victim of an injustice.
Moreover, if this essential question could be resolved as I suggested, this would ensure at the polling station a degree of honesty essential to fair elections.
It is, of course, easy for the well-organized parties enjoying huge election funds to give those people $20, $25 or $30, as the case may be. If there are 200 polls, and if the average pay is $25, the salaries of the party agents at the poll will amount to $5,000. Since it is essential for a candidate to have an agent, then these special agents should be remunerated as are other officers in polling stations.
When the by-election was held in the county of Trois-Rivieres, I had an opportunity of noting certain anomalies which are still prevalent although they should be weeded out, that is the considerable number of people and agents who are hired by some political parties in polling stations to monitor and inform.
In a church basement at Trois-Rivieres, there were 17 polling stations. There were some 60 agents at the entrance who were paid by the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties and whose very presence intimidated incoming electors.
The law should provide that a candidate may, if necessary, have only one agent at the polling station. What are these so-called agents doing there since they are paid by the old parties? They only check the lists of electors to see whether the name of Mr. So-and-So has been duly entered and they ask him although they have no right to do that since they have no business being there. So, they intimidate the poor voter in this way, particularly if he is already a little shy. This could be considered as a final attempt to influence the vote. All this should disappear. But what should we substitute to it?
It would be very well for neutral officers appointed by the chief electoral officer or by his returning officer in
(Mr. Matte.]
each constituency to be present in every poll. These agents would be there simply in order to inform the voter when he arrives at the door and tell him where he must vote and if necessary give him the required information. But this must be done by utterly neutral agents. It must be considered here that voters are adults, since the right to vote is granted to adults. They are able to perform their duty by themselves, without being surrounded by squads of special agents appointed by some political parties.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we consider it necessary in such a bill to avoid all the shortcomings and abuses which took place during elections. I think that our suggestions certainly deserve to be considered and carried out.
Mr. Speaker, there are peculiarities in this bill which, with your permission, I should like to bring to your attention.
For instance, on page 4, there is no indication as to the number of authorized agents a political party may have. I think the bill should be made more precise in this respect and specify exactly the number of authorized agents for each political party.
Paragraph (8) of clause 13.1 reads as follows:
(8) Every payment made by or through a registered agent in respect of any expenses of a registered party shall, except where the payment is less than twenty-five dollars, be vouched for by a bill stating the particulars and by a receipt.
What I find strange here are the words "except where the payment is less than twenty-five dollars". Thus only by distributing $20 bills by the thousands, it would be possible to run up fantastic expenses without the necessary receipts. It should be noted that this might very well happen and there have been some such instances in the past.
In paragraph (11) of clause 13.1, there is also the matter of charges which must be paid within six months after they have been incurred. I think there should be a little more time in cases of this kind. If someone is willing to advance funds to a political party and willing to wait one year for reimbursement, I don't see why this should be forbidden.
In paragraph (1) of clause 13.3, it is indicated that auditors who are appointed for candidates or political parties must report to the chief agent who in turn has to report to the Chief Electoral Officer. I wonder, for the sake of security, whether it would not be appropriate that the auditor himself report directly to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Speaker, again these are suggestions. We shall introduce amendments, if need be, but if the minister would immediately consider these suggestions, he himself could move the proper amendments.
I would also speak to the 20 per cent of the votes cast, the required 20 per cent for a candidate to be entitled to a refund, to a fraction of expenses incurred.
Mr. Speaker, once again we must be practical and consider that in theory, it may happen that a candidate might get slightly fewer votes than the winner-100, 200 or 300- and still not have 20 per cent of the votes. This could happen. At the last provincial elections in Quebec, some
May 19, 1972

members were elected with 26 or 27 per cent of the votes. Thus, theoretically a defeated candidate may be very close to the winner and not have obtained 20 per cent of the number of votes cast.
Instead of speaking of 20 per cent of the number of votes cast, we could say 25 per cent of the number of votes cast for the winner. It would be more fair, I think, for all the candidates. There are at present at least four official parties that put up candidates in almost every riding. If, at a given time, there was a close contest between the four parties, each party could theoretically get 25 per cent. Thus, that is when the candidate gets 20 per cent of the number of votes. In such a situation, this result becomes fantastic.
We should rather say 25 per cent of the number of votes obtained by the elected candidate, our electoral system being what it is, based on the principle of the simple majority on the first ballot.
There is another aspect of this bill that is worth mentioning. A maximum fine of $25,000 is provided in the case of political parties that would be guilty of an offense against this act.
Mr. Speaker, when one knows about the astronomical amounts spent by certain political parties during an election, when one knows that those expenses amount to millions of dollars, one will understand that paying $25,000 for violating the law would not be very much for old political parties. They will readily pay those $25,000 for they have plenty of money.
The paying of such a fine would not make much difference in situations such as those we have unfortunately known and will probably see again.
It would seem at first sight that the object of this bill-I would not like to question the motives of the President of the Privy Council-is to favour the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties' election funds.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Poor little martyr.


René Matte: Indeed Mr. Speaker, some election funds are well supplied. Methods were devised so that corporations of all kinds and individuals may make contributions to political parties. And God knows that it is being done. The hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) puts this principle into practice when he writes for example to all the corporations to which he granted subsidies, inviting them to contribute to the Liberal party's election funds. There is no doubt that huge amounts are expected.
I think that we should pay more attention to such things, in order not to alter the results of the elections.
Mr. Speaker, the bill also says-this seems to be another important part of this legislation-that some tax exemptions will be available. We are all for that but, again, this will benefit mostly those who can offer considerable sums of money to the political parties. On our side-everybody knows it-we are a basically popular party that exists only through the willpower of the people at large. All those things are foreign to us. Those who are being elected exclusively on matters of principle and conviction are always somewhat surprised at the potential of well-lined electoral coffers.
Election Expenses Bill
Anyway, we heartily hope that this legislation will be so amended that the ideal situation might be pursued, that is to allow to people full freedom of speech something which must be safeguarded even more when elections come since at that moment the voter makes the most important decision. We therefore have before us a legislation directly related to the voter's freedom of speech.
We should therefore consider all possible ways to ensure more freedom of speech by means of such a bill, provided the government is prepared to accept our suggestions and our amendments in due course.


Erik Nielsen: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker, but I must put in a word or two about one or two of the exceptions to the exceptions for which provision is made in this bill. I speak not only for myself, but for my colleague the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), though I am sure there are one or two other constituencies, such as for example, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and Coast Chilcotin where there is an absence of conventional means of transportation. I speak specifically of the clause in the bill which deals with the reimbursement of travel expenses. I hope the government will seriously consider amending the bill in committee so as to deal with a defect which, in my view, is very glaring.
Hon. members who refer to this clause on page 18 of the bill will find that it limits the reimbursement of travelling expenses to a maximum of $3,000. Now, where there are no scheduled airline services, where there are no roads and where it is not possible to reach certain portions of constituencies, such as the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, without chartering air services, hon. members will realize at once that this amount of money disappears very rapidly when applied to transportation. For example, $3,000 would pay the cost of two return trips from White Horse to the northernmost portion of my constituency at Old Crow.
As to my colleague from the Northwest Territories, there is no way he can travel from Yellowknife to the easternmost portion of his constituency without coming down to Edmonton and taking a commercial carrier into the eastern Arctic. From that point he has to charter air services. It is impossible to undertake this kind of travel for an expenditure of $3,000. The two factors to be taken into account are the absence of conventional means of transportation and a lack of easily accessible communications media in those two large northern constituencies.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Northwest Territories makes up a constituency which is 1,300,000 square miles in area. It is not possible to get around a constituency of that size on $3,000. I did not look at the last return of election expenses put in by my colleague from the Northwest Territories, but if he did not he should have spent some $10,000 on transportation. In the Yukon, I can state quite frankly that my average over the seven elections that I have gone through in the last 14 years has been $5,000. There is no way you can cut that figure any finer.

May 19, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
I would draw to the attention of the government that not only are these two northern areas-the Northwest Territories more so than my own riding-lacking in road networks, railroads and commercial air services, which places a financial burden on the shoulders of any campaigner, but in addition they suffer from a lack of conventional radio networks and conventional television networks as established here in the south. The burden placed on campaign organizations to finance other means of communication is very great. We do not reach the majority of our voters by radio and television but by means of printed material which is published in the form of flyers, booklets or letters, and postage is another factor that has to be taken into account.
In view of these differences, I suggest that the government seriously consider amending the bill before us and making exceptions of these not more than half dozen ridings in Canada that are handicapped as I have described. I am sure that the matter will be raised in committee, and in discussing it with the House leader a few moments ago he was not averse-in fact, he was quite amenable-to considering the exceptions that I drew to his attention. But without such amendments, and without limiting the expenses that can be laid out in an election campaign, the provisions set forth in the bill almost mean that candidates may as well stay at home.
Another of the limitations set forth in the bill is the $1 for each of the first 15,000 electors on the list of eligible voters. There are in excess of 15,000 eligible electors in the Northwest Territories but substantially less than that in the Yukon. So not only is a burden imposed on campaigners in northern ridings in regard to transportation costs, but because of the smaller population we also are severely limited under the $1 per voter formula.
The election campaign expenses in the Yukon that have been filed following the last three to four elections have varied between $20,000 and $25,000, and I am sure a similar amount would have been spent in the Northwest Territories-indeed, it should have been substantially more. I can see no reason for not limiting these expenses to a sum in the order of $15,000, and in the Yukon $5,000 should be set apart for transportation and the other $10,000 split between printing costs and other expenses. In the Northwest Territories, a ball park figure would be of the order of $25,000 to $30,000. What it would be for Coast-Chilcotin or Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, I am not prepared to guess; I am more familiar with the two northern ridings.
Therefore, I suggest there must be a reassessment made regarding the section of the bill that (a) limits expenses on the basis of number of voters in a riding, and (b) limits reimbursement of travel expenses in light of the lack of conventional communication facilities in the north compared with those in the south. With those remarks I hope that the government will reassess their position in the matter, reconsider the provisions of the bill affecting the two northern ridings and one or two others in this country, and introduce the appropriate amendments at the appropriate time.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Bar-beau committee in its report on the history of Canadian election expenses legislation had this to say at page 13:
The legislative response to the problem of money in elections throughout Canada exhibits a consistent but melancholy pattern.
I must say that the latest chapter in this history, Bill C-211, has not escaped that pattern. It is still a melancholy pattern full of gaping holes, and the largest and most glaring is the failure to deal with what is the nub of the whole question of election expenses, that is a firm limitation of expenses by parties as distinct from candidates. Any legislation that purports to control election expenditures by candidates but neglects to control election spending by parties is, at best, a halfway house and, at worst, a sham and an evasion.
What should be the aim of legislation in this field? In my view, genuine democracy involves equal rights and opportunities for all citizens without regard to the size of their bank accounts. A system which provides for the financing of election campaigns through large and secret campaign funds from corporate interests and other wealthy interests is a denial of genuine democracy. It involves the purchase, indirect though it may be, of influence for the chosen few. Any system that depends on financing from a corporate elite which already have enough power breeds public apathy and disillusion. It means that while we have what is partially a democratic system, it is in essence a system of plutocracy. This is what I find today and the legislation before the House does nothing to alter it.
I agree that some democracy is better than no democracy, but what we need is a more perfect democracy, and this can only be obtained if our representative system is fair and just to all. If parliamentary democracy, for example, can be regarded as a race for the honour of representing the people, then the present system handicaps the poor and bonuses the rich. When the race starts, some candidates are miles in front of others. The parties and individuals that possess the necessary money to advance their cause before the voters have a tremendous advantage over those who do not. In North America, this system has reached the point where to be a candidate for high office in the United States you have to be a millionaire. Indeed, perhaps I am behind the times and you have to be a multimillionaire in order to succeed.
In my view the Barbeau committee report is an excellent report, one of the best I have read on this subject. I want to read to the House some of the recommendations in that report which I think ought to be incorporated in legislation in this field. These recommendations are found at page 37 of the report and read as follows:
Political parties should be legally recognized and, through the doctrine of agency, made legally responsible for their actions in raising and spending funds.
I take it that "legally responsible" means they must be controlled and checked in that function. The second recommendation reads:
A degree of financial equality should be established among candidates and among political parties, by the extension of certain services and subsidies to all who qualify.
May 19, 1972

That is done in the present legislation, but in my view is done inadequately and in the wrong way. The third recommendation is as follows:
An effort should be made to increase public participation in politics, by broadening the base of political contribution through tax concessions to donors.
That is covered in this legislation and is welcomed; I think it is a very sound provision. Recommendation No. 4 reads:
Costs of election campaigns should be reduced, by shortening the campaign period, by placing limitations on expenditures on mass media by candidates and parties-
I point out that the recommendation includes the words "and parties", but the legislation ignores the importance of parties in this whole field and is totally inadequate to solve this problem. Recommendation No. 5 reads:
Public confidence in political financing should be strengthened, by requiring candidates and parties to disclose their incomes and expenditures.
I do not think that is adequately done in this legislation. The report then outlines that enforcement machinery through a registry and the supervision of a registrar should be established. I am not satisfied that the present legislation includes adequate provision for enforcement.
When I was first elected to parliament this subject of electoral reform was one of the subjects I felt most strongly about and I hoped during my career in the House to be able to contribute to it. Some years ago I introduced a private member's bill directed to this very subject. When the Barbeau committee was appointed in 1964, making its final report in 1966, I thought we were making excellent progress in this field.
In 1968, when a prime minister was elected who had both privately and publicly expressed his convictions about the necessity of genuine changes in this field, I must say I was encouraged. I do not agree with the report of the special committee in all its details but I think it was an achievement in the history of legislation in this field when the special committee appointed to deal with this matter reported unanimously. Some of its conclusions were the result of compromise but, nevertheless, it was an advance in the field.
Now we have Bill C-211. I am afraid it may be too late. If I had not heard something about an announcement made today, I would have said it was definitely too late. When I prepared my notes I had assumed the impossibility of this legislation being adopted before the next election. I was going to characterize this legislation as window-dressing for that reason. Now we have a breathing space and I urge upon the government, through the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who is in the House at the moment, that there is a challenge to them to ensure that this legislation, amended in accordance with the will of this House to make it more effective than it is at the present time, should be passed before the next election. If it is not, it will be a test of the sincerity of the government and its desire to reform this vitally important field.
I spoke about the inadequacy of this legislation and said its most glaring inadequacy was its failure to place any limitation upon the expenses of political parties. Everybody knows that major expenditures in an election are
Election Expenses Bill
made by political parties and not individual candidates. Everybody knows that the major scandals in the history of Canada in this field are related to political parties and not individual candidates. I suggest this is a gap which must be filled if parliament is to be able to say it has grasped the subject and dealt with it adequately.
At page 16 of the Barbeau committee report I find a judgment on the law passed in 1874, nearly 100 years ago. It reads:
By failing to come to grips with the reality that politics is more importantly a party process than an individual process, the framers of the 1874 law failed to put together a workable framework for legislation control.
That is precisely the situation we are facing here. Almost 100 years after this ineffective legislation of 1874, we in 1972 are being asked to put into effect legislation which fails to come to grips with the reality that politics is more importantly a party process than an individual process. The report goes on to state, as I have read, that the framers of the 1874 law failed to put together a workable framework for legislative control, and I say that is precisely true of Bill C-211 which fails to put together a workable framework for legislative control of expenditures by parties. In that respect there is a major defect in this legislation.
This legislation will not satisfy the people of Canada or the demands of a popular democracy unless it is remedied before being passed by the House. I do not want to go into all the details, because obviously second reading is not the right place to do so, but there is no provision in this legislation for disclosure of the sources of campaign funds except in regard to candidates, and even in that respect it is inadequate.
I have somewhere here a copy of the remarks made by the President of the Privy Council in introducing second reading of this legislation, but I seem to have mislaid it for the moment. He said no case had been made for special legislation to the effect that foreign sources of support and campaign funds for elections in Canada should be disclosed. I suggest to him it is self-evident that in this country it is highly important, if we are to be influenced by foreign sources in our electoral processes, that this should be known to the Canadian public.
I say to him that the very least this legislation should do-and I do not see that it does it at all-is include provision for the disclosure of foreign sources of contributions to candidates or parties in an election. I suggest those who are worried about our independence should concentrate their minds on this particular subject. It has always been my view that the greatest problem in respect of independence is in obtaining independence of mind and independence of our political system. I suggest that related to that is independence of our political machinery, and we cannot have complete independence if we are to have undisclosed contributions of political funds from foreign sources.
I must say I was amazed at the President of the Privy Council saying there was no reason shown for such a provision. I say this legislation is defective unless it provides adequately for full disclosure of all campaign funds, especially those which come from foreign sources. I do not think any political party in this country wants to be

May 19, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
beholden to foreign sources for campaign contributions, and the best remedy against this would be provision for full and adequate disclosure.
I wish to deal with just one or two other matters. As far as I understand the legislation, the present provisions with regard to disclosure by candidates and the reporting of sources of their campaign contributions remain unchanged. I suggest that is inadequate. We all know that under the present system campaign funds are lumped together and put in the name of a nominal contributor such as the riding association of a political party or a trust company, and that various other machinery is used to conceal the real source of contributions to candidates. If we mean business in this field we will ensure that the legislation provides that the real source of campaign contributions cannot be hidden in this way.
There is one other point. I understand this legislation provides for the reimbursement of candidates up to 25 per cent of their actual expenses plus $250 which, as I understand the remarks of the President of the Privy Council, is designed to deal with the expenses of an auditor who is required under the legislation. I find this provision very unsatisfactory. Surely a fairer provision would not provide 25 per cent for an individual candidate but, rather, a basic allowance for all qualified candidates. In effect, this is a bonus for candidates who have the means and the desire to spend a large sum of money.
I recognize, of course, that there are limitations in various cases up to about $30,000 for each candidate and therefore there is a limit on the amount of reimbursement he can receive. But I do not understand why a candidate should be reimbursed at a lower level for the needs of his campaign because he spends $5,000 rather than $25,000. If the purpose, as I understand it, is to equalize the situation, surely there should be a basic allowance for all qualified candidates rather than reimbursement based on what they spend on their election campaigns.
I was pleased that the minister said in his opening remarks that he is ready to accept suggestions and has an open mind. I remind him that this legislation is an historic step toward a more real and genuine democracy and it is of the utmost importance that it should contain all provisions necessary to that end. I want him to fill in the gaps. I hope he will proceed with an open mind and suggest that he should accept some of the recommendations of the Barbeau committee and of the special committee which are not contained in this legislation.
I hope, above all, that he will accept the proposition that if candidates are to be controlled in respect of expenditures, parties must also be controlled-because it is the parties which spend millions of dollars and which perhaps are unconsciously influenced by the source of campaign funds. Unless we do that, this measure will be a half-measure at best, and a sham.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad an opportunity is now being given to me and other hon. members to participate in this debate, an opportunity which at one time we thought might have been denied us. Now, however, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has-I

believe most improperly-told the press, rather than this House, that there will be freedom from an election during this summer. We will now, therefore, possibly have a chance to consider this bill in detail.
I shall not comment, as I am not entitled to, on the statement of the Prime Minister, other than to say it appears he has yielded to the fears and tears of members of his party from Ontario and other parts of Canada and has postponed the election. However, I hope hon. members who appear to have something to say will now enter the debate and give us the benefit of their views on this subject.
First of all, I support what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said concerning the special circumstances of the constituencies in the far north and those parts of Canada which because of their area and access to means of communication present very special problems to candidates and voters in an election campaign. I recall the first election in which I was a candidate, I believe in 1935.1 was too young at that time to know better; I was seduced into politics! In any event, I recall the various means of transportation I had to use, such as boats, aircraft and snowmobiles in an election campaign which lasted for months.
There is no question that the situation has improved since then. The means of communication in the north has improved. The scattering of isolated communities in the north and in the near north is such that I believe the eloquent pleas of the hon. member for Yukon should commend itself to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and other people on the government side. I shall not suggest a formula. I believe the situation should be looked at and, hopefully, the committee is the place where this might be done. I hope that evidence will be called before the committee.
The President of the Privy Council may react by saying that the Barbeau committee had witnesses before it, and also the committee of this House. But now we have concrete, specific proposals by the government and I do not think it would do any harm to receive at least a limited amount of evidence or briefs showing a reaction to what is in the bill and, possibly, alternatives or additions to it. Certainly, such evidence or briefs should be directed to the issue raised by my hon. friend from the Yukon. There is no question that elections are costly in such a riding. There is the cost involved and the wear and tear on the people. These are such as to warrant special consideration.
I have campaigned in the Northwest Territories on behalf of candidates there. My own riding adjoins that area and I know what is involved. I do not know whether the situation can be resolved by taking the population plus the area involved, with special consideration being given to the means of communication. This principle has already been accepted by the House. The amendments to the Senate and House of Commons Act, made some time ago, place members from different constituencies in different categories in respect of expenses. That principle having been accepted, I would especially urge the standing committee which studies this bill not to forget the very special conditions which exist. Having been involved in election campaigns in such an area in the early days, I know the extent to which the situation has improved in
May 19, 1972

the southern parts of my constituency-but the problem still exists in the north. I am sure my hon. friend from Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuck), whom I believe will enter this debate, will agree with what I say.
Finally, I want to bring once more to the attention of the House the very eloquent and reasoned comments of my hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) whose amendment has been ruled out of order but who, nevertheless, made a certain proposition which he would have used as a basis of support for his amendment had it been accepted. I shall not go into the detail of the bill itself; the hon. member for Hillsborough did that to some extent.
There is no doubt that all of us as practical, seasoned people involved in public life will recognize that no matter what this statute may say, ways and means will be found, not of evading it but of avoiding it. There are a variety of ways, such as committees formed of friends of a party, or friends of a candidate who will be free to seek out means by which what is proposed in the bill, the real pith and substance of the bill, can be set aside to a large extent.
No doubt if loopholes are discovered, they may be plugged later. But I suggest that what I hope hon. members had in mind, what I think the Barbeau committee had in mind and what I am sure the House of Commons committee had in mind, was some real and honest way of limiting and controlling election expenses. While this is a modest beginning in that direction, I am convinced it will be found that when legislation is put into effect at the next election, so many loopholes will be found in it that in many respects it will be, not a farce but almost a nullity.
For this reason, while this consideration takes place- and this is a continuing process which may take ten years to be astute, vigilant and alert enough to find out what those loopholes are and to plug them-I suggest to the House and to the country that the proposal made by the hon. member for Hillsborough to shorten the period of election campaigning is a sensible and logical course to undertake, not as an alternative but as an additional means of limiting and controlling campaign expenses.
There is another reason as well. Today, the people of Canada are well served by the various communications media. They are well served by members of parliament on all sides of the House who through the use of these media and frequent trips to their constituencies are able to keep the public of Canada well informed through the use of the adversary system. I would like to think that most people in Canada today are pretty well informed on many of the political and public issues dealing with our social and economic life. This being the case, I view with abhorrence, as I am sure a great many hon. members do, the length of campaigns of the sort which we have had in the past, lasting 2 J months or three months.
I say with all the strength at my command that this is not necessary and that three weeks or a month at the most is completely adequate to pinpoint the specific issues on which the parties divide and where there are conflicts- and then let the jury decide! When members of the legal profession address the jury in a murder trial or in civil action, we know that one can get to a point where one can lull the jury to sleep. You do not repeat your arguments
Election Expenses Bill
ad nauseam; you make your case and then you shut up. This is the situation which should prevail with regard to election campaigns, and also with regard to answers by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin).


Mr. McBride:: How about debates in the House of Commons?


Gerald William Baldwin: If occasionally we could get intelligent contributions from the other side of the House, we could have a yardstick by which to judge.
I say with all sincerity that surely by now we have made a case for a shorter election campaign period. There may be problems in legislating to that effect, but I do not think so. If we were able to say that only during the period of 30 days prior to the election date expenses could be incurred, expenses within the meaning of this act, and only within that time expenses could be incurred which would be acceptable, this could be placed within the framework of the legislation.
The people of this country become nauseated by the continued expression of political diatribe during the course of a campaign of 2j months. The leaders of our political parties have imposed upon them very severe strains. I do not think that national leaders should have to be exposed to election campaigns of this length. Our friends to the south find it even worse. In the Congress of the United States they have been seeking ways and means of shortening election campaigns. Their constitution, however, makes it very difficult for them to do so.
We have an opportunity now and a vehicle by which to achieve this, and I hope the committee will look at this proposal very seriously. I hope they will consider the extent to which television and radio are utilized during the course of an election campaign. I do not think it is necessary for people who would like to see "Sesame Street" or "Blood of Dracula" to view instead the Prime Minister.
I do not mean to make a joke of it, but I suggest that there is one way-and I do not eliminate the other methods-by which we can certainly limit and control campaign expenditures, and that is by ensuring that the length of the campaign is drastically shortened to no more than 30 days. A stipulation should be attached to the effect that expenses of any kind incurred before the 30 days will not be counted and cannot be considered as being official campaign expenses.
I make this plea and ask the committee to consider it. Perhaps they are not yet ready. We do not know when this legislation will be first used. We do not know when the Prime Minister will call an election and we do not know whether the legislation will be in effect when the election is called. There is some doubt as to when it will be effective and some suggestion that, apart from the question of six months, it can only come into effect at some period after January 1, 1973. I have not directed my attention to that but possibly the committee will. If it is feasible for the legislation to become applicable during the course of the next election, I would ask the committee to take a very serious look at this proposal as it has been advanced by the hon. member for Hillsborough and supported by myself.
2442

May 19, 1972
Election Expenses Bill


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, welcome as this legislation is, welcome as is any legislation in the field of election expenses, I think we have to enter a large caveat with respect to the specific provisions of the bill and its over-all impact on this matter. My colleagues, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), have dealt with a large number of points involved in this bill, the points they accept and the ones they criticize. I do not intend to go over the same ground that they covered.
I would like to discuss this bill taking into account two points. First of all, I think we need to relate the legislation to our society, to the relationship between government and people and to the role that government plays in society. I think there are serious questions we must ask, because whether we like it or not there are a great many people in Canada who are becoming disillusioned with the way in which the system operates. They are becoming disillusioned with democratic processes because all too often they see the sham and the hypocrisy that is involved in certain events, all too often they see what is done for the sake of gaining or retaining power. There is a large-scale reaction among many Canadian people to these phenomena. People are more aware than ever that some of the forces which control the destiny of our country also control the well-being of Canadians.
People are more aware of this now than they were in the past. They do not like what they see. They do not like the performance of the past several weeks culminating in the announcement today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that there will not be an election this summer. At least that doubt is removed and we know there will not be an election for some time, although the Prime Minister has been playing cat and mouse with the country for several months. People do not like to see our electoral system being played with; they feel it is not in the best interests of the functioning of democracy and see it as part of the process of breakdown of our democratic institutions. We should be looking for some change in the system of calling elections so that the power will not rest in the hands of one man as it does now under our constitution.
That is one part of the picture, Mr. Speaker. Another part concerns this legislation. I think most people will welcome legislation governing election expenses, but they will be disillusioned because of some of its loopholes. There is no requirement to disclose campaign contributions, nor is there any limitation on expenditures by national political parties, and when people realize this I believe they will reject what otherwise could be a very good piece of legislation. The government should give serious consideration to this question because people are becoming concerned about many aspects of the functioning of our democracy. They see the role that money plays in persuading people and they are aware of the power of advertising in today's society.
I believe more effective provisions are required in respect of the disclosure of campaign contributions. In this party we are prepared to take our chances along with everybody else and have our contributions made known. People like to point out that the trade unions make contributions to our party, but we are prepared to make that

information available provided the same information is made available by the other parties. We want it made known what contributions are made by corporations and the role they are playing behind the scenes in the electoral process.


An hon. Member:: What about trade organizers?


John Stratford Burton: We are quite prepared to make everything known, but we ask that the other parties do the same. Hon. members opposite should have the courage to do this rather than trying to take refuge behind some form of camouflage. It is a great chance for government members to carry on in the same way if all sources of contributions to the Liberal party are not made known to the people of Canada.
I know of one case where there will be a great deal of concern, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Regional Development, of which I am a member, has been examining some of the incentive grants made to private industry. There have been about 1,400, some large and some small. As a result of questions asked in committee it has been learned that three large grants have been made to McCain Foods Limited, a food processing firm in the province of New Brunswick. It is well known that in 1968 one of the senior personnel in this firm acted as Liberal campaign manager in New Brunswick. I understand, too, that McCain's financed the leadership campaign of the provincial Liberal leader in New Brunswick and they are presently playing an active role in political affairs in that province. Of course, that is their right as it is that of any other citizen, but they have a lot more power than other people. In committee we learned that $3.2 million in grants had never been reported to parliament as is required by section 15 of the Regional Development Incentives Act.
I hasten to add that as a result of some members, including myself, digging out this information, the minister has now given an undertaking to supply parliament with a supplementary report setting out information on some 90 firms where changes in grants have been made and where the net change has totalled an increase of $7 million. I hope that information will be available within the next few days so that this matter can be examined properly before the end of the month. I found out that the first application for a grant, for a new potato processing facility, was made on December 19, 1969; the date of the offer was November 2, 1970, and the date of acceptance was December 9, 1970. The total amount offered in this grant was $6.1 million and some of that money has already been paid out. Two more offers of grants were made, one for $633,000 and another for $443,000. Grants of some $7.1 million have been offered to this firm which is a leading figure in the New Brunswick Liberal party.
Another interesting fact should be noted. An important official in the department, Mr. George McClure director of operations for the Atlantic region joined it in February, 1969, and left on August 1, 1970, to join the firm of McCain Foods Limited in a high executive position. At the time he left, three applications for grants had been received from McCain Foods Limited, one on December 19, 1969, one on May 22, 1970, and one on June 8, 1970. One of these had been offered on July 22, 1970, prior to his leaving, the
May 19, 1972

other two being offered on August 28, 1970, and November 2, 1970.
Mr. Speaker, in committee I stated that I felt there was a potential conflict of interest here and asked the minister or his department to look into the matter. They reported on the investigation and said it had been found that this man was involved in the operations part of the department's programs in the Atlantic region and that any decisions or evaluations of offers and grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act were made by the incentives division of the department.
I accept the word of the minister and his deputy in this regard, Mr. Speaker, but surely the various divisions of the department have contact with each other. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. It was made quite clear that this man had been involved in discussions with McCain Foods Limited about their expansion plans, yet he went directly from the federal government service into the employ of McCain Foods Limited.


Mr. Cullen:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) rises on a point of order.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member is going to speak on the subject matter of the bill, or is he to be allowed to continue the smear comments that he has been making for the last five minutes?


Mr. Skoberg:: You can't take it.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the matters to which I have related in the last several minutes are matters of fact which have been stated in the committee by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and his deputy.


John Leroy Skoberg: Disclosure, my boy; that is what's wanted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Stratford Burton: Here is a case in point, and I use it as an example to show that possible conflicts of interest may be involved. Of course, it may not be possible to answer some pertinent questions at this time, although it is well known that the firm in question has dipped into the public treasury to the tune of $7.1 million. It is a well known beneficiary of and an active participant in the affairs of the Liberal party of New Brunswick. That is a matter of record and hon. members opposite cannot quarrel with it; it is a fact. Furthermore, these facts are known to the public. Mr. Speaker, the people know that some of these things are going on, even if the specific facts are not available. It is this process by which one political party is able to maintain itself in power that is leading to growing disillusionment in the democratic process.
Until we deal with the problem of identifying contributions, no matter by whom they are made, to political campaigns and political parties I suggest that we will not obtain effective legislation in the field of election expenses. Thus, I urge the President of the Privy Council
Election Expenses Bill
(Mr. MacEachen) who introduced this bill to look seriously at that particular part of it. I suggest that unless this area is considered, the people of this country will know that this bill is a sham.
I know the minister made the point that the bill follows the recommendations of the committee. I concede that point. I suggest, nevertheless, that some members of the committee disagreed with that recommendation. They wanted to make progress in that field. They came forward with their report because they wanted progress to be made. I suggest that we could go beyond that point. The time to do that is now, while this legislation is before the House. This is the occasion for dealing adequately with the matter. When the bill goes to committee let us give it further consideration and make sure that adequate provisions are included concerning the disclosure of campaign contributions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That would be an interesting exercise.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, legislation concerning election expenses and various regulations governing general elections in this country have come forward from time to time during the past 105 years. The legislation and regulations have been amended from time to time since then, but never to the extent that this bill proposes. Some of the legislation that was passed was designed to curb or control corrupt practices. The idea behind this bill is somewhat different. On the surface, it sounds like a democratic measure. Apparently it is aimed at giving people with moderate incomes the same chance to enter politics as is available to those with much higher incomes. It is difficult to argue against that principle if taken by itself. All the same, one must consider many factors about this bill before coming to some kind of logical and reasonable conclusion about it.
In 1873, I think it was, the first example of corrupt practices came to public view. That stimulated the introduction of legislation dealing with this matter which was introduced in the following year, 1874. Then legislation in this field was passed in 1908 but there was nothing further until 1920 when amendments were proposed by the prime minister of the day, Arthur Meighen. Those amendments were to the Dominion Elections Act and were designed to clarify a number of points in the existing legislation, such as exceptions to the rule that all payments must be made through the official agent. There was also a clarification of personal expenses and the amendment changed the penalty for default in publishing a statement of expenses.
The 1920 legislation expanded the scope of publicity by requiring that candidates disclose contributors and amounts contributed. Although this was an improvement, much of the usefulness of the new provision was made ineffective by two continuing failures, those being the nonrecognition of political parties and the lack of enforcement provisions for dealing with infringements of the act. Since 1920 no new laws of any significance have been brought down, although many pleas for reform from the media and the public have been expressed from time to time since then.
There is only one documented case of a member being unseated under the old regulations for corrupt practices; otherwise the law was not enforced. Some of the reasons

May 19, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
for that lack of enforcement are, first, that the established parties have been unwilling under the old legislation to initiate action against each other; second, that the trouble and cost of contesting an election suit about election expenses is prohibitive to the private citizen; third, that no organized, non-political agency has felt itself responsible or has been made responsible for prosecuting candidates violating this law on election expenses and, finally, that no governmental agency has felt itself responsible or has been made responsible for prosecuting candidates violating the law on election expenses.
The two main weaknesses of the legislation first enacted in 1874 and subsequently amended were, first, the failure to recognize political parties as essential units of political finance and, second, the failure to provide effective machinery for enforcing the law.
A long time after that the Coldwell commission studied this whole problem and made seven main recommendations which were not, so far as I know, ever included in the legislation. Those seven recommendations were as follows: first, that political parties should be legally recognized and, through the doctrine of agency, made legally responsible for their actions in raising and spending funds. Second, a degree of financial equality should be established among candidates and among political parties by the extension of certain services and subsidies to all who qualify. Third, an effort should be made to increase public participation in politics by broadening the base of political contributions through tax concessions to donors.
Fourth, costs of election campaigns should be reduced by shortening the campaign period, by placing limitations on expenditures on mass media by candidates and parties and by prohibiting the payment of poll workers on election day. Fifth, public confidence in political financing should be strengthened by requiring candidates and parties to disclose their incomes and expenditures. Sixth, a registry under the supervision of a registrar should be established to audit and publish the financial reports required and to enforce the provisions of the proposed election and political finances act; and, seventh, miscellaneous amendments to broadcasting legislation should be enacted to improve the political communications field.
I think it is fair to say that the art of democratic politics and the evolution of the communications media have always been closely linked. The increased use of mass media as a form of political propagandizing has become an accepted and necessary element of present political campaigns. The forbiddingly high cost of media advertising has become one of the main problems facing prospective and nominated candidates for public office. Hence, the principle behind this bill is, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, that it will bring greater equality between individuals in terms of their eligibility for public office.
First-and I think this is the main reservation that should be considered-is the fact that in general terms the amount of campaign funds that a political party can collect can be considered as a fairly accurate reflection of the amount of popular support that party has in the country. Because of that it is quite easy to see why my

friends to the left are constantly suggesting that election expenses be limited. It appears they have difficulty collecting any significant amount of funds except by compulsory means in keeping with their compulsory philosophy. Not having very much public popular support and not being able to collect very large amounts of funds for campaign purposes, they are taking the alternative which is to limit the amount the other parties can spend. This has the same effect as increasing their own funds.
I was slightly baffled by the pious self-righteousness of the hon. member who spoke before me when he talked about conflict of interest between parties and their potential donors. I think it is quite well known that the party to my left depends largely on compulsory contributions from unions, some of them foreign-dominated and some of them not. It seems to me that it is no different from the point of view of conflict of interest when a union boss tells a member of that party what to say, when to say it and how high to jump, then it would be for someone from a corporation to tell other parties or try to get them to say what they want said. If you examine the structure, that kind of self-righteousness is not justifiable.


John Stratford Burton: We will lay the cards on the table.


Paul Yewchuk: Naturally that party will lay its cards on the table because the contributions are compulsory; they are deducted from the cheques in the same manner as income tax. There is absolutely no way they can get away with hiding this as a voluntary contribution. I recognize that workers have the right of opting out of this, but they do not usually do so if they want to survive. When we consider the remarks of the leader of that party and the decision made a day or two ago by the Canadian Labour Congress that they are going to throw their open support behind that party, we see that that party does not really reflect representation of the general population of this country when that might be considered as a conflict of interest.
We in our party have been subject to some criticism by the party to our left. They have criticized us for being puppets of big business-paid for, owned and operated by big business. This is a myth which I am sure any intelligent individual can recognize immediately. Evidence of this is the kind of constituencies we represent in this House. Just look at where the members of my party come from. Almost to the last man we represent fairly poor, economically speaking, constituencies such as rural ridings and ridings where-


Murray Arndell McBride: You even have poor members.


Paul Yewchuk: That is right. I will not reflect upon who they are, but I am looking at one right now. The point I am trying to make is that this party is by no means controlled, owned or operated by big business. As a matter of fact, it is controlled and operated by the average man in this country; the average wage earner, fisherman, farmer as well as the average businessman and occasional physician and lawyer. Unfortunately, we do not have any wealthy lawyers in our party, but I am sure that if we work at it we will be able to attract some of them.
We have a good deal of support from the rank and file of unions. I am sure this will be seen if we examine the
May 19, 1972

election results in certain areas where rank and file union people reside. They do not necessarily vote the way their union bosses tell them. While we are accused of being responsible only to big business, examination of the situation reveals that this is simply not the case.
Second, I want to comment on the idea of disclosure of sources of financial assistance for campaign purposes. I can only speak for myself; other members can speak for themselves. I do not know where the money comes from which finances my campaign. I have absolutely no knowledge of any individual, corporation or other interested group that may make donations. All I know is that we receive an allocation of funds from our central finance committee.


John Leroy Skoberg: Now we know.


Paul Yewchuk: Under these circumstances, I think a member of parliament is much more able to function as a free agent and to speak about what he thinks is right for the country without being subject to any kind of pressure from whoever the donor may have been. The party to my left is proposing that we know who gave us our campaign funds because that is the position in which they find themselves; they realize how uncomfortable it is to be subject to pressure from a particular pressure group.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I am in a situation where I would rather not know. I do not want to be subject to pressure by a particular pressure group, telling me what I should be saying in parliament and for whom I should be speaking. I want to be able to speak honestly, sincerely and impartially in the way I think is best for my constituents and the country. Therefore, I am very vigorously opposed to the idea of naming individuals, corporations or any other groups which have made donations, whether big or small, to the political party which I represent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but since we have reached the hour of four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government House leader will confirm that the business for next week is as he has already announced or will there be any variation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the plan is to continue the budget on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday I would like to return to the legislative list that I gave on Thursday last, beginning with the election expenses bill that was before the House a moment ago. If there are any changes, I will communicate them to hon. members.
Blue Water Bridge Authority Bill



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent) moved: that Bill C-16, to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act (public and financial accountability), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of Bill C-16 it might be well to review some of the events leading up to the situation as it exists at the present time. On April 30, 1964 it was my pleasure to second the motion proposed by Mr. Walter Foy, the then hon. member for Lambton West, as the constituency was then called, respecting Bill S-4 having to do with the international bridge over the St. Clair River known as the Blue Water Bridge. This legislation was brought about because it was necessary that somebody be charged with the maintenance and upkeep of the bridge.
It will perhaps be helpful to explain that the bridge, first built in 1938 with government help, paid off its indebtedness in a period of 23 years. During this time it was operated by the Michigan state bridge commission, but when the indebtedness had been discharged the United States bureau of public roads said that federal grants for Michigan highway construction would be withheld in accordance with an original agreement which stated there could be no tolls on the bridge or on highways in Michigan. Moreover, the village of Point Edward, Ontario, had not been receiving tax revenue from some of its most valuable industrial land upon which the Canadian approach to Ihis bridge is located. Further, virtually no maintenance work was carried out during the period. What little work was carried out was done gratis by the Ontario department of highways. Heat and light in the customs and immigration office was supplied by the federal government.
Having regard to these facts, I was very happy to be the co-sponsor of the bill. Local papers congratulated the then hon. member for Lambton West and myself on the degree of co-operation we displayed at that time as a result of which the measure passed through the House in record time-less than half an hour, in fact.
The commission established to operate the bridge, I naively thought, would consist of prominent citizens of the area. However, the members eventually appointed read like a "Who's Who" of the Liberal heirarchy in Sarnia. As a practical politician I could see what had happened and simply assumed this was the way the cookie crumbled. One of the first things the commission did was to reimpose tolls. These were higher than originally envisaged but were accepted as necessary to provide for maintenance. Successive increases have been put into effect over the years, and as co-sponsor of the bill setting up the authority I wondered when some meaningful

May 19, 1972
Blue Water Bridge Authority Bill financial statement would emerge from this semi-public body.
I myself believe the commission was operating quite responsibly, but in 1970 rumours started to fly concerning expense account living, trips abroad, and so on, on behalf of bridge commissioners. These were probably triggered by announcements of new tariffs. I felt some moral responsibility when the city of Sarnia, in a letter dated October 8, 1970, requested that certain financial data be supplied to them and asked why public notice had not been given of a hearing by the transport commission relative to the imposition of increased tolls. The answer to this request by the council is interesting, Mr. Speaker. I should like to quote the following excerpt from this letter dated October 14 and sent by Mr. John Blunt, the chairman, to Mr. Given, the city manager of Sarnia:
As you know, the Blue Water Bridge Authority was set up by act of Parliament as a private authority to manage and operate the bridge. As such, we are not in a true sense a public body nor are we agents of the Crown. We therefore are not required to publish our financial figures, although we do file statutory annual statements with the Auditor General.
In a later paragraph the letter reads:
I would be pleased to meet with you and your council at any convenient time to give you more background information, including financial statistics, but such discussions must be on an off the record basis.
Having regard to this attitude I placed a series of questions on the order paper in an effort to clear the air. This was on November 12, 1970. I also set down a notice of motion for the production of papers. Six months later I received what I might call non-answers to my questions. The following replies were received on May 26, 1971, and I append them to the question to which they relate.
Question: On what date or dates did the governor in council, or any authority delegated by the governor in council order the Blue Water Bridge authorities to make its cost records and its cash receipts and disbursements records available, pursuant to section 19(1) of the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act?
Answer: In accordance with the requirements and responsibilities of the Canadian government, certain financial information, mainly with respect to tolls, has been submitted to the government by the Blue Water Bridge Authority under the provision of the Railway Act. No additional request for financial information has been made to date under the enabling authority contained in the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act, section 19(l)(a).
Question: On what date or dates did the Blue Water Bridge Authority provide the governor in council or his designee with itemized, detailed and verified reports of the authority's receipts and disbursements under section 19(2)(a) of the act?
Answer: Not applicable.
Question: Commencing with 1964, in what year or years were the accounts of the Blue Water Bridge Authority audited by persons designated by the governor in council or his designee under section 19(2)(b) of the act?
Answer: No persons have been so designated.
Question: Has the Auditor General recently required from the appropriate department, information, reports and explanations concerning the operations of the Blue Water Bridge Authority?
Answer: No.
Compare these statements, which I received in answer to my questions, with the statement made by Mr. Blunt, chairman of the bridge authority, to the Sarnia city council. Take my question about the Auditor General and the reply: nobody has requested any information nor has any information been received. Compare this with the state-

ment of Mr. Blunt in his letter to the city of Sarnia in which he said "We file statutory annual statements with the Auditor General."
I shall be charitable and say I believe that Mr. Blunt honestly does not know the difference. Not many individuals know all the technicalities surrounding the huge government we have here. So, as I say, I do not believe Mr. Blunt was being dishonest; I just do not think he knows the difference. The fact remains there is no real accounting by this body that members of the House can lay their hands on. Against this background, I commend this simple bill for passage. It provides that the affairs of this body be reported in the form prescribed for most public bodies, Crown corporations, and so on. The explanatory note to the bill reads in part:
The purpose of this bill is to require the Blue Water Bridge Authority to submit its annual accounts to the Auditor General of Canada and to make an annual report to the public through Parliament.
If there are any technicalities in this measure which the government feels should be corrected, I would welcome someone from the other side of the House proposing amendments. I invite suggestions. Following my abortive attempt to get meaningful information about the bridge commission, I received a letter from the authority dated June 15, 1971. The first paragraph reads:
During a regular business meeting of the authority commissioners held this week, several members expressed concern about reports in the press that you were not satisfied with answers you received to questions asked by you in the House regarding the operation of the Blue Water Bridge.
May I suggest that this paragraph is the understatement of the year. Of course I was not satisfied. Nor was the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), though I am not going to quote him out of context; I suspect that he may speak later today. When we both appeared on TV and radio he agreed that the answer that I had received-I think I quote him correctly-was, in effect, a non-answer. Let me continue to read the letter:
As co-sponsor of the bill that created the authority, you no doubt know that one of the provisions of that bill stipulates that we are to give out financial statements only to those designated by the governor in council and this we are prepared to do if, as and when we receive the necessary authority to do so.
This next paragraph is extremely interesting:
In your particular case, however, the members of the authority feel, rightly or wrongly, that you as co-sponsor of the bill have more than an ordinary right to know what is going on and what has gone on in the operation of the authority you helped create.
I do not accept that logic at all. I do not accept that due to my position I can have access to information from a public body that other Canadian citizens cannot have. There is no reason that I should have the information any more than any other citizen in the Sarnia area. But this paragraph gives a clue to the way out; it suggests, and quite properly so, that the authority is ready, willing and able to give out their financial audit when directed and where designated by the governor in council. The closing paragraph of this letter is also quite revealing and reads as follows:
May 19, 1972

Meanwhile, Mr. McCutcheon, rest assured that we have since our inception filed annual, audited, financial reports in Ottawa with the Department of Transport who we were instructed to report to.
How does one square that statement, which is written by W. H. Young, a civil servant and employee of the authority, that they file their report with the Department of Transport, when a few months earlier the chairman of the commission, the man charged with the responsibility, said that they report every year to the Auditor General? I am not attaching blame to the Blue Water Bridge Authority; I am attaching blame to the cabinet, to the governor in council which has not given the proper direction. Neither the chairman nor the paid manager knew where they were reporting.
This closing paragraph of the letter I like particularly; I do not know who they thought they were kidding:
You are of course at liberty to release this letter to the press if you care to do so. We look forward to seeing you.
One thing is clear, Mr. Speaker, from the answers given to questions and correspondence: at no time has the governor in council directed this authority to report any place in particular. I say that the government has abandoned its responsibility in this regard. To prove my point, I have before me a letter from the Automotive Transport Association of Ontario dated March 7, 1972, and addressed to me. It reads in part:
We do not know what your interest may be in the bridge, but we thought we would tell you that some of our people objected to the second toll increase in two years. The objection was made to the Canadian Transport Commission who reported they had no authority to entertain any protest.
So it looks to me as if there has been an abandonment by the government of responsibility to the authority in Sarnia. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that you could get any information from the Department of Transport? I doubt it. Could you get it from the Auditor General? I say that would be pretty questionable. Which department of government has the information? For the benefit of my colleagues in the House, the last I heard was that it was hidden some place in external affairs, and I doubt very much whether chairman Blunt knows that either. If you happen to be interested, Mr. Speaker, as a special dispensation you could accompany me to Sarnia where the authority has given me such a warm invitation to come and visit them. But unless the rest of my colleagues in the House are invited, I do not think they will get in.
I ask for the support of my colleagues in the House on this matter. In my opinion it is a reasonable request I make to treat this authority in the same way as Crown corporations and other government bodies are treated. However, if hon. members opposite wish to keep this matter sub rosa, if they want suspicion still to shroud the dealings of this authority, then I suggest they can practise on their oratorical skills and talk this bill out. If they do that, the responsibility for continuing this confusion will rest squarely on their shoulders. May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that even so it really will not matter all that much. There may be a slight delay, but I promise them that after the next election the new government of which I will be a member will see to it that this bill is put through promptly.
Blue Water Bridge Authority Bill


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly encouraged to hear that Liberal fortunes have gone up so much that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) has seen fit to announce that he is going to join the Liberal party and form part of the government after the next election. I think that both of us wrote our speeches this morning when we thought an election was going to be announced at two o'clock this afternoon.
In all seriousness, I must confess that I was apprehensive that the bill of the hon. member might not be reached during this session and that we would not have an opportunity to debate it. Anyone who has made a study of the history of the Blue Water Bridge, as I have, will have to concede that Ross W. Gray, Q.C., who was a Liberal member of this parliament from 1927 till 1942, was the driving force behind the bridge being built in the first place. I had the honour of being articled to Ross Gray and later was associated with him in the practice of law. From this association, both as a colleague in the practice of law and as a close personal friend, I learned a great deal about the trials and tribulations faced by Mr. Gray when he was endeavouring to convince the powers that be at the time of the need for just such a structure. I well remember the scrapbook that Mr. Gray had showing the various stages of construction and I could not help being amazed at the far-sightedness of Mr. Gray and the governments of that day which undertook a project of this magnitude.
The agreement entered into at that particular time stated, among other things, that when the bonds and debts of the bridge were retired, tolls would be discontinued. That agreement also made provision for payment to the village of Point Edward of $5,000 in lieu of taxes each year. On June 1, 1961, the obligations of the commission were satisfied.
Going back in history to that particular period-I was practising law at that time and was solicitor for the council and have reason to know something about the facts- the then member for Lambton West, Mr. Walter Foy, and the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), who was then the member and still is, jointly saw the need for establishing the Blue Water Bridge Authority and for making provision for payment of taxes to the village of Point Edward which would be commensurate with the holdings of the Blue Water Bridge Authority.
The minister of transport of that day, in moving second reading of Bill S-4 asked the former member for Lambton West, who was intimately acquainted with the situation, to explain the bill and the reasons for it. I think it is to the credit of these two men, one from each party, that they worked together to the advantage of the area. I think it was a tribute to the former member for Lambton West, Mr. Foy, that he was selected by the then minister of transport to introduce the bill because of his familiarity with the subject.
The hon. member for Lambton West knew that the village of Point Edward was being shortchanged because it was no longer receiving revenue either from government grants or from assessment and, in addition to this both he and the member for Lambton-Kent recognized

May 19, 1972
Blue Water Bridge Authority Bill
that it was necessary to establish a Blue Water Bridge Authority to maintain and operate the Canadian side of the bridge. The then member for Lambton West said, on April 30, 1964, as reported at page 2762 of Hansard:
In the original agreement the village of Point Edward was to receive $5,000 in lieu of taxes each year. The original agreement did not provide for any Canadians to be appointed to the bridge commission although it was, in fact, an international bridge.
The agreement further stated that when the bonds and debts were retired, the tolls would be discontinued. This took place in 1961. The hon. member for Lambton West at that time recited the history much along the same lines as the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has done today. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent supports the bill and the argument put forth by the former member, as reported at page 2763 of Hansard for that day.
Here we had two members recognizing the need to work together, so there was certainly unanimity at that particular time and, as the hon. member for Lambton-Kent said, the bill received careful scrutiny in the other place and I can only assume from his support of the bill that it received careful scrutiny from him. It is, therefore, appropriate that the member for Lambton-Kent should present the bill at this time in the interests of tidying up what he sees as a gap in the provisions of Bill S-4.
I, too, have been somewhat apprehensive about the provisions of section 19, because I felt it placed members of the Blue Water Bridge Authority in a rather difficult position in that they could not, and cannot to this date, under the provisions of this bill as it now stands give out financial statements to the general public but only to those people designated by the governor in council. This bridge authority stood ready and prepared to do this at any time.
When I prepared my remarks in connection with this bill I had no idea of the stance to be taken by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, but I was certain that the hon. member was not suggesting there was anything wrong with the present operation of the bridge nor that any funds had been misappropriated or misused. I was happy when he said this afternoon he was making no such charge. In fact, he suggested that the bridge is admirably run but the problem is one of getting these statements to the general public. He was simply making these representations to tidy up what he feels is a looseness in section 19(1).
He will know from earlier conversations that this has been a matter of concern to me as well and I, too, have been stressing both with the Department of Transport and with the Department of External Affairs that the section should be changed if only to protect the interests of those who presently serve, without pay, as members of the Blue Water Bridge Authority.
When certain questions were raised by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, the then general manager of the bridge wrote the hon. member a letter dated June 15,1971. The hon. member reads it in one way and I read it in another. The manager of the Blue Water Bridge Commission, operating under the strictures that are imposed by section 19(1), wrote that they could not make their financial statements public, could only make them available to those designated by the governor in council, but were

prepared to do so when they received the necessary authority. The letter went on to say that because of the hon. member's interest in the bill they would like him to have a full picture of exactly what was happening.
I should like to quote one part of the letter which the hon. member did not see fit to read:
With this feeling in mind then the authority members extend to you an invitation to visit the bridge offices, there to see the operation in all phases, there to meet and talk with any or all of the commissioners you care to see or the general manager or the treasurer or the auditors, W. L. Smith & Co., and there to receive complete and detailed answers to any and all questions you care to ask about present or past operations.
We have on hand complete records of every cent ever taken in (attested to by four signatures and an auditors check) and a cancelled cheque for every penny spent. We will have on hand a signed, audited, detailed record of any commissioners' expense account complete with receipts for any trip ever taken by any commissioner or employee on behalf of the bridge.
The letter states that they hoped he would accept this invitation. This does not answer the hon. member but simply points out in my opinion the way in which the bridge commission and its manager's hands are tied under section 19(1). They were endeavouring to operate under the strictures imposed by the legislation. So they were not hiding anything but trying to indicate that everything was on the up and up, but they really did not have the authority to do what we feel is necessary. Therefore, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent quite properly is bringing forward Bill C-16 which is the subject matter of this whole question. The hon. member is simply suggesting another route or another procedure which in his opinion would be preferable to the one existing under section 19(1) of the bill.
I have been advised, however, that the government is quite pleased with the hon. member's opinion of the Blue Water Bridge Act, but it does not see the need for the amendments the hon. member is proposing. Indeed, I am happy to inform the House that in accordance with section 19 of the Blue Water Bridge Act, the section which the hon. member wishes to replace, an appropriate order in council is now being prepared requiring the bridge authority to submit an audited financial report annually to the Minister of Transport. I say it is about time, but in any even it is being done.
I accept the support of the hon. member in bringing forth these questions in respect of the bill and his support in conversations we have had personally as well as on radio and before the television cameras. This is like motherhood week. Such a procedure would be in keeping with the practice relating to the analogous Crown-owned, income-earning bodies. The hon. member's amendment would have the bridge authority submit its financial reports to the Auditor General. I suggest, with respect, that the Auditor General is responsible for auditing public funds, funds derived from taxation, not from the sale of services by an entity which is not a government department.
The proposal I have outlined I think better reflects the long standing Canadian practice. I believe the hon. member for Lambton-Kent indicated this in fact would meet his need as long as we went along with long standing Canadian practice. Our goal is similar. The means are slightly different, but I think the hon. member will con-
May 19, 1972

cede that this order in council adequately meets that which he was endeavouring to get at through the introduction of Bill C-16.
The hon. member's amendment is slightly deficient in another unimportant aspect. It calls for submission of the authority's financial reports to the United States. While it is true the bridge act envisages the development of an international authority, in fact the United States, in particular the state of Michigan, chose not to establish a joint administration of the bridge. The Blue Water Bridge Authority is, therefore, a purely Canadian entity and its financial reports should be submitted to the Canadian government alone. Perhaps the hon. member was being farsighted and hopeful, as I was, that we would have a joint administration of the bridge rather than an administration on the Canadian side only.
Lest it be thought that since 1964, when the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act was passed, the government has been unaware of the financial obligations of the authority, I wish to make it clear that such is not the case. Section 9 of the Railway Act-if anybody had an objection, all he had to do was read this particular section-expressly grants the Canadian Transport Commission jurisdiction and control over tolls charged for passage across international bridges and requires each bridge authority to submit its schedule of tolls to the commission in order that this schedule be properly assessed by a commission, and it has to be accompanied by a financial statement.
The government, therefore, has been fully aware of the financial operations of the authority. I might add that if any persons wish to question the schedule of tolls at the Blue Water Bridge or any other international bridge, they may apply in the normal manner to the Canadian Transport Commission which has power to order that a public hearing be held to examine the tolls. There has been a suggestion here that this was not done. This is not true. After the Blue Water Bridge Authority was set up, and after its initial studies and managerial work, there was a request for a public hearing and the Canadian Transport Commission held a public hearing in Sarnia in, I believe, 1965. I do not have the specific date but I know a public hearing took place at that time. I know it as solicitor for the corporation of the county of Lambton.
My friend has made the suggestion, which I suggest he might have written when both of us thought there would be an election, that the members of the Blue Water Bridge Authority read like a Liberal "Who's Who". I think that can be attributed to a backlash, because from 1942 until 1962 we had a Conservative member of parliament both provincially and federally, and all the appointments of Conservatives had been made during that period. There were only Liberals left. There were some wonderful men available from whom we had the opportunity to choose. They have done an admirable job.
There is a vacancy now on the Blue Water Bridge Authority. I have received no less than 27 names. I am flattered that from one of my Conservative colleagues in the practice of law I received seven names. I think the hon. member will be pleasantly surprised, if the recommendation I have made is accepted, that it will not read
Blue Water Bridge Authority Bill
like a Liberal "Who's Who" particularly and at least we will have a "Who's Who" from some other party.
I want to thank the hon. member for bringing forth this bill. I believe it is a good bill. However, in light of the information I have obtained from the Department of External Affairs and the fact that an order in council is to be passed to do precisely what the hon. member and I want done, I do not think we really need this bill. I expect there are others who will wish to comment on the bill.
I did not realize there is so much interest in the Blue Water bridge. I come from an area of the country which happens to be graced with the beautiful waters of the river St. Clair and Lake Huron. I do not have the statistics-perhaps the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has them in one of his own speeches-but tourists go over that bridge in hundreds of thousands every year. This is possibly the reason there is more than an average number of people in the House at this late hour on a Friday afternoon; they want to hear about the Blue Water bridge.
The fact is that these records have been kept and that now an order in council is to be passed to make them public. On that note, I believe private members' hour has been well served this afternoon. I am sure there are others who wish to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and myself.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I never refuse a question from the hon. member.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I am delighted to hear the words of the hon. member for Sarnia, but since there are so many announcements by the government to the effect that there will be an order in council soon, I wonder whether there is any chance that the government has taken him into its confidence so that he could be a little more precise concerning when the order in council will be passed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: To the extent I am not violating my oath of secrecy, I would say the order in council has been drafted. The hon. member has not been on the government side and therefore may not know that many orders in council are passed. I believe it is merely awaiting the administrative procedure of a signature. The magic word I have heard around here is "soon". That is all I can say without violating my oath of secrecy.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, having heard the expression of respect between the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) and the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), I almost fear entering this debate. But I believe anyone who has taken the time to read Bill C-16, indeed has taken the time to ask himself why this bill was brought forth and has gone back into the history of this whole enterprise, will be aware that the subject being considered is of paramount interest to the connection between the province of Ontario and the state of Michigan which bears on the constituencies the members represent.
There are also some broader implications in this bill. As we know, the bill is entitled "An act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority". It is a very short bill having to
2450

May 19, 1972
Blue Water Bridge Authority Bill do primarily with section 19 of the original Blue Water Bridge Authority Act. The desire of the member in whose name Bill C-16 stands is that section 19 of the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act be repealed and that in its place there be reinstated a rather lengthy section, the purpose of which would be to have the financial situation of the bridge authority made known to members through the Auditor General. I trust I have not oversimplified the position of the hon. member, but that is how things stand as I read the bill.
I have taken a great deal of interest not only in the bill but in the background to it. The history of this bridge authority is fascinating. One detail which has not come out is that back in 1964, when there was also this true party spirit supporting the original set-up of the bridge authority, the bill was not a House of Commons bill but a Senate bill. It was Bill S-4 as it came to the House in 1964, and when it came from the other place to this chamber it resulted in a very short debate.
This demonstrated the amicability in this House concerning such a bridge authority. There seemed to be no division at all about it. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), the then leader of the Social Credit party, gave his support. The member who spoke on that occasion on behalf of the New Democratic Party was the member who is sitting at the helm of the New Democratic Party this afternoon, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I thought he gave one of his better speeches on that occasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It must have been short.


Murray Arndell McBride: It was extremely short, only two sentences, if my memory serves me right. I thought it did him credit. The matter was dealt with expeditiously. Bill S-4 came in as a Senate bill precisely because it was not intended to draw any funds from the public purse. I believe it was the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), now Minister of Agriculture, who raised that question during the debate on Bill S-4. He pointed out-and the minister of transport of that day, Mr. Pickersgill, agreed-that there was no suggestion that there would be any expense to the public treasury resulting from this bridge authority, and it is my understanding that since 1964 there has been no draw on the public treasury.
As one member of this House, I am slightly confused as to whether or not an accounting of the expenditures and the revenue taken in by a Crown authority is a property under the purview of the Auditor General. It would seem to me it would make more sense not to pursue the avenue suggested by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent but, rather, to endorse the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, namely, that we ought all to be encouraged by the order in council that is being drafted.
I want to say also that Bill C-16 is deficient or perhaps even slightly misleading in that it calls for the submission of the authority's financial reports to some representative of the United States. We are all aware that when the bridge act became law in 1964, those passing the legisla-

tion in this country assumed that there would be an international authority. In fact, the United States, and in particular the state of Michigan, have not established a joint administration of the bridge, with the result that the Blue Water Bridge Authority is totally Canadian and its financial reports should be submitted to the Canadian government alone.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has pointed out very well something that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House, namely, that there has been an avenue available since 1964 for the Blue Water Bridge Authority to report. I would suggest this is rather inadequate so far as making available to the public their financial situation. So I think that the order in council that is in the process of coming forward and which will have the bridge authority report to the Minister of Transport is extremely relevant, important and urgent.
As I understand the rules of this chamber, when the Minister of Transport comes before the Standing Committee of Transport and Communications, and when the information is made available to him, it would be properly within the ambit of the committee to ask specific questions of the minister on this subject. On delving into the history of this matter I found that there is no record of a member asking the Minister of Transport when he was before the committee with his estimates for information that is being sought by way of this bill. This has been sought through other avenues by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent who has taken a prime interest in this whole subject.
I think that this reporting through the appropriate order in council will clear up the whole issue before us today because certainly the gist of the substance-and I suppose a debate on second reading is a debate on principle- would be supported in principle by all hon. members because to reveal the financial transactions of this authority would be a worth-while endeavour. I find myself more in agreement with the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, that the other avenue is perhaps the best one.
In conclusion I should like to raise a couple of questions. First, I wonder how well the hon. member for Lambton-Kent or any other hon. member is aware of the profit potential of this authority. I was particularly interested to discover that the commissioners served at no cost. This is what I understood the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton to say, namely, that the men and women who serve as commissioners on the bridge authority do so out of the goodness of their hearts.
This would suggest to me that the authority does not have much resources at its disposal, yet when we look at the statistics, at the thousands upon thousands of vehicles that go over this bridge and consider whether any cost is being planned for the future in the form of tolls and so on, it seems to me that we should become aware of what the profit potential is. If it has a potential to make a profit, perhaps we should raise a still more basic question, one that permeates all of our culture concerning such enterprises as Air Canada, the CNR, the CBC and, this afternoon, the Blue Water Bridge Authority, namely, whether many of these services that are rendered to the public should not be taken over by private enterprise.
May 19, 1972

I suppose you could say that the bridge spans an international border and that there is no way in which we could entirely remove the government from being involved. However, perhaps this matter should be considered, just as another member on another day considered the possibility of our turning over the postal service of Canada to private enterprise. Perhaps I should say to hon. members that they should consider this possibility as well.
Finally, I want to pay a very high tribute to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton who has taken a personal interest in this bridge authority and who, as his speech demonstrated this afternoon, researched the matter and brought us his personal familiarity of the subject that is so unique when he told us that he was solicitor for the village of Point Edward and therefore totally familiar with the issue on the Ontario side.
Mr. Speaker, my microphone is going on and off and I am confused as to whether or not I should resume my seat.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, 19 May, 1972
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wilfred Judson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 19th day of May, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Royal Assent
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Gameau
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
[DOT]	(1650)
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(1700)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-207, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act-Chapter No. 10.
Bill C-78, an act respecting the use of the expression "Parliament Hill"-Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-208, an act to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to provide for the annual adjustment of pensions and allowances payable thereunder-Chapter No. 12.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after five o'clock, pursuant to section 3 of Standing Order 2 this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 23, at 2 p.m.
At 5.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
2453

Tuesday, May 23, 1972