1972-05-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In a letter dated June 21, 1971, sent to me by the former Minister of Finance, now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson), the hon. gentleman asserted:
The government has agreed to permit the Michelin Company to import certain types and sizes of tires duty-free for a period of three years-
On May 8 of this year the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) asserted in the House, as reported on page 1973 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the government has not authorized any duty-free entry of certain types or sizes of tires for the Michelin Company, nor has any decision been reached as to when such a remission would come into effect.
On May 9, I once again questioned the minister on this point, asking whether the three-year concession had been cancelled or put off to another time. The Minister of Finance replied, as reported on page 2087:
I would interpret it primarily as a matter of time, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, on May 11 the Minister of Finance asserted in the House that "no remission or relief has actually been granted to the Michelin Company".
In today's Globe and Mail it is reported that Mr. J. D. Moore, president of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of Canada, asserted in a speech in Toronto yesterday that the Michelin Tire Company of Nova Scotia had been granted the right to import tires duty-free into Canada for a three-year period beginning in 1970 as a concession for establishing two plants in Nova Scotia. This confirms the statement made to me in the letter of the former Minister of Finance last year.
In view of the seriousness of this contradictory information provided by two ministers of the Crown, I move:
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and that the Minister of Finance be requested to appear before that committee in order to make a full explanatory statement on the question of tariff concessions made to the Michelin Tire Company.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair notice of his intention to bring this matter before the House by way of a question of privilege. I think the hon. member knows the rules and practices of the House in relation to statements made outside the House and statements that are allegedly contradictory. It is a long-established point of procedure that this cannot be raised in the
House by way of question of privilege. I refer hon. members to Citation 113 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which states in part:
-a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
This, of course, extends to contradictions which may come to the attention of hon. members in relation to statements made by two ministers. I do not think this kind of situation ought to be discussed by the House by way of a question of privilege and then referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The duty of the Chair is to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I have to rule that in view of the precedents and long-established practice the matter cannot be considered by the House at this time as suggested by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM ROUMANIA

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished parliamentary delegation from Roumania, led by His Excellency Mr. Stefan Voitec, President of the Grand National Assembly of Roumania.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members may recall that Roumania was a most gracious host last year to a delegation of members of this House. The President of the National Assembly, accompanied by Madame Voitec, and four parliamentary colleagues are now visiting Canada as guests of the House of Commons. On behalf of hon. members I extend to them a very hearty welcome.

I also know I am expressing the sentiments of each and every hon. member of the House in welcoming President Voitec, Madame Voitec and members of the National Assembly of Roumania. I am convinced that their visit to Canada will further enhance the co-operation which already characterizes the relations between Roumania and Canada.
Mr. President, I very sincerely hope that your stay among us, unfortunately of too short duration, will have been both a pleasant and a rewarding experience for all members of your delegation.

May 25, 1972
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries



PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what might be called a question of privilege to inform you and the House that the annual ball game last evening between members of parliament and members of the protective staff was won by the members of parliament by the close score of 21 to 20. Perhaps I might suggest that a pay increase for the protective staff would provide a greater incentive for them to recruit better ball players.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Beer.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like briefly to outline to the House the approach that Canada is taking at the 22nd annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries when it opens in Washington today.
There are two basic thrusts: one is conservation and the other is a special preference for coastal states. The emphasis is on conservation. Most of the traditionally fished stocks in the Northwest Atlantic are either being overfished or are under heavy fishing pressure, with the result being a reduction in the supply of fish available to our inshore fishermen. This is why Canada is urging a cutback in the offshore fishing efforts by all nations and a special allocation, in Canada's favour, to improve the income of inshore fishermen in the maritime provinces, Newfoundland-Labrador and Quebec.
Our approach is based on sound, scientific principles. Each fish stock should be managed separately. Its size should be determined annually by a group of scientists who are regarded as authorities in their field. These international experts will estimate the sustainable yield for each species-a level of catch which can be taken by fishermen from the 15 nations operating in the North Atlantic and still allow the resource to return to a healthy state.
Individual quotas can then be struck for each nation. Canada, being a coastal state, will receive a special alloca-

tion. This special allocation will be included in the Canadian total in order to protect our inshore fishermen.
We are proposing that the over-all quota, or total sustainable yield of each species, be allocated as follows: 40 per cent for each nation in proportion to its latest three-year catch statistics; 40 per cent reflecting its catches in the preceding ten-year interval; 10 per cent additional to the coastal state; and 10 per cent to look after contingencies.
I could put it another way, Mr. Speaker. The estimate of over-all sustainable yield will be reduced by 10 per cent so as to be on the safe side in so far as the commission members total catching effort is concerned. A further 10 per cent will be set aside, preferentially, for the coastal states, primarily Canada. The remaining 80 per cent will be divided among all 15 nations, including Canada, on the basis of recent history.
As Canada has been responsible for half of the total ground-fish catch off our east coast, we will be allocated more than 50 per cent of the estimated sustainable yield of cod, redfish and flounders in 1973.
If we can sell this approach, this formula, this practical step toward responsible management in the Northwest Atlantic, to the other member nations of ICNAF, we will have gone a long way toward stabilizing our commercial fishery on Canada's east coast. We will have introduced order out of chaos. We will have converted the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries from an academic exercise by scientists into a fish management authority.
We will also have set an example for the rest of the world. Few international commissions have any authority over the catching effort employed by individual nations operating in international waters. Canada, by arming ICNAF in this way, will therefore be setting the stage for sound management of the living resources of the sea, something which is long overdue in the other fishing areas of the world.
A word in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, about salmon. We are adamant. Nations which look after their own rivers- rivers in which Atlantic salmon can spawn-should have the sole right to harvest these fish. Countries like Denmark whose rivers and streams produce few salmon have no right to take salmon on the high seas. Our negotiating team at ICNAF will, therefore, be calling for an immediate cessation to fishing for Atlantic salmon by other nations off West Greenland.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side listened with interest to the statement on policy made by the minister in respect of the proposals to be put forward at the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The threat to the Atlantic salmon as a commercial species must be viewed in the over-all context of the depletion of our marine resources by overfishing, especially by the fishing fleets of foreign nations that fish off our shores, and the failure of ICNAF to respond to this situation. The sea is the world's main source of protein, and any threat to the existence of this natural food bank should be of global concern.
May 25, 1972

In a paper prepared for the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization for the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment to be held next month under the sponsorship of the United Nations, Dr. Henry Regier of the University of Toronto and Dr. Don W. Kelley, who was formerly associated with FAO, came out flatly and said that world fisheries face total destruction unless techniques already available for saving them are properly used. The FAO recommended a number of ways to cope with the situation, including a recommendation which states that fish stocks should be managed rationally through controls, including monitoring and periodic assessments of fish catches and limits on waste disposal. The paper contains this warning:
Time is not on our side. In spite of growing environmental and economic awareness, we have grave concern about the future ecological state of the fresh water and inshore marine communities from the viewpoint of fisheries.
I submit that it is to this problem that ICNAF must address itself, otherwise it will be leaving open to question the justification for its very existence.
The minister makes reference in his statement to a formula which Canada will be putting forward allocating quotas on a total sustainable yield of each species. However, it is not clear from his statement whether these species include Atlantic salmon or whether the estimate of the over-all sustainable yield would be an adequate basis for the establishment of an over-all quota even if reduced by 10 per cent for those species of fish, including salmon, which have already declined as a consequence of overfishing. It does appear, however, that Canada will have two separate proposals: one for allocating quotas on all species except salmon, and a resubmission of our proposal of 1969 for a total ban on salmon fishing on the high seas.
In the ICNAF conference of 1969 Canada's proposal was rejected by a vote of eleven to two with one abstention. What hope do we now have of our proposal being accepted? Our chances are no better now than they were three years ago; if anything they are worse. Under the provisions of the ICNAF agreement, the proposal must be accepted unanimously. Since the 1969 conference, the Danish government has taken a hard line toward Canada's proposal and, in an effort to undermine our position within ICNAF, they have entered into a bilateral agreement with the United States to phase out the Greenland salmon fishery within five years. This proposal is untenable and unacceptable to Canadians and it is unacceptable to Canadian fishermen. The Americans were responding at that time to the pressures of very influential and wealthy sports fishermen when they entered into this agreement with the Danes. I submit that the agreement fails to recognize the urgency of the situation.
Statistics indicate that there has been a sharp increase in the total catch coincidental with the discovery of the Greenland feeding grounds by the Danes. The Danes keep saying that they cannot agree to Canada's proposal for a ban on high seas fishing because they say there has been no evidence provided to them that high seas fishing is depleting the salmon stocks. If this statement is true, it is an indictment of the Secretary of State for External
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Affairs and of the Minister of Fisheries for not presenting in clear and simple language our case to the Danish government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I say this because statistics indicate that there has been a sharp increase in the total catch coincidental with the Greenland fishery. The Danish catch has risen from 50 metric tons in 1965 to 2,654 metric tons in 1971. This figure, of course, corresponds with the decline in the Canadian commercial catch as well as the virtual disappearance of salmon from rivers in New Brunswick and Quebec.
I ask the minister, in view of the very serious economic impact that this situation has on Atlantic Canada, whether these figures were made available to the Danish government, and if they were not, why they were not made available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him of the terms of the Standing Order which allow him to comment briefly on a ministerial statement. There should not be a debate at this time. The hon. member was given the floor for the purpose of commenting briefly on the statement made by the minister. I hope that the hon. member will bear that in mind in continuing his remarks.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that admonition but I wish to point out to you, Sir, that this is the same thing that happens when fisheries are talked about at international conferences-there is always an urgency to get on to something else. With all deference to your ruling, I must take a little time to explain the situation because I live in Atlantic Canada and I see what is happening in that area. The decline of our fisheries is having a tremendous impact on our people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for South Shore, but at the same time the rules are there. It seems to me, if the matter is as important as the hon. member says it is, and of course I know and all hon. members know it is, that perhaps there might be an opportunity under the rules for a more extended debate to be had in which the hon. member might ask the searching questions he has been asking, but certainly under the terms of the Standing Order this is not the occasion to do it. In any event, I thought it was my duty to bring this to the attention of the hon. member.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to conclude very briefly. I would point out to the minister and the House that Canada imports almost 35 million dollars worth of goods annually from Denmark. According to a press dispatch from Copenhagen in the Globe and Mail of May 25, Danish officials claim that they are exporting about $12 million worth of salmon to Canada. If one were to give credence to this figure, the appropriate government action should be obvious. Unlike the minister, we believe that a case can be made for a restriction to be placed on all Danish goods coming into Canada. I am sure we would find the Danes not nearly so inflexible in their approach to this matter if the Canadian government were to take this action.

May 25, 1972
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
I also believe we should be prepared to review our membership in ICNAF if we are, in the words of the minister, to change ICNAF from an academic exercise by scientists into a fish management authority. Again, for the life of me I cannot understand why the minister did not make his statement in Washington today rather than in this House, because that is where he should be to impress upon the various nations overfishing in the North Atlantic that we have a real problem and that we have to find a reasonable solution to it.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) that the matters raised in this statement are very important and urgent. In light of Your Honour's suggestion I would invite him and his colleagues to raise this subject matter for more extensive debate tomorrow when I believe an opportunity to do so will be offered.
The minister has outlined Canada's position at the ICNAF meeting, a position that can only be described as a very generous position to the other 14 nations involved in the commission. I say this advisedly because it is a well known fact that by and large the groundfish stocks off our shores are to be found upon the continental shelf and, as hon. members know, the resources of the continental shelf from the sea bed downward belong to the coastal states under international law.
Some of us feel that the logical position we ought to develop at a future law of the sea conference is that we have a prior claim to the resources that lie above the seabed on the continential shelf off our shores. Therefore Canada, in going to the meeting which opens today in Washington and suggesting that other fishing nations in the North Atlantic be entitled to take up to 80 per cent of their long-term average catches based on past fishing efforts, I suggest is making a very generous proposal. If the other nations involved have any regard at all for the conservation of the resources of the sea, I do not see how they can do otherwise than accept this offer without undue debate.
The minister makes reference to sustained yield catches being based on scientific management techniques. I think all hon. members, including the minister, would agree that techniques of scientific management of the various fish stocks have not yet been developed to perfection. Indeed, his suggestion of a 10 per cent contingency allowance bears that out.
I would suggest that if there has been any value in the work of ICNAF to date it is that some basis has been laid for a scientific understanding of fish stocks in the North Atlantic on which future management techniques can be based. Regretfully, actual fish management has not so far been developed. At this time and in the light of known facts, unless we are prepared to accept scientific management of fish stocks in the North Atlantic there has been little point to ICNAF and this exercise which goes back almost 20 years.
When we speak of scientific management I hope that not only Canada but all the other nations mean genuine scientific management and not just management based

primarily upon the marketing desires of the various fishing nations in relation to what they catch from time to time. We have had some unfortunate experiences within our own area of jurisdiction. I feel there has been some yielding to pressure for overcatching of stocks based on the desire of those doing the harvesting to sell their catches, and that genuine scientific management has suffered. The sad story of the herring fishery on the Pacific coast of Canada is an example.
The minister makes a brief reference to Atlantic salmon. This matter has been the subject of extensive discussion in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and perhaps it does not need to be expanded upon at this time.
Despite what I consider to be the ill-advised agreement made between the United States and Denmark for a longterm phasing out of Atlantic salmon fishing, I hope the United States will join Canada in seeking an immediate ban. Some people have suggested that the main pressure within the United States has come from sports fishermen. I suggest that these people should throw their weight behind the position that Canada is seeking in its presentation to the commission in the hope that in the end both the United States and Denmark will agree that Canada's position regarding Atlantic salmon is much sounder than that in the agreement to which I have referred.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) made his statement available to us only a few minutes before the beginning of this afternoon's sitting. I regret that, once more, only the English text of the statement was distributed. I hope that next time the hon. minister will have something else to offer us than apologies, and that he will be able to let us have the French text at the same time as the English.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that in some department there is failure to apply bilingualism. Before speaking of bilingualism-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should restrict his remarks to fisheries problems rather than turning to those of bilingualism.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand your point of view full well, but almost every time a minister makes a statement we Creditistes get a copy of it in English only. We trust the situation will be rectified.
Mr. Speaker, in his statement the minister gave the priorities the government intends to discuss at the meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries which opens today in Washington.
It is not so much what the government intends to discuss in Washington that is important to the Canadian fishermen who are dissatisfied at this time, and rightly so, but rather the concrete results that will stem from the meeting. Not only should the minister and the officials of his department not make any concessions at the meeting, but they should insist on our sovereignty over the adjacent continental shelf to a depth of 1,000 fathoms off the Canadian coast as well as over its resources.
May 25, 1972

Mr. Speaker, we have been speaking about sovereignty and fishing rights for a long time in this House. In my opinion, the government could have inveiled today a more realistic and specific approach to be proposed at that important international meeting.
Mr. Speaker, we note in the statement that the government does not discuss the possibility of making breeding ponds available to Canadian fishermen when we know, according to statistics, that they have always been unable to compete against imports in that field. Last year, Canadian imports from Denmark amounted to $37 million, while our exports to that country totalled $15 million. We therefore suffered a trade deficit of $22 million solely for fisheries.
We trust that the minister will alter his proposed plan at that international meeting, because Canadian fishermen are faced with tremendous problems.
In 1969, I saw in the Gaspe region five foreign fishing ships which, in the space of a few hours, took all the fish from the fishermen of that area. In a few hours, these ships stole the incomes of the Gaspe fishermen, and this, with a permit from the federal government. All that the fishermen did, was to take out their shotguns and shoot at the fishing boats which stood at anchor about one mile from the Gaspe shores. This is all the protection that the Minister of Fisheries was then granting to the Gaspe fishermen.
That is why I was then shocked by the situation of fisheries, in Canada. In my view, the minister, today, while expressing good wishes, was not specific enough when he said that he could propose a valid solution for Canadian fishermen.



WAR CLAIMS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, the report of the War Claims Commission, World War II, signed by Mr. Thane A. Campbell, Chief War Claims Commissioner.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the statements contained in the report of the Auditor General for the 1970-71 fiscal year with regard to the continuing dangerous deterioration of parliamentary control over public expenditures through such devices as
Inquiries of the Ministry
expenditure of moneys not spent in the proceeding year, the use of the contingency fund carryover, legislating by estimates and other similar arrangements, will the government cease and desist from these practices and will instructions be issued to members of cabinet and to government departments that these practices must be discontinued?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would agree that it would be better for the House itself to give such instructions if it feels that they are warranted. For that very reason the government House leader will later today give notice that he wants this report to be brought before the parliamentary committee at a very early date.


Gerald William Baldwin: That brings me to my next question. As this statement is a repetition of a similar statement in the previous auditor general's report and as there are now approximately 40 recommendations by the Public Accounts Committee which the government has either rejected or neglected, will the government find some very early way and time for the House to debate these very serious situations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope very much that the Public Accounts Committee, to which I have just referred, will use all diligence to examine this report which is always very helpful to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: This is a matter for the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: I asked the Prime Minister about a debate in the House; as he does not want to reply, I give him notice that we will be debating this subject tomorrow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Tomorrow? Very well.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-REMISSIONS TO COMPANIES UNDER MACHINERY PROGRAM-ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question emanating from the same report. In the absence of the Minister of Finance may I address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of a statement in the Auditor General's report that a number of remissions to companies under the machinery program of the minister's department, totalling over $71 million in the year 1970-71, were not reported individually to parliament as required by section 17 of the Financial Administration Act. I ask the minister to inform the House what the reason is for the failure to make such reports as required by law?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the matter on which the hon. member requests information and give a proper answer tomorrow.
t

May 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: I appreciate that perhaps the minister may not have this information at his fingertips. If he finds that these remissions, totalling a very large amount of money, were not reported individually when they exceeded $1,000 each, will he undertake to the House to table a list of such remissions which were not reported in the way required?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already said I will look into it.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-FAILURE OF CERTAIN COMPANIES TO FILE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS-INQUIRY AS TO PROSECUTIONS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a further supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the considerable number of companies that have failed to file annual financial statements as required by a section of the Canada Corporations Act and as an even greater number of companies failed to file annual returns as required by another section of the act, can the minister inform the House whether charges are being laid or contemplated against the companies that have failed to file financial statements or annual returns? If so, how many such prosecutions are being initiated?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the question as notice and discuss the matter with the minister responsible for those returns, as well as looking at the facts in my department.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-ACTION TO COLLECT MONEYS OWED BY CERTAIN PROVINCES FOR MILITARY SERVICES IN EMERGENCIES

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Perhaps the Prime Minister will discontinue his reading for a moment and listen to my question. Will he ask the Minister of Finance to take the first opportunity on motions to explain what the government intends to do to collect the $816,000 which has now been owed for two years or more by the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and British Columbia for military services rendered in emergencies, and why the money has not been collected so far?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to discuss the question with the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are at least ten hon. members rising for supplementaries. The Chair will recognize a few and then go to the hon. member for Lotbiniere. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Oxford.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-ACTION ON OFFENCES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVANTS IN EXPENDITURE OF MONEYS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. In view of various offences which, according to the 1970-71 report of the Auditor General, appear to have been committed by certain public servants with respect to the spending of public moneys, could the Prime Minister find out-perhaps he knows already-whether the Minister of Finance has consulted or intends to consult with the Attorney General of Canada in order that appropriate action may be taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be very glad to, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTED INQUIRY INTO WASTING OF FUNDS

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the attention of the Prime Minister. Having in mind that the Public Accounts Committee has had a book compiled listing its scores of recommendations made between 1930 and 1970, a 40-year period, for the stopping of waste by the government, will the government give consideration to inquiring not only into those items of waste but also into the root cause of this continuing government goofing?



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN SPENDING BY NORTHERN CANADA COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT ACTION

['Order, please. That is hardly a supplementary question, as the hon. member for Skeena will no doubt recognize. However, as the question has been asked perhaps the minister might want to reply.']
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question was for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Inasmuch as the Auditor General's report for the third year in a row has pointed out some very serious irregularities in spending by one northern Canada commission, amounting to about half a million dollars last year which was not authorized by the Governor in Council or Treasury Board, could the parliamentary secretary indicate why these irregularities are continuing and what is going to be done about them?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the question to the attention of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I reiterate that the report will be before the standing committee soon.


Gerald William Baldwin: One would think they were spending their own money.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the statement the minister tabled yesterday

May 25, 1972

concerning the Rhodesian situation, he stated that Canada would continue to maintain in effect existing sanctions. May I ask whether the government will give consideration to consultations with other likeminded nations in the Commonwealth and the United Nations with a view to the intensification of sanctions, rather than the mere maintenance of existing sanctions, so as to make them more effective and eventually bring about majority rule in Rhodesia?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary oi State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is speaking about intensification of our sanctions, I do not think they can be intensified. They are total.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Totally ineffective. They are pure humbug, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Greenwood. I would ask the minister to reply to the second part of the question which did not deal with Canadian sanctions against Rhodesia but with the possibility of encouraging other nations to intensify their sanctions and to make them as total as Canada's. Is any initiative being taken by Canada in that regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope all nations observe the United Nations sanctions. They are supposed to be universal. I am glad to have the support of the hon. member in these representations.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a much more important matter which strikes closer to home. Does the government intend to institute sanctions against the Danish government because of its action in fishing for North Atlantic salmon and the manner in which that country has disregarded our interests?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a supplementary question, as the hon. member for Skeena will no doubt recognize. However, as the question has been asked perhaps the minister might want to reply.



PENSIONS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Quebec social affairs minister stated last night over the CBC French network that Quebec was granting a 25316-38.1
Inquiries of the Ministry
monthly allowance of $31 to people 65 years of age and over who were living in homes and that it would be increased to $40 next September.
Can the National Health and Welfare Minister tell us if the Quebec allowance is added to the old age pension granted by the federal government and can he also inform us who were the recipients since old people do not seem to have received the amounts allegedly paid by Quebec?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's question somewhat confusing. All I can say is that I did read what the Quebec minister of social affairs had to say. All I gather is a suggestion that he intends to make additional charges to those over 64 who are being maintained in provincial institutions. I am seeking clarification of his statement.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
It has to do with the difficult situation facing the Canadian furniture industry and especially that of Quebec following massive purchases of hardwood by Japan in the last few months, which deprive this industry of essential raw materials. What action does the minister intend to take to protect this important Canadian industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the furniture industry, particularly in Quebec, is doing very well, and this development, unfortunately, comes at the same time as a large increase in our exports of maplewood especially. Efforts are now being made to increase the production of that wood and I was told a few days ago by officials of my department that the situation was improving.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Is he in a position to assure the people concerned in this industry that they will have the required hardwood, which is essential to the making of Canadian furniture?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can only assure you that my department will make all possible efforts to help producers put on the market the quantity of wood needed.

May 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the provinces have reached a reasonably tentative agreement regarding control over egg production, would the government initiate an effective fowl buying program to relieve the overproduction of eggs immediately?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: If the provinces have reached such an agreement which has sufficient substance in it to make it workable, it will be helpful if they will communicate the contents of the agreement to me.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. May I again ask the minister whether the government has plans to open an embassy in Bucharest and to appoint an ambassador accredited solely to the People's Republic of Roumania which for some time has had a prestigious embassy in Ottawa?


Mitchell William Sharp: It was my privilege to receive similar representations from the distinguished representatives from Roumania who are here, and I assured them that Bucharest was on the list.




John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House and the country what criteria agricultural products processing industries must meet in order to qualify for the tax reduction announced in the budget?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a long list here in front of me but I am sure Your Honour would not allow me to read it at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he table the criteria that companies have to meet in order to qualify for the tax reduction?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is, of course, a question which should be addressed either to the Minister of National Revenue or to the Minister of Finance because they will have to adminis-

ter these laws. But I can advise the hon. member that this matter was discussed somewhat extensively in the standing committee this morning, as the hon. member would have known had he been there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In light of a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court eliminating the need for unanimity among juries in criminal cases, does the minister intend to introduce similar legislation applicable to Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: We have no immediate intention of introducing such legislation. The whole question of the appropriate approach to criminal law reform is being studied presently by the Law Reform Commission as well as in the department and may result in legislation at the next session.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be of interest, I hope, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Some Canadian textile industries enjoying financial support from the federal government now order almost as much work in Roumania as in Canada, thus jeopardizing the jobs of Canadian workers. Is the minister aware of this fact and does he intend to take specific measures to preserve Canadian jobs in the textile field?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the minister will be able to reply briefly to this question. I am sure the hon. member for Lotbiniere will admit that his question has a very wide scope and should normally be answered by the minister in the form of a statement on motions. If the minister can reply briefly, the Chair will recognize him for this purpose.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can only confirm that indeed we import textiles from Roumania. If we wish to continue to export our products to Roumania, I suggest that we have to allow Roumania also to export her products to Canada.
May 25, 1972



ACTION RESPECTING TRADING BLOCS AND OPERATIONS OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of statements in the report of the Ontario Economic Council calling attention to the changing world patterns in trading blocs and the lack of control by host countries over the operations of multinational corporations, would the government tell us what steps it has taken in connection with the development of these trading blocs and what views it has concerning the operations of multinational corporations, bearing in mind the bleak future predicted for Canada's international trade?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest, with respect, that this is a very general question that would normally call for a statement on motions. But if the minister can reply briefly he will be allowed to do so.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I can reply briefly. I have not read the report of the Ontario Economic Council, but the presentation of it by the chairman as an amalgam of fact, opinion, argument, judgment and interpretation is not much of an invitation. On the subject, and taking the European Economic Community as an example, I was in the Senate for two hours yesterday, and I will send a copy of my speech to the hon. member. As to all the other blocs, I have spoken brilliantly on these subjects on a number of occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is addressed to the Secretary of State. It concerns a question I put to him a few days ago with regard to a telegram received from the president of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, with particular reference to the statement that moneys, the advance of which had been approved in principle by the minister's officials, were not forthcoming, and this without any explanation being given. The minister undertook to investigate; I wonder whether he is now in a position to throw any light on this subject?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it is about a communication and the hon. member inquired whether I had received it. I must say that we have indeed received it and that we shall be shortly in a position to make an announcement on the subject which interests the hon. member concerning new developments in the government policy.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is in the field in which he understated his brilliance. Could the minister clarify the Michelin tire situation? I ask this in view of the fact that the president of the Firestone Tire Corporation in a speech reported today has stated unequivocally that the Michelin Tire Company is receiving the benefit of dutyfree import of certain tires for a three-year period, confirming the statement made by the former Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce unequivocally inform the House what the situation is with regard to this matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I always feel a little nervous about invading the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, but I do not see any contradiction in what the hon. member has stated this afternoon. A commitment was made by the Canadian government to a company called Michelin and that commitment has not yet been incorporated in an Order in Council. I do not see any contradiction there.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust we will not become involved in a debate. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary and will then go to the hon. member for Joliette.


John Edward Broadbent: My supplementary question to the minister concerns the confirmation that this agreement is presumably ready to receive from the cabinet. Would the minister inform the House whether this is a pro forma action by the government, or does it mean that the issue has not yet been resolved in principle?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have said everything I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the many complaints that have been registered by the NDP, would the minister endeavour to find out why the leader of the NDP, and especially the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, are so opposed to secondary industrial development in Nova Scotia, particularly the development of the Michelin Tire Factories in Bridgewater and Granton, Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is, of course, completely out of order.

May 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS VICTORIA CONFERENCE-CIRCULATION OF DOCUMENT AMONG CERTAIN PROVINCIAL DELEGATIONS-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Last Tuesday I asked him a question concerning a document which was circulated among some provincial delegations at the last conference in Victoria.
In his reply, the Prime Minister asked me to supply him with details. This having been done, could the Prime Minister indicate now whether he recognizes the authenticity of such document, who was responsible for its circulation, and whether he himself was in favour of such a procedure?


Mr. Speaker:: I have serious doubts on certain aspects of the question put by the hon. member. If the Prime Minister could answer it briefly the Chair would recognize him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do how difficult it is to answer briefly. I shall try to do so but I hope that the brevity of the answer will not prevent the hon. member from asking supplementaries if it is not clear enough.
To the first question, I shall answer that I am aware of the existence of these documents because they were sent to several provinces. They were prepared, as usual, at federal-provincial conferences in order to explain the position of the federal government, as the provinces themselves produce documents to explain their views.
Finally, let me tell you that I of course agree with this method by which each delegation makes known to the others its position in respect of the proposals made by other participants.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the member-


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether this document was given to all the provinces and particularly to Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the document in question was prepared at the request of the provinces taking part in the federal-provincial conference of health ministers. Several provinces asked the federal minister to give them some explanations as to what might be the consequences for them of the proposals made by Quebec a few days earlier and the federal government willingly agreed to explain-the way he understood them-what consequential effects Quebec's proposals would have for the provinces.
As for the second part of the question, I shall answer in the affirmative. Even at Victoria, the Quebec delegation was made aware of the federal positions as they had been explained to the other provinces which had asked about them.



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Based on the minister's statement today about quotas being introduced for marine resources off our shores, has he prepared any background information in the form of scientific data or catch data to present to the ICNAF countries, and is the minister prepared to make that information available to the House of Commons?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that scientists from all 15 member nations have been meeting in Washington during the past week. They have been producing statistics, comparing them and reaching conclusions as to sustainable yield. We will try to get their figures and make them available to the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that over the years the proposals that Canada has made regarding conservation measures for marine resources have been rejected by several ICNAF countries, does Canada have any unilateral plan of action based on the rights we have as a coastal state under the 1958 Law of the Sea Conference held at Geneva?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our approach has been a multilateral one within the North West Atlantic Fisheries Commission. We have been quite successful, first in establishing quotas for haddock, as the hon. member knows, and more recently for herring. We hope that this quota arrangement will be extended to all species along our eastern seaboard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. I see a number of members wanting to ask questions supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. That might fill the rest of the question period as we only have about five minutes left. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Solicitor General. Did Canadian security forces believe that one Arthur Bremer had engaged in stalking President Nixon during his Ottawa visit and, if so, did they report such action or belief to their United States counterparts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have heard of this report and, indeed, discussed it with the Solicitor General. We agreed that he should ask for a report so we can see what action should be taken.
(Mr. Speaker.]
May 25, 1972


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the Solicitor General consider making a statement on this matter to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure he will consider it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who is also in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that a major car manufacturer owes the Crown $6 million in duties and sales tax and that this debt is to be forgiven, I wonder whether the minister or the government would give consideration to a similar forgiveness of overpayments to farmers, as described in the Auditor General's report?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the connection between the two situations described by the hon. member. Specific overpayments are, of course, looked at on their own merits and a decision is made on that basis.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister in charge of the Wheat Board accede to the repeated requests that have been made in committee that the Canadian Wheat Board's annual report be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the very near future?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I have indicated to the House, I do intend to do this. I am aware of the fact that the committee has a fairly full load of work, but I do propose to put down a motion referring the report very soon.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Thank you for your recognition, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was the brown suit blending in with the furniture. My question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that last week the United States Congress voted to reduce its United Nations contribution from 32 per cent to 25 per cent, is the Canadian government contemplating any similar adjustment to its U.N. contribution?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I might add that the Secretary General spoke to me about the financial problems facing the United Nations and is concerned about this action of
Inquiries of the Ministry
the United States Congress. He is hopeful that this matter can be resolved, as in the past, by negotiation and discussion and not by unilateral action.



FISHERIES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries which is supplementary to a question I asked last week. Has there been any agreement yet reached with the Indian people of the Atlantic region concerning compensation for their treaty rights involved in the ban on the Atlantic salmon fishery there?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. There are very few native people involved, and they are to my knowledge principally in New Brunswick. Discussions are proceeding with these people.



INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether Canada is represented at the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries in Washington today at the ministerial level because of the importance of this conference to Canada and, if not, why not? Perhaps the minister could tell us who is representing Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, customarily ministers do not appear at these commission meetings, except in the case where the country is the host. I appeared briefly last year to welcome the national delegations that were there. There are no ministers presently in Washington. We are represented by Dr. A. W. H. Needier, who is head of the delegation and formerly our Deputy Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa. He is supported by a number of people from the industry on the east and west coasts and fishermen.



GENETIC DEFECTS-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF SCREENING CLINICS

['Order, please.']
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very serious genetic defects being experienced by Canadian people, has the minister any plans to set up screening clinics across Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member must be aware that if such clinics were set up they would fall

May 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
within provincial jurisdiction and control. Where we can be of assistance to them is in working out standards in a consultative way. We are also trying to work out some acceptable cost-sharing formula, but the administration is theirs.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the minister that this is a national issue, not a provincial one, and it affects everybody.


John Carr Munro: I would remind the hon. member that this is a federal state.



Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which relates to a news release yesterday from the Canadian International Development Agency about a million dollar loan to Nigeria to assist in building a hydroelectric generating station. I should like to ask why it is that the Canadian International Development Agency is permitted to give what amounts to dishonest and false information in that it refuses to disclose that the loan carries no interest rate, has a repayment free period of 10 years and an additional 40 years within which the loan should be paid? Why was that information not contained in the release?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea, but I think it is quite clear that this is an aspect of the Canadian program which has been highly commended, particularly by people in his party. If he would like me on each occasion to emphasize the generosity of the Canadian people in this respect, I would be happy to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy if the minister would do that, and we would be even more happy if the government would be equally as generous at home in providing interest-free money-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As this will be his only appearance in the House this week, I should like to ask him a question based on the startling information that the highest rate of unemployment in

Canada is in northern and eastern New Brunswick and Gaspe, having hit 18.4 per cent. What is the minister doing about this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member appreciates that questions posed in such general terms are hardly in order. The minister might reply briefly and he will be recognized for that purpose.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction first. This is not my first or only appearance in the House this week.


Thomas Miller Bell: During question period it is.


Mr. O'Connell:: I was here for the question period-


Thomas Miller Bell: You voted last night but you were not in the House yesterday, my friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we are losing precious time. The minister might reply now that he has made his point.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the Michelin Tire arrangement. Since he has been kind enough to give us some factual information for a change about the arrangements made with Michelin in respect of tariff remission, and as an agreement has been made for tariff remission which has not yet been implemented, can the minister say whether he has been approached by other tire companies in Canada seeking the same arrangement and, if so, what has he said to them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already said in the House, I think on ten occasions, that we in Industry, Trade and Commerce tried to develop a tire plan which would incorporate some of the philosophy of the Michelin arrangement, but the companies, for different reasons, were not particularly interested and have not developed anything from what was being offered.



HARBOURS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the hardships being caused to inshore fishermen by the continuing rejection by his department
May 25, 1972

of applications for the provision of harbour and wharf facilities to fishing communities, will the minister make a statement on motions in the House to indicate any changes in public works policy in respect of providing maintenance for wharves and breakwaters and dredging to assist inshore fishermen to maintain their livelihood which is being affected?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in policy. We are continuing to provide the best facilities possible with resources which are not unlimited.



MANPOWER


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower. Will he discuss with the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works some type of project under the local initiatives program or a similar program to allow fishermen to provide new facilities and to maintain existing facilities in order that they may support themselves in the fishing industry and to provide employment opportunities to prevent the loss of their livelihood?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the proposal with both ministers. I appreciate the compliment of the hon. gentleman in recognizing the effectiveness of local initiative programs in that part of the country.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to make a correction. The Minister of Labour may have been here yesterday during part of the question period, but when I took the attendance of ministers, as I have done each day for the last three weeks, he was not here. I might just point out for the information of the House that there have been six ministers away every day who should have been here.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. Is the hon. member for Peace River rising on a question of privilege?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am rising on a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I did not think the question period had quite expired and I do not want to infringe on it. Would the government House leader indicate the business for today, tomorrow and next week?
Business of the House


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue our discussion of the election expenses bill, followed by the bill to amend the Representation Commissioner Act, the Explosives Act and the wildlife bill. Tomorrow is an opposition day. Monday we will begin discussion of the foreign takeovers legislation, to be followed by the uncompleted items I have mentioned for today.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat the earlier notice I gave, that in light of the unsatisfactory answers by the Prime Minister we will be discussing the Auditor General's report tomorrow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that Standing Order 60 provides that there shall be a six-day budget debate, will the minister advise the House why the government is interrupting the budget debate by bringing in such bills as the wildlife bill, particularly in view of the disclosures by the Auditor General?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker. This-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a supplementary. I might remind him that the question period is over. If he wishes to rise on a point of order, that is a different matter. We are now really asking questions two or three minutes after the question period has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well, Mr. Speaker. On a supplementary question, will the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that there are other members who are anxious to ask supplementary or other questions. We have gone beyond the question period. If the hon. member, as suggested, has a point of order he would have to be recognized, but I doubt whether we should proceed much further. In any event, in order to save time I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest apology to you, Mr. Speaker, I never felt the House leader of the opposition should rise on a point of order in respect of business. This is the final question on Thursday. Be that as it may, whether it is a supplementary or a point of order, will the minister advise the House when it is the intention of the government to return to the budget debate, a six-day debate which has been interrupted, in light of the report of the Auditor General?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot precisely say when the budget debate will be resumed. It will not be before the last days of next week and possibly not then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order-

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West on a point of order in a moment. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I think I should point out to hon. members that if we agree that these questions are questions and not points of order, they will have to be asked during the question period. The hon. member for Edmonton West rises on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the unsatisfactory answer of the minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to enter very serious reservations about the hon. member's right to move a motion of this kind when he has the floor on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Athabasca will have the floor, and once he is recognized I suggest he would have the right to move that motion at that point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order with regard to House business is simply to ask whether there will be any opposition days next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was hopeful that early next week we would meet to discuss what the business would be following the legislative program I have outlined. It may be that a choice will have to be made between the budget debate and opposition days, one or the other. We cannot have both.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 19, 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.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the budget debate is not being resumed I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this debate be now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am advised that the hon. member for Peace River has already spoken in the debate, so he cannot be a seconder to this motion. We need

a new seconder for the motion that the debate be adjourned.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) seconds the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that this debate be now adjourned. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: AH those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion lost.	
[Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for	
Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Creditiste members refrained from voting because this was a waste of time and a silly game on the part of the Progressive Conservatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Obviously, the hon. member will agree with the Chair that this point of order is groundless.
Election Expenses Bill


Gerald William Baldwin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)-order please.


Gerald William Baldwin: -the taxpayers' money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell).


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the committee may I remind all hon. members how the report on election expenses came about. The Barbeau Committee, consisting of Mr. Alphonse Barbeau, the Honourable M. J. Coldwell, Mr. Gordon R. Dryden, Mr. A. R, Smith and Dr. Norman Ward, and which included representatives from the major parties, was appointed in October 1964 and submitted its report on election expenses in October 1966.
In the last session, pursuant to an order of the House dated October 8, 1970, a special committee considered the comprehensive two volume report of the Barbeau Committee, the new election expenses legislation of Quebec, Nova Scotia and other jurisdictions, held 45 meetings, heard dozens of witnesses including representatives of the main political parties, the legislative assemblies of Quebec and Nova Scotia, the government of Puerto Rico, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the CBC, the CRTC, Chief Electoral Officers of Canada, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and many others.
In considering the report and Bill C-211, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that one must start with four basic principles. First, a candidate cannot hope to be elected unless he spreads his message effectively. With today's costs and more populous ridings, this can be quite expensive and perhaps prohibitive. Second, there is an advantage to a candidate with wealth, whether inherited or earned. Effective controls on spending and a modest financial contribution to a candidate's expenses would substantially remove this inequity. Third, all costs cannot be paid by the public treasury; the greater proportion of funds must continue to come in the form of voluntary donations from supporters of the candidate and the party. Research has indicated that if a great deal of money comes from the government, people are reluctant to give because they feel the candidate is well looked after. Fourth, it is a myth that large contributions lie waiting for willing receivers. Funds are difficult to obtain both for the individual candidate and the parties. Legislation must be clear and positive to encourage contributions through tax incentives, protection of the name of the donor and protection of the candidate against overcharge by radio, T.V. and the press and by controls on the amount which he can spend both in respect of an over-all ceiling and the period of time during which he may spend money during a campaign.
The Barbeau report was an excellent and comprehensive document, but it is five years old. Many changes have taken place since it was submitted, and we have had the advantage of hearing comments on its proposals and on the Quebec and Nova Scotia legislation. While the committee digressed from the report considerably, I hope we have come up with something good. After complete study

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
of the bill, I find myself in agreement with the basic principles and the framework; in fact I take pride that so much of our work was adopted. However, I seek improvement in some of the concepts and many of the details.
I support the principle of a contribution to the candidate who receives a certain percentage of the vote; the principle of limited tax relief to those who contribute in the form of a percentage tax credit. I support, too, the idea of making T.V. and radio available to all in order that each may spread his message and that charges for these services be held to the regular preferred rate. I support the principle of agency, which means that candidates and parties are fully responsible for the actions of their agents, i n.] I support the principle that spending by candidates should be fully controlled. The bill, in its definition of election expenses, does not go far enough and I shall ask that it be strengthened and widened.
The Baroeau Committee recommended selective controls on advertising because it felt wider controls could not be enforced. We disagreed and came up with the idea that if each candidate were required to have his own accountant audit his report, the control would be effective. The bill follows the Barbeau report for controls on advertising only, and our recommendation for the audit.
The bill's definition of election expenses omits costs for hiring halls, campaign headquarters, paid workers, entertainment, refreshments, paid scrutineers and other items which in some ridings could constitute the majority of the expense.
Let me give two examples. A wealthy industrialist could call on perhaps 100 of his employees as paid canvassers and that would not come within the definition. In another riding, if a candidate had the support of labour and there was a strike on, he could call for 100 or 200 of the striking labourers to canvass for him and that would not come under expenses as described in the bill, but it would have been included in election expenses as described in the report. The report would prevent this by including in the definition of election expenses all time paid for directly or indirectly; the only time which would be omitted would be time some person contributed freely. In a riding consisting of small villages and towns, halls and lounges could be made available with entertainment and refreshment similar to that of drop-in centres, and these certainly would substantially affect the result of the election. Those expenses would not come within the definition of the bill, although they would come within the definition in the report. I submit that those expenses ought to be added to election expenses.
I do not support the concept that the names of donors should be disclosed to the public. As the law now stands, the official agent discloses the names of donors making donations which go through him. However, secrecy can be maintained easily by causing the donation to go through a nominee, usually the chairman of the riding association. He simply collects in private all those donations and then sends one large cheque to the official agent. Under this bill, all donations would have to go to the official agent. The result is that this bill, read with the present legislation-or, putting it another way, the legislation, as amend-

ed by this bill-would require every donation to a candidate to be identified by name; that is, it would require full disclosure.


Mr. Grills:: How would you do it?


Hyliard G. Chappell: We questioned each of the witnesses on disclosure of names, and concluded that names should be disclosed to the Minister of National Revenue for policing purposes but that they should not be disclosed to the public, because that would be counter-productive and donations would dry up.


Lee Elgy Grills: But how would you do all this?


Hyliard G. Chappell: The Barbeau committee report recommended that donations to parties should not be disclosed but that donations to candidates should be disclosed. We concluded that this would distort the balance between the party and the candidate, because some would feel that it was more appropriate to give donations to the party than to the candidate. We think this should not be allowed to happen. This distortion and upsetting of balance should not be allowed to take place. It would be useless to require the disclosure of donations over a certain amount, for example, $100. Some in this House have made this argument. Such a requirement would be too easy to avoid. A man, by giving through his wife, could double his donation; by using his two children, he could quadruple it; if he were to use his friends and give through them, he might be able to give ten times as much as the law permits. Such action would simply bring the law into ridicule.


Lee Elgy Grills: That is what this bill will do.


Hyliard G. Chappell: In addition, disclosure of names would discourage giving because of possible community repercussions. One of the witnesses before the committee was an NDP member from Nova Scotia. He pointed out that if a list were published in small towns of those who had given donations, there would be embarrassment and resentment. I think many hon. members would agree with that.
Let us take, for example, the operator of a large garage in a small town. Suppose he gave $100 to the Liberal, Conservative and NDP parties, and his donation was published. If, during the next election campaign, canvassers for each of the candidates were to go to him and ask for donations, I suggest that it would be only natural if he were to say, "All three of you can go away; you published my name as a donor, and I will not give to anybody." I have always marvelled that people who do not give, and generally those who want disclosure of names do not give, should request that donations of $1, $2, $3 or $5, which every good citizen should give to the candidate of his choice, shall be disclosed, and that we shall thereby breech the secrecy of the ballot, which ig what would happen in effect. We hope to separate the basis of contribution, and that is why tax credits are to be preferred in this connection, rather than complete disclosure of all donations. If people were to give $1, $2, $3 or $5 on a wide basis, to many candidates, disclosing their names would be equivalent to disclosing whom they supported and how they voted.
May 25, 1972

The members from Puerto Rico who met with our committee, who are experts in the sense that they were on an equivalent committee, suggested that we have the best of both worlds. We have both disclosure and protection of privacy, since we must disclose either to the Minister of National Revenue or some minister of the Crown for policing purposes, but disclose to the public only the total donations and not the names of the donors.
I do not agree with the suggestion that the election campaign period be without limit. This is a major point with respect to which we agree with the Barbeau report. All the witnesses before us were unanimous in this view. If there is not a limit on the advertising period, one candidate may be forced to follow the lead of the other candidate, since his backers might say, "Let us get going; your people are losing morale. Get in there and spend money in the advertising field." After a month or so, a candidate may have expended the amount allowed for advertising. He would then spend money on other items which are not included in the definition "election expenses" in the bill, thus, of course, increasing his expenses.
May I raise another point which is perhaps more difficult to appreciate but which is most important. There are four recognized parties in this country; obviously, they will register. In addition, there are perhaps four or six other parties, not so recognized, which will also register. These parties are entitled to use the six and a half hour period which is made available to all parties. On the twenty-eighth day of the campaign they would lose their registration rights if they had not fielded 50 candidates. The twenty-eighth day, I suggest, is too late for action to be taken, since these minor parties would have used three or four hours of the time available to them simply to bring their personal message to the world, to tell the world about some cause they espouse. The result would be that people would have lost the right to hear the representatives of other parties which seriously hope to form the government. If this campaigning were limited to 28 days, as the committee suggested, that problem would not arise.
As the law now stands, successful candidates file their reports and the majority of unsuccessful candidates have no alternative-I suggest that this matter would be raised in the House if there were anything amiss-and do not do so. I ought to have said, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of unsuccessful candidates do not report. The only penalty, as I understand the act, for those who do not report is this: They will not be able to stand for election on another occasion if a court so orders. This has been completely ineffective. We recommend that the chief electoral officer should be required by law to see that all reports are filed. Under questioning by our committee, he said he was agreeable to shouldering that responsibility. The bill provides for payment of $250 towards the cost of an audited report for those candidates who receive 20 per cent or more of the votes cast. I suggest that we change that provision and allow $250 to every candidate to meet the expenses of the audited report. I think it is wrong to charge somebody who can honestly say, "I used every penny I had and I did not have $250 left", because, in the result, we would be sending that man to jail for not having enough money. However, I do not think the public should lose. He has to make a deposit of $200. I suggest this sum
Election Expenses Bill
be increased to $250. In other words, we would divert his forfeited deposit to pay the auditor for the report.
Recommendation 34 allowed between 13 and 14 cents per elector by way of reimbursement to a candidate who had received 20 per cent or more of the votes cast. This was equivalent to the cost of a stamp and a respectable brochure for each elector. We felt this was the basic minimum to which the public was entitled in order to learn about the man himself and his platform. For a constituency of 50,000 he would be reimbursed to the extent of $6,500; if he had a large constituency of 100,000 voters he would get 13 cents for the next 50,000, another $6,500, or a total of $13,000. The bill would allow him to be reimbursed to the extent of 25 per cent of the amount he spent on advertizing only.
But supposing a candidate spent all his money on advertizing. Supposing, also he had limited funds and spent only $10,000 on his campaign. He would get back only $2,500. The result would be he would be prevented from using money which he might have borrowed from a bank and paid back from his reimbursement. So, also, in the bill, a person with a constituency of 100,000 electors would be disadvantaged. Under the committee's report, he would have received 13 cents for each additional elector over 50,000. That, as I said before, would have been $6,500. Under the bill he will receive only half that amount, or $3,250, which is in no way enough to send the simplest scrap of paper to 50,000 electors. It is my suggestion that the amount of reimbursement be based upon the number of electors in the constituency.
There is another unfair situation which could arise. In some constituencies in which there is a local television station, the candidate could spend all his campaign funds on advertizing over television and he would be reimbursed to the extent of 25 per cent. But in a rural riding where there was no television station he might decide to hire halls and provide refreshment and entertainment. That would be his method of campaigning. But he would not get back 5 cents. Under our recommendation No. 13, we would limit reimbursement to the winner and anyone who obtained 50 per cent the vote the winner received or 20 per cent of the total of votes cast. The bill omits reimbursement for the 50 per cent. I would remind hon. members that in some constituencies, particularly in Quebec, there might be five, six or seven candidates. The winner might receive only 35 per cent of the votes cast, the second 19 per cent, and the third 18 per cent. It seems wrong that under those circumstances, a man who came second should not be reimbursed. I suggest he should be included.
In recommendation No. 3, we recommend that political parties be made legal entities for the purposes of suing and being sued, and owning and leasing property. It is time political parties became full adults in terms of being responsible for their financial transactions. The bill, in clause 13(5), appears to make the parties legal entities only for the purposes of enforcing the Act. I may be wrong. Perhaps the courts will determine that they are also legal entities for the purpose of suing and being sued. I suggest this be made clear; it ought not to be necessary to go to

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
court to have the matter cleared up. I suggest we follow the wording in the committee's report.
Recommendation 38 would prevent a non-resident, including a union or a corporation, from contributing in any way to a political party or candidate. Section 36 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits non-residents of Canada from campaigning in Canada. We felt our recommendation was reasonable as an extension of that idea, and consistent with the long established principle that nonresidents might not campaign in Canada.
In the select committee, we had good attendance and excellent co-operation. The committee worked hard for a long period. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that the House take advantage of the wealth of knowledge acquired by members who sat on that committee, and that the bill be referred to that committee, which could be reconstituted, for further consideration.
In conclusion, I should say I am pleased with the broad principles of the bill, and pleased that so many of our suggestions have been adopted. I hope that many of the ideas which have been put forward today will be incorporated in the measure during the committee stage and accepted by the House.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the objective of the bill we are discussing is to reduce election expenses which are borne by a candidate in a general election so that there will be the least possible obstacle in the way of a young man or woman with ability, but with limited means, who wishes to run for parliament. This is an objective with which we all agree, because it is a well known fact that parliament is only as good as the people who are elected to it, and to get the best we must make sure that we remove as many as possible of the difficulties which stand in the way of getting the best people elected.
One of these obstacles is the high cost of running an election, due to the increasing use of the costly medium of television and the sharp increases which have taken place in the cost of radio, direct mail and the many other forms of advertizing which are in popular use. Although I agree with the objective of this bill, I believe that the government has outlined an inadequate method of realizing this objective, and I would like to suggest what I believe to be a far better means of bringing about what we all have in mind.
We have just heard a speech by the chairman of the committee which considered this whole question of controlling election expenses. From him, we learn that the government has paid relatively little attention to the recommendations of that committee which obviously spent a great deal of time studying the whole subject and hearing witnesses. I believe the committee did a thoroughly good job of trying to come to a conclusion that would be beneficial to the government in drafting the bill that is before us. But obviously the government has paid very little attention to the recommendations of the committee, and therefore I endorse the suggestion the chairman of the committee has just urged upon the House, that is to send this bill back to committee for redrafting so we may

receive the sensible type of suggestions that the committee put forward for the consideration of the government.
I should like now to suggest what I believe to be a far better means of bringing about what we would like to do, which is to make it possible for young men and women with ability but limited means to be elected to this chamber. Even though the government did pay a great deal of attention to the recommendations of the committee that examined this whole question, I think on hearing the simple plan that I am about to put forward the members of the House of Commons will agree that it is a reasonable plan, one that would be easy to implement and which would work very satisfactorily in achieving the objective we all have in mind.
In looking for plans that would be useful to meet the needs of given situations, it is always helpful to examine what has been successfully done by others in similar circumstances. I have very carefully studied, and observed at first hand, the plan that has been used with great success for a number of years now in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was faced with exactly the same problem that Canada is faced with today, but it overcame the problem by adopting a plan that placed a strict limitation upon the amount of money that a candidate was allowed to spend in an election, and enforced the restriction by carefully scrutinizing all election expenditure. If at the conclusion of an election it was found that a candidate had overspent the amount of money that the government allowed him to spend in an election campaign, his election to parliament was nullified.
The expenditure that is allowed in the United Kingdom is based on the number of electors in a riding. My experience from running in eight elections, six in urban ridings and two in mostly rural ridings, leads me to believe that the limit today in this country should be 10 cents per voter. That is the kind of limitation that would bring about the objective that we all have in mind and in the easiest and fairest way possible. Since the average riding in Canada has about 45,000 voters this would reduce the cost of running in an election in Canada to about $4,500 per candidate. This would be a fair charge to a candidate and his party, and would be a very great reduction of the cost of running in most ridings today. National television, radio and newspaper advertising would, of course, be paid for by the national headquarters of each party on a basis that would be established by parliament.
Such a reduction in the cost of running in an election would bring about two very important improvements. First is the obvious one of making it possible for all good, potential candidates to stand for their party's nomination. The second is that all candidates would be required to do far more personal campaigning than they do today, and as they are required to do in Great Britain, since most means of campaigning that money makes available in this country today would not be open to them. Candidates would have to do a great deal more door-to door campaigning and present themselves to the voter at many election meetings, where they would have to submit themselves to the questioning of the electorate and be judged on a much more fair and accurate basis than they are at the present time. Having made it possible for voters in this
May 25, 1972

country to judge more accurately the candidates who present themselves to be judged, I believe that we would be more certain that the best candidate would be selected to represent a riding, and in this way the quality and standards of the House of Commons would be materially improved.
If we follow such a plan as this, it would no longer be possible for a wealthy man, one who can afford high-priced public relations men, television, and other costly means of advertising that are available today, literally to buy his way into parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will be in trouble, George.


George Harris Hees: I am very interested to hear that comment, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member who made it would go back over any of the eight elections in which I have run, he would find that I was one of the most enthusiastic exponents of door to door canvassing. The reason I have been able to maintain my membership here is that I believe in personal campaigning, which is why I speak with such enthusiasm about it.
Another change that I would suggest we make in the electoral procedures of this country is one that would not only reduce the cost of running elections but greatly improve the quality of the presentations that the various candidates make to the people they ask to elect them. I suggest that we cut the length of the election period from the present eight weeks to four. The eight-week period was necessary in the days when rail transport was the only means of getting the leaders across the country and there was no jet travel or television. In those days it took an eighj; week period for the party leaders to travel across the country and discuss the issues with the people. Today, as we know very well, jet travel and television enable all issues to be discussed in all parts of the country in an absolute maximum of four weeks. We who have participated in elections, and certainly the people who have to listen to us, know only too well that after four weeks there is nothing new left to be said and the whole election campaign becomes dry, dull, boring and extremely costly.
Therefore, I believe it would be very worthwhile for the government and the country to maintain a permanent voters' list, just as is done in Great Britain and in many other countries. Although this would cost some money, it would greatly reduce the over-all cost of elections both to the parties and the candidates. After all, that is what this measure is all about. It is designed to reduce the cost of running an election, and to make it as easy as possible for young men and women with ability but with limited means to present themselves with every chance of becoming elected.
I strongly urge the government to give some consideration to what I have said. This will not cost the government or the taxpayers of this country one penny, except for the added cost of maintaining a permanent voters' list, and I think everyone would agree that this additional cost would be worthwhile. These measures are simple; they have been tried and proven successful and workable in a country far more sophisticated in election matters than
Election Expenses Bill
are we, namely Great Britain, as well as many other countries. I am confident that these measures will work equally as well in Canada.
I strongly urge the government to accept these suggestions in the spirit in which they are made and to adopt these measures. I believe if they are adopted we will greatly increase the effectiveness of this House by making it possible to get the very best candidates elected, including the young men and women with ability but with limited funds who would make a very great contribution to the governing of this country.


Mr. Yves Forest (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of taking part in the Special Committee on Election Expenses as a vice-chairman. The chairman of this committee was our distinguished colleague from Peel South (Mr. Chappell) who spoke earlier and who fulfilled his functions with much tact, skill and efficiency.
Our sessions were quite lengthy and often complex, but the committee members showed much patience, good will and understanding despite the different views, which were inevitable, about a subject on which we all pretend to be quite experts.
It must be noted that the committee received advice from a legal adviser who, most of the time, was assisted by the Chief Electoral Officer, whose skill and work we all admire. Their advice was very valuable to all committee members.
We also had the report prepared by the previous members of this committee, who made much deeper and further studies on the subject, that is the report of the special committee established by the government in 1964, whose chairman was Mr. Alphonse Barbeau-now judge of the Superior Court of Quebec-and made up of recognized experts from different parties, which presented the result of its investigations and discussions in 1966.
This committee was appointed as a result of public concern about the source of election funds as well as a need for a reform in order to curb the continuing increase in election expenses, in particular since it became necessary to use new means of communications, which are very clostly and expensive.
The committees' reports and this bill aim at improving the situation of the parties and candidates, at increasing the people's confidence in our system of parties while guaranteeing the individual's liberty of choosing not only the man, his party and his philosophy but also the way it should be supported.
Contrary to popular belief, the lack of funds is a painful aspect from which the political existence of parties and candidates is suffering. Their financing has always caused precarious situations. The very minor importance given to the financing of our political institutions is unbelievable in view of the crushing responsibilities entrusted by our system to the parties and candidates who, among other things, are required to explain to our citizens the objective and efficiency of laws, the decisions and actions liable to affect their way of life and often their existence.

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues, after having studied a number of times the election systems of various countries, I believe that our election legislation is excellent-probably the best-and well-fitted to the special needs of our great country.
Some people have already mentioned the advisability of establishing a permanent list of voters-in fact, the first spokesman for the official opposition and the speaker before me suggested it-as a desirable measure to shorten the duration of election campaigns.
I am opposed to this suggestion and the committee which considered the report tabled by the representation commissioner in this House in April 1968 was unanimously against the establishment of such a list, which would be not only costly-I think the figure amounted to $1 a year per voter-but would be far from efficient in a political system such as ours because elections are not held at a fixed date and the people would probably not welcome compulsory registration or compulsory vote. So, I refer my colleagues to the report of the committee and to the very eloquent report tabled in the House by the representation commissioner, who has examined these various systems.
The question of limiting the duration of election campaigns has been the subject of suggestions this afternoon by the previous speaker and also the subject of discussions both in the Committee on Privileges and Elections and in the Committee on Elections Expenses and we all agreed that the present period is necessary to allow parties and the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare and get organized. However, I believe, together with committee members, that the period during which political propaganda by parties and candidates on radio or television and in newspapers is allowed should be limited to the last month or so before election day.
This would effectively reduce election expenses but I think that despite the improvement in communications to which the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) referred earlier, the prescribed period is necessary to arrange elections in a country as large as ours.
Mr. Speaker, the so-called Barbeau Committee had made seven basic recommendations aimed at establishing a more equitable electoral system. I must say that these recommendations are adequately taken into account in the bill now before us. In line with the proposal of our committee, the bill does not however retain the sixth recommendation of the Barbeau Committee suggesting that a registry be established by means of another legislation to audit the various financial returns. It simply amends the Canada Elections Act to enable the chief electoral officer to receive the returns of official agents, and I think that the government has rightly upheld this decision of the special committee on election expenses which made it the subject of one of its recommendations.
The first recommendation of the Barbeau report dealt with the recognition of political parties that would become responsible for their actions respecting the collection and expenditure of election funds through an official agent.

The 1970 Canada Elections Act already provides that political parties shall register with the chief electoral officer, under certain conditions. This legislation goes even farther by requiring the registration of agents who alone shall be authorized to receive contributions and who shall be assisted by an auditor for each party. This auditor shall report to the chief agent who, in turn, shall report, within the prescribed period, to the chief electoral officer. The reports shall indicate the parties' sources of income, detailing the categories of contributors, and shall be published. The importance and existence of parties being thus recognized, they shall become legally responsible for their actions.
Candidates must also appoint an auditor to assist their agents to produce the required report on election expenses and sources of income. This is an innovation and fortunately the government will contribute to paying the salary of this auditor.
I agree with the committee chairman and approve the recommendations of the special committee to the effect that it would not be fitting to reveal the names of donors, and this for the same reasons mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Peel-South (Mr. Chappell) which moreover are reproduced after recommendation 44 of the report of the Special Committee on Election Expenses.
The bill thus meets the first and fifth recommendations of the Barbeau Committee to a great extent. The bill, as also the Barbeau committee conclusions, provides no ceiling for total expenses of parties and candidates which henceforth will be known, notwithstanding the suggestion of the special committee. I for one feel that this is a mistake and that a limit should be set, even if it should exceed if necessary, the one suggested, subject to revision after the first general election for which the present bill will have been in force.
The bill retains the limits proposed by the special committee, but only where advertising expenses are concerned. It is a fact that nowadays the latter make up the better part of election expenses, and that this trend can only become more accentuated. For instance, Mr. Speaker, figures submitted to the committee with regard to the election of April 29, 1970, in the province of Quebec showed that 71.37 per cent of the election expenses of the five running parties had gone on advertising. A candidate will be able to claim back 25 per cent of eligible expenses, which is appreciable. I rather advocate the formula adopted by the special committee, which gives the candidate far more flexibility and freedom of action in the thrust of his advertising.
I am very happy, however, that this bill incorporates the recommendations of the two committees which I have mentioned concerning the mailing to voters, a few days before the election, of a special notice informing them of the names and political affiliations of candidates, of the addresses of polling stations, and of polling times, and that from now on candidates will not be allowed to distribute cards in their constituencies, as had become common practice. This will save candidates time and money, and voters will still be very well informed.
I would like to deal very briefly with two major proposals endorsed by the Barbeau Commission and the special committee-tax deductions granted to contributors in
May 25, 1972

order to encourage public participation in political life, and measures designed to democratize access to radio and television at election time-both excellent innovations.
This bill provides for a tax deduction of one third, up to a maximum of $500, of contributions made annually to registered parties or to candidates through authorized agents who will have to file a report. The special committee had rather recommended the introduction of tax relief for individuals and corporations. This is, however, an excellent measure which should encourage the public to participate in the financing of our political parties, a thing for which it has always showed very little interest, and the results will be most interesting to watch.
Finally, the bill aims at limiting to 6j hours the broadcasting time allowed the registered parties at election time, according to the recommendation of the special committee. This time will be divided up fairly among the parties, under the authority of the CRTC, and I believe that formula has already given good results. It is only fair that the cost be shared by the government and the parties themselves that will benefit from the arrangement.
I want to point out a well-advised innovation which will be welcomed by all the candidates and which is already enshrined in the Quebec Election Act. As everyone is aware, election campaigns signal the revival of the almost general practice whereby the rates of advertisement in newspapers, over the radio and television are boosted. From now on, rates will be based on the lowest rates applicable to customers for comparable advertisements. This reform was imperative and is intended to rectify an unjust situation.
Mr. Speaker, the president of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) indicated that, except with regard to fundamental principles, he was willing to listen to the recommendations of hon. members, and of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to which the bill will be referred, and where we will have the opportunity of discussing it further and suggesting amendments. Meantime, the government must be congratulated for having introduced this bill with a view to bringing in several important and interesting changes in a complex field which touches upon the very basis of our democratic life.
This is an important step towards improving further a system that was not perfect but which won Canada the reputation of holding elections that truly reflect the will of the people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this debate began on Thursday, May 18, my colleague the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) indicated that we are in support of the principle of this bill. But in that same speech he pointed out that in the bill there are some very serious flaws. Even by the time my colleague reached the end of his speech, he found it necessary to say this:
Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, I say to the government House leader it is a "must" that we incorporate an additional clause in the bill to provide for a limitation on parties the same as is provided for candidates. Unless we have a limitation on parties'
Election Expenses Bill
expenditure, the whole intent, purpose and most of the principle of the legislation is nullified or set aside.
I may say on behalf of the members of this party, including the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), that our further and more detailed study of this bill has led us to the conviction that although there are a number of things in it that are good, the bill itself completely fails to implement the principle that we support and the principle that the bill is supposed to implement. We have had that drawn to our attention in mild but very effective terms this afternoon by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) who was the chairman of the special committee that considered this whole question. Even he, before he got to the end of his speech, pleaded with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that Bill C-211 be sent back to the special committee, and that the special committee be reconstituted for that purpose, so that it might participate in the drafting of a better piece of legislation.
The position that we take is that this bill, although it is presented to us as a bill to control election expenses and to do certain other things with respect to elections, completely fails to do what it proposes to do and we feel that to pass this bill off on the people of Canada in its present form is to perpetrate another hoax. In our view, the government is trading on the general and popular interest in the idea of doing something about election expenses and it hopes that because it has presented a bill which is called a bill dealing with election expenses the public will swallow it and think that something good has been done.
In our view, if this bill were passed and put on the statute books, it would fail to do the job that it is supposed to do, and its presence on the statute books would be a bar to getting a decent piece of legislation for a long time to come. Therefore, we feel, as does the hon. member for Peel South, only perhaps we feel a bit stronger about it than he does, that this bill in its present form should not be proceeded with. It should either be sent back to the special committee that dealt with this matter or it should be sent back to the government and a totally new piece of legislation should be introduced.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that you realize that I am making it very clear that it is our intention to vote against this bill in its present form so that you will realize that when I propose at the end of my speech a reasoned amendment you will see that it is not one of those amendments with which you sometimes have to cope, the kind that seem to go both ways. Ours is an amendment that says that this bill should be stopped in its progress and, instead, that a totally different piece of legislation should be introduced.
In the reasoned amendment which I shall move, I shall indicate at least two of the important principles which should be contained in a better piece of legislation. I may say that we gave a good deal of consideration to the question of whether those principles could be obtained by making amendments to this bill, and we have come to the conclusion that that cannot be done. I state that both in procedural terms and in substantive terms. We therefore feel that this bill in its present form should not be proceeded with but that the House should stop it in its tracks,

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
and call upon the government to bring in another piece of legislation.
This whole question of election expenses is one that has been before us for a long, long time! It was a live issue before any of us in this chamber came here. But in recent years it has been a particularly lively issue, and no one has done more to popularize the idea that something should be done about the control of election expenses and about putting candidates on an equal footing than the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself. At a press conference on April 7, 1968, in the city of Ottawa the following question was put to the Prime Minister:
Do you intend to do anything about implementing the report of the Election Expenses Committee?
That, I may say in parenthesis, was the report that was tabled in 1966. The rest of the question was:
It seems to me this is rather fundamental to the just society which you mentioned.
The answer of the Prime Minister was very terse but very much to the point:
I agree. Top priority. Next Speech from the Throne.
That was in 1968. Later that same year, on June 4, 1968, in the city of Edmonton the Prime Minister said:
There are many aspects of the just society. It includes electoral reform so that the citizen really has a right to express his choice, his political choice, freely and without basing himself on how much money a party can get.
A few days later, on June 10, 1968, speaking over the CBC the Prime Minister said:
The important thing is that our laws and our election laws be reformed in order to make sure all parties are on as equal a footing as possible by reducing election expenses, by making the government assume as large a part of the election expenses of all parties as is possible.
I say, therefore, that no one gets more credit for this issue being a lively one today than the present Prime Minister. Mind you, when, as a result of these statements, we pressed him for action on the matter of the election expenses, we were put off; we were given the old answer about the crowded state of the parliamentary timetable, and so on, and we were told there was not time to do anything about it before the next election whenever it might come. But now in this pre-election period-however long the period may be-when we seem to be getting various kinds of goodies, we have been handed this bill. The trouble is that that word does not apply to this piece of legislation. It passes itself off as doing something about election expenses but it completely fails to establish the kind of equality to which the Prime Minister referred.
Mr. Speaker, since you are about to get to your feet I shall sit down, but I shall have something more to say about this matter at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised

tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson)-Grain-rape-seed-laying of charges by Wheat Board against certain farmers for overdelivery-request for government intervention; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-External Affairs-proposed nuclear test by France-suggested grant to "Greenpeace III"; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Natural Resources-offshore mineral rights-state of negotiations with Nova Scotia.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity) moved:: not have access to the facts? A review of the origin of this project might be useful at this stage.
I well recall the early discussions in cabinet. Canada experienced a shortage of heavy water. An increased supply was required to provide for our new atomic energy plants that were being built. Two proposals were put forward for consideration. One involved construction of a plant in Whiteshell, Manitoba, under contract to the Canadian General Electric Company. The other was the Deuterium of Canada proposal for construction of the Glace Bay plant. All of the expert advice supported the Canadian General Electric proposal. Most of the problems relating to the Deuterium proposal were anticipated in the discussion.
The discussion raged on for a considerable time. Ultimately, a decision was taken. The decision finally was strictly political. It was a private decision taken by the then Prime Minister and the present President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). It defied economics. It was a political decision, pure and simple. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this is not an isolated example of political decision making by the President of the Privy Council. He has a good track record in this regard. I understand he studied economics at university, but I have not seen the slightest evidence that he is able to keep the principles in mind on a day-to-day basis. The financial results of this judgment have been great, with about $100 million down the drain so far. That means that every Canadian taxpayer, every member of the Canadian labour force, has been relieved of about $12 in tax money for one blunder on the part of government.
If this were the only case it would not be so bad, but there have been many, many other cases of governmental blundering in decision making. We have one in Manitoba involving vast sums of money. We have another one in Newfoundland where an excessive over run of costs occurred. Then, of course, in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion subjective judgments are being made almost every day. Recently a decision was made to subsidize a French tire manufacturing company with a considerable amount of the taxpayers' money. I have wondered if the workers in other tire manufacturing plants in Canada want to pay higher taxes in order to help put themselves out of jobs.
A while ago the Canadian taxpayers were asked to provide some millions of dollars to an American soap company to build a paper plant in northern Alberta. This was decided at a time when capacity in that industry was already far greater than the demand. Once again, I think it is reasonable to ask: did the workers in the existing plants with the existing surplus capacity want to pay higher taxes in order to subsidize the elimination of their own jobs? The story, of course, goes on and on. There are some very important considerations in so far as the principles are concerned.
When I was doing research for my book, "Agenda: a Plan for Action" I took a look at some of the experience related to both public ownership of industry in Canada and public participation by other means. I found there were certain very interesting principles involved, in so far as the line of demarcation is concerned, between companies publicly owned which affect the average citizen
Heavy Water Production
directly, and those which do not. For example, I found that corporations like the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, which is not widely known, and whose name would probably not be recognized by many Canadian taxpayers, operates very efficiently and with virtually no interference on the part' of government whatsoever.
When that corporation reported to me as minister of transport, I think I came in direct contact with the president of the corporation about only once a year. On that occasion he would bring to me their annual statement for the year, and report verbally on the success they had encountered. Almost inevitably they had good financial success. The service they were providing to the Canadian people was highly satisfactory, and there was no reason for me and no inclination on my part to inject political considerations into the management of that corporation.
I think the same could be said of Polymer, Mr. Speaker. It has often been cited as an example of a Canadian corporation, publicly owned, which was operated with virtually no political interference at all. Certainly, this was the case until recently, when I think some exceptions might have been made. During all those years it was a most successful organization. Part of its success was due to the fact that it was operated by highly skilled management, with exactly the same kind of criteria that would be applied in privately administered enterprises. Its success was worldwide. Very recently some political considerations have been injected into the management of that company,-but I have not yet had a chance to check the effects of that interference.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, other types of corporations are quite different. I should like to give two examples of corporations where on a day to day basis they come into contact with many Canadian citizens and where as a consequence and inevitably, political judgments are introduced. The first one is Central Mortgage and Housing. Here is a publicly owned corporation which affects the lives of many Canadians quite directly. If one were to examine the file, one would find that during its years of existence there has been more than a little correspondence from individual taxpayers to the minister to whom the corporation reported. Of course, in many cases the inquiries were merely of a factual nature, but in other cases direct intervention on the part of the corporation was called for. It is virtually inevitable, where any corporation comes in this kind of direct contact with individual taxpayers, that political and subjective judgments will have to be made on behalf of the people being represented.
One could cite the Canadian National Railways as another case in point. Often there have been requests to shut down branch lines which were overruled indirectly by the government. It would not be convenient to have a certain branch line shut down just in advance of a general election or a by-election where that branch line happened to serve a constituency which was a marginal case. From my earlier years in parliament, I recall direct intervention by the government in settling labour disputes between Canadian National Railways and its employees and normal considerations were abrogated when the political

May 25, 1972
Heavy Water Production
considerations became paramount as far as the government was concerned. Even though the interference would be difficult to document in many cases because of the nature of the intervention, the intervention was nevertheless real. In those circumstances, of course, the cost to the Canadian taxpayer rises very substantially.
It is not only in cases where ownership is involved that the expenditure of public funds increases due to political intervention. As I stated a few seconds ago there are other examples as well. One that is currently in the news is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. As a matter of fact, I have said on other occasions, and repeat today, that I question the necessity for this department of government at all. I am not the least bit convinced that it is a wise expenditure of the taxpayers' money. No doubt some success can be pointed out in cases where financial support has resulted in industrial expansion in underdeveloped parts of the country, but there are other cases where the result has been a higher cost of the products consumed by the Canadian taxpayer. In other cases the claim can be substantiated that the expenditure of public funds has merely resulted in the transfer of unemployment from one part of the country to another without any net gain whatsoever.
It seems to be a penchant of government to introduce programs without having the facility or the will, in some cases, to follow them up with an analysis to see whether the benefits are equal to the costs. I think if I were making a recommendation to the government on an over-all basis, it would be that more of our programs should be subjected to minute scrutiny after they had been in operation for a period of time in order to see whether taxpayers are getting value for their money. In many cases, I suspect they are not. Certainly, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is one case where I think it would have been better if the department had never been formed. That is not to deny that there are parts of the country in need of economic assistance but there are other ways to accomplish this. It can be done by the application of the rule of law in budgets to provide special tax privileges or accelerated depreciation or some other financial benefits in certain parts of the country if that is desired. There is an objection to the fact that subjective judgments are being made by people with no experience in business. One has only to look at the dossiers of some of the people involved in making these decisions to know that they are quite unqualified. They have never had to raise money and account for it personally and, as a result, funds are disbursed in a way that is casual, to say the least.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would say that in relation to this motion we have three principles which deserve more attention and debate than they have received lately. There is the whole question of secrecy. In a case like this why can information not be made public? Why should the Canadian people be denied the information on which judgments are based? Why should those of us who sit in parliament and have a responsibility to the Canadian people in respect of parliamentary and governmental expenditures, not have the information necessary to decide for ourselves whether the government is being prudent with tax dollars?
[Mr. Hellyer.)
We have grown up with the tradition of secrecy in this country, and I have seen some of this from the inside. I remember when it was considered improper in Canada to brief members of parliament on defence information which was classified even with a modest level of security classification. I had a chance to do something about that, and after I became minister I briefed members of the parliamentary committee on defence, including information which was secret and top secret in classification. Based on my own experience, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that secrecy is often used as a cloak to deny to parliament and the Canadian people the facts to which they are entitled. I should like to see much more information made available, and I am sure it could be prepared in such a way that it would not prejudice the careers or integrity of the people who write the briefs.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I think that government as a whole is getting involved in far too many judgments in the marketplace. In particular, I think this practice of setting up boards and departments with arbitrary powers should be checked. There are too few checks on the spending of public funds and the whole trend toward intervention on an arbitrary basis is alarming, in my opinion, and should be thoroughly examined. If the results are as I expect, the trend should be reversed.
Finally, and directly related to the program to which I have referred, is the total amount of money collected from the Canadian people. When we are involved in so many cases of subsidization, when we are involved in so many cases of attempting to do the impossible, inevitably we have to collect more money from the Canadian taxpayer than is reasonable. This is becoming a major problem and affects not only low income earners of Canada but all income earners, including the middle class. For the majority of Canadians, except the very rich, the tax level has reached the point of becoming burdensome. I know this from experience, having talked to constituents in my riding. Many of them find it difficult to keep their heads above water financially. The burden of taxation is becoming very great at the municipal level, and at the provincial level. In Ontario, after the last election, a number of taxes and levies have been substantially increased. The burden is heavy at the federal level. At the end of the year, personal income taxes are to rise in accordance with the provisions of the recent budget. So, too much money is being collected for questionable projects. Too much money is being spent on so-called priorities that are not the real priorities of the average Canadian citizen. The government is becoming involved in too many areas which, in my opinion, would be better left to the responsibility of the average taxpaying citizen himself.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some care to the remarks of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). I noted at the outset that he charged that the government, in assuming responsibility for the reconstruction and operation of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, had blundered. I waited with some anticipation to hear the facts which would support that charge.
May 25, 1972


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think my hon. friend was not listening quite as closely as he indicated. I did not say that in making the decision to reconstruct the plant the government had blundered. I did say, and this is the point, that we do not know whether or not the government had made a mistake. The Pearson government made a mistake in making the decision on a political basis in the first place. But, I do not know whether the present decision is right or wrong, since this government is hiding the facts on which the decision was based.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for correcting the inference on my part that there was a charge of blundering. I believe the word was used, and the implication was there. The hon. member says he did not mean that, and I withdraw my remarks on that point. I had the feeling though, as the hon. member spoke that he really did not care if he received these reports, that his motion for the production of these papers was simply a device, a spring board to give him another chance to discuss general economic policy.
I must say I was amazed that the hon. member would wish to downgrade in such strong terms the making of political decisions. Is the hon. member suggesting to this House that in his long and distinguished career as a parliamentarian and member of government he did not make political decisions? I was under the impression that members of parliament were elected by their constituents to come to Ottawa to help to make political decisions. Now, we are told that political decisions are wrong and that we should leave most decisions to the experts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Apparently, if we leave everything to the experts, Canada will be a happier and better country in which to live. I suggest that the hon. member should look at some decisions experts have made in this country as well as internationally. Not long ago, when I was at the United Nations in New York, I heard of certain decisions that had been made by experts in the field of agriculture. To put in bluntly, those decisions were nothing but boners. So, experts sometimes make terribly had decisions, and their decisions are not always in the best interests of the people.
The hon. member talked about Canadian National Railways and suggested that there is often some political pressure exerted which prevents that company from taking certain actions. I hope there is such pressure, and wish there were more of it. Let me cite an example from my riding. On the advice of experts, Canadian National decided that they would "run through" the community of Nakina. Here, "run through" means that the company would not bother changing crews in that community. The people of that community got together and formed a citizen's action committee which put political pressure on their representatives, on the government and on others. The result of that political pressure was a political decision. The run through was prevented.
What happened subsequently? The experts took another look at long hauls on railroads and found two interesting things. First, they discovered that long hauls are not safe.
Heavy Water Production
We know that there is an increasing number of accidents on the railways. Perhaps some accidents are taking place because men are spending too long on the job and getting tired. Safety and alertness are diminished by long hauls. Second, the experts found that long hauls are not economical. So here is a case in which, if the advice of experts had been followed, a thoroughly bad decision would have been made.
May I return to the notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, concerning the production of papers having to do with the decision of the government to assume responsibility for the reconstruction and operation of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay. It was announced in this House on January 29, 1971 by the then minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the government had authorized Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to enter into an agreement with Deuterium of Canada Limited and the government of Nova Scotia to enable Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to do an assessment which would determine the feasibility and probable cost of bringing the heavy water plant at Glace Bay into production. By now, the plant ought to be producing between 1,700 and 1,800 tons of heavy water which is desperately needed to alleviate the present shortage, a shortage that is not expected to be met until some time in 1974.
The province of Nova Scotia had indicated to the federal government that it was not practicable, because of a lack of sufficient technical expertise at the provincial level, for Nova Scotia to bring the plant into production and operate it with provincial facilities and resources. The government of Canada, therefore, authorized the AECL study, while making clear that it did not include any commitment on the part of the federal government or AECL to carry out further work, to put the plant into production or to operate the same. This study, however, would be submitted to the government for its consideration upon completion.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited then engaged Cana-tom Mon-Max, an engineering consortium consisting of Canatom Limited of Montreal and Mon-Max Limited of Calgary, to do a detailed engineering study of the Glace Bay plant and prepare a reconstruction cost estimate. The Canatom study was delivered to AECL on 31 May, 1971, and formed part of a subsequent submission by AECL to the federal government that concluded that, given certain conditions, heavy water could be produced sooner and more cheaply from a rebuilt Glace Bay plant than from a new plant of equivalent capacity.
In early October, 1971 it was announced that AECL had been authorized to commence negotiation with the province of Nova Scotia and Deuterium of Canada Limited, to determine whether a basis could be found for an agreement whereby, with the concurrence of the federal government, AECL would assume responsibility for the reconstruction and operation of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay.
Then, on October 29, 1971, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in Halifax that a proposal had been negotiated which envisaged AECL acquiring a leasehold interest in the plant and assuming full responsibility for its reconstruction and eventual operation. The job was expected to take about three years and cost $95 million.

May 25, 1972
Heavy Water Production
An agreement was signed which provided for AECL to lease the plant at a nominal rent of one dollar per annum. Loan funds amounting to $95 million to cover the estimated cost of the job were made available by means of a supplementary estimate approved late in 1971. AECL officially took over the plant on November 29, 1971, and work was begun immediately by the engineer and prime contractor hired by AECL to manage the rehabilitation of the plant.
Essentially, the agreement between the province and AECL provides for AECL to lease the heavy water plant and operate it or arrange for its operation by a third party. The cost of rehabilitation and operation, in respect of which loan funds have been made available by the federal government, will be recovered from the revenue received from the sale of the product. The lease will be terminated when the rehabilitation costs have been collected. That, briefly, is the history of federal government involvement in the heavy water plant at Glace Bay.
The hon. member for Trinity now asks this House to issue an order as a result of which the reports which were prepared for AECL would be made public. He wishes to see and examine all the documents pertaining to the making of this important decision. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member's more general submission in connection with administrative secrecy. The principle of administrative secrecy is a long established tradition of the British parliamentary system, but I am among those who question whether or not this principle conforms with the requirements of modern democracy.
In a modern democracy, publicity services are indispensable to citizens who wish to participate actively in the political process. This is what the hon. member for Trinity is complaining about: he was not allowed to see the reports so that he could determine whether the decision taken was a wise one. There are those who argue that the strong position of administrative secrecy in all countries which have inherited the British parliamentary system is a legacy which one can trace back to the period of absolute monarchy. It is, therefore, probably axiomatic to say that any large measure of government secrecy is incompatible with democracy.
Having said this, however, I am prepared to argue that there are good, valid and acceptable reasons why the particular reports requested by the hon. member should not be made public at this time.
Let us bear in mind that the hon. member requests particular information-reports which were prepared for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited on the basis of which this Crown company would later furnish a memorandum to cabinet. First of all, I would point out that the Crown in the right of Nova Scotia is involved in litigation with several companies which participated in the original construction of the Glace Bay plant. The detailed engineering assessment of the plant which was made for AECL, and the subsequent report prepared by AECL for cabinet, necessarily contained information and opinions relative to the original construction. To make public these documents could be regarded as prejudicial to the fair disposition of that litigation.

Second, I am certain that the hon. member for Trinity, who has a long and distinguished career in parliament and government, realizes that when public officials or consultants are asked to prepare a report they do so with more candour if they are assured of privacy or confidentiality. In the case of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay, the government wanted a candid disclosure or revelation so that it would not be necessary to read between the lines and draw inferences. The report undoubtedly contained frank comments concerning the provincial government in power at the time, public servants and commercial firms. This frankness was necessary. But my point is that those comments would not have been made had the reports been prepared with public scrutiny in mind. If the competence of commercial firms is questioned in a public document, those firms must be given the opportunity to reply.
As far as I know, there was no public inquiry into the failure of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay to go into production. Perhaps there should have been. But the problem facing the federal government was whether it was economically feasible to attempt to put the plant into production or whether in the hon. member's words, it would be merely sending good money after bad. On the basis of the reports it was concluded that heavy water could be produced earlier and more cheaply from a rebuilt Glace Bay plant than from a new plant of equivalent capacity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Earlier in his speech, when he read that same sentence, the hon. member said "subject to certain conditions". Can he advise the House what those conditions were?


B. Keith Penner: Certainly, when you are putting a plant like this back into production there are all kinds of conditions. The hon. member is asking me to provide him with technical data as to what these conditions were. That kind of data, though not available to me, was available to the government which had to make this decision.
In the third place, I would remind the hon. member that the reports-as no doubt he already knows-are the proprietory material of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The information contained in them was prepared by an engineering firm especially for AECL, which in turn was charged with the responsibility of. preparing a memorandum for cabinet. Proprietory material might well contain data which, if made public, could put Atomic Energy of Canada at a competitive disadvantage in its efforts to sell, for example its CANDU power reactors at home and abroad.
I might point out that Canada's development of a distinct line of highly economical nuclear power reactors has now reached the stage of initial commercial acceptance by electrical utilities. This stage has been reached in spite of the fact that Canadian expenditures on nuclear power development have been extremely modest compared to those of the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, France, and now West Germany and Japan.
In 1971-72, AECL received its first real budgetary increase in four years. This year's estimates show that the operating and capital budget will total $79 million, an increase of $2 million over last year. CANDU reactors are
May 25, 1972

capable of further development to meet the challenge of competition from new designs, at least for the foreseeable future. By 1980, Canadian designed nuclear power generating capacity already committed will total over six million kilowatts, and strong efforts are being made to interest other countries in the purchase of reactors of the CANDU type. Any data which might serve to weaken AECL's competitive position would clearly, if published, not be in the best interests of Canada.
These, Mr. Speaker, are some of my arguments in opposition to the hon. member's notice of motion for the production of the reports which were submitted to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited concerning the heavy water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want it understood immediately that I support the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) that all information in this matter should be made available to the Canadian taxpayer. In saying that I also want it clearly understood that I am definitely in favour of the government's undertaking to rehabilitate the Glace Bay plant in view of the fact that there is an unemployment rate of 29 to 31 per cent in the area and the rehabilitation of the plant would mean a great deal.
Although I fully support the making of this information available, I should like to spend a few minutes referring to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) who gave a brief history-and I emphasize that it was a very brief history-of this government's part in the construction of the Glace Bay heavy water plant.
The hon. member for Trinity referred to some important principles. He referred to the fact that some highly political overtures were made. He mentioned there was expert advice given, that we should review the origin of the decisions taken, and he said that it was a political decision of the Pearson government to rehabilitate this plant. One thing that amazes me is that the hon. member for Trinity was a member of the government which made the decision that put the government of Nova Scotia of that day in a financial straitjacket.
If the government wants the facts, the facts are available. For the last five years I have been listening to snide remarks that have been directed from the other side of the House to my leader on the subject of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay. I say they are snide for this reason: hon. members opposite who make these remarks do not know the history of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay. How many of them are aware that it was the government of Nova Scotia, in conjunction with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which first undertook to invest between $15 million and $18 million in developing this plant?
The decision was then made to double the capacity of the plant and thereby double the cost of building the plant. I do not think the government of Nova Scotia was necessarily involved in that decision, but even the present government House leader, whom I am sorry to see is not in his seat, referred to it as a tremendous undertaking. Indeed, he had nothing but praise for the decision.
Heavy Water Production
Then having doubled the capacity of the plant, the Liberal government of the day insisted that the Nova Scotia government have a controlling interest of 51 per cent, thereby putting it in the financial straitjacket in which it eventually wound up. Hon. members opposite point their finger at the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who happened to be premier of the province of Nova Scotia at the time, but he really had no choice; he and the people of Nova Scotia were forced into this position.
When hon. members opposite talk of political decisions, let them remember this. The Nova Scotia government undertook to study the possibility of rehabilitating this plant. The study, which was done by Dupont, showed that the plant could be rehabilitated for $30 million. So what did the government do? It waited and waited until the cost of rehabilitating the plant had climbed to over $90 million. This was a political decision that tripled the cost of rehabilitation. If hon. members opposite want proof that this was a political decision, that proof is not hard to find. I am ashamed to say it, but the minister from Cape Breton who is the government House leader addressed a political audience at the eleventh hour of a provincial election campaign at Glace Bay and said, on October 11, that an agreement was ready for signature but that the government of Nova Scotia had not made the new offer which was absolutely necessary.
I have raised this matter before in the House and if anyone questions what I say, I have a transcript here of the television broadcast that the minister gave. If that is not enough, then I invite each and every member to join me in my office where I will play them the tape recording of what the minister said in regard to the failure of the government of Nova Scotia to make that new and necessary offer.
On October 13 there was a change to a Liberal government. Six days later, on October 19, there was introduced in this House a bill to give aid to this plant. The delaying of this decision by the government cost the taxpayers of Canada in excess of $60 million. The hon. member for Trinity speaks about responsibilities, but he should have taken some of the responsibility for the political decision made when the issue was first brought before parliament. I can turn to a great deal of evidence given before the science committee of the other place. The chairman of that committee was a minister of the government and said that the cabinet had not discussed the matter fully enough to make a worth-while decision.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay talked of the tremendous potential of the plant and referred to the competition Canada is facing in the field of nuclear reactors. I say this is absolute nonsense. The fact is that we cannot sell them; we have to give them away. Only two countries have looked at these reactors, Pakistan and India. And what did they pay for them? I should like to see a financial statement proving that they paid one penny. Probably they became part of the foreign aid scheme.
The hon. member stated that other countries do not make use of heavy water for their atomic reactors but, rather, are using enriched uranium. If the hon. member for Thunder Bay wishes to question this, I suggest he speak to the chairman of the science committee of the

May 25, 1972
Heavy Water Production
other place who has put the record straight. He is a member of the hon. member's party. I have referred to remarks made by the chairman of the science committee of the other place, as well as by the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Thunder Bay. The hon. member opposite in the back row, from Renfrew-Carle-ton, has taken exception to statements made by his Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the development at Glace Bay. He complained that certain conditions were to be met-


Mr. McBride:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized by the hon. member but my constituency is Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.


Mr. McIntosh:: That is a great contribution.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, that is what I call a contribution to the debate. At least I will admit that Liberal members know where they come from. I say the evidence is there for all to see. It is interesting to note that a former minister who recently resigned from the government-I say this with all due respect to him, because he resigned for health reasons-was pushing for a system of operation that would not use heavy water. I refer to the former minister of energy, mines and resources. I have a cutting from the Globe and Mail of December 18, 1970, which is headlined "Greene indicates Ottawa leaning toward building a uranium enriching plant". This is in contradiction to all the undertakings given by AECL. A former minister of the government is questioning whether a proper decision was taken and whether the cabinet had given the matter enough study.
There is no question that this was a political decision involving the expenditure of $60 million to help the Liberal government; this was denied the Conservative government of Nova Scotia. Perhaps I should not suggest that a decision to put the plant in Glace Bay was a political decision because there was a Conservative government involved. The government in power today did its utmost to put the people of Nova Scotia in a financial straitjacket, and it will take them a very long time to recover.
Snide remarks are being made every day about the leader of the opposition. Hardly a day goes by without the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) shouting something about heavy water. It is very interesting to note what was said on April 1, 1965, by the now new Liberal Premier of the province of Nova Scotia when he was a Liberal backbencher from Halifax. He directed a question to the then minister of labour, the minister from Cape Breton in the Liberal government. I shall quote his question to emphasize the fact that these are the people who today want to blame the leader of the opposition for all the faults of this plant at Glace Bay. The new Premier of Nova Scotia was sitting as a Liberal backbencher on April 1, 1965, when he asked this question. He had to be reminded by the Speaker that he could only ask his question if it was truly a question. He never knew how to ask a question when he was here, and now as Premier of Nova Scotia he does not know how to answer.


An hon. Member:: That was April fool's day.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member says it was April fool's day, but that had nothing to do with the question. Mr. Speaker said the now Premier of Nova Scotia could ask his question-
If it is a true question and not a statement.


Ms. Regan:: It is a Nova Scotia ohe. Will the Minister of Labour assure the House that on behalf of all constituencies in Cape Breton, he will keep the type of representation in the future that brought to that island the heavy water plant?
Today, members of the Liberal party point to the leader of the opposition, because he was premier of Nova Scotia at the time, and shout about heavy water. You can hear their shouts throughout this chamber. But the question is in Hansard for all to read and check. At that time they apparently took full credit for the establishment of the plant in Glace Bay. Whenever things go wrong, members on the opposite side blame the leader of the opposition; but the facts can be checked.
When the government was prepared to double the capacity of the plant in Nova Scotia there was no announcement from the federal government or from the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia at that time. Who made the announcement about doubling the capacity of the Glace Bay heavy water plant? Lo and behold, it was the same Mr. Regan who is now the Liberal premier of that province; yet we hear every day from the other side the same shouts about heavy water. The responsibility is theirs; they made the decision and they can live with it.
Let me now come to the question of what is happening in respect of patronage. Again, I regret the absence of the government House leader, the hon. member from Cape Breton. The unemployment rate in Cape Breton today ranges between 29 per cent and 31 per cent. The minister from Cape Breton says he did not talk to anyone from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, but when he was in Scotland last year he met a Scotsman at a social function and, just by coincidence, asked him to accept a job as public relations officer for Atomic Energy of Canada. He brought a Scotsman into this area where there is 29 per cent to 31 per cent unemployment. That man is now working in the plant where there are at least two men who have had years of experience in the public relations field. The minister says he does not remember speaking to him about this job, but he is not very emphatic in his denial.
In any event, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited hired this public relations officer. I understand that a public relations officer is someone who is employed to create a good public image for somebody else. This man was brought in from Scotland and put on the job, yet Atomic Energy of Canada Limited say he has not been there long enough for them to assess his capabilities. They did not advertise the job. They never advertise these positions. They did not contact the Atlantic public relations officers association to find someone from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia or even from the rest of Canada who was qualified to fill the position. Apparently, if you are looking for a job with this government the best thing to do is to go overseas and get in the way of a minister on tour at government expense. If you do not believe me, read the Auditor General's report and check the Paris newspapers.
There are thousands of young graduate Canadians tramping the streets of Ottawa and Montreal today. On
May 25, 1972

the very day it became known that this man had been hired there were three graduate students in my office from Montreal asking for help in finding work. Everywhere they went they were told they were over-educated. They were told that if they were put to work today, tomorrow, next week or next month there would be a position for a university graduate and they would leave the job. We have Canadians walking the streets today who are told they are over-educated. They are graduates of our universities who cannot get jobs. This government brings people from Scotland into this country under the aegis of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and puts them to work in Cape Breton where there is an unemployment rate of between 29 per cent to 31 per cent.
I keep repeating that unemployment figure because if there ever was a government that needed, through repetition, to learn something about unemployment and other problems facing this country, it is this government. This is a government that runs advertisements in Paris newspapers inviting the educated to come to Canada, the land of opportunity. If this is the land of opportunity, it is time the government realized there are Canadians who are ready, willing and able to accept any opportunities that exist in this country. I believe in Canada for Canadians first, and I think it is shameful that this government brings in people from other countries to take jobs that could be filled by capable Canadians. There are hundreds of Canadians, many in Cape Breton, who are qualified to fill the public relations position at the Glace Bay heavy water plant. There are two men at the plant who have had years of experience in this field. What this government has allowed to happen is shameful.
The minister indicated he would not show any bias in respect of hiring a Nova Scotian or a Scotsman. Perhaps there is an historical bias because of the minister's Scottish name and background. The minister from Cape Breton suggests that what happened is all right because this man can speak Gaelic. I suggest that is absolute nonsense, I am against anybody coming to this country to take a job that a Canadian is able to do, and I do not care whether he comes from Wales, England, Scotland, Ireland or France.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m. 25316-39
Election Expenses Bill


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted by private members' hour at five o'clock I was in the midst of making it clear that we find this bill so disappointing that we feel it should not be proceeded with in its present form. Like the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) who spoke earlier this afternoon, we point out that there are so many deficiencies in the bill that it does not carry out its intent, which is to control election expenses and put the various candidates and parties on some kind of an equal footing at election time. Because the bill is so deficient, because it is merely a case of trading on the idea of doing something about election expenses, we feel it would be better to have no bill at all than to have this one. Actually, our preference is that the bill be stopped in its tracks and that the government be called upon to bring in legislation that will provide effective control over election expenses and establish a better approach to equality among parties and candidates.
Having said that this bill is deficient in that it does not carry out its intention, that it does not carry out the principle which is supposed to underline it and which we would be prepared to support, may I point out two or three of its deficiencies. As my friend, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), indicated on May 18, the biggest hole in the bill is to be found in the fact that although there are limitations on the expenditures of individual candidates there are no limitations on the expenditures of parties. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that for all the good one can see in the effort that is behind this piece of legislation, that deficiency in itself nullifies the entire bill. What earthly use is there in saying that a candidate in an election can spend only so much money, if the provincial or national party behind that candidate can spend on his behalf without limit?
As the hon. member for Peel South also pointed out this afternoon, even the limitation that is imposed upon individual candidates is not as severe or real as it ought to be. There are figures in the legislation which by a process of arithmetic set a limit on the amount that an individual candidate can spend, but that limit applies only to the types of election expenses identified in the bill. There are about three or four categories of expenditures that qualify as the kind upon which there must be a limit. What earthly use is there in setting that kind of limit if ingenious candidates or ingenious parties can find all sorts of other ways in which to spend money at election time?

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
That is why we feel this bill is a hoax. That is why we take the position-and we take it as a party that has been advocating control of election expenses from the time it was farmed-that it would be better to have no bill at all than to have this one. If this bill passes and becomes law, it will be a long time before anything is done to make it effective, so we think it would be far better to stop it right now and prepare a decent and effective bill.
I welcome the comment made this afternoon by the hon. member for Peel South who was chairman of the Special Committee on Election Expenses. He said that the bill ought to be sent back to the special committee, that the special committee should be reconstituted so that it might participate in the drafting of a better piece of legislation. That deficiency in the bill, namely, that it does not provide any real or effective control on the limit that can be spent in an election campaign, is in itself enough to condemn this piece of legislation. A candidate in an election is limited in what he can spend on certain kinds of projects but not on all the things on which he can spend money, and the parties are not limited at all. Therefore I suggest the bill is so deficient on that point that we have to say that its principle, commendable as it is, is nullified by the terms of the legislation.
The second weakness in the bill is one that we feel very strongly about-although in some quarters of the House our view may not be shared-and that is its failure to required disclosure of campaign contributions. We recognize quite readily the difficulties that would arise if full disclosure were called for; there are some contributions. But I suggest that in terms of the effective working of democracy those problems are minor compared with the problems that are created by a situation in which powerful corporations can make sizeable contributions to the parties of their choice, knowing that there need be no public disclosure of those contributions.
May I remind hon. members of the House that this statement of mine-a statement that was made many times from this part of the House-about contributions to the older parties is supported by a statement that was made on February 14, 1972, here in Ottawa by Mr. R. G. Renkin, the Ontario provincial chairman for the Liberal party red carnation fund. The statement was very clear and very true. It was in these words:
The Liberal party has operated for many years on the support of 95 major Canadian corporations.
I urge very strongly that that kind of situation must be cured. It has bedevilled Canadian politics for a long time.


Paul Yewchuk: What is wrong with it, Stanley?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is wrong with it is that it makes it possible for vested private interests to control the affairs of this country by making contributions which enable parties to have so much money to spend that they can capture the vote of the electorate at election time.


Paul Yewchuk: Where is the evidence for that?
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend had not moved adjournment of debate this afternoon he could have continued his speech and given us the evidence one way or the other, but it is a fact of Canadian history. There have been scandals in the past and there have been valleys of humiliation over this very fact of the kind of contributions which corporate interests have made to the two old parties of this country. We feel very strongly that if we are going to do anything about election expenses we should cure this evil. Let us cure it by requiring that there be full disclosure of campaign contributions.
That recommendation has been made at various stages in the study of this matter, but when the government brought in this bill it did not see fit to include it. We think it is somewhat odd that in reference to the income tax credits to be allowed for contributions, reports have to be made in secret to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray). It continues to puzzle me how the Minister of National Revenue can have this information in that capacity, know what contributions have been made to this party and to all the other parties, and yet as a politician, a member of the government in power, to be assumed not to have this information.
If there is to be someone to whom this information has to be reported, we suggest that it should be an independent officer of parliament rather than a minister of the government. That, I may say, is in passing because the main point I am making is that in our view a bill dealing with election expenses in the year 1972 which does not touch the question of disclosure does not deserve the support of this House. A bill that does not do that should be given the treatment suggested this afternoon by the hon. member for Peel South, although let me make it clear that he did not suggest it for this reason but for several others. Such a bill should be sent back for redrafting so that it will deal with the problems we face in this field.
Another area where we feel this bill is deficient is in the area of reimbursement, and I should like-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) is rising on a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wondered if the hon. member would allow a question. I am curious to know if, as the hon. member states, corporations making contributions to parties leads to corruption, how disclosure of their names would necessarily stop that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the light of day cures a great many things. Dare I say that some people love darkness because their deeds are evil. I have said it anyway. What you can do in the dark can be a lot more evil than what you can do in the broad light of day. I suggest that if the information of who was supporting the Liberal party, the Progressive Conservative party, the New Democratic Party or the Social Credit party were made public, the country would at least know the source of that support and some things that are now being done would not be done. The people of the country would be much more free and able to make
May 25, 1972

their decision as to which party should be given support at election time.
I was about to deal with the question of the reimbursement to candidates of some of their expenses. I have noted that not only the hon. member for Peel South but the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Forest) has taken exception to the formula that is in the bill before us which provides for a percentage reimbursement of certain kinds of expenses. Both those members took the view that we hold, namely, that the formula proposed by the committee over which the hon. member for Peel South presided was a much better one. It was to the effect that a certain minimum amount per voter should be made available to each candidate, at least to each candidate who can get a certain percentage of the vote, and the figure of 20 per cent is mentioned in the bill. At any rate, that kind of proposition has some element of fairness in it.
If there are 45,000 voters in a constituency and there are three or four parties running, and you give to each of those candidates a sufficient number of cents per voter so that the message can go out-as it were, enough cents to get out one piece of literature or what have you-at least you are providing some sort of equality among those three or four candidates. But when in place of that you say to the one who spent the most on a certain type of expenditure that he gets 25 per cent of it back, and to the fellow who did not have the money to spend that he gets little or nothing back, you are certainly not establishing any measure of equality among election candidates about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) spoke.


Paul Yewchuk: How is it not equal?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have made his speech this afternoon. He is trying to make it on my time. He chose to move the adjournment of debate and lost his right to continue speaking. I think he should abide by the decision he took.
This formula for reimbursement, I suggest, is a terribly deficient one. I come back again to the fact that the two main purposes of this bill are supposed to be, first, to control election expenses and, second, to achieve some kind of equality among the candidates. The attempt to control expenses is completely vitiated by the first two deficiencies I have mentioned, and the attempt to achieve any kind of equality is completely missed by a formula based on a percentage proposition rather than on a formula that would provide equally for the various candidates in the field.
We think also, Mr. Speaker, that the failure of the bill to impose any kind of limitation or prohibition on foreign contributions-from foreign corporations, foreign trade unions, foreign individuals or what have you-is a weakness. This is a Canadian piece of legislation concerned about the election in Canada, by the people of Canada, of the Canadian parliament and we do not think that it should be possible for elections in this country to be influenced by money from abroad. Some of the studies that have led to this piece of legislation strongly recommend that there be a prohibition against the granting of 25316-39)
Election Expenses Bill
income tax exemptions, and so on, for foreign contributions and we regret very much that this bill as it now stands has not implemented that recommendation.
For these four reasons as well as others, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this bill is very deficient and that it ought not to be proceeded with at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no hesitation in saying that it contains some things that are good. I think the attempt to provide some equality in terms of broadcasting is a good feature and I think the whole attempt to cope with the problem is good. There are a number of things in the bill that are good. But we have had to study the matter in depth, as is our responsibility, and when we look at the little bit of good and the tremendous amount of bad in the bill we feel that it would be better to have no election expenses bill at all than to be saddled with this one.
As I said, this bill has four main weaknesses, in that it does not control expenses because it places no limits on the parties, in that it does not provide for disclosure of contributions and thus leaves us open to all kinds of abuse; because it has the wrong formula for reimbursing candidates and because it places no limitations on contributions by foreign bodies or individuals. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we urge this House not to be fooled by a piece of legislation that is being paraded under its title, that is being sold to the country simply because it is called a bill to control election expenses when it does not do that at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We think it should be sent back to the drawing board and we call upon the government to do that. Toward that end, and as I indicated before five o'clock that I would do, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That Bill C-211 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give immediate consideration to the presenting of a bill that will provide effective control over election expenses, by establishing reasonable limitations on the amounts parties as v 11 as candidates may spend, and by providing for the full disclosure of contributions to political candidates and parties bc'h at the time of and between election campaigns.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will have more to say later about the substance of the hon. member's speech. I should like especially to speculate on why the New Democratic Party made a somersault on this bill over the weekend. What forces made the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) disown the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who told us-


David Lewis: Order. Just speak to your point of order and don't get into a speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stick to your point of order, and stick to the truth.

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) making a speech on the motion that is before the House, or is he rising on a point of order?


Mr. Peters:: Anything at all!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am just establishing my grounds for later on. The amendment is probably more deficient from a procedural point of view than the one proposed on Friday last by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). While the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tried manfully and with considerable ingenuity to put his amendment within the four corners of the rules, he failed. And I am satisfied that he has not succeeded where the hon. member for Hillsborough failed.
We have in the amendment a series of opinions about this bill. They are all debatable propositions, a series of arguments. It seems to me that the flaw in the amendment is that every possible subject that has been covered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and included in his amendment is a subject matter that could be dealt with in committee by an amendment to the bill.
The hon. member has talked about the limitation of expenditures by parties. We have provided for a form of limitation of election expenditures by political parties and the hon. member is free to move an amendment in committee to broaden that type of limitation. Likewise, with the question of disclosure: he is perfectly free and able in committee to amend the provision of the bill in a way which would bring about all the objectives he has in mind, if he can get the support of the committee. It is quite unnecessary to ask the government to present another bill.
What is the necessity of presenting another bill, Mr. Speaker? That vehicle is not necessary to achieve the hon. member's objectives. All he has to do in committee is to move amendments, because none of these proposed changes is hostile or declaratory of any principle opposed to the principle of the bill. The bill incorporates the principle of limitation of election expenses, it incorporates the principle of disclosure, and the other details are even less important than those I have mentioned. I refer to Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition, citation 389 which reads:
A motion opposing the second reading of a bill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee.
Every one of the proposals mentioned in this second reading amendment is a subject or amendment which may very well be moved in committee. On making a ruling on Friday last on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Hillsborough, the Chair quoted from May's Seventeenth Edition as follows:
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-
What is being done in this second reading amendment is merely to anticipate amendments that can easily be moved in committee. I suggest that it is unnecessary to go through the charade of suggesting that we need another bill. What the hon. member should do is prepare amendments, move them in committee and persuade other mem-

bers of the committee to accept them. Then the bill will come back in the form he wishes. Another bill is quite unnecessary.
I suggest it is even clearer today that this amendment is out of order, Mr. Speaker, than it was on Friday last when there was some doubt as to the regularity of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough. In this case the amendment is out of order for the reasons I have mentioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy seeing the confidence with which the President of the Privy Council makes his little speech and says "That's it; the hon. member is out of order." The main point he seems to be trying to make tonight, since he cannot make the one he usually makes against second reading amendments, is that the changes I am suggesting can be achieved by amendments moved to the bill when it is in committee. Has the President of the Privy Council forgotten that this bill carries with it the Governor General's recommendation?


Frank Howard: Conveniently forgotten!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has he forgotten that when we deal with the bill in committee and bring forward our suggestions that we shall be told, as we have been told time and time again, what we can or cannot do to the bill; because what we can do to it is laid down once and for all by the terms of the resolution agreed to by His Excellency the Governor General? I suggest to you, Sir, that any attempt of mine in the standing committee or at any point in the progress of this bill to change it from one that imposes limitations on only an aspect of expenses to one that deals with the whole, broad gamut of expenses would be met with the argument, as has happened so often in the past-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not at all. The recommendation does not affect any of those items, and the hon. member knows it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't give us that nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member knows it perfectly well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says I know this perfectly well.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You cannot show me any part of the recommendation which would have the effect the hon. member suggests.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have been told time and again what happens when the Governor General provides the limits beyond which we cannot go. The minister himself, when he was minister of national health and welfare, well remembers that when he finally agreed that a certain kind of amendment should be made to the medicare bill, that that amendment which we put through but which has never been acted upon required a
May 25, 1972

supplementary recommendation from the Governor General.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that any attempt to provide for a reimbursement formula that varies from the one in this bill would meet the charge that it constitutes a variation from the provisions of the bill itself. The minister knows very well that the development in procedural terms of the last few years, particularly since we have done away with the resolution stage, indicates that the form of the bill itself to which the Governor General has agreed, so far as its main contents are concerned, is the form that has been laid down, and that is what we cannot change.
Any attempt to make these kinds of major changes to the bill in committee would not get to first base. If we try to do this in committee the minister would be the first one, or Liberal members on the committee would be the first, to say that we cannot do that because we would be going beyond the terms of the bill laid down once and for all by the Governor General in his recommendation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Can he show me where the Governor General's message or recommendation affects any of the proposals he has made? None of them affect the charge on the Crown; that is the critical point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister amazes me. You know, he has such a good memory. Does he not know that when we have tried to argue that since there is no more resolution we are not necessarily limited by the terms of the Governor General's recommendation, we have been told that the measure before us is the measure we are considering and that we are considering only what has been recommended in "the present measure", to quote the royal recommendation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Please do not make those kinds of noises at me tonight. The minister knows better. We have been told that we are limited by "the present measure", and any attempt to get around that would be met with strong objection in the standing committee. Parliamentary counsel would be there-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Then how would it be possible to amend any bills in committee that are accompanied by recommendations? According to the hon. member's argument it would be impossible to amend any bill in committee, in any particular. That is the hon. member's position tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is still possible to amend the bill in committee on details that do not change the basic principle. However, we are asking for a different principle; we are asking for the principle of effective control of election expenses.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is just an opinion, not an amendment.
Election Expenses Bill


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are saying that this bill does not control election expenses of parties at all and that it controls only some of the expenses of candidates. We are asking for the control of all expenses, both of candidates and of parties. In terms of disclosure, we are asking for things which could not be achieved by the process of trying to change the bill in committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Also, in our amendment we ask for the disclosure of contributions made between elections as well as at election time. I am sure, as sure as I stand here, that if we tried to move these amendments either in the standing committee or in committee of the whole, the first one on his feet saying that those amendments go beyond the terms of the bill as laid down and recommended by the Governor General would be the President of the Privy Council.
I am interested, of course, in noting that the President of the Privy Council did not raise the objection that was raised to the amendment moved last week by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the objection that has been raised most often lately, that the amendment is partly in support of and partly opposed to the bill. We have made it clear, and I hope I have made it clear in my speech, that we are not as a group opposing the bill in part and then turning around and voting for it. We think the structure of the bill is basically wrong, and this is an amendment which proposes an alternative, one that is completely opposed to the bill as it stands.
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, when you ruled on the amendment of the hon. member for Hillsborough you quoted some of the standard paragraphs dealing with the subject. May I quote in particular citation 382 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition:
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-
I interrupt myself to say that that is why I think these amendments are called reasoned amendments. We seek to give our reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of the bill. I continue:
-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-
That is precisely what we are doing. We are approaching this bill with a different principle, with a different view of its policy and we are suggesting different provisions. We think that the bill before us, Bill C-211, is not adequate. We are opposed to it and we want to stop it now so that there may be a bill before us embracing a different principle, a different policy and different provisions that will more readily provide for effective control of election expenses.
Perhaps it was not necessary for me to mention this aspect of the matter because it is clear, from the non-reference to it by the President of the Privy Council, that our amendment is not faulty on that point. It is an amendment offered by members who are opposed to the bill. We have stated some of our reasons for being opposed to it and we have stated our desire for a different kind of policy.

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
Speaking on the point the President of the Privy Council raised, I suggest that nothing would be more futile than for any member of the standing committee to attempt to achieve these changes by amending this bill in committee, because we would be told at once that those amendments run counter to what is laid down in the recommendation of the Governor General. I contend, therefore, that we have the right on second reading to say we are opposed to the bill, to give our reasons for that opposition and to bring forward a reasoned amendment. That, Sir, is what we have placed before you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before I examine the procedural acceptability of the amendment, perhaps I should again read the amendment to the House:
That Bill C-211 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give immediate consideration to the presenting of a bill that will provide effective control over election expenses, by establishing reasonable limitations on the amounts parties as well as candidates may spend, and by providing for the full disclosure of contributions to political candidates and parties both at the time of and between election campaigns.
As it has been stated many times from the chair, reasoned amendments on second reading are among the most difficult of our parliamentary proceedings. In the past few years hon. members have sought to make greater use of such amendments and, indeed, have sought to go beyond the recognized forms-the six months' hoist or a reasoned amendment to second reading.
I wish to thank the two hon. members who contributed to the procedural debate; Points made by both participants are of interest and value. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) expressed the view that the amendment we are considering puts forward proposals which might be made in committee. The minister referred to citation 389 of Beauchesne to which I also refer.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to the limitations of the Governor General's recommendation, suggesting that the Chair by previous decisions had limited the possibility of going beyond the recommendation or the possibility of altering any of the proposals covered by the recommendation. The hon. member referred to citation 382 dealing with the subject of reasoned amendments-a citation which was used last Friday, I believe-under the terms of which an hon. member can put forward reasons for not agreeing to second reading of a bill.
That having been said, there are a few questions the Chair must ask in its desire to proceed in accordance with the practices of this House. The Chair has to decide on the procedural acceptability of the amendment. I find myself wondering at this point whether the amendment before us does in fact oppose the principle of the bill. I refer to citation 382 and shall read it to the House:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record his special reason 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 committee or commissioners-

I have great doubts about this amendment and its effect on the bill. I am tempted to conclude that the amendment is not really opposing the principle of the bill. Although the hon. member in his speech said he could not accept the measure because it did not contain certain provisions, his amendment does not oppose the principle, the subject matter within the proposal before us.
I am wondering if what appear to be the reasons given by the hon. member in his amendment are proposals which might well be the substance of another bill. On the other hand, the President of the Privy Council has suggested that the proposals contained in the amendment could be put forward at the committee stage. The minister referred to citation 389 of Beauchesne where it is stated:
A motion opposing second reading of the bill must not anticipate amendments which could be moved in committee.
In that regard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a point as to the recommendation of His Excellency which in his mind set a limitation on the capability of the committee, or the House at a later stage, in accepting such amendments. In the opinion of the Chair, after looking at the recommendation attached to the bill, it is in general terms and would appear to be wide enough to permit hon. members to include the changes suggested in the amendment moved by the hon. member. Hon. members cannot, of course, expand the measure beyond the limits of the recommendation of His Excellency, but I do not see any limit on the possibility of providing for a restriction.
The arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, based probably on previous decisions, were to my mind more particularly concerned with moneys involving expenditure by the treasury. The precedents are quite clear on that point. When we are speaking of expenditure or appropriation of money, this limitation of course applies. But when it comes to the possibility of proposing amendments to a bill, it is my impression that the recommendation we have before us is wide enough to enable the committee to accept such amendments, although of course the Chair is not prejudging what could be done in committee.
X00)
In conclusion, basing myself on the point that I stressed at the beginning, that the amendment should clearly oppose the principle of the bill and that it might be anticipating at the same time amendments that could be made at the committee stage, I hold that the amendment cannot be accepted at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For clarification's sake, are you now ruling that it will be permissible at committee stage to move amendments revolving around the subject matter of the proposed amendment of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)? Are you saying that we can do that in committee? Because if that is not what you are saying, we will have all sorts of difficulty in the committee, especially when members such as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) want to give their directions about opposing these moves. I think it would be just as well if you indicated what are our rights and prerogatives in committee.
May 25, 1972


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I am sure that the point raised by the hon. member is a valid one, but I suggest that if he had listened closely to what I said-


Frank Howard: That is the problem; I did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I clearly said that I did not want to prejudge any decision that might be made by a chairman of the committee at the committee stage of the bill. The ruling that I as the occupant of the chair at the present time am making will have to be interpreted by other occupants of the chair. I would not wish the hon. member to ask the Chair at this time to pass judgment on any further decisions that may be made.


Frank Howard: I rise on another point of order then, Mr. Speaker, and ask whether you are now saying that the government can have it both ways.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, there is one point about this measure that bothers me and I should like to share my concern with hon. members of the House. The section that bothers me is headed "Political publications and broadcasts" and is clause 13 which is found at page 20 of the bill. The gist of this clause is that on an election day or the day before a person who publishes an article, editorial, advertisement or announcement of a partisan political character in relation to the election or by-election, as the case may be, is guilty of an offence against the act.
This is an attempt to bring into the publishing field something that exists in a slightly different way in the broadcasting field and I state categorically that this attempt is wrongly made. Instead of bringing this into publishing we should be kicking the other measure out of broadcasting. What evil is being cured by putting something like this into the law, which is a prohibition on reporting and comment? What evil is being cured, I ask; and is the remedy a greater evil than any situation in the past which the government feels should be corrected in the future by this sort of legislation?
First, I think there are safeguards in society today regarding what the government is trying to remedy here. I think the first safeguard is that by and large the press of Canada is a responsible press and that the newsrooms of Canadian broadcasting stations are staffed by responsible people. I think that is the biggest safeguard of all. It is the credibility of the press, radio and television that is really on trial, whether you are dealing with events occurring within 24 or 48 hours of an election or with events that occurred a long time before. The public either believes in the honesty and fairness of the press, radio and television or it does not. I do not think that this particular measure sanctifies the honesty of the press in any way. So that the ethics of the news profession is our main safeguard and it is, I suggest, the only safeguard that should be adopted.
The maturity of the electorate and their ability to know when they are being treated in a brainwashing or partisan way, or whether they are receiving objective reporting, is another safeguard. Within the last few days the Canadian press has sent forth through its subscribers a special
Election Expenses Bill
report-I suppose it would be classified as an article within the meaning of proposed section 99(1)-in which it is said:
The bill prohibits partisan political comment on any federal election day and on the day before voting, but sources in the Privy Council office say that this applies only to editorial comment and political advertisements in newspapers.
Why anyone should assume that this is what the law means is beyond me. Why somebody in the Privy Council office, who is not specified, should be the source of the interpretation of a poorly phrased paragraph in the legislation similarly is beyond me. In its editorial today the Toronto Star was able to take this contraption apart in a pretty effective manner. I will get around to the comment made by the Toronto Star in a few minutes, but the point I wish to make about the danger of prohibiting an article of a partisan political character is simply this, that you are in the field of value judgments and you may have to make a value judgment in extraordinarily difficult cases.
For example, it would be quite possible during the final moments of a campaign-not probable, but possible-if a demagogue were operating in the land, for all sorts of promises to be made by him which, if simply reported without any commentary or effort to examine their implications, might have an effect on the electorate and could not be checked in any responsible manner whatsoever. Indeed, if one used the ordinary democratic process of trying to get the truth across, the person who tried to answer would find that he might be breaching the law, and the person who was getting away with journalistic murder might find that he was being protected by the law. I think that if you have that sort of situation with regard to reporting in this country, then you have a pretty serious situation indeed.
You could use the example of something that happened during the last election, or something that people would remember happening-certain disturbances in the city of Montreal. How do you report that, under this particular measure? You are not supposed to report something of a partisan political character. One might very well say- indeed, I think a great many people did say-that the right hon. gentleman who is the Prime Minister of this country, in facing up to a certain situation showed very commendable qualities. If you said or portrayed that in any way, would you not in fact be reporting in a partisan political manner? I think this is capable of that sort of interpretation. The Toronto Star to which I referred earlier made this telling point:
Besides restricting free speech, the clause is incapable of precise application. What exactly does "partisan political nature" mean? Is an editorial-or a letter to the editor-urging voters to support a particular party a "partisan" item? Would it be a breach to report a news story-for example a Statistics Canada release on the latest unemployment figures-that might hurt the government and help the opposition? Must a newspaper, before publishing an official announcement, examine it with a magnifying glass to make sure that it hasn't a possible political connotation? The courts would presumably be called on to answer all these questions, and until they did editors would be left in uncertainty as to what they could lawfully publish.
The wording of that clause and its implications bother me. If it is the general wish of the House that this sort of

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
thing be in the law of the land, I suggest they take a long look at the use of the word "article" because that word to me-and I have spent half my life in the news business of this country-would suggest news items. That being so, I suggest there would be a severe limitation on reporting in the final days or the last day of an election campaign.
Another point about this bill that bothers me is the prohibition of a time honoured practice of all of us in the House, the giving out of information as to places of voting. If we send out something purely for that purpose, we are guilty of an offence. I do not know what would happen thereafter, but you are guilty. This is one of the things I think is traditional on the part of candidates. This is a bond with the electorate and an attempt to be of service to the prospective voter. It is going simply too far to make an offence of an attempt to be helpful. If an attempt to tell some dear old lady that she votes at such and such a church hall is an evil intent, then this measure goes too far. I do not know why I should be subject to the wrath of God and the law of the land for trying to be helpful.
Another thing I do not like in the bill is that part which specifically prohibits advertising of a partisan political character on election day. In my part of the country, as I imagine in other parts, it is customary to put ads in the paper indicating transportation telephone numbers, numbers of party headquarters and other numbers in order that people can receive information. I do not see anything wrong with that.
Again, in my part of the country, and I think in other parts as well, political parties would be foolish if on the day of an election they bombarded the electorate with advertisements dealing with issues and the like. In most places I think there is maturity and parties and candidates let the issues settle themselves on the Saturday night or the Sunday before the election. Then on election day they put every sinew and muscle to work to help the people through the process of voting. The process of voting is still a frightening act for a good many people and one about which they are shy. Any inside or outside help given by agents and the like is very helpful.
The measures to which I have referred inhibit the proper discussion of issues as well as some of the sensible operations of a political party. I hope that when the bill reaches committee changes will be made in order to correct these matters.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-211 concerning election expenses covers quite a lot of ground and brings in several changes.
At first glance, one could say that it is an improvement over the existing act especially if, once it is passed, all candidates are placed on an equal footing and at the same time the people can find out who finances them.
We often hear that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The people will finally be able to see, at least in part, how the "old parties" run elections. Bill C-211 sets a ceiling on election expenses in ridings; however, the bill sets no limit on the parties' expenses on a nationwide basis.
I am pleased to support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who goes as far as to say that this weakness in the bill will neutralize all its effects.
Mr. Speaker, considering the number of experts working for the government, it is obvious that what we have here in the bill is not a mistake nor an oversight but something that the government wished and wanted there.
I can hardly imagine a businessman controlling only 50 per cent of his staff or a manufacturer controlling only 50 per cent of his expenses; they would go backrupt before long. As things now stand, we can see they want to control only part of the election expenses. I believe politics is the only place where we can see such things. Nowhere else, in business or elsewhere, do such things exist.
Moreover, this bill is aimed at controlling election expenses in advertising and broadcasting. But there is no provision to limit or control expenses for renting halls or cars; there is no provision either to control the salaries of the thousands of persons that could be mobilized by a political party. There is no provision in the bill to control the time paid by corporations or unions.
Really, Mr. Speaker, trying to make us believe that a candidate who has obtained 20 per cent of the votes will get a reimbursement of 25 per cent of his election expenses is nothing else but bluff to me, since the bill does not even refer to the big election funds of the old parties. Should the bill be passed, nothing would oblige an insurance company, for instance, that would have paid $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000 to the Liberal or Progressive Conservative fund, to declare anything. In other words, this legislation will always allow a public corporation to contribute to election funds without being accountable to the public at large.
We admit that the bill features some suggestions made in the report of the Barbeau Committee on election expenses in 1966. However, we can realize that what we are being offered today is very little compared with what was provided in the Barbeau report. In fact, on page 21 of the bill, clause 99.1 (1) reads as follows, and I quote:
In the period beginning on the date of the issue of the writ for a general election and ending on Saturday the second day before polling day, each broadcaster . . . shall make available to the registered parties an aggregate of six and one-half hours of broadcasting time between the hours of six p.m. and midnight.
Under the control of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, the party representatives should agree among themselves on allocation of time available, failing which the CRTC shall make a proposal for an allocation of time that will be binding if the registered parties make no objection.
Should any party object to the allocation of time proposed by the CRTC, the latter shall consult the party involved, change its proposal or simply confirm it after discussion, and its decision shall be binding on the party thus providing for compulsory allocation of time.
Mr. Speaker, we of the Social Credit party strongly oppose such a policy and, in our opinion, the allocation of time should be based on the principle of equality between the registered parties.
We believe that any registered party fielding enough candidates to form a government should have time allocated in proportion to their number.
At the present time, on the basis of past experience, we can say that if the bill before us is passed, according to
[Mr. McCIeave.J
May 25, 1972

clause 99, the Social Credit Party of Canada will be unable to get more than half an hour of broadcasting time. I presume that I am not the only one to believe that this is blatant injustice.
Outside Parliament, in my opinion, all parties are equal. We do not work looking back on the past nor on the basis of the heavy majority of the party in power, but we keep the future in mind. The proof that all parties are equal at the dissolution of Parliament is that ten days after prorogation, we automatically lose several privileges which are granted to us as the people's servants.
When we leave Parliament, even if we remain elected members till the next election, we can no longer make telephone calls free of charge nor enjoy franking privileges.
We are all on the same footing when it comes to telephone calls and postage. This is why in my opinion the CBC should not serve a group more than another.
We know that the broadcasts will be allotted under the supervision of the CRTC. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that these supervisors are friends of the government, that they have been hired and are paid by it.
I do not trust very much the impartiality of this group, and I dare suggest to the minister who is sponsoring the bill that he should move an amendment to clause 99.
The allocation I repeat, should be done not in favour of members who have managed to get elected at the previous election, but by taking into account the number of candidates running for each party.
Supposing that the Liberal party had 264 candidates and the Social Credit 225, in my view these figures could be used as a basis for a fair allocation of the time available to the parties.
In short I remain convinced that revealing the financing of parties is an improvement, provided there is not too much hypocrisy. But there again it will be really difficult for a party to prove complete honesty. As I pointed out, amounts emanating from large corporations will not necessarily be publicly revealed.
In short, as in most pieces of legislation, the litle people who contribute to election funds will again be singled out.
An insurance company doing business in a municipality, in a province, will subscribe to the fund without having its name revealed and at the same time the owner of the small corner store or the service station, the manufacturer who contributes a few hundred dollars will get talked about.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is childish to believe that reports will remain confidential as called for by the spirit of the legislation.
After all, in the province of Quebec, during every election campaign the same thing happens: we see that the list of welfare recipients always becomes available to the political organizers of the party in power, who use it for blackmail purposes. I suppose that the future list of contributors to election funds will be used for the same purposes, and the strongest will win.
Election Expenses Bill
If we speak of democracy, Mr. Speaker, action will have to be taken through better distribution of television broadcast time. Since I was a child, I have been hearing now and then that elections are often dishonest and I personally think that the people will keep on thinking so if no amendment is brought to the bill under which we would be granted only half an hour of television time out of a total of 6 j hours.
The public is entitled to the truth, Mr. Speaker, and if the Liberal party has nothing to hide, its representatives in Parliament should not be afraid to share the time alloted for these broadcasts in an honest way.
In clause 8 of the bill are listed the authorized election expenses and, as a matter of fact, one may read at page 14, and I quote:
(2) The amount determined under this subsection in respect of an electoral district is the aggregate of
(a)	one dollar for each of the first fifteen thousand names appearing on the preliminary lists of electors for the electoral district;
(b)	fifty cents for each name in excess of fifteen thousand but not in excess of twenty-five thousand appearing on the preliminary lists of electors for the electoral district; and
(c)	twenty-five cents for each name in excess of twenty-five thousand appearing on the preliminary lists of electors for the electoral district.
Finally, for the Portneuf riding that has 66,000 voters, according to the 1971 census, the candidate of each of the four parties represented in the House would be entitled to expenses amounting to $37,500, which represents an amount much in excess of $100,000.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that during the coming election campaign, the candidates will spend freely and that the people will be spoiled a little. After all, it is merely a little of their own money that they will be getting back.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to exercise the privilege of speaking in this debate on Bill C-211 to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses. The bill should read more appropriately, "to amend the Canada Elections Act and to allow aspirants to political office to dip into the public purse".
It is said that the bill if passed may not be used during the next election. I dare the government to make an issue of this legislation and go to the people for approval of it as it now reads. I believe if the government did so there would be an unfavourable reaction by the public. This bill affects the very basis and fundamentals of our democratic electoral system. At present, parties are given only limited recognition under our system. I understand they are to be given a little more recognition in the next election because the name of the party with which the candidate is connected is to appear on the ballot.
Since the parties so far are given only limited recognition under the system, this strengthens my statement that our elections system is the real basis of our democracy. The name of the nominated candidate is all that counts. Hon. members can look at the sides of their desks and see proof of that; their name only appears on the desk tag. I ask hon. members how they happen to be members of parliament. It is because of their own efforts, and also due
2578

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
to the choice of the electorate on the day of the election. It is also due to the secondary circumstances of being a member of a particular political party. I often recall the words of a very respected town clerk in my native town of Napanee who in advising new council members said:
For many years I have listened to prospective candidates on nomination night saying that their friends had urged them to let their names stand for nomination in elections. Don't you believe a word of it. It is only the egotism and ambition of the individual that makes a man ask for nomination and for election.
That was true in the Napanee town council and all councils, and it is true in the House of Commons in Ottawa today. You raised yourselves up by your own bootstraps. Sometimes the party was a great help to you, and sometimes their help was a lesser factor. In 1968 Trudeaumania swept this country. It is not going to do so in 1972 or in 1973. There is every indication to back up the statement I have just made. Today's press carries headlines of million dollar bungles of the Trudeau government as shown in the Auditor General's report. Headlines also refer to parliament's control weakening.
A headline in a leading Liberal paper reads, "Who pays the bill for the flying PM?" All these headlines refer to a wasteful spending of the taxpayers' money by the Trudeau government. Today, instead of continuing with the budget debate, which would be the proper economic procedure, the government puts forward Bill C-211 that asks the House to condone and ratify more wasteful spending of the taxpayers' money by subsidizing the cost of candidates' campaigns from the public treasury. If that is not a waste of the taxpayers' money, then I have no business standing here and claiming to be the representative of the riding that elected me.
Although this bill has many clauses, I want to speak against it in only one respect at the present time. I oppose clause 11, that section which allows for the reimbursement by the taxpayer of candidates' expenditures. I heard my learned friend, the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell), who laboured conscientiously as chairman of the committee, tell the House that subsidies of candidates' expenses by the taxpayers would encourage men of small means to run for and be elected to parliament.
Does the government think that Parliament is the private preserve of the wealthy? Has the government taken a poll to find out what the individual wealth of our members is? I hope not, and I think not. I think that many of my predecessors were better endowed with this world's goods than I am. I have been through four elections, and this also applies to many of my contemporaries here. We are not too well endowed with this world's goods, yet we are here. I was elected each time, partly on borrowed money every cent of which, plus interest, I repaid later.
I am unalterably against the taxpayers of Canada and my constituents from Frontenac-Lennox and Addington paying any portion of my election expenses through legislation. Anyone who wishes of their own free will to cover part of my election expenses is welcome to do so and his contribution is appreciated, but to pass a law compelling people to subsidize the private political enterprise and ambitions of a candidate for parliament is something that I will not support.
[Mr. Alkenbrack.J
This scheme perpetrates more Marxist socialism, in the phony guise of liberalism, on the taxpayers of this country. It also encourages triflers and opportunists. Instead of strengthening the old, two-party system which has been well tried and found valuable in the past and which now in 1972 is the four-party system, because of Mr. Pearson's bad dream of recognizing parties with a minimum of 12 candidates, this law will encourage the formation of more parties, which we can well do without in this House. It will also encourage more independent candidates because it will put more hands in the public till.
I urge the government to refer this bill to the committee and to strike out clause 11, section 63.1. I wish to put it on record for all of Canada to see. It will probably also be put on the record by other hon. members who agree with my stand. This clause is a government amendment to the old act, as is shown by the black, vertical line on either side of the clause. It reads as follows:
This amendment would authorize the Receiver General to partially reimburse candidates at an election who are elected or who obtain a number of votes equal to 20 per cent of the number of votes cast in the appropriate electoral district. The amount of the reimbursement would be based on the candidate's actual election expenses or authorized election expenses, whichever is the lesser amount, and in the case of certain electoral districts, on the candidate's travelling expenses. In any case, there would be a minimum reimbursement in the amount of $250.
So almost without exception every candidate in every riding who received at least 20 per cent of the vote would be reimbursed to the extent of at least $250. It is too much for the Canadian taxpayer to bear this kind of illegitimate expenditure. He has enough responsibility paying our salaries and the salaries of the gigantic civil service, as well as all the expenses that go with federal responsibilities, without having to subsidize the campaign expenditures of political candidates. If we pass the bill the way it is now, it would put socialism right in the polling booths; and I predict that if it passes it will perpetuate a system of corruption the like of which Canadians have never seen.
Mr. Speaker, you might deduce that I am trying to be altruistic in my approach to this matter, but I ask you this question on behalf of the Canadian people: Why should any Canadian citizen and taxpayer be asked to subsidize any part of my election expenses? They did not personally ask me to run. They did not ask me to incur any election expenses.


William Arnold Peters: Were you parachuted in?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Certainly not. In fact, many men have run for office in the past without incurring expenses. I realize that those days are gone. But it is not necessary to incur expenses to be elected, if you have the confidence of a sufficient number of people. Basically, according to the electoral principle, the democratic principle, it is not necessary to make expenditures to be elected. I know that this is not possible today, but a candidate must look after himself. No one forced him to run, and no one should be forced to help underwrite his campaign expenses.
There is another point that I wish to make. This bill stultifies and threatens democratic initiative on the part of candidates. I will recount some incidents that could take place if this law is passed. The scene is the average small town where the candidate and/or his party are hold-
May 25, 1972

ing a political meeting and they have paid the rent for the hall. The candidate is making a speech expounding the aims and policies of his party. He makes a remark that is not popular with the cross-section of the general public who are his listeners in the hall. Bedlam breaks loose at the back of the hall. A man stands up and says, "Shut up, Mr. Candidate. I won't let you say that here, because your candidacy is subsidized by the general public and I am a taxpaying citizen. You either shut up or get out."
The candidate answers the heckler, "With due respect, our party has paid the rent here tonight." The heckler then says, "So have I helped pay the rent, because my taxes help pay your election expenses." This shows how ridiculous and crazy has been the thinking of the government in the formulation of this bill.
There is another point which I wish to put forward. The chairman of the committee mentioned disclosure. Mr. Speaker, as long as there is coin of the realm in circulation, how can any candidate-especially since according to law he cannot handle money and all cash must be handled by his financial agent-disclose anonymous donations? How can any audit be successfully conducted? How can any audit be accurately conducted? Therefore the word of someone other than the candidate must be accepted. What kind of a charade would that be? Although I am critical of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I am one of the first to agree that election expenses are mounting beyond reason with every parliament. That is a result of the fierce political and electoral competition that is indulged in, and of the current inflationary spiral that has been generated by the Liberal party.
I would like to support the parts of the bill which sensibly limit expenditures in constituencies and that would tend to be fair and equitable in the allotment of radio and television time to the candidates of all recognized parties. But, again, I will not support any more free time on the airways, both radio and television, than has been granted in the past. This decision should be left to the existing T.V. authorities and the radio and T.V. stations. In other words, if my opponent has more money to spend on television than I have, we can just say that is my tough luck and let him spend it. In many cases it is not always the candidate whose face appears most frequently and for longer periods on television who wins an election. Sometimes the viewers get tired of this. Sometimes overexposure is the cause of a candidate's defeat. Anything beyond what has been granted in the past should be paid for by the canadidate and/or his party.
I have been critical of this bill. I am most concerned, as I said, about clause 11 which proposes a new section 63.1 and compels taxpayers to reimburse candidates' expenses. If it remains in the bill, I serve notice that I cannot and I will not support it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, this kind of bill gives the government an opportunity to do something that I had occasion to do once when negotiating a contract in a new plant. In such as case you look at all the other contracts around the country, pick out the best of everything, list which is the best one, the next best one, the one that is not so good and the one that is very
Election Expenses Bill
bad, and deal with each section of the new contract, trying to get the best possible even if it is not with respect to the sections that are concerned only with money. I remember that in one contract I secured agreement on a five-week holiday after 15 years' service. The reason the company agreed to this was that it had been in operation for little over a year and the day of reckoning seemed far distant.
But what does the government do with this legislation? It has examined similar legislation in other countries. The Barbeau report indicates that a study was made over a number of years of legislation in other countries. The government has discovered some of the mistakes which other countries made. It has discovered that in countries where expenditures on behalf of a candidate are limited, a more democratic distribution of representation is possible and many abuses have been eliminated. Yet it comes before parliament after all this investigation and presents legislation with provisions that have proven to be deficient in other countries.
This bill is providing the very minimum possible. It is putting a timid foot in the door when really we should be dealing with legislation that would make the last speaker cry-legislation that would provide equality, that would eliminate the last vestiges of wealth being used to win elections. As the last speaker said, some 20 or 30 years ago it was possible to be elected because of one's position in the community. A man may have owned the local mill. He may have been the son of a man who had been a Member of parliament. He may have been the son of someone in the militia. He may have been a very rich person and on his name alone could be elected. However, during the limited time that I have been a member of this House I have noticed that members more and more must depend on their own ability and on their own initiative to retain their seats in this place. This is a trend that will continue. Those who are capable will probably be elected. The amount of money spent will not necessarily determine the outcome of an election.
Earlier this afternoon I made an offhand remark to a previous speaker in the debate, knowing that he was a very wealthy man. I asked what was he worried about, and quite righly he replied that during election campaigns he goes round and raps on doors. I know he does this, and it benefits him. That holds true in many ridings. I know that in my own riding on a couple of occasions the amount of money available to a candidate was detrimental to his cause because he had difficulty in spending all of it.
I am sure that many people who read the Barbeau report were surprised at the cost of elections. I was a little surprised. I have heard various figures used, but it was interesting to note that in the 1962 election the figures revealed a very sharp rise over all previous elections. The president of the National Liberal Federation, Senator J. J. Connolly, told Maclean's as reported at page 281 of the report of the committee on election expenses in 1966:
-the rise in costs "is not a matter of addition ... but of multiplication." That article states that "the consensus in Ottawa" is that the campaign will cost at least $11 million, "about $3 million more than the estimate made for the 1958 election."
2580

May 25, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
On the same page the report gives figures indicating that the cost of an election to the treasury was estimated at about $13 million and that "the last campaign, all told, will have cost about $32 million to Canada." Mr. Speaker, $32 million does not grow on trees. This statement gives the lie to some of the arguments to the effect that control of election expenses is not necessary. In 15 years, I have gone through five or six elections. In fact, elections were coming about once a year. This $13 million is a fixed expenditure by the government, and I think it is an indication that we will have to do something about election expenses not only from the candidate's point of view but from the point of view of political parties. To some extent, much more important to the general public is the $13 million that a general election costs the treasury.
Mr. Speaker, consideration should have been given to the establishment of a permanent voters' list in this bill. I am sure everyone will agree that the reason the government did not call an election for July is simply that they were aware it would be impossible, even with the expenditure that the government itself makes, to set up machinery that would function in the holiday period. I am sure that would have been true from the point of view of political parties and that the electoral officers in each area would have had considerable difficulty in running the machinery. An election in July would have been a calamity, in my opinion. I remember an election in August and there was considerable confusion about enumeration then. You had a list one day, but when you phoned the people about one-third were on holidays and another one-third were preparing to go. We should be considering the establishment of a permanent voters' list as a means of cutting down election expenses.
There obviously has to be control over political parties. I am only guessing, but I would say the nomination of a candidate in my riding recently cost as much, if not more, for newspaper and radio advertising than I would spend in a general election. I doubt very much that it was his own money, although it was very interesting that one of the candidates called it his nomination convention-it was not a Liberal convention, it was his. I understand that he received a sizeable amount of money from Ottawa and it was used for that purpose.


An hon. Member:: A LIP grant!


William Arnold Peters: I suggest that this is part of the problem. If we are not to control the contributions made to political parties, there is not much point in controlling the expenditures made on behalf of an individual.
Mr. Speaker, I can honestly tell this House how much was spent on my election because we had to raise the money. I can also state that the New Democratic Party works differently from some other parties because 20 per cent of the budget that we report for election expenditures goes to our provincial office. It is then distributed in some way in other ridings, so that for every thousand dollars raised 20 per cent or $200 has to go to the provincial office. The more you raise, the more the provincial office gets. Of course this system has disadvantages as well.
Knowing exactly how much was raised and how much was spent in my riding, I still cannot be sure how much
[Mr. Peters.)
the party would contribute to my election in terms of national newspaper advertisements, in efforts made simply by allowing the $200 deposit in some ridings where it is difficult to get a candidate with $200 of his own. I do not know what the benefit to me may be in those circumstances, but there is some. There are advantages and sometimes disadvantages too, because you are not just running in a local campaign but have interference from other areas.
This matter of honest representation, it seems to me, will be more readily accomplished if we arrive at equality on the basis of the number of voters represented, the fee to be paid by the government, the allowance to be made for expenditures on T.V. and radio and establish a quota so that everybody participates equally. It is my opinion that it will not then be the coffers of the political party which will benefit; it will be the candidate chosen on the basis of equal expenditure and equal opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, other countries have looked at this matter very carefully. They have found and corrected the loopholes. If we had a government that really believed in equality, it would be trying to get the best legislation possible, not the least legislation from which they can get political gain. Using the title of this bill as a form of control of election expenses is dishonest. The bill does not do that. It puts certain limitations on the expenditures of candidates, but in my opinion it does not limit expenditures for elections and it does nothing to correct many of the abuses inherent in the present system.
This is new legislation. If the government wished, it could pick out the best sections of legislation across the country and surprise the Canadian people by accomplishing now what will likely be accomplished in 10 or 15 years. The government is always amending, always bringing in something that should have been presented in the initial stages of legislation. Mr. Speaker, surely the government will one day have enough backbone to introduce the kind of legislation that many people in this country will oppose because it does not suit their selfish ends but which will be applauded by everyone who looks at it in a non-partisan way as being the best legislation which will do most for the process of our democratic machine in Canada.


Mr. Drury:: New Democratic machine.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

["Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the hon. member's original question asked what had resulted from discussions among the provinces and the federal government in respect of offshore rights. The simple answer is that the premier of the province of Quebec and the premiers of the Atlantic provinces will hold a meeting in June to discuss their position with respect to the latest federal offer in connection with off-shore rights. In our view, the intitiative at this stage is clearly to be taken by the provinces.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.", 'Friday. May 26, 1972']
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I bring before parliament tonight a situation which involves
May 25, 1972

between 1,300 and 1,400 western farmers who are being brought before the courts at the initiative of the Canadian Wheat Board for breaking the laws of Canada. Rapeseed growers market their product under contract to Western Canadian Seed Processors in Alberta and to other similar processing plants in Manitoba and Saskatchewan which within agreed and authorized limits purchase the farmers' rapeseed production.
Specifically I refer to a farmer named William Reid Thompson, not related to me, who farms in the community of Olds, Alberta. On March 3 he was issued with delivery authorization No. 2959 by Western Canadian Seed Processors in the amount of 900 bushels. On March 9 he had delivered 388 bushels of rapeseed to the Western Canadian Seed Processors' plant at Lethbridge, some 200 miles away, that delivery being part of a truckload. His Canadian wheat permit No. 0088947163, had previously been delivered to the Western Canadian Seed Processors' plant.
The Canadian Wheat Board had allotted him 60 quota acres which amounted to 1,200 bushels of rapeseed. However, his delivery amounts had not been entered into the permit book because a representative of the Canadian Wheat Board had seized his permit book from the office of Western Canadian Seed Processors' plant; thus he had not been informed of the amount still deliverable under his quota. The 388 bushels delivered on March 9 turned out to be 104.8 bushels in excess of his quota.
On April 10 the Canadian Wheat Board mailed to Mr. Thompson a duplicate of his permit book, informing him for the first time of the amount delivered against the permit book and also informing him of the 104.8 bushels overdelivery. On May 3 Mr. Thompson received a summons instructing him to attend court on Thursday, May 18, he having been charged with delivering 104.8 bushels of rapeseed in excess of the quota established by the Canadian Wheat Board. The trial has been held over until June 1 at the request of the plaintiff.
This is a ridiculous, intolerable and illogical situation, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: This farmer, along with hundreds of others, entered into a contract with Western Seed Processors Ltd. The farmers have been told to find crops alternative to wheat and barley. Many have done so by growing rapeseed, as did this particular farmer. They have also found their own market. Their delivery authorization is based on the home market available for oil products. They did not ask that rapeseed be included under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, nor were they consulted about it.
Is it not unreasonable in the extreme that now these farmers must be penalized under a control system which does not realistically apply to this type of enterprise? This is a situation in which a federal government agency, under a policy developed by this bureaucratic administration, is advising farmers of this country to grow certain products, controlling when and how to sell them, and then the farmers are treated like common criminals when they defend their right to market a farm-grown product for which they themselves have found markets.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Every bushel of rapeseed which is processed through seed processing and crushing plants is used for domestic consumption. The quotas imposed by the Wheat Board are restricting their production. There is an estimated carryover of between 40 million and 50 million bushels of rapeseed from last year's crop. Yet every bushel of this amount which can be used on the local market reduces the amount of this carryover.
Mr. Speaker, why are quota restrictions placed on rape-seed that is used for home consumption? The Wheat Board does not do any rapeseed marketing. It is exercising control only over the delivery system. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) say that this is necessary. It could be necessary for rapeseed which is sold directly on the export market, but it is certainly not necessary for that used in home consumption. I am talking about the quotas for farmers. Strangely enough, there is no quota on sunflower or mustard seed or on soybeans, the latter being imported to this country from the United States and the oil of which is used for making vegetable oils. Is this justice in a just society? Farmers also must now plan what they are to grow next year, and they don't know what to sow. Rapeseed does not enter the elevator system, nor does it take up space at terminals. It does not require rail cars or use railway facilities; it is trucked directly to the plant on an agreed contract basis.
Last May when we dealt with legislation which would make it possible for flax, rye and rapeseed to be brought under the Canadian Wheat Board the minister, answering protests from this side of the House, said that the government did not plan any action toward bringing the marketing of rapeseed, flaxseed and rye under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board at that time. He went on to say in a press release dated May 11:
I repeat, the government has no immediate plan to change the marketing system for these grains. And I assure producers that before any such change is contemplated there will be thorough discussions with everyone involved.
Now, without any reference to farmers, without any consultation and without their even being informed, one of the grains at least has been brought under the control of the Wheat Board, even that which is to be used in the home market and which has been a source of cash for the farmer. In a bureaucratic way, the government is interfering with the diversification of crops.
It seems to me that if there is any justice left in this country, if there is any sense of responsibility or honesty left in the government, it must instruct the Wheat Board to drop these charges and work out an equitable system with the farmers themselves. To allow this case and 1,400 similar cases to proceed through the courts, treating these farmers as criminals, is wrong.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of justice):: Mr. Speaker, this is only one aspect of the larger question of quota deliveries to the oilseed crushers which we are currently reviewing. However, I should like to point out that there have been no prosecutions under the Criminal Code.


Robert Norman Thompson: They were summonsed under the Criminal Code. He was brought to court under it.

May 25, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Albert Béchard: The administration of quotas is the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board, which has to see that all producers receive equal treatment as far as possible with regard to the enforcement of the quota regulations. Any action which is taken by the board is therefore within the terms of its responsibility. I am sure all hon. members would wish the administration of the quota system to be as fair as possible and that no producers be allowed an unfair advantage over others in this respect.



Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I rise tonight to speak on a subject of the utmost seriousness. Without attempting to sound too pompous, I believe that if mankind does not soon put an end to nuclear proliferation and the testing of nuclear weapons, all the national problems which we endlessly debate from day to day will pale into insignificance.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Don't you know that Nixon is over there discussing these things?


Mark Willson Rose: We have witnessed the progress of the SALT talks. Yes, as my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) reminds me, there is some reason for at least limited satisfaction in the fact that United States President Richard Nixon is currently in the U.S.S.R. and that the leaders of the two countries are attempting to exercise some restraint in the area of nuclear proliferation and initiate some kind of nuclear hiatus. What concerns me tonight is the proposed atmospheric test planned in the South Pacific for mid-June, 1972. France and the People's Republic of China are both nuclear powers and have indulged in testing, but neither of them is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.
Mr. Speaker, the national origin of nuclear contamination makes no difference to me or to anybody else; the horrors are identical, regardless of the source of the contamination. Experts on human environment have informed us that the somatic effects of radiation can cause malignancy even at present levels and that genetic alteration may occur generations later. It is clear, therefore, that continued testing must be resisted vigorously and resolutely, not just for the sake of those who happen to be alive in the world today; we must engage in a pact with the yet unborn which will protect our grandchildren from afflictions brought about by the obscenities of irresponsible bomb detonation today.
It is for these reasons-indeed, these are the basic reasons that I entered politics-that I am so persistent in my opposition to nuclear testing. It is why I raised various questions yesterday with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and also with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Why, I ask, should not the government of Canada participate in funding the Greenpeace III voyage of protest? Its objective is four-square within Canadian government policy. Besides, many people point out that we are giving away millions of dollars for almost every-

thing else. It seems to me that this would be a very healthy cause, and I regret that the Secretary of State for External Affairs declined my request.
Why, I also ask, should not the Prime Minister wire a message of congratulation and encouragement to Greenpeace III, as he did to the Amchitka-bound Greenpeace IT? As head of our country-whether I support him and his party or not-his support and his prestige of office would carry a tremendous clout in terms of world opinion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) are planning to attend the Stockholm conference on human environment to be held June 5 to 16. Whether nuclear testing is a major agenda item or not, I do not know; but would it not be ironic if, while the diplomats were discussing the world's environmental transgressors, at the same time the government of France saw fit to explode an atmospheric test in the Pacific? It is my hope and plea that if nuclear testing is not a major agenda item, Canada's delegation will make it so during this particular conference by intransigence, filibustering-anything that is necessary. Then my daughter and the Prime Minister's young son will be able to look forward to growing up in a world free from added nuclear contamination.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, and particularly as a British Columbian, I am as concerned as the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) over the forthcoming nuclear test scheduled in the Pacific. I agree that it is a deplorable situation and I assure him that the government of Canada and the people of Canada share his concern. A great many private individuals in Canada share the common objective of trying to persuade the French government and any other government to desist from carrying out this kind of nuclear testing.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said on May 10, the government has made formal representations to the French government expressing its opposition to these nuclear tests-indeed, we oppose tests by any nation-in all environments but particularly in the atmosphere. Our representations called upon the French government to reconsider its plans for a new series of tests in the South Pacific. Representations of this kind are employed by governments to convey their views on matters of great importance only. The question that has been raised is whether direct government support for the Greenpeace foundation or any other private body of citizens is likely to increase the total impact of these representations.
What is striking about the action of the Greenpeace foundation and about the large number of letters which I understand have gone from Canadians to the government of France is that these representations have been made spontaneously as expressions of opinion of individuals who feel strongly enough to make their views known. They have felt so strongly they have been compelled to take some direct action. If the government of Canada were to give its formal endorsement and particularly its financial backing to the Greenpeace foundation, then it might be thought, however unfairly, that this private
May 25, 1972

organization was in some way acting as a mouthpiece for the government of Canada.
Look at it another way. Official government representations will carry more weight if they are accompanied by clear indications that they are genuinely supported by independent, national public opinion-and this is the position of the government. We do not wish to dilute either the official representations of the government of Canada or the unofficial representations of those who take this matter so seriously.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, last week, as I have on other occasions, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the status of negotiations regarding the provincial and the federal government's offshore mineral rights. This was of particular interest to me because it was one of the first topics I pursued when I came to this place last year. The Prime Minister's answer was that he did not understand the question. This is probably because there was some bedlam in the House at the time. He did state that he understood it had to do with offshore mineral rights and that the matter was being dealt with by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).
I thought the House might be interested in this topic because it is now almost one year since the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and I raised the issue with the Prime Minister on his return from the Victoria conference. His answer at that time was that the government was still waiting for answers from the provinces to the plan it put to them more than a year before. This was in respect of possible negotiations regarding offshore mineral rights. It is obvious that at least two years have elapsed without anything constructive being done. This is a graphic illustration of this government's failure to come to grips with an extremely vital issue. I sincerely hope the bickering and ill will which characterized these negotiations on the west coast of our country will not be carried on as far as current negotations are concerned with Nova Scotia and other Atlantic provinces.
In the "Journal of Canadian Studies", Mr. Neil Caplan deals fully with this subject. In an article entitled "Offshore Mineral Rights: Anatomy of a Federal-Provincial Conflict" we find an excerpt headed "Negotiation and Deadlock". The author points out that Arthur Laing, who is from British Columbia as this House knows, the then minister of northern affairs and natural resources, conducted negotiations with Mr. Kiernan, provincial minister of mines and petroleum resources as far back as July 26, 1963. In October 1964 there was a federal-provincial conference which tried to reach a solution. But this also failed, so the matter went to the Supreme Court of Canada despite the sincere wishes of both the federal and provincial governments that some other course of action might have been taken.
On November 7, 1967, the Supreme Court of Canada in a judgment found in favour of the federal government, and legally at this time the mineral rights off British Columbia belonged by definition to the government of Canada. I say that politically nothing has changed. The province of British Columbia is still bitter and unsatisfied and has changed its position by saying that perhaps legal-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
ly the offshore mineral rights belong to the federal government, but equitably the federal government is obliged to dispose of them to the provinces under a fair type of arrangement.
On December 2, 1968, the present Prime Minister outlined a proposal in which he developed a concept of mineral resource administration lines which would be drawn to distinguish between submerged lands, to be administered federally seaward of those lines and provincially landward of those lines. The provinces would retain the revenue derived from their zones and the federal government would place in a national pool all revenue from its zones, half of which would be available to the provinces and divided among them on the basis of any financial arrangement which the provinces could agree upon.
I suggest, with respect, that this is an abdication of federal responsibility. In effect, the government is saying it will take half and the others can fight over what is left. Since this proposal was made, negotiations seem to have stalled. In my opinion this is a very serious situation. It should be pointed out that Nova Scotia entered confederation as an original partner. It came into the union with a long history of jurisdiction over territorial waters. Canada and France also have a dispute over offshore jurisdiction. Both countries have issued exploratory permits for the same area. This situation exists in Nova Scotia where oil companies are receiving from the federal and provincial governments rights to explore.
Perhaps the whole issue may be solved if and when a more precise and comprehensive Law of the Sea is agreed upon by an international tribunal or committee. In the meantime, despite the bungling or bumbling of governments the oil companies continue to obtain cheap exploratory rights on a duplicate basis. But this situation will not continue for very long because royalties are another kettle of fish and the oil companies will not pay revenues of this type on a duplicate basis. They are simply too expensive. I suggest that once an oil find is confirmed, as we hope it will be, in commercial quantities the pressure will be on in more ways than one.
I believe it would be extremely fortuitous and, to be colloquial, nice for once if the government of Canada would act instead of react and at least keep this House and the people of Canada informed of its posture, whether there will be meaningful co-operation and an equitable settlement in respect of this particular issue, and whether it will deal on an equal basis for once with a part of Canada which lately has received very little from confederation.


Mr. lames Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the hon. member's original question asked what had resulted from discussions among the provinces and the federal government in respect of offshore rights. The simple answer is that the premier of the province of Quebec and the premiers of the Atlantic provinces will hold a meeting in June to discuss their position with respect to the latest federal offer in connection with off-shore rights. In our view, the intitiative at this stage is clearly to be taken by the provinces.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday. May 26, 1972