1972-06-07

TABLING OF FOURTH REPORT OF CLERK OF PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions.
The report was then read by the Clerk, as follows:
Fourth Report of the Clerk of Petitions Wednesday, June 7,1972.
The Clerk of Petitions has the honour to report that he has examined the petition of Herman Weisz, of the City of Ottawa, Ontario, in relation to a report entitled "Concentration in the Manufacturing Industries of Canada", dated March 31, 1971 and published by the Queen's Printer for Canada on behalf of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, presented by Mr. Andrew Brewin, Member of Parliament, on Tuesday, June 6, 1972, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Respectfully submitted,
Fernand Despatie,
Clerk of Petitions.



PETITION OF HERMAN WEISZ-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: The House has just heard the Clerk read the fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions in relation to the petition filed yesterday by the hon. member for Greenwood. Since the filing of the petition yesterday, I have had an opportunity to study very carefully the contents and substance of that document. The substance of the petition is that the petitioner who was a public servant was largely the author of a report entitled "Concentration in the Manufacturing Industries of Canada" published by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This report was attributed to be the work of a public servant, not the petitioner, under the direction of yet another public servant, also not the petitioner.
The suggestion is that it was wrong, and inaccurate in failing to give the petitioner credit for his part in the publication, thereby damaging his reputation. The petitioner urges the House of Commons to cause the person or persons responsible for the alleged wrongful appropriation of his work to publish a correction and to give him credit for his part in the publication.
Hon. members will recognize that it is a heavy responsibility of the Chair to ensure that petitions are in accordance with the historic practices and usages of the House. There is a fundamental right to petition the House of Commons, but that right should not be used to put aside other and probably more effective remedies. It is my understanding that there is an avenue open to the petitioner which has not been referred to in his statement of grievances. There is a precedent in the year 1956 to the
effect that the House will not receive a petition dealing with a matter, the jurisdiction of which has been assigned to another body. This precedent may be found at page 163 of the Journals of the House for Thursday, February 16, 1956.1 quote from the Journals of the House:
Mr. Speaker decided that, although the abovementioned petition met the requirements of Standing Order 70-
Now Standing Order 67.
-it was irregular in that it did not set forth a case in which the House had jurisdiction to interfere since Parliament had vested in the Governor in Council and in the Minister of Transport the exclusive authority to approve and issue licences for the operation of private television stations, and that the petition could not be received.
The Chair has other reservations concerning the substance and the language of the petition filed by the hon. member yesterday. The document, in my estimation-and I say this after much serious thought and consideration- is more in the nature of a remonstrance or a listing of grievances rather than a petition as it is understood by our usages and practices. Included in the substance of the purported petition are statements which, in my opinion, are charges of a very strong character against a minister and a senior departmental official.
As the House knows, assuming a petition to be acceptable from a procedural standpoint, further discussion or consideration of it may be carried out only by consent. We have to go back to the year 1962 for an instance where such unanimous consent was given to allow a debate in the House followed by a referral of the matter to a committee. Perhaps I might be allowed at this point to refer to Dawson's Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, page 242, dealing with modern practice in relation to petitions:
These rulings and the procedure surrounding the reception of petitions have acted, in recent years in particular, to discouraging petitioning. At many times the House has shown itself willing to waive its rules, however strict, to allow the introduction or the passage of a measure it desires, but it has consistently refused to do the same with petitions. Not only is the possible subject-matter limited today, but the forms are strictly observed. The examination by the Clerk of Petitions ensures that many petitions will never be received by the House. Even if they are drafted properly and deal with a proper subject, the petitions cause little stir in the House: the Speaker informs the House that they may be received and they disappear from sight without comment. At best a member may present a petition in person and read the prayer; his fellow members nod agreeably and the petition disappears; there is no debate. The result of these restrictions and this procedure is that petitions are of little use today. Petitions for private bills are still common, but the old tradition by which an individual could pray for redress of wrongs and expect an alleviation of difficulties has fallen into disuse. It is unlikely ever to be revived.
In light of what I have read and said I wonder whether hon. members would not agree that, if allegations con-

June 7, 1972
Regional Economic Expansion
tained in a document were allowed to be inserted into our records, another possible injustice would be created.
I might refer hon. members to Citation 333 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition in reference to the use of language in a petition.
For the reasons stated, I feel that the document filed yesterday is not a petition which meets the requirements of the practices and usages of the Canadian House of Commons covering the receipt of petitions. With regret, because I know the matter is perhaps of interest to members, and certainly to the hon. member for Greenwood, I suggest that the matter cannot be brought to the attention of the House by way of petition. The hon. member knows as well as I that there are other ways a grievance can be submitted to the House. There are many avenues open to the hon. member if he wishes to pursue the matter, but I suggest, with regret, that the avenue of a petition is not the proper one at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that, following consultations with the provincial governments, the Governor in Council has decided that regions now designated for purposes of the Regional Development Incentives Act should continue to be designated for an additional period of 12 or 18 months.
Regions designated in August, 1969, for a period ending July 1, 1972, will continue to be designated for a further period of 18 months, that is, until December 31, 1973. These regions include all of the Atlantic provinces except Labrador, all of eastern and parts of northwestern Quebec, part of northern Ontario, southern Manitoba, parts of southern and northeastern Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, and southeastern British Columbia. Regina, Saskatoon and Renfrew-Pembroke will also continue, until December 31, 1973, to be designated as special areas for purposes of industrial incentives.

Regions designated in January 1971 for a period ending July 1, 1972, will continue to be designated for a further period of 12 months-that is, until July 1, 1973. These regions include southwestern Quebec and parts of eastern Ontario.
By July 1972, current designations will have been in existence for somewhat less than three years. Six to nine months were required to bring the program into fullscale operation and, during the initial two years of the program, manufacturing investment, activity, in Canada as in many other countries, was at a relatively low level. As a result, experience under the regional development incentives program is only now becoming sufficient to permit meaningful evaluation. Intensive work to that end, and to

review related aspects of the regional economic expansion program, is underway and will be followed by a process of thorough consultation with each of the provincial governments. The decision to continue existing designations will provide the time needed to complete this process.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the minister for extending the usual courtesy by providing an advance copy of his statement. Second, I should like to say we particularly welcome the announcement contained in the minister's statement that he is at long last undertaking an evaluation of the whole regional development program. This has been suggested many times in the House during the past two to three years. It has been suggested by the Canadian Council on Rural Development and by others as well. I can only say we hope that when this review is completed it will be made public to allow for critical and, if you like, independent analysis of that evaluation.
The minister's statement extending the term of all designated regions until December 31, 1973, really comes as no great surprise. We are, however, a little surprised at the brevity of the minister's statement; we are surprised that he said so little. In fact, we expected that he would take advantage of this opportunity on motions to respond to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the program both inside and outside the House. Having said that, I readily admit that the minister has done a commendable job before the Standing Committee on Regional Development in his many appearances during the course of examination of his estimates. But that is not quite the same as making a statement of policy on motions in the House and giving the opposition parties a chance to reply for the record.
I had hoped that rather than continue to scatter public funds under the Regional Development Incentives Act in this ad hoc fashion across half the populated area of Canada, the minister would have shown greater selectivity and hence a greater appreciation of the regionally disadvantaged areas of the country. In our view it is not reasonable to suppose that development of viable secondary industries can be promoted in each and every one of the population centres across the vast area of the designated regions in this country which are found in every province in the land. In each of the designated regions there are centres which have a potential for the growth of secondary industry. It is in these centres that the incentive program should, in our view, be concentrated. This concentration can be done through the mechanics of industrial complexes, if you like, similar to the new Multiplex Corporation which is now under way in Saint John, New Brunswick, and which we feel hold the ultimate promise for the success of regional development in this country. However, this blunderbuss approach of the minister in fact defeats the purpose of the program by lavishly extending the designated regions right across the country.
We had hoped that the minister would take advantage of this procedure in the House to reply to the genuine reservations and concern that we have over the effects that the budgetary provisions with respect to capital
June 7, 1972

write-off and accelerated depreciation will have on grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has indicated that in its view the accelerated write-off and capital depreciation provisions in the new budget will in fact dilute the effects of the Regional Development Incentives Act. Questions in this regard were directed to the minister in the House and to the Minister of Finance, but members have not been able to extract any assurances to the contrary. I have also been advised that the Atlantic Development Council, which answers to the minister, has this important matter under study.
May I say in conclusion that we regret that the minister has not revised the whole designated area concept and its application right across the country because we believe this defeats the very purpose of the government's policy to end regional disparity in this country.


Mr. lohn Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for supplying a copy of his remarks to opposition spokesmen ahead of time. The first statement made by the minister is not true. He said,
. . . following consultations with the provincial governments, the Governor in Council has decided that regions now designated . . . should continue . . .
The cabinet made a decision on March 30 to continue the present basic designated regions to the end of 1973. The present designated regions were established in mid-1969 and have been in effect for almost three years. The government provided for a review by setting the June 30 expiry date this year. But now we are told there is to be no change. This is evidence that the program has failed. There is great disappointment and there will be great disappointment, particularly among the provinces, that there has been no change in content or in boundaries. The sum of $250 million has already been committed, much of it still to be spent, and the commitments are accelerating, but we have business as usual for the next 18 months.
In addition, there is no change in policy with regard to grants to foreign-controiled firms. I think we might have expected some change associated with Bill C-201. Why should any foreign-controlled firm want to take over a Canadian enterprise when it can get this type of industrial incentive grant to expand its present operations or to set up a new operation in Canada? In addition, they have over half the country to choose from when picking a location. The government should also note that Ontario is doing away with its program of forgiveable loans to foreign-controlled firms because the loans are doing no good.
A great deal of study was given to this program by the committee. There are many problems in its administration, but the minister has allowed the program to be used for short-run objectives. An evaluation program has not been developed even though the minister said last year that they were starting such a program. It is urgently needed now.
A Montreal Star editorial in the June 6 issue pointed out the following:
The program, then, is ripe for a thorough reassessment. It is too expensive, and the needs for regional development are too pressing for policies to be taken on faith.
Regional Economic Expansion
In committee I raised a question on the legality of the grants because clause 7 specifies that "no development incentive may be authorized ... if ... (a) it is probable that the facility would be established, expanded or modernized without the provision of such an incentive." Two deputy ministers have said that grants are merely likely to accelerate decisions rather than to effect a negative decision. But the minister has told us that no legal opinion has been obtained from the Minister of Justice on whether any grants can be given under these circumstances, and he gave no undertaking that such a legal opinion would be given.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, we believe that regional disparities must be overcome. Every Canadian in every region of the country has the right to share in national prosperity. The government is placing emphasis in its program on these give-away grants, now totalling a quarter of a billion dollars. The government has the wrong priorities in its program. The taxpayer is tired of paying money to industrialists, with no results to show for it. The program needs a complete overhaul.
A new program must be developed that includes direct state intervention to establish the nucleus of an industrial strategy in each region, an overhaul of the corporate tax structure to reflect the real social costs of locational choices by industry, a carefully planned infrastructure program co-ordinated with industrial development, and there must also be genuine consultation and co-operation with the provinces and with local groups and organizations rather than the phony consultations that the minister has just reported.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, where is the progress with regard to other programs which I think all of us can go along with, such as the multiplex program already referred to and the agricultural services centre program? These other types of programs certainly need much more priority than has been given to them.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I beg to congratulate the minister for the statement he has just made, namely that it has been "decided that regions now designated for purposes of the Regional Development Incentives Act should continue to be designated for an additional period of 12 or 18 months". I would have liked to receive a copy of his statement earlier, but it has just been put on my desk. It is regrettable because I would have had many comments to make on this matter.
The minister has also said and I quote:
Regions designated in January 1971 for a period ending July 1, 1972, will continue to be designated for a further period of 12 months-that is, until July 1, 1973. These regions include southwestern Quebec and parts of eastern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, some might say that I talk in a parochial spirit, but I always think about the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. I congratulate the minister for the projects that have been carried out in this area, particularly in the Roberval riding, because the constituents are satisfied with the programs that have been implemented, although they are unhappy about the manner in which they were announced. I warn the minister not to use this kind of announcement concerning these programs as a political stepping-stone because I discovered when the last two

June 7, 1972
Immigration
were made that we were faced with a real Liberal organization and the people were saying that the event was "patronized" by the Liberal party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will look at Standing Order 15 (3), he will see that any remarks he may make should be limited to the minister's statement and should not be designed to provoke a debate.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I did thank the minister in the first place, because he likes to be thanked.
Just the same I want to draw his attention on the matter because all the constituents of Roberval were disgusted, including some of the most sincere liberal organizers.
I have pointed out to the minister in committee the projects concerning the small local industry. I think that in general, too much attention has been given to the large industry, the so-called millionaire industry at the expense of the small local industry. Yet it is the latter which provides jobs and not the large industry. Indeed, as soon as some aid is granted to the large industry, it abolishes jobs, while the local industry does the opposite.
The minister is well aware of that fact, since I have already drawn his attention on it. I hope he will take the matter in consideration because I know he is not stubborn. Indeed, he takes heed of criticism and I hope he will do so when announcing the establishment of industries in the Roberval constituency.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask permission of this House to move the following motion:
That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration investigate the circumstances of the suicide of Alicia Wiercioch, a mother aged 35 years who was ordered deported by the Immigration Appeal Board, and that the committee review the Immigration Appeal Board Act and related federal legislation and regulations and consider amendments to these and other acts as necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, in view of this tragedy and other near tragedies and hardships related to the operations of the federal legislation and regulations dealing with immigration and deportation cases-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has indicated what his motion is. As he knows, the rules are clear that the case cannot be argued. The hon. member has already indicated the terms of the motion. I think the Chair has no alternative at this point but to inquire whether there will be consent. This motion is put to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous agreement. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


Some hon. Members:: Who said no?


An hon. Member:: The Grits again.


Mr. Trudeau:: I didn't, but you never know.


Mr. Jerome:: I did.



POLLUTION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion. Having in mind the pollution by oil of beaches in the Crescent Beach and White Rock area of Surrey-White Rock constituency, which resulted from a relatively minor oil spill at Cherry Point refinery, U.S.A., I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That this House invite the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Rogers Morton and the Administrator Environment Protection Agency, Mr. William Ruckelshaus, to visit the afflicted area and to see, at first hand, a small sample of the inevitable desecration of the west coast which will result from the proposed shipment of Alaska oil by tankers to Cherry Point.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion suggested by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-SUGGESTED COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Having in mind the recent oil spill at Cherry Point which is causing severe pollution damage in Canadian waters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather):
That a message be sent to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence requesting it to proceed forthwith to the west coast to carry out an investigation of the oil spill at Cherry Point and to report back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is also submitted under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
June 7, 1972



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: How many people were dismissed by Polymer Corporation in the year 1971 (a) with professional degrees (b) technicians (c) others?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister oi Supply and Services):: Polymer Corporation Ltd., advises that: The number of employees whose employment with Polymer was terminated in 1971 was as follows: (a) 35; (b) none; (c) 84 (24 employees have since been re-employed with the company).
Questions
DEVELOPMENT OF GASPfi REGION


Mr. Burton: 1.	What were the amounts of federal funds spent in each fiscal year to date under the Federal-Provincial Agreement with the Province of Quebec on the development of the Gaspe Region, signed in May, 1968?
2.	What were the corresponding amounts spent by the Province of Quebec?
3.	In each of the above years, how were the amounts of federal funds spent, distributed according to specific activities?
4.	In each of the above years (a) what amounts of federal funds were spent on consulting, research and similar fees (b) what were the names of consultants, researchers and other personnel of this kind (c) what were their assignments (d) what amounts of federal funds were paid to these experts?


Jean Marchand: 1. 1968-69, $2,184,605; 1969-1970, $7,306,221; 1970-71, $12,145,086; 1971-72, $19,041,616.
2.	This information should be requested from the Province of Quebec.
3.
Administration	
Agriculture	
Forestry	
Fisheries	
Mines	
Recreation and Tourism	
Economic Expansion	
Social and Manpower Development
Urbanization	
Regional Transportation	
Research	
1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72. 520,510	632,100	1,036,158	598,465. 19,578	270,300	2,666,684	2,859,657. 945,249	1,462,067	1,675,497	1,679,415. 7,094	868,206	405,657	609,288. 	-	-	1,419,813. 241,766	945,484	1,025,692	1,821,697. 	-	-	957,625. 77,111	514,640	925,183	1,808,039. 50,781	606,000	2,477,084	2,276,853. 216,225	1,825,474	1,486,002	5,010,764. 106,291	181,950	447,129	-$ 2,184,605	7,306,221	12,145,086	19,041,6164.	One major study of transportation problems, undertaken by Lalonde, Valois, Lamarre and Associates, was financed wholly by the federal government (DREE and CTC) at a cost of $202,233 in 1969-70 and $22,470 in 197071. A large number of studies directed by the province were also conducted on a cost-sharing basis, the federal contribution over the period totalling $1,493,772.


BUTTONVILLE AND TORONTO-MARKHAM AIRPORTS
Mr. Ryan: 1.	Will operations at the Buttonville Airport and at the Toronto-Markham Airport be allowed to continue when the proposed new Toronto Airport is put into operation?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to become involved in discussions with provincial, regional and municipal authorities aimed at providing Toronto with a downtown airport?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. While some procedural control might be necessary, operations at Buttonville Airport will be allowed to continue. Continued operations at the Toronto-Markham Airport will not be possible in view of the close proximity of this site to the new airport location.
2. Yes.


AIR CANADA-RELOCATION OF WINNIPEG PERSONNEL
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Is it the intention of Air Canada to further reduce the number of dispatchers and assistant dispatchers located at Winnipeg and, if so, on what date?
2.	Is it the intention of Air Canada to relocate the flight crews now located in Winnipeg and, if so, on what date?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The dispatch function at Winnipeg was terminated in November 1970. At that time five Assistant Dispatchers were permitted to remain in Winnipeg until such time as they were required at other locations. It is expected that all of these will have been relocated by June 30 this year.
2. There are no present plans to reduce the number of flight crews in Winnipeg. However, the number of people required to fly aircraft and to cater to passengers is dictated by the number of flights and the type of airplane used.

June 7, 1972
Questions


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO ZAIRE FOR ROAD TRANSPORT PROJECT
Mr. Godin: Has the government granted a loan to Zaire for a road transport project and, if so (a) when was the loan granted (b) in what amount (c) what is the interest rate (d) what is the duration of the loan?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The government has granted a loan for a road transportation project in Zaire; the details are as follows: (a) approved by the minister on February 14, 1972; (b) $4,000,000; (c) 0 per cent interest; (d) 50 years with 10 years of grace.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	To date, how many people have been arrested under the provisions of the War Measures Act?
2.	How many of these (a) were released without charge (b) had charges withdrawn (c) had proceedings stayed (d) were charged?
3.	How many of those charged pleaded guilty and to what offence did they so plead?
4.	How many were found guilty?
5.	How many pleaded not guilty and to what offence did they so plead?
6.	How many of those pleading not guilty were found guilty and of what offence or offences?
7.	How many cases are still pending and what are the pleas and charges in each case?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: On the basis of information supplied by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province of Quebec: 1. 465, two of whom were re-arrested, making a total of 467 as of March 15, 1971.
2.	(a) 403; (b) none: (c) all charges laid under the War Measures Act were stayed by nolle prosequi at the request of the Attorney General on July 31, 1971; (d) 86 under the War Measures Act and 19 under the Criminal Code, against 62 persons.
3.	13 persons on two or more counts under sections 4(a), 4(c), 4(d), 4(e), 4(g) and 5 of the War Measures Act.
4.	See answer to part 6.
5.	49 persons on two or more counts under sections 4(a), 4(c), 4(d), 4(e), 4(g) and 5 of the War Measures Act.
6.	5 persons on two or more counts under sections 4(a), 4(c), 4(d), 4(e), 4(g) and 5 of the War Measures Act.
7.	None.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-TRIPS AUTHORIZED, 1971
Mr. Paproski: What trips did the Department of External Affairs authorize in the 1971 calendar year for personnel of each of the following Canadian Embassies in (a) Russia (b) Poland (c) Czechoslovakia (d) Hungary (e) Roumania (f) Cuba and in each case what were (i) the names of the staff members concerned (ii) the length of their absence from Ottawa (iii) the destinations (iv) the dates?


Mitchell William Sharp: Apart from the U.S.S.R., members of the diplomatic missions in Canada of the countries referred to in question 444 are not required to file travel notices. U.S.S.R. Embassy personnel in Ottawa are free to travel without giving notice within a 75 mile radius of the centre of Ottawa but when they wish to travel beyond this radius, the embassy is required to give this department 48 hours notice of their intent to travel. While records of all trips under the travel regulations are maintained, it is not the government's practice to put them in the public domain.


Mr. Godin: 1.	How many automobiles does the CNR own which are available to its employees?
2.	What make of trucks does the CNR own and how many of these trucks can be used on railway tracks for daily inspection?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. There are a total of 472 automobiles which are made available generally to employees in the sales, investigation, claims and telecommunications functions where the continual and full-time availability of a car is essential to the efficient discharge of the employee's duties.
2. (a) Assuming make of truck means name of manufacturer: GMC, Ford, Chrysler, International, White, (b) 26.


Mr. Kaplan: 1.	How much waste paper was discarded from the Parliament Buildings in a recent accounting period (a) what efforts are made to segregate waste paper from other wastes (b) what efforts are made to assure that this waste paper is recycled?
2.	What efforts are made by departments to assure that waste paper discarded by such departments is recycled?


James Armstrong Richardson: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. Approximately 120 tons of left-over or waste paper was removed from the Parliament buildings in the calendar year 1971; (a) The contractor, Florence Paper Co. Limited, segregates all waste paper picked up, through a screening operation at their plant, (b) All useable paper is identified through this screening operation. Useless waste material is taken to the city dump.
2. CADC is responsible for negotiating the contract with Florence Paper for monitoring the removal and recycling the waste paper generated by government departments.


Mr. Godin: From November 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972, were there any derailments on CNR tracks in the province of Quebec and, if so (a) how many (b) how many people died as a result of such derailments (c) how many were injured (d) in each case, what was the estimated damage in dollars?

June 7, 1972


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Yes. (a) 22; (b) one; (c) six; (d) Estimated damage to railway property: $2,381, $39,958, $1,549, $110,800, $2,704, $14,680, $219,016, $201,000, $40,000, $12,325, $12,050, $3,208, $4,231, $6,114, $16,938, $162,000, $91,835, $88,941, $505,064, $121,674, $2,608, $4,497.


Mr. Noble: 1.	Has the government given any consideration to releasing property deserted by the Canadian National Railways to the local municipalities?
2.	Will the government take some action toward having the weeds and brush cut on such unused railway properties?


Gérard Duquet: 1. No consideration has been given to this activity as a specific program. As a general rule, in the case of disused rights-of-way the railway attempts to dispose of them in as large blocs as possible by offering them first to provincial departments of highways for road purposes, then to Hydro for power transmission line purposes. If there is no interest on the part of these agencies, local municipal governments are then approached; piecemeal disposal to adjoining owners is used as the last resort.
2. As property released from active use for railway purposes is subject to local ordinance where weed control is concerned, it is not contemplated that direct federal action will be taken with respect to weed and brush cutting on such lands.


Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise of the terms of repayment of the loan to Jamaica for the Jamaica transportation survey?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Jamaica Transportation Survey entails two stages: Stage I, a comprehensive transportation survey completed in 1970. Stage II, technical and economic feasibility studies of high priority transportation projects arising from Stage I. Two of these have been undertaken. They are the Airports Study and the Road Engineering Studies, both of which commenced in 1971.
Stage I of the transportation survey and the Jamaica Airports Study are among the studies carried out under the loan agreement signed August 2, 1967 for pre-feasibility, feasibility and pre-investment studies in Jamaica.
The terms of the loan are: (a) Interest is payable at the rate of 3 per cent on the amount of the loan drawn by Jamaica and outstanding, (b) The principal amount of the loan is repayable in semi-annual instalments due and payable on the last day of March and September in each year commencing on September 30, 1974 and ending March 31, 1997.
The Road Engineering Studies in Stage II of the transportation survey are the subject of a separate loan agreement signed October 20, 1971.
Questions
The terms of the loan are: (a) Interest is payable at the rate of 3 per cent on the amount of the loan drawn by Jamaica and outstanding, (b) The principal amount of the loan is repayable in semi-annual instalments due and payable on the last day of March and September in each year commencing on September 30, 1978 and ending March 31, 2001.


Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise of the cost of the first issue of the publication "International Perspectives" and what is the estimated cost per subsequent issue?


Mitchell William Sharp: The cost of printing the first issue of the publication "International Perspectives" was $5,525.98; 5,460 English copies and 1,635 French copies were produced and distributed.
The estimated cost of printing each subsequent edition, which will have a wider distribution, is $5,900.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is Canadian assistance to Bangladesh included under Canada's participation in the Colombo Plan?
2.	What are the major long-term Canadian assistance projects now under development in (a) Pakistan (b) Bangladesh?
3.	What major Canadian development projects are now being planned for (a) Pakistan (b) Bangladesh?
4.	Are any further contributions for short-term relief to Bangladesh being contemplated by the Canadian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Canadian assistance to Bangladesh is not included under Canada's participation in the Colombo Plan. Bangladesh is not yet a member of the Colombo Plan.
2.	Pakistan-Canadian assistance to Pakistan has in the past been concentrated largely in the generation and distribution of electric power. Two major projects which are presently being implemented in this sector are the Tar-bela Dam and Irrigation Project, $5 million and the Hyderabad-Karachi Interconnector, $4.4 million. In addition Canada has almost completed the installation of an Earth Satellite Station.
Bangladesh-Canadian development assistance currently being implemented is primarily directed towards the immediate rehabilitation and reconstruction needs of Bangladesh, particularly in the transportation, agricultural and power sectors. Projects approved by the minister so far include railway track material $7 million, commodities $5 million, power system equipment $1 million, and shallow draft vessels $2.5 million. The minister has also approved the continuation of an existing priority development project in the agricultural sector involving the provision of tubewell casings, $5 million.
3.	Pakistan's immediate requirements stem from the loss of foreign exchange earnings and raw materials which previously came from the now separated east wing.

June 7, 1972
Questions
Projects presently under consideration are therefore aimed at providing commodities and spare parts which are urgently required to keep Pakistan's industries functioning.
Bangladesh's immediate rehabilitation and reconstruction requirements will continue to predominate over long term development considerations for some time to come. At the present time projects involving locomotive spare parts and replacement parts for existing Canadian projects are under consideration in CIDA. Discussions are continuing with the government of Bangladesh to identify additional priority reconstruction and rehabilitation requirements.
4.	In addition to previously announced contributions to multilateral and Canadian voluntary organizations, arrangements are currently being made to provide $15 million in wheat to Bangladesh, and discussions are under way with the Bangladesh government on the provision of an additional $5 million worth of either wheat or rapeseed oil.


Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Did the British-based ship Sir Bedivere during the first week of May, 1972, unload a cargo of heavy duty tanks and ammunition at the Port of Vancouver?
2.	Was the cargo bound for the site of the Defence Research Establishment at Suffield, Alberta and, if not, what was its destination?
3.	Did another ship with a similar cargo arrive in April?
4.	Is another ship expected about the middle of May?
5.	Is a ten-year agreement in force by which British troops in groups of between 600 and 1,000 men will train each year for about three weeks between the months of May and November on three training sites, one of them being Suffield?
6.	Are such troops being trained for urban and guerilla warfare and, if not, for what purpose are they being trained?
7.	Are such troops to be used in Ireland?
8.	What is the area of the training base at Suffield?
9.	What studies, if any, were made as to the effect of such training on the grassland ecology of the area?
10.	What is the anticipated cost of developing the base facilities for this troop training at Suffield?
11.	What is the expected annual payroll cost of permanent Canadian and British staffs, and of civilian employees hired locally?
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Environment as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	The destination of the cargo was Canadian Forces Base, Suffield but has no connection with the Defence Research Establishment.
3.	No. However, two ships arrived in March with cargoes of staff cars, armoured personnel carriers and heavy engineer equipment.
4.	Yes. The ship arrived on 14 May, 1972.
5.	The ten-year agreement relates to various aspects of training in Canada but the training of British forces in

groups between 600 and 1,000 men applies only to Suffield.
6.	No, the troops are from units in the NATO formation, British army of the Rhine, and are being trained in the conduct of conventional warfare.
7.	British authorities have confirmed that the training to be conducted in Suffield is not related in any way with the British troop operations in northern Ireland.
8.	The area of the whole Canadian Forces Base, Suffield is 629,910.12 acres. Approximately two-thirds of the area will be used by British forces for training purposes.
9.	See Sessional Paper No. 283-7/44 tabled October 27, 1971.
10.	New construction costs, which are recoverable from Great Britain are estimated to be $1,232,000.
11.	Annual payroll costs are estimated to be approximately $1,400,000. The costs of the permanent Canadian staff and civilians hired locally will be recovered from the British government.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many Indian students from Northern Reserve communities in Manitoba registered for High School in Winnipeg last fall?
2.	How many of these are still attending school?
3.	What reasons for leaving school were given by those who dropped out?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the reply to Part I is 334 and the reply to Part II is 201. In reply to Part III, the following reasons were given for dropouts: (a) Problems of social adjustment in school and boarding home; (b) Family problems at home which necessitate withdrawing from school.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McCleave: On what date or dates, and in what amounts, did the National Harbours Board make grants in lieu of taxation for each year since, and inclusive of, 1967, to (a) Halifax (b) Saint John (c) Quebec City (d) Montreal (e) Vancouver?
Return tabled.
June 7, 1972


DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS IN OTTAWA
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Which countries where Canadian diplomatic missions are located have not reciprocated this arrangement with the establishment of their own mission in Ottawa?
2.	Do any countries with diplomatic missions in Ottawa not have Canadian missions stationed within them and, if so (a) which ones (b) does the government have any plans to establish missions in these countries?
3.	Is it intended to open a full-time office in Dacca for the use of officers of the Canadian mission accredited to Bangladesh and, if so, on what date?
Return tabled.


INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY FARMERS IN YEARS 1966 TO 1970
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many farmers filed income tax returns in each province in the years 1966,1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2.	How many of the returns in each province recorded incomes of (a) less than $2,500 (b) $2,501-$5,000 (c) $5,001-$7,250 (d) $7,251-$10,000 (e) $10,001 and over for the years 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970?
3.	What was the total amount of income tax collected from farmers in each province for the years 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970?
Return tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I return once more to point out the failure of this government to answer starred questions and the delays which can only have resulted from an intention on the part of a minister to treat this House with contempt. I refer to questions Nos. 589 and 616, both of which concern the Department of the Solicitor General. This is not the first time I have had reason to complain about delays on the part of that minister who shows to this House an adamant disregard of the rights of Parliament and a contempt that cannot be justified in any way. Certainly inertia is not an explanation for refusal to answer these questions. I find it necessary at the same time to point out that unless starred questions are to be answered it is a ridiculous waste of time to mark them as starred questions, and that some action should be taken by this House to bring recalcitrant ministers to the realization that starred questions should be answered within three days.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, as a result of comments by the right hon. gentleman in the past I have looked into these matters. I know some work has been done and that in both instances the answers are very close to completion. Hopefully, we may be able to table them soon.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Question No. 88 has been on the order paper since February 18 last and was on the order paper during most of the previous session of this Parliament. I have raised this matter on several occasions. It is a very simple question involving whether the government is going to reestablish or repair the walk around Parliament Hill previously known as lovers' lane. Apparently after two sessions of parliament the government cannot make up its mind on this question. One would think they would know by now what they are going to do, but apparently not.
Orders for Returns


An hon. Member:: You don't use it.


An hon. Member:: This is leap year.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I might remind Your Honour that it is summertime and-you know!


An hon. Member:: Explain!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The second question is No. 557, also a very simple question inquiring about the amount of money paid for an alleged piece of art.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If nothing else, at least I have managed to put the House in good humour this afternoon. It involves something called "Klonos"-I am not sure whether that is a Greek word-and a very large sum of money was paid for it. It consists of eight pieces of fibreglass and I am wondering why-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might like to reply to the hon. member. I do not think it is necessary to make a long speech and bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that a question has not been answered. The parliamentary secretary may wish to reply.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of the numbers of the question and of the tremendous impact on the way of life of the Canadian people of the subject-matters therein contained. I will certainly direct attention to them right away.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 59 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the wish of the House that notice of motion No. 59 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 59-Mr. Nielsen:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the financial statements of the Yukon Native Brotherhood for each fiscal year during which grants have been made to the Brotherhood by any department or agency of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 11?

June 7, 1972
Motions for Papers



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MR. JOHN CARSON AND HON. JOHN N. TURNER REGARDING BILINGUALISM IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a coy of all correspondence between Mr. John Carson, Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the Hon. John Turner, Minister of Justice, regarding bilingualism in the Public Service and its application under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act.
Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this correspondence in general cannot be identified as government papers as such but, rather, should be identified as correspondence between the Minister of finance, as a Member of Parliament, and one of the established institutions of government. In addition, some of the correspondence reflects on the personal competence or character of individuals and some of the papers are private and confidential. It is respectfully requested that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, since the parliamentary committee is now meeting to discuss a question of concern to a great many people in Canada, namely, the question of merit, I think this correspondence is vitally important and I certainly do not intend to withdraw the motion.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I had on the order paper notice of motion No. 6 which has to do with an order for the production of all documents, reports, letters, papers and statements relating to the release of Yves Geoffroy from penitentiary. I would also refer to notice of motion No. 15 which has to do with copies of all documents, application forms, photographs and letters leading to the issuance of passports to Geoffroy and Carmen Parent. I wonder whether the Solicitor General could produce those papers? The other papers were produced. Both these notices of motions ought to be taken together.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General had some conversation with the hon. member about the other notice of motion he referred to. I shall certainly ask him if he will be good enough to discuss with the hon. member the matter he has raised.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to Your Honour for raising this matter again, but I do so in the same manner as the right hon. member for Prince Albert raised a point concerning starred questions. I am referring to notice of motion for production of papers No. 40, having to do with a copy of the evaluation report of the government's 1971 opportunities for youth program. This has now been on the order paper for almost three months and the estimates have been passed for next year's program. I find it passing strange that no response has been made. I would ask Your Honour and the officials of the House to consider seriously the plight of hon. members who have placed on the order paper notices of motions for

the production of papers which stay there for an inexplicably long time. I wonder if there is not some responsibility on the part of ministers to respond to these requests when they are placed on the order paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices or motions stand?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State could indicate when we might expect an answer to a fairly straightforward motion for papers?


An hon. Member:: After the election.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notice of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce respecting the plant at Dunnville, Ontario, operated by Lanark Manufacturing. I assume the parliamentary secretary will be fully informed and able to answer this question. In view of the alleged closing of the plant and the possible relationship between this and the automobile pact, may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been in touch with the management of this plant to obtain some explanation of what is going on and the reasons for such action?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take that question as notice and refer it to the minister.



CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN AMERICAN POSITION BECAUSE OF RECENT CANADIAN TRADE DEFICIT IN AUTOMOBILES AND PARTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the apparently dramatic change in the figures for trade between Canada and the United States in automobiles and automobile parts, which show Canada in a deficit position for the first three months of this year as opposed to the surplus position about which the United States authorities had complained, has the government been in touch with the United States authorities and has this apparent turnaround evoked any change in the position taken by the United States administration with regard to modifications in the pact?
June 7, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not been personally in touch with any of the United States officials on this subject but I will gladly ask the minister if there has been any contact.



LANARK INDUSTRIES, DUNNVILLE-ALLEGED THREATS IN PAST TO CLOSE PLANT WHEN FACED WITH DISPUTES

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister any information regarding previous threats by Lanark Industries of Dunnville, an American-owned corporation, to close down operations when faced with individual disputes in the past? If he has that information, would he give it to the House? If not, will he try to obtain it for us?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. I do not have any information before me.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion arising out of his announcement this afternoon in which he told us that the extension of the program which he announced had been discussed with the provinces. Can he inform the House whether any provinces agreed to the policy of extension without asking for changes in the structure and application of the incentives program? Was there unqualified agreement by all provinces or only by one or two, as I suspect?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was any general answer. Some agreed to the renewal without modification; many suggested modifications. However, we decided we should keep the designated areas as they are until 18 months have elapsed.


David Lewis: Can the minister briefly indicate what was the nature of the consultation? If the government had already made up its mind to make these extensions without bringing in changes either in the program or in the boundaries of the areas, what was the nature of these consultations with the provinces, or were they merely informed of the government's decision?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. There was real consultation. We asked the provinces to comment on what we intended to do. Some indicated they wanted some changes in the designated areas. A few even suggested modification of the whole system. Those are the matters on which we will negotiate during the period which has been announced.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I take it I am to understand from the minister's reply that he asked for comments so
Inquiries of the Ministry
that he could either ignore them or study them later rather than take them into account in his program, which is not very great federal-provincial co-operation. Would the minister undertake to table the correspondence between himself or his department and the provincial governments subject, of course, to the provincial governments agreeing that the correspondence or any documents exchanged with respect to the program he announced today be tabled?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question into consideration and consult with the provinces to learn what their opinions are.



SIDBEC-INQUIRY RESPECTING GRANTS

Mr.   Yvon@: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion contributed, or will it be contributing in the near future to the establishment and expansion of the Sidbec steel works in Contrecoeur, which were inaugurated last Monday by the Premier of Quebec?


Jean Marchand: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a grant totalling some $6 million has been offered to Sidbec. However, it is not quite sure that the grant will reach that amount as it will all depend on the work being completed before December 31, 1973.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT

James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the
minister whether he is in receipt of the results of the study conducted into the organization of his department by the Canadian Council on Rural Development? If the minister has received such a report, will he table it in the House at the earliest opportunity?


Jean Marchand: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.



CONTRECOEUR-CONTINUANCE OF SPECIAL AREA STATUS

Mr. Speaker:: Did the hon. member for Chambly have any other supplementaries for the minister?


Mr.   Yvon@: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the minister's statement to the House a few minutes ago, is the Contrecoeur area still part of the designated area.


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

June 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONTINUANCE OF DESIGNATED REGIONS-DATE OF CABINET DECISION

John Stratford Burton: Would the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion care to inform the House on what date the cabinet made its basic decision to extend the present designated regions by 12 and 18 months respectively with respect to industrial incentive grants?


Jean Marchand: I do not have the date in my mind. I may check and answer later.


John Stratford Burton: I should like to ask the minister this question. In view of the fact that the cabinet decided on March 30 to continue the present designations, eight days before the minister began to consult with the provincial premiers, would the hon. gentleman explain to the House why he bothered to carry on this consultation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously argument and not a question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can he say whether current negotiations are such that we may hope for an early settlement of the longshoremen's strike which so far has caused considerable harm to business in Quebec?


Abram Ernest Epp: Our
objective is, of course, to bring an end to this dispute as rapidly as possible. This morning I transmitted to each party in the dispute the wire received from the other party. These telegrams expressed a willingness on the part of the parties to see arbitration procedure go forward. I have urged them today to give me an assurance that they will in fact take this step and initiate arbitration procedure either singly or jointly.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Will the minister tell us whether he gave them an alternative if they did not comply with the request submitted in the telegrams?


Mr. O'Connell:: Both the law and the collective agreement are explicit as to what steps should be taken in disputes of this nature. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to suggest alternatives to that which the law requires.
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier).J



INDUSTRY


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to direct to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to the Lanark plant at Dunnville. In view of the fact that on Monday night 11 transport trucks carrying machinery left that plant, reportedly bound for the United States, would the department consider introducing a system of export permits applicable to used machinery with a view to preventing the wholesale shipment of foreign plants out of Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: I would be pleased to take that question as notice as well.



IMMIGRATION


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to address this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Justice since at one stage he was charged with responsibility in this area. In light of the fact that the Japanese terrorist, Kozo Okamoto, was in Canada as late as March, 1972, and since many other hoodlums and gangsters such as Jerry Rubin, James Earl Ray, Bremer and others have been in Canada, is the government considering setting up some sort of screening system at ports of entry in order to keep out these undesirable people?


Otto Emil Lang: I am sure that at an appropriate opportunity the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will be glad to inform the hon. gentleman exactly what precautions are now taken and what the procedures are governing entry into Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the Minister of Justice next has a conversation with the minister presently in charge of immigration, would he ask him to make a statement on motions setting out the rules and regulations concerning the requirements for the issue of visas and other regulations governing visitations by people of this kind, particularly when there are 9,000 applications pending before the Immigration Appeal Board, including many by deserving people who cannot get their cases heard?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
June 7, 1972

Affairs and of his parliamentary secretary, may I address my question to the acting minister if there is one or, if not, to the Prime Minister. Will the minister give consideration to the petition of Herman Weisz which was referred to earlier today and which alleges a serious injustice done to a public servant. Will he make a statement remedying the injustice if he finds it exists?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.



IMMIGRATION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I am a little embarrassed because the hon. member for Parkdale has alluded to this issue by way of a motion under Standing Order 43, but perhaps it is a legitimate question. In view of the tragic suicide in Toronto of a Polish woman who came here in 1968 and was ordered deported yesterday, will the government consider, as a matter of urgency, a proposal to invite leaders of Canadian ethnic communities to assist the government in evolving an equitable and speedy technique for solving what is obviously a serious problem posed by the substantial backlog of applications to the appeal board which are still pending?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister has stated on a number of occasions that he is considering new legislation to meet some of the problems which have resulted in this backlog. He has, of course, been in consultation with various ethnic groups across the country in an informal way. He also has the benefit of the advice of Members of Parliament, many of them members of our party, who have given him valuable advice on matters affecting ethnic groups.



SUICIDE OF ALICIA WIERCIOCH-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Stanley Haidasz: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister whether he would request the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Alicia Wiercioch?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The circumstances, in so far as they concern our administration, are reasonably well known. The application was rejected many months ago and the appellant's lawyer lodged an appeal with the federal court. It was while this appeal was pending, and no action was being taken on it, that the death occurred. At that time the immigration and manpower people had not been engaged in any way in pursuing the case. We were waiting for the pursuance of the motion in the federal court. As far as other circumstances are concerned, I do not believe they are under the jurisdiction of this government.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the Prime Minister give consideration to getting rid of some of the members of the Immigration Appeal Board?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF LAW

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is a short supplementary. In light of the facts that have come out in questions and other hon. members have put concerning Canada's immigration policy, can the Prime Minister tell us whether there is anything on the tracing board with reference to changing the rules governing immigration, particularly when deserving people are held up and other kinds of people are permitted to enter Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will check. The hon. member referred to some board. I am not sure to which board he was referring.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I repeat my question. I thought it was clear; perhaps it was not. In light of the facts brought out in questions and answers with reference to immigration, is there anything on the government's tracing board to change immigration policy whereby deserving people will get their applications to stay in Canada heard and those who are not deserving will be kept out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister to read the hon. member's question. I am still not familiar with the kind of board to which he has referred.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has a supplementary, but again I bring to the attention of the House that we are running short of time. There are a number of distinguished colleagues in the fourth and fifth rows who fell by the wayside yesterday and I should like the opportunity of recognizing them today.



REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER FOR DEPORTATION OF TUAN VU

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, give consideration to asking the Immigration Appeal Board to reconsider the deportation order in the case of Tuan Vu since, if the order is implemented, he will almost certainly face execution in South Viet Nam?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a particular case of which I have no knowledge. If the hon. member will send me the name of the person I will look into the matter.
2934

June 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR LIST OF NON-LANDED IMMIGRANTS USING CANADA FOR POLITICAL ASYLUM

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is the government prepared to table a list of non-landed immigrants in Canada who are using Canada either for temporary or for permanent political asylum?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that such a list exists. We do not have a doctrine of asylum in this country.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
With reference to the question which the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) asked yesterday, namely, whether the Prime Minister of Canada had received a letter from the Quebec premier concerning the development of the petrochemical industry of interest to this province, the Prime Minister having indicated that he had not received such a letter, could he advise us today whether he has found the letter in his mail, and what is Quebec's position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed found a letter from Premier Bourassa concerning the matter of the chemical industry, but without any reference to the industries and the special project in Sarnia which the hon. member mentioned in his question; there, no doubt, is the source of our misunderstanding. I have not yet replied to this letter which, I think, dates back less than two weeks.



IMPLICATION OF PURCHASE OF HOPPER CARS AND TRUCK DELIVERY TO INLAND TERMINALS IN LIGHT OF GRAINS GROUP REPORT ON HANDLING

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. With the recent purchase of hopper cars for the movement of grain and the use of trucks to deliver grain to inland terminals, would the minister inform the House whether we are seeing a piece by piece implementation of the grains group report on rationalization of the grain handling system in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is the way in which the government is dealing with the problem of moving record volumes of grain and an expansion of the system as required, whether it be for cleaning or handling grain. We are also seeing

the co-operation of all parts of the industry in order to ensure that these record volumes of grain are moved.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF GRAINS GROUP REPORT ON RATIONALIZATION OF HANDLING

Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same matter to the same minister. Is he now prepared to make public the report of the grains group on their study of transportation problems connected with grain movement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the study in question has been given fairly wide distribution to producer organizations as well as to provincial governments, the companies most directly involved and the Canada Grains Council. We are having discussions with the Canada Grains Council regarding the steps to be taken from this point forward both in developing further information programs and on development within the handling and transportation system itself.



TRUCK DELIVERY TO INLAND TERMINALS-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED COST TO FARMERS

Jack Burnett Murta: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the decision to truck grain to our inland terminals could result in greatly increased costs, up to 14 cents a bushel, some people say, can the minister assure the House that either directly or indirectly the farmers will not have to bear the brunt of what seems to be a fairly costly experiment?


Otto Emil Lang: The movement of grain to inland terminals is not new. The departure in using trucks rather than rail equipment is the only difference. This is not necessarily more costly than rail movement. Further matters being examined include the possibility of more direct hauling by the farmers themselves to the inland terminals, which is likely to be the cheapest of all ways of moving the grain.


Mr. Speaker:: There are five or six members rising to ask supplementaries on this subject, which I suggest will take until the end of the question period. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Churchill and then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is on the same subject. In areas where the one and only elevator is being phased out, has the government any plans to assist farmers with the extra haulage necessitated by the provision of trucks to haul grain to the nearest elevator?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the tradition has been for this to be a simple decision by certain segments of the grain handling industry, the individual elevator companies. There has been no government involvement. One of the purposes of the over-all study of the system was to consider the question from the point of view of maximum benefit to the producers, and this is precisely the kind of question that I expect the Canada Grains Council and
June 7, 1972

other producer organizations to make representations about in the very near future.



SUGGESTED AUTHORIZATION OF CANADA GRAINS COMMISSION TO ACT AS LONGSHORING COMPANY BECAUSE OF STRIKE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in the absence from the House of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the request by Mr. Atkinson, president of the National Farmers Union, to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board as well as to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture that action be taken, to authorize the Canada Grains Commission to act as a longshoring or stevedoring company in order to ensure that the movement of wheat through the St. Lawrence ports can be resumed, would the minister inform the House what action is being taken either by himself or the Minister of Agriculture on this request?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be premature to make a response to that specific question at this time. The delicate situation on the St. Lawrence is, of course, fully in the mind of the Minister of Labour and I would want his views on any action in this regard.
ILater:]


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question I asked earlier. This situation is not only delicate but to western farmers it is disastrous. Can the minister in charge of the Wheat Board tell the House whether the Board of Grain Commissioners or the Canadian Wheat Board have been asked to assess the situation at the St. Lawrence ports and the extent to which it is affecting the movement of grain both for export and domestic use in Quebec and in the Maritimes?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, naturally, the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister have been in discussion about the difficulties which the labour situation in the Montreal area can create for the movement of grain. We are very concerned about it and have made this concern known to the Minister of Labour who has indicated to the House his great concern about this matter and also how he thinks a solution should be found.



ADDITIONAL SALE TO CHINA-PAYMENT OF FREIGHT-ADEQUACY OF PRICE TO RETURN PROFIT TO FARMERS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. There is widespread interest among western farmers concerning the recent sale of wheat to Communist China. They are wondering whether the price is one that will return to them any advantage or profit, in other words, more than the estimated cost of production today which, according to the group that met recently in Minneapolis, is $1.76 a bushel. Would the minister say whether or not, first, the government of China or the purchasing agent for China is paying the freight on this sale and, if so, from which point to which point? Second, is the price being received one that is really in the nature of a fire-sale price
Inquiries of the Ministry
which will return very little, if anything, to western farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated many times in the House, and I am sure in the past by the right hon. gentleman himself, pricing information about sales made by the Canadian Wheat Board is confidential commercial information. I can assure the right hon. gentleman, however, that the pricing negotiated by the Canadian Wheat Board is the best possible obtainable in a competitive market. I can also tell the right hon. member that the ordinary practice is for the buyer to pay the freight on grain, either basis Vancouver or Thunder Bay.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer amounts to nothing. It is simply a multiplicity of words chasing an idea. The minister says that it is not customary to allow the price to be known. A couple of weeks ago he told me that it is very easy to figure out because from day to day the Wheat Board announces its sale prices. The minister has stated that it is not a fire-sale price. I challenge him to produce the record and show what the sale price was.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government House leader. Will he move at the earliest possible opportunity the motion that stands in his name that the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1971, and the Auditor General's report thereon be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts? If he would do that I can assure him there would be no debate on the motion as far as this party is concerned.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if it is understood there would be no debate, I would be happy to move it as the first item of government business today.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. With your permission, may I first say how much it was regretted that he was unable to be present over the weekend at the fourth graduation ceremonies of the Canadian Coastguard College.
In view of the great concern expressed not only by many parents and cadets but also by the director of the Canadian Coastguard College regarding lack of proper facilities at the college, will the minister advise how soon
25316-63i

June 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
tenders will be called for replacement of the gymnasium and library which were destroyed by fire?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot give an accurate date. I can only say to the hon. member, as I believe I have on previous occasions, that there is no intention in the foreseeable future to move the college. I have asked for information as to just what is necessary in respect of the whole complex, because this matter does not only involve rebuilding what was destroyed by fire; there is also some necessity for upgrading and renovating existing buildings. As soon as I have that information I will let the hon. member know.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, will the minister do his utmost- I know he will because he is always very willing and obliging-to move this study ahead, thus preventing the inadequacy of facilities causing discomfort to the students who are trying their best to get ahead in their studies?



ALLOTMENT OF ADDITIONAL RAILWAY EQUIPMENT TO MOVE FEED AND EXPORT GRAIN BECAUSE OF LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the one asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Can the minister in charge of the Wheat Board say whether he, the Minister of Transport or both of them together have had any discussion with the railways as to facilitating the direct movement by rail of feed grain for domestic use in Quebec and the Maritimes and grain for export?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that question, in what seems to be an extremely general form, has to be answered in the affirmative. I think the hon. member has something more specific in mind, but he would have to particularize his question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized on a last supplementary question, but we do have to move on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister for not being clear. Has an additional allotment of railway equipment been put into service for the movement of feed grain for domestic use and export grain to the Maritime ports in order to alleviate the situation at the St. Lawrence ports?


Otto Emil Lang: Not in connection with the immediate situation, Mr. Speaker, although there are general discussions about the use of additional equipment for possible movements of this sort at different times of the year.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and arises from the fact that his speech yesterday was cut off in full flight. I should like to ask whether his speech as recorded covered all his proposals for a new Atlantic transportation policy, or whether there are any specific proposals in that part of his speech which unfortunately did not get on the record?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious doubts about that question. Perhaps the hon. member would like the minister to pursue the speech he was making yesterday, but a question in that form is not in order at this time.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase my question. The Minister of Transport referred to discussions he had with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and the federal-provincial agency and to various areas of agreement that were reached. Has a date been agreed upon by the minister and the commission as to when these specific proposals will be presented to him for selective subsidies?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, but I would be prepared, as I indicated to the commission, to receive them as soon as possible. I asked them, in fact, if they would undertake this particular job. I have not had a definite confirmation from them that they will undertake it, although I suspect they will. When I get that information I will, as I assured them, act on it immediately.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether these discussions covered the whole range of railway freight rates and whether agreement has been reached on the action to be taken to hold freight rates in line until a policy has been evolved?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the commission did not specifically ask that question. I think the emphasis was primarily on the matter of selectivity and the more useful employment of the tens of millions of dollars that are now being expended in one way or another. It was agreed that this money was not being expended to the best advantage. The discussions were more in respect of selectivity than on the question raised by the hon. member.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES-PROPOSED FREIGHT RATE INCREASE-REQUEST THAT MINISTER HOLD DISCUSSIONS WITH CARRIERS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Transport yesterday about the Canadian Railway Express Association intention to ask the Canadian Transport Commission for a further freight rate increase in Atlantic Canada, and perhaps all across Canada. The minister replied that he was limited under the act as to what he could do with the CTC. I appreciate in large part the limitations on him, but is the minister going to do anything in the way of moral suasion or
June 7, 1972

persuasion such as his colleague the Minister of Finance does in dealing with the banks? Will he discuss this matter with the Railway Express Association to find out why they feel this increase is necessary before it becomes a fait accompli, some time after June 19?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am in reasonably constant touch with both the railways concerned. I might point out to the hon. member that more than 50 per cent of the traffic affected, if my figures are correct, is carried by truck. Of course, we do not have very much more than moral suasion, to which he referred, in regard to the trucking industry, but I would be glad to meet with them on the subject to see what can be done about it.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the statements contained in the annual report of the Public Service Commission and the statements made by the chairman of that commission before a committee of this House indicating an emasculation of the merit system, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to request the resignation of the chairman of the commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be in order for me to comment on what is happening before a committee of the House. The hon. member might refer to the act, where he will find that the chairman of the commission is an officer of Parliament and can be removed only on a joint address by both Houses. The hon. member or his party might want to initiate that procedure; this government does not.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the details of the program entitled New Horizons for the Aged be announced before the end of this month?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker.



POSSIBLE PIPELINE THROUGH EASTERN ARCTIC- ASSURANCE OF MAJORITY CANADIAN OWNERSHIP-HYPOTHECATION OF GAS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry
Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of his comment on a television program to the effect that he would prefer to see majority Canadian ownership of pipelines tapping northern gas reserves. My question is about the proposed pipeline in respect of which Panarctic Oil is now doing aerial reconnaissance. Has the government any plans to ensure that such a pipeline, if and when it is built, will have majority Canadian ownership?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the same objective should apply in respect of a pipeline through the eastern Arctic as to one through the Mackenzie Valley. As the hon. member knows, all that is being done at the moment is photographic reconnaissance of a possible route.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of Mr. Heatherington, the president of Panarctic, that market considerations would indicate that this gas, if Panarctic brings it down from the north, would go to the United States, I ask the minister if this is government policy and does the government intend to have this gas hypothecated to the United States, in view of the statement of the National Energy Board that as of June 30 last there was a deficit of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time and hon. members should try to limit the length of questions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, government policy is as stated in the National Energy Board Act: that the actual export of any particular quantity should be determined by the board. Of course it is the board's decision to determine whether the TENNECO agreement, which is the one the hon. member is referring to, should be carried out or whether the gas should remain in Canada.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has yet received an application from any company or consortium for the construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We hear a great deal, Mr. Speaker, from the bush telegraph on this question, but I think I am right in saying that neither myself, the National Energy Board nor my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has received any formal application at the moment.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS

June 7, 1972



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-POSSIBILITY OF ARBITRATION

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in order to clarify the contents of the telegrams to which he referred. Have the parties to the Montreal dock strike indicated their willingness to go to arbitration, pursuant to the terms of the contract? Have they actually said they are prepared to do so?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of an opportunity to clarify the answer I gave earlier to the hon. member for Shefford. In the reply of one party there is clearly an indication to proceed to arbitration. In the reply of the other party I would put it this way: there is an indication of not being unwilling to see an arbitration procedure pursued by the other party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind hon. members that there are just one or two minutes left before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have one supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer of the minister and the fact that this strike is costing the country $100,000 per day, can the minister advise the House when he figures the government should step in, in view of the fact that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member is asking an academic question which I would judge not to be in order. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.



TAXATION


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. On June 2 the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador inquired about the long delay being experienced in processing income tax returns. Is the minister now in a position to reply to that question?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, I am, Mr. speaker. The answer is rather lengthy because it is somewhat detailed. I sent the hon. member a letter this afternoon setting out the information. I would be pleased to have the letter printed in Hansard or dealt with in a way satisfactory to the House, if the hon. member wants the answer to be given publicly.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the statement of the minister, I wonder whether he would agree to having the letter printed in Hansard today so that it might be available to all members of the House? It is a matter of general interest to all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would suggest that the letter be tabled rather than have that kind of correspondence appended to Hansard. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the House if the government proposes to proceed with the FISP bill before the adjournment of the present session, has there been any review of the timetable for the bill to become operative? I am thinking of the statement made the other night by his deputy minister to the effect that it would be eight months before payments could be made under the new plan.


John Carr Munro: As to the first part of the question, it is generally the position of the government that we will complete our deliberations on the bill. As to the second part of the question, the reasons were given in the committee for the time interval before actual implementation and were well set out by the deputy minister. They have a good deal to do, of course, with the administrative difficulty in terms of sending out the applications, obtaining the returns and processing them through the computer.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction, in effect, to Hansard of yesterday in respect of an answer to a question by the hon. member for Wellington, recorded at page 2888 of Hansard, about the co-ordination of computers within the government. He asked under whose jurisdiction is the agency responsible. There are two agencies in fact or two bodies. The Department of Supply and Services has a computer service bureau which provides a general computer service to other government departments, but responsibility for co-ordination and development of the total framework of computer use is with the Treasury Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Perhaps I should put to the House first the motion referred to earlier by the President of the Privy Council. My understanding is that this motion is to be put without debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1971, and the Auditor General's Report thereon be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-211, to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was before us some days ago I had the opportunity to make a few initial remarks. Among them was the conclusion I drew, that this piece of legislation is very important for the operation of our democratic system because it affects the true operation of an electoral system in Canada.
I am sure most Canadians are unaware of the amount of money spent on elections. This was especially true when we had elections more often than we do now. The amount spent on elections has over the years grown considerably. It is interesting to note it is estimated that election expenses in the federal election of 1968 amounted to approximately $31 million. In a country with a population of 20 million people this would seem to be a great deal of money to spend on an election. For this reason most Canadians are concerned about curtailing election expenses, that undue expenses be not incurred, that there be the shortest possible time for the electoral process and that our election procedures be such that the least influence be felt by the political parties in electing a government.
This process has been distorted over the last few years by the huge expenditures made by certain corporations in the election of a government. In 1956, in the province of Quebec election expenditures became so flagrantly extravagant that the people of Quebec showed great resentment and came up with a number of changes in the electoral process which curtailed some of the exorbitant and less worth-while expenditures.
Obviously, this happens as well in the province of Ontario. The amount of money spent by the provincial government in the last Ontario election was phenomenal; the expenditures they incurred were ridiculous to the
Election Expenses Bill
degree of overkill. In my opinion, those expenditures have put the Ontario government in bondage to the insurance companies in particular for the rest of their term of office. Some companies in Ontario made extravagant expenditures, but those which did so most flagrantly, those which have obviously received most consideration from the government since that time, are the insurance companies. As a result, every person in Ontario who buys automobile insurance, house insurance and fire insurance, and who in fact deals with an insurance company in the province which takes in an excess in premium payments, pays part of the expenses of the provincial election.
Over the years we have recognized that the people who raise money for political parties are an important group. The present government and past governments have recognized this over the years by appointing many of the bagmen to the Senate. The expression "bagmen" has not been used by the New Democratic Party, probably because they can carry the money around in a small satchel. These men are sometimes rewarded by appointment to the Senate.
In exposes that have been made on the contributions which bagmen have raised it has been indicated-again, particularly in the last election in Ontario-that they know exactly who is going to make what payment. The bagmen go to the financial supporters with an indication of the range of payment which they expect from them. This relates to the contribution they made previously and also to the contribution it is expected they should be able to make. I suppose it goes up as the cost of living goes up. In regard to the requirements of political parties, their being similar to those of other people, cost of living escalator clauses are a familiar term to bagmen and instead of asking for $1,000 they might ask for $1,250.
Without question, in the last election Ontario abused all our democratic principles relating to elections. It was almost impossible to make a legitimate choice between the various political parties in Ontario because the predominance of publicity and the preponderance of information being disseminated by the media in the province was overwhelmingly in favour of the Davis campaign. It seems to me that this operation is similar to that of a soap company which advertises that its product is better, washes whiter, and uses all the other exorbitant advertising cliches. They seem to have been successful on the North American continent, because if you are willing to put money into the news media quite often the sale of your commodity goes up. Obviously, if they did not you would not be paying for advertising.
Under our system, a certain expenditure must be made to meet the cost of elections. This is a big country and a number of points of view must be expressed. Advertising or buying time on the news media, particularly in the urban centres, is very expensive. For this reason time on the news media is almost exclusively limited to those who have a large amount of money.
Let us look at the two major fund-raising drives that were held in Toronto recently, particularly the government fund-raising drive. It is interesting to note the people who were present at the fund-raising dinner. They included such people as representatives of IBM, which had received DREE grants totalling $6 million; representatives

June 7, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
of Union Carbide, which had received DREE grants of $1,395,000; representatives of Canadian Johns-Manville, which had received a grant of $307,000 from DREE; representatives of Falconbridge Nickel Mines, which had received $4 million from DREE; and representatives of Noranda Mines, which along with its subsidiary Gaspe Copper Mines Limited had been favoured with DREE grants totalling more than $41 million.
There were others at those fund raising dinners who I am sure had not received DREE grants. I am not suggesting that the bagmen would request contributions in light of the DREE grants which were received, but I suggest that most political parties have friends who expect certain considerations from them.
I was not surprised the other day when the Liberal party refused to support our request to have representatives of the chain stores appear before a House of Commons committee to ascertain whether the huge profits they were making were exorbitant and whether they could be curtailed to the benefit of the consumer. I was not surprised that the Trudeau government did not see any merit in that suggestion. What surprised me, however, was that the Conservative party rejected the idea of investigating the chain stores.
This bears out the charge that is sometimes made, that the party in power receives large contributions from most corporations and the opposition receives contributions relative to the results of the polls and the expectations of people who under certain circumstances believe that insurance in this form must be taken out. In my opinion, this means there is always some pressure applied because of these contributions. I admit that in the New Democratic Party also there is interest in the funds that we receive, particularly the small donations. Quite often they are from old age pensioners or other persons who make a donation of $5, which is a considerable donation and a hell of a lot more than a donation from Noranda Mines to the Liberal party in terms of what they get out of it and the amount they have to play with. They, in turn, expect some consideration from the party which they think has done them some good and which they hope will do them some good in the future.
I am sure most members of the House agree that there are a number of reasons, which are fairly well known, why election expenditures should be curtailed and kept to a minimum. There would be less and less influence bought through the support of a political party. This system is not unique to Canada but exists in every democratic country in the world. If we did not have a democratic system we would be operating under a system such as exists in the U.S.S.R., where the government pays their share of the expenses at the price of absolute control.
In all countries operating under the democratic system a close study has been made of ways to curtail these expenditures to the advantage of the democratic, electoral process and they have come up with controls which are not apparent in this bill. A committee has studied this matter. I understand that after a great deal of compromise its members unanimously agreed on a number of recommendations. This bill is quite insufficient in its treatment of those recommendations; many of them are not included within its provisions. Among the questions

that have to be considered is the limit to be placed on candidates' expenses. I think there is general agreement that the limits originally placed on candidates have been fair and reasonable, but the limitations stipulated in this bill for political parties will lead to great abuses.
What is foreseen here is completely the reverse of what happens in my political party. When calculating the budget for my riding on the basis of membership in our provincial organization, we agree that 20 per cent of all moneys raised should be transmitted to the provincial party. It in turn distributes money to the federal party if a federal election is involved. I understand this is the reverse of what happens in other parties.
In my own area the amount available is already fairly well known; in fact, one candidate used part of it for a nominating convention, I may say to the chagrin of other candidates. Just putting a limit on the amount of money raised by a candidate is useless if the money comes from outside a riding. This is particularly so if a candidate is defeated, because then those amounts will not have to be disclosed. Under the law, disclosure must be made by the elected candidate; there is no penalty for defeated candidates who do not file proper returns.
To my knowledge, a number of things have happened that are not covered by the provisions of this bill. During election campaigns you find government departments being used to do work for the party in power. Ralph Nader, the watchdog of the American consumer, has laid charges against several United States government departments, including the department of agriculture, for supporting a particular political party. In Canada I would probably select our Department of Agriculture because of the announcements it makes during election time.
This bill does nothing to control that situation. I point out that a number of government departments already operate automated typewriters, either singly or in banks. For example, message No. 7 is fed into a computer attached to the automated typewriters and they type personal letters to be mailed in accordance with a list of names and addresses. The body of those letters is made up of a pre-recorded message. Banked, automated telephones are also used for this purpose. A number of telephone numbers are fed into these banks and they use a pre-recorded message something like, "We are calling you, Mrs. Smith, because you are a housewife. We know you are concerned about the high cost of living. We want you to know that 'X' party is doing something about it. Thank you very much for allowing us to speak to you, Mrs. Smith." Such devices are not really a factor in Canada yet, but they are being used with devastating effect by political parties in the United States which can afford this type of operation.
There are many deficiencies in this bill. There must be an accounting system but it should not be through the Minister of National Revenue. The present minister may be a very trustworthy gentleman, but I will be surprised if he cannot find some use for the information that will be at his disposal. A minister in that portfolio could go down the list of all the corporations in Canada and if he found one that had not made a contribution to his party then I
June 7, 1972

suspect that corporation would have difficulty in getting a DREE grant. Just imagine the situation if the minister were sitting in cabinet and a number of his colleagues made a great pitch for company "X", he knowing that the company had not contributed to his party and that his vote would be influenced by this kind of information. This difficulty could be overcome by establishing a registry in which to list contributions to political parties, where the lists could be publicly inspected.
There is another side to this donation business, Mr. Speaker. Under the provisions of this bill a company may donate $1,500 to a political party and one third of that, a maximum of $500, is tax free. In other words, a company may deduct that amount from its tax; and we must bear in mind the fact that the tax structure at that level is about 30 per cent. If we want to keep people honest we should know which orchestra is being paid and who is paying them. In that way we will have a better idea of the tune that is being played. Further, this registry should list contributions made to all candidates and not only to elected candidates. It should list annual contributions to political parties.
The Barbeau report recommended a total prohibition on public opinion polls during election campaigns. If public opinion polls did no good and were of no political value, I should be able to convince some of my leaders that we should not conduct them. In my opinion, the Gallup poll has on occasion influenced elections unduly- in fact, on at least two or three occasions during the last ten or 15 years. The Canadian people deserve better electoral reform legislation than they now have, and I think the general public is in favour of electoral reform in order to make the democratic process as effective, as efficient and as painless as possible.
I therefore 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 read a second time this day six months hence.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned this afternoon with the subject of electoral expenses and reform, the financing of elections and the financing of political parties. It is unquestionably a subject of the greatest importance: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who led off the debate for our party, emphasized this. He pointed out a number of inadequacies in the bill and mentioned that there were at least three factors of particular importance that the bill touched upon: one, the matter of contributions to electoral expenses of parties from the public treasury; two, the control of the expenses of parties and candidates; three, the question of the disclosure of the source of funds.
I do not know how much good the provisions in the bill relating to disclosure will do, and I do not object to them nor to the question of disclosure of category. I realize that there is strong feeling in the country in favour of disclosure of names of individuals or corporations. I say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that I do not endorse the suggested requirement of individual disclosure because I have con-
Election Expenses Bill
siderable respect for the power of government to bring influence to bear upon those who are opposing it.
It has been said, of course, partly by way of joke, that under this bill with its provision for the deduction of contributions for tax purposes up to a certain point, the government would have the best of both possible worlds; that by virtue of the disclosure that would have to be made to the Department of National Revenue, the government would know who was making contributions without having to make any disclosure itself. I see no alternative: if one is going to encourage contributions by allowing tax deductions, these of course have to be claimed through the Department of National Revenue. I am not as cynical about this as the hon. member who just spoke, and I hope my comments in this regard will be justified when some such measure becomes law. I put it that way because I wish to make it very clear that I am not supporting the bill which is before the House at the present time.
The question of contributions from the public treasury toward legitimate candidate and party expenses is an important one. It is a principle which I favour with great zeal, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of important reasons for supporting legitimate contributions to serious candidates, under proper conditions, in elections. One of these reasons is that it provides a better opportunity to candidates who do not have substantial financial backing; it gives them a chance to get their point of view before the electorate and to mount an effective campaign.
Secondly, the provision of a reasonable contribution from the public treasury toward expenses of parties and candidates reduces the dependence of these parties upon any one source of funds. When I say that, I am not for a moment subscribing to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) with regard to chain stores and the attitude my party took the other day. It might have occurred to him, upon reflection, that the suggestion contained in the resolution with regard to the reason for the high price of food was a little simplistic in attributing this to chain store profits. A day or so later somebody else suggested quite emphatically that with the present price structure many grocery stores, not necessarily chain stores, were going broke.
I do not believe that contributors influence party decisions in that respect. I think it is very desirable that all parties have this additional source of public funds from the public treasury under appropriate conditions. I think it does, to that extent, tend to increase the independence of bona fide political parties in this country. I therefore emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I very strongly support the principle of a contribution from the public treasury under proper conditions. I favoured this when it was done in Nova Scotia, although I was not responsible for it. I think it was a marked step forward. In many of the reports I have received in respect of the province of Quebec it has been seen as a marked step forward.
The conditions, of course, must be that candidates and parties are serious and receive a certain percentage of the votes cast. I would think, also, that any contribution from the public treasury must be related in some way to contributions from other sources; in other words, it should not be a fixed contribution but should be proportionate to the contributions made to the party or the candidate from

June 7, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
other sources. Clearly, it a candidate cannot get some basis of support generally, he ought not to be entitled to any kind of lump sum contribution from the public treasury. I want to emphasize that I strongly endorse the principle of contributions from the public treasury under proper conditions, namely, that the candidate receives a specified proportion of the votes cast in his constituency and that the contribution from the treasury be in some way related to the amount of the general contribution that the candidate receives.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize equally strongly that the contribution from the public treasury should be toward the expenses of the candidate generally and should not be directed toward particular expenses of the candidate or party. Under our democratic institutions I think the party or the candidate should decide how funds are to be expended. This is a decision to be made by the candidate and the party, and not by Parliament. I feel that this is a matter of principle which is departed from in this bill. The contribution from the public treasury should be a percentage of the expenditures in all legitimate categories made by the candidate, up to a prescribed ceiling.
Again, Mr. Speaker, if there is to be a contribution from the public purse toward the expenses of a candidate or party, it seems reasonable and clear that there should be an over-all limit. If the public treasury is to make such a contribution, in my view it is necessary for over-all limits to be placed on the expenditures of candidates and parties. There should be an over-all limit, not simply a limit on the spending of the candidate or party on such things as advertising and publicity. I question the wisdom of imposing limits only on advertising or publicity expenses of a candidate.
Moreover, clearly it is useless and it is wrong to limit simply the spending of a candidate or party on publicity while leaving completely open the amount that can be spent in other categories. For instance, most of us in politics recognize that the publicity you get in the news columns or on the news shows of the networks is worth much more than advertising. Yet this bill, as I understand it, while limiting the amount that a candidate or party can spend on direct advertising, does not limit in any way how much the candidate or party can spend on extravaganzas designed to create news and be reported on news shows. I mention this to show the absurdity of restricting spending in areas like publicity while imposing no ceilings or restrictions at all on the over-all spending of candidates or parties.
This bill is put forward as a reform measure at the eleventh hour. As I said, I cannot support it. I am strongly in favour of electoral reform and I am certainly anxious to see contributions made from the public treasury, under appropriate conditions. These should not be to meet selected categories of expenses but to meet expenses generally. The party or the candidate should be allowed to decide how the money should be spent; it is not for Parliament to tell candidates how to run an election. I would favour that, provided there is an over-all limit on expenditures. That limit should be incorporated in any provision providing for contributions from the public treasury. It is

nonsense and absurd to introduce a bill which simply limits expenses on publicity but leaves the sky as the limit for all other kinds of expenses. I say this is an absurd bill. I cannot regard it seriously as a measure put forward in terms of electoral reform.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The bill has been brought in at the eleventh hour. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a commitment in 1968 to give this whole matter top priority. As far as I can see, he forgot about it. Indeed, a few months ago he made it clear that the government could not introduce the bill in time for it to be effectively implemented during the next election campaign. Then, as a result of the public razzing which the Prime Minister took, he decided to honour the commitment he had made in the campaign of 1968 and this bill was produced in great haste.
There is much evidence of the obvious haste with which this bill was produced. For example, newspapers are not to be allowed to indulge in partisan political comment for 24 hours before the day of the election. That does not mean that election activities will have stopped. We saw a good example of this in 1968 when the Prime Minister was involved in what was not, perhaps, in the narrow sense political activity but in activity which was widely reported. This activity on the night before the election, it is thought, had a widespread effect on the way a number of people voted the next day.
What does this kind of restriction mean as contained in the bill? What does the restriction that newspapers cannot comment for 24 hours before election day mean? Does it mean that there can be no interpretative news stories about what might well be the crucial, final moments of an election campaign? Does it mean that there will be no stories at all about the climax of the campaign? Of course, the government might say that this is not its intention, but that is not good enough. In legislation, intentions do not count-words count.
Speaking of intentions, what are we to make of the intentions of this government? Five months ago the Prime Minister said, both in this House and in an outside interview, that there was no possible way in which a viable law could be passed before the election. I do not regard this as a viable law and I certainly agree with him to that extent. I quote the Prime Minister when he answered the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
I am told, Mr. Speaker, that would be an impossibility.
The Prime Minister was saying that it would be impossible to introduce such legislation in time for it to be effective in the next election campaign. I continue:
Even if the legislation were passed now-
And this was said almost four months ago.
-unless we were going to have an election very late indeed, or even beyond the constitutionally permitted time, it would be difficult to have legislation effective in time for that election.
That is what the Prime Minister said in February. Now, because of public razzing, he has brought forward the bill before us.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is all window-dressing.
June 7, 1972


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What kind of game is the government playing with Parliament and the people of Canada? That is the question we have a right to ask ourselves. That is the question the Prime Minister must answer, if he can. The hon. member for Hillsborough and others have already shown in detail some of the faults and inconsistencies, as well as inadequacies of the bill. For my part, I do not hesitate to accuse this government of making a desperate attempt to produce some election fodder at a time when it sees all legitimate election issues escaping its grasp. I am very much in favour of genuine election reform, Mr. Speaker. However, we are not prepared to permit this government to use Parliament in this way and abuse the Canadian people by pushing through a bill that is nothing but a sham.
The measure before us is not a measure of election reform. I have given my reasons for saying so. It is not even a good excuse for such a measure. However, it is a measure of something; it is a measure of this government's desperation in face of an impending defeat at the polls. It is a measure of its readiness to try any cosmetic surgery possible with which to make itself prettier. The Prime Minister is willing to swallow any and all of his presumably well-considered statements of the past in order to try to fool the Canadian people. But he will not succeed.
He will not succeed in making the Canadian people believe that this bill will bring more democracy to the political process when it does no such thing. He will not succeed in convincing the Canadian people that this government is sincere about electoral reform, when it brings in such a bill now, four months after the Prime Minister solemnly said that it could not realistically be introduced in time for the next election; that is, of course, unless the Prime Minister is planning on delaying the election until the constitutional time limit is reached. That is what he said would be involved when he replied last February 18.1 do not accuse the Prime Minister of any such intention. I think he intends to call the election soon. He cannot do otherwise, on the basis of those democratic traditions which he says he accepts. However, if that is the case then the Prime Minister is playing a juvenile game with a most serious subject. Electoral reform and the subject of financing the election of candidates and parties are far too serious to be handled in this way.
Some say that though the bill is inadequate, certain of its proposals relate to detail and these can be corrected. I agree there are details in the bill which could be corrected in committee. Some argue that the bill, while very faulty, amounts to a step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I would support very willingly a bill which provided for a contribution from the public treasury to the expenses of parties and candidates generally, rather than being confined to certain aspects of political activity. I object to that in principle as tending to limit the freedom of expression of candidates.
As I say, I would be happy to support a bill which made a general contribution, with appropriate safeguards, leaving discretion to the candidate, provided there was a general, over-all ceiling and not just a limitation on certain expenditures by candidates and political parties
Election Expenses Bill
which left everything else wide open. If a general contribution were proposed with proper safeguards plus policing, I would support such a proposition very gladly. I hope to have the privilege of introducing a bill along those lines in the House before very long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I cannot support the bill before us, however, because I have grave objections to it in principle of the kind I have mentioned. It is a bill which contributes only toward certain limited expenditures, a bill which does not place any limitation in a meaningful way upon the expenditures of parties and candidates, despite the fact that the government proposes to make a contribution from the public treasury toward those expenditures. I cannot support a bill in these terms because in my view it is wrong. I shall therefore vote against it and support the motion proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I decided to rise only after listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for whom I have a great deal of respect. I listened very carefully to what he said and I agree with a large portion of his remarks. I would suggest to him, however-this is also by way of a plea to the government House leader-that all is not lost at this stage. I hope I am not being nai've in expressing this view.
No doubt all is lost in terms of there being any limitation imposed on election expenses in time for the next general election, particularly if it is held within the next five or six months. I should like to remind the House, however-in doing so I am sure I am supported by my hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-that 12 good men and true, plus two or three others, took turns sitting on a special committee of this Parliament which laboured for more than a year on this issue and came forward with a report which in most ways, in my opinion, is the best which has come forward so far. I should also like to remind the House that a large number of members of both parties subscribe to almost all the recommendations made by that committee.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I hope this bill passes the House today and goes to committee. I hope he is wrong in terms of his suspicions about the motives of the government in bringing this legislation forward at this time and in this manner. Possibly he hopes he is wrong, too. One way of finding out whether the government genuinely means business in this area is to let the bill go to committee and be dealt with at the report stage. If the government cares to accept amendments from members of other parties, or brings in amendments of its own in certain significant areas of the legislation, I believe this could be made an effective measure. No single hon. member would be able, of course, to get everything he wants nor should he expect to do so.
I should like to find out whether the government means business, and for this reason I should like the committee to deal with the bill this week and, if necessary, the week after. If the committee has to sit daily next week, I for one would be prepared to do so. I hope the minister will reconstitute the special committee composed of those 12

June 7, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
good men and true who worked for a year on their report and allow them to deal with the bill after it has been referred to committee. If, however the government wishes to refer the bill to the Committee on Privileges and Elections-of which, incidentally, I am also a member-I hope the membership of that committee will not try to re-thresh all the straw which was threshed for a year by the special committee and for two years before that by the Barbeau commission.
I hope, also, that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) will take part in this debate and tell us that he is prepared to listen to ideas for improving this legislation. It would be better still if he could go further and indicate amendments which the government might be seriously considering at this moment even thought it might not have made up its mind finally about them. It will soon be evident whether the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members who have spoken in the debate are right and the government is just playing games, or whether they really mean business and want an effective piece of legislation passed by June 30.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak only briefly at this time. The subject is one which has already been debated a good deal and, as well-as we have been reminded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin)-a considerable amount of time has been spent on it in the special committee.
I may say that I share much of the suspicion and misgiving which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) expressed in connection with the motivation of this legislation-its production of what is really the eleventh hour. I have no doubt the only reason we are discussing the bill at this moment is that its absence would be a continuing source of public embarrassment to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I clearly recall a television program at which an old news clipping was shown containing statements by the Prime Minister committing the government to dealing with the whole issue of election expenses as a major priority. It was only a few months ago, though, that the Prime Minister stated he had no thought of coming forward with legislation in this area during the present Parliament.
What we are dealing with, therefore, is a deathbed repentance and in these circumstances we should examine what the repentance is all about. It concerns something which is basic to the function of democracy in this country, something which has to do with what is possibly the most basic element in politics, namely, money. Money has always been something of a sacred nature, and certainly of a secret nature, in relation to politics. Questions are asked: Where did it come from? How will it be used, and with what political impact? These are always areas of great suspicion and curiosity.
The government has now moved to present to us a bill which, though inadequate in its provisions, does nevertheless make an attempt to take action in an area which concerns members of this House as well as many other Canadians. It recognizes that there must be some provision of financial support for political parties. We find in the bill the principle that contributions to political parties are to be recognized in law as qualifying legitimately for tax exemption. I believe this to be a basic principle. The

manner and method of disclosure is unsatisfactory, but the principle at least is in the bill.
Further, there is the belief that there must be some limit on election expenses. If one examines the current drift toward the skyrocketing expense of election activity, the danger is that it is open only to the privileged class, to those with the wealth able to participate. We must recognize that we must at all costs avoid limiting political opportunity to the privileged few. Thirdly, there is recognition that the public generally, apart altogether from individual or corporate contributions, has a responsibility for the political process, and again this is recognized in the bill to the degree that certain election expenses will be partly underwritten.
These, to my mind, are the strong points of the bill. There are obvious weaknesses and these have been mentioned-the weakness of lack of full disclosure, direction of limitation and the way in which the limitation applies only to some specific range of political activity in terms of advertising and broadcasting, which has little to do with the over-all concept of party activity or the increasingly important features of a national and leader's campaign. In addition, the responsibility for making clear who regulates and objectively supervises the handling of fiscal or financial aspects of election activity is not effectively spelled out.
We are faced with a dilemma. We are in the dying days of this Parliament. Members are not sure what, if anything, will eventually come back from the committee. It is a deathbed repentance. But having said that, I must in this case differ both from the leader of my party and, I assume, most of my own colleagues and the colleagues to my left who decide to vote against the bill. At this point I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt with regard to getting some basic principles established in the matter of election expenses.
However, I am not saying that having voted to send the bill to committee I will then be prepared to vote for it on third reading. I think the many weaknesses and inadequacies in the bill must be corrected in committee. I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the committee that deals with election expenses, but I trust that our representatives on the committee, as well as the representatives of other parties, will take into account the very valid criticisms that have been made in respect of amending the bill. This must be done if it is to be a truly workable and effective bill, one that is acceptable to the people of this country.
Whether or not the bill becomes law before the next election is really an academic question. What is of importance is that the basic principles be established; that an effective means for carrying them out be provided for in the law. So at this point I will support the government even though this measure is late-in-the-day action and inadequate though it be in many respects. But I expect to see the basic problems mentioned earlier by the Leader of the Opposition and others attended to in the committee; otherwise I may feel there is no purpose or point in supporting the bill when it comes back to the House from committee.
June 7, 1972


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having just come into the chamber and listened to the previous hon. member giving his views, and in view of the fact that I have had some experience in elections over the years, I felt I might say a few words about the bill now before the House.
No one disagrees with the fact that election costs today are skyrocketing to such extent that they constitute a denial to many people of the opportunity to participate actively as candidates through inability to meet the tremendous cost. Over the years I have not been a spender in elections. I have tried to mobilize opinion within my constituency and secure voluntary workers. I have succeeded in doing that by challenging each and all of them to join with me, not on the basis of what the return will be to each of them individually but on the basis of giving them an opportunity to serve their country, through the medium of participation, and to support those principles in which they believe.
I have found that this works. I have found that if you go to the Canadian people, and in particular to young men and women, and ask them, desirous as they are to bring about changes, to mobilize on behalf of those principles in which they believe, it is amazing the reaction that takes place. As I say, I have participated in quite a large number of elections, four or five unsuccessfully but ten in a row successfully, and in no case have I ever permitted expenditures beyond those that are absolutely necessary to ensure that the constituency is organized. Generally, excepting the officials, those who join in assisting in the campaign give of their time without remuneration.
I believe we must do something to impose a ceiling on expenditures. From my own knowledge of the United Kingdom's system I can say that the rules there permit expenditures to be made by political parties in advance of the issue of the writs, and these in no way enter into the computation that is made in imposing the ceiling on expenditures. There the expenditures are tremendous. Political parties are organized-two of them, in any event-in a way that we cannot begin to imagine within our own country. We speak of organizations in the various constituencies, but generally they are weak and almost inactive though they have a president and a secretary for each area.
I am sure that the experience of my friend from Ottawa East (Mr. Richard), the sub-dean of this House who has been a great credit to the parliamentary system, is the same as mine. I have lived quite close to his constituency and know something of the manner in which he conducts a campaign. I think he will be generally in agreement with the fact that large expenditures have not been the reason for his long-time success.
Having said that some action should be taken, I now come to a very short, almost cryptic reference to this bill. I think it is designed to fool the people in the coming election. It reveals a Machiavellian acuteness and craftiness that can only be attributable to a great deal of thought being given to a subject realized as being attractive to the people. But, Mr. Speaker, look at the bill. It is a sham and a delusion. It is worse than that: it is an endeavour to obtain from the Canadian people in the
Election Expenses Bill
coming election, under false pretences, support for a general proposition that is not embodied in the bill.
As far as I am concerned, I am not going to join in support of the bill. I am favourable to the general considerations that it has in mind, but the manner in which it has been brought in indicates that it is believed members will suddenly join in support of something, the general principle of which they believe in. Pass this bill and you pass nothing. Nothing in this country is improved by it. As I say, it is a sham and a delusion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am probably risking a great deal in rising to speak at this moment because I realize that once this amendment is put, if it is put this afternoon, we move on to the motion on second reading which can constitute another debate. So I am going to attempt not to inflame the House at this point, though I am seriously tempted to respond to some of the comments made this afternoon.
I must congratulate the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the first part of his speech. I wish the same quality had been continued until the very end, but there was a lapse which did not appeal to me very much. I stated when introducing the bill on second reading that I intended to listen to hon. gentlemen in the course of the debate with an awareness of the fact there was no single person with a monopoly of wisdom or knowledge in this field, and that each Member of Parliament brought a great deal of experience to the question of election expenses. Therefore, I was prepared to consider changes in the bill in committee which could be justified on the grounds of improvement, changes which were workable and would contribute to the objective we have in mind.
There are three principles in the bill. The first is the principle of greater disclosure to the public about the affairs of political parties and their candidates. There has been a demand over the years to open up the books, so to speak, of political parties and candidates. Suggestions have been made to show where we get the money and how the money is being spent. This bill, in so far as disclosure in respect of political parties is concerned, follows exactly the recommendations of the expert Barbeau committee and the recommendations of the special committee. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) agrees with that principle as embodied in the bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) disagrees and states we ought to go further. In this particular field we have followed the recommendation of both the Barbeau committee and the special committee.
In respect of disclosure of candidates, which also attracted the support of the Leader of the Opposition, we have followed in substance, but not totally, the recommendations of the Barbeau committee and we have retained the present law as recommended by that committee. We have not followed the recommendations of the special committee because that committee recommended, in my opinion, a relaxation of the present disclosure provisions. That is what we are doing about disclosure, and it has the support of the Leader of the Opposition.

June 7, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
The second principle is that we should diversify the support of political parties, or reduce the dependence of political parties on private contributors by contributions from the treasury. We have accepted that principle and the notion that it ought to be applied to serious candidates, namely, persons who get 20 per cent of the vote, and we have related that reimbursement or contribution from the treasury to the over-all expenditures of candidates. In other words, we have said that in order to draw support from the treasury you must be able to draw support from other sources in the community. We do not believe it is the function of the treasury to totally underwrite candidates in elections.
We do not think the citizenry of this country would be terribly pleased if we ended up with a bill that would permit candidates to run in elections in substantial fashion without having to get a nickel from anybody else or from their own pockets but could draw totally on the treasury. There is a difference of opinion on that. The Leader of the Opposition agrees with the position in the bill, but members of the NDP, and I believe members of the special committee, agree that there ought to be a contribution from the treasury in the form of a grant given, no matter whether the candidate can draw money from other sources or whether he spends anything else. The Leader of the Opposition and I are in agreement on these two points.
The third point raised by the Leader of the Opposition was whether the limits we have placed on candidates and on parties-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Also the nature of contribution confined to publicity, and so on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, this is the point I am going to raise and I will, hopefully, deal with that matter. Even though the Leader of the Opposition felt our proposals in the bill in respect of limitations on candidates and on parties were unsound, he went further than that and called them absurd. They are drawn entirely from the recommendations of the Barbeau committee. The Barbeau committee-and my hon. friends will recall that one of the distinguished members of that committee was Arthur Smith, a former Conservative member from Calgary-concluded that while it would be desirable and probably a good idea to put an over-all limitation on the expenses of candidates, that would be unworkable in practice.
The Barbeau committee said, let us put the limit first on expenses that are skyrocketing. Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). What are the skyrocketing expenses of modern elections? I suggest they are media expenses; that is where the skyrocketing is taking place. The recommendation of Barbeau and his associates, including M. J. Coldwell, was that we put a cap on media expenses because that is where the skyrocketing is taking place. Members of that committee went on to say that these are the expenses which are obvious, knowable, provable and controllable: let us not try anything further because we will not be able to do the job.
That is what we did in this bill in respect of candidates.
I believe, personally, though I have no theology on this subject, that it would be unwise to include everything in

that ambit because it would be impossible to really know and control everything; let us take the items that are accelerating, knowable and controllable. That is why we put a cap on over-all media expenses.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the minister permit a question at this point? Does he not think that if a limit were put on these specific items it would create a situation in which money would be immediately put into other areas, and therefore this would be insufficient?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not know, but I think it is obvious to all of us that if you are going to run an election you are going to run it in the modern milieu, and the modern milieu is through the media of television and radio. It may be that some new technique would emerge, but I would think when it emerges we might be able to deal with it. For those reasons we did it in that way, based on Barbeau, and I believe they are sound reasons. I agree that there can be a difference of opinion here; but there it is.
I now come to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition which I think is quite valid. It was made earlier. This is a matter which can be dealt with in the committee, namely, that we have related in the bill the reimbursement formula to advertising or media expenses. In other words, one would be unable to draw a contribution from the treasury for any expenses except advertising, broadly speaking. I believe when the bill goes to the committee it would be proper to alter it so that expenses which are legitimate under the law could be reimbursed in addition to expenses which for the reasons I have mentioned have been halved. The reasoning has to do with the candidates. But when it comes to the political party, in approaching the bill I probably have somewhat of a bias. It is this: political parties and candidates in Canada have operated for a long time with a great deal of freedom.
It certainly was not the intention in the bill to regiment, regulate or hamstring political parties or candidates; it was to put a clamp on the escalation of expenses in this field. Here Barbeau told us that the big change, the big increase in expenses by political parties in the last ten or 15 years was in broadcasting. That is where the big money probably will be spent in the next election by the political parties, if we are realistic. Here we have said that political parties cannot spend-with the co-operation of the Chief Electoral Officer who pays half-any amount of money greater than one half that which is required to produce 61 hours of time. That is 6 i hours for all the political parties.
So when it comes to that big element of broadcasting, the political parties are limited. Barbeau said we should put a cap on that. We have put a dollar limit on all parties.
I do not know who knows what an adequate and proper dollar limit is. The information given to the committee is that there is no certain way in which one could put an adequate cap on political parties from the point of view of information. Anyway, that is why we did it. If the bill goes to committee, members probably will want to take that point further.
There is another point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked, what is the point of
June 7, 1972

limiting candidates if political parties or national headquarters and provincial organizations can spend limitlessly on candidates? The purpose of the bill is to prevent political parties doing anything directly to assist a candidate.


David Lewis: How do you do that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member asks how it is done. Probably there will be certain borderline cases, but certainly it seems to me that a candidate could get boxes of information or material, with his name on the boxes, from the national headquarters and regard that as an item which is not to be included in his over-all limit for advertising. It would seem to me that if in the committee there is any doubt concerning the tying-off of that string, or that it has not been tied properly in the bill, then it should be done in the committee. So there are limits in these two phases of possible activity.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will entertain a question. He was speaking of individual candidates. Will he not agree that someone who has been a senior cabinet minister, or someone who has been a senior Member of Parliament would have an exposure on the media because he had the privilege of being here previously? He might be running against a just as good or an even better candidate who is a newcomer, but because that candidate had not had exposure on television, radio and perhaps the other media, he would be running at a very great disadvantage. There is the problem.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course my hon. friend is right. Who is equal in politics? The right hon. member for Prince Albert spoke about his method of electioneering. Who could be on an equal basis with him? Who could start in an equal position with the right hon. member for Prince Albert, in his constituency or in any other? What law could alter that? It seems to me we must be realistic and understand what a law can do in respect of trying to cover every possibility and make everything equal for members.
In respect of this bill I have attempted to tackle the obvious problems where results can be achieved. These are the principles I wanted to outline to the House, I hope in a non-provocative way, in order to explain the attitude behind the proposals. The Leader of the Opposition made an important point, as did other members, about the provisions respecting the print media, the moratorium on partisan comment, so-called, on polling day and the day before. People have asked where this came from. I shall try to explain the evolution of the appearance of that clause in the bill. It is clause 13. The special committee, in recommendation No. 25 recommended as follows:
We further recommend that the existing restriction on political broadcasts on polling day and on the immediate preceding day be extended to the print media, with the exception of newspapers which regularly publish only on Sunday.
Without boring the House by reading the sections, may I say that the present restrictions on political broadcasts are contained in two places, section 99 of the Canada Elections Act and section 28 of the Broadcasting Act. In reading that recommendation from the committee, one must refer to the existing restrictions and the existing law which is to be found in the two sections I have mentioned.
Election Expenses Bill
It is a fact, also, that the Barbeau committee made no recommendation on this point, while the special committee did.
I shall not read the sections because they are there and can be read by members. Section 28, for example, I believe indicates the nub of the restriction. It provides that no broadcaster shall broadcast and no licensee of a broadcasting receiving undertaking shall receive a broadcast of a program, advertisement or announcement, of a partisan character. Then it refers to polling day and the day before.
What the draftsmen did in applying this section to the print media was probably to substitute the words "article" and "editorial" for the word "program". That is a simple transference in legal language, and the intent is to do that. There is no intention in this bill to have a news blackout; the intention is merely to achieve under the Broadcasting Act, for the print media, that which has existed since 1936 in the broadcast media. You can find the references in the parliamentary committee proceedings in 1936 when that provision was put in the Broadcasting Act, and broadcasters have been living under it from 1936 until 1972. That is a fact. Nobody has screamed about freedom of speech for the broadcasters.
I am informed that while there are some difficulties in application, it has been possible over these years for broadcasters to abide by this rule without too much difficulty. There has been some resistance to its application to the print media, to the newspapers, and I want to tell members of the House that when we go into committee, if it is commonly agreed that this is an inappropriate provision, that it ought to be modified and that different treatment should be accorded to the newspapers or the print media than to the broadcast media, then I will be receptive to legitimate and reasonable change. Changes can be made in the committee because the purpose, really, is to give effect to recommendation No. 25 of the special committee.
I have mentioned two matters already, one with respect to the reimbursement formula, upon which I think further thought is justified, and the second is the print media provision. Undoubtedly, there are others that will occur. All I want to say is that I am somewhat regretful that members of the House did not take my words at their face value when I said I had an open mind on a lot of things. Probably I will not agree to change some things, but here are some that I think we ought to consider in committee. In any event, regardless of the vote on second reading I would hope that we can tackle the bill in committee and, hopefully, produce a piece of legislation that will justify the support of the House in the final stages.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister permit a question for clarification? Was I correct in understanding the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to say that he thought perhaps there was merit in the government contribution being related to the total range of expenditures of a candidate, rather than simply to areas of publicity, and that the President of the Privy Council is not prepared to support a ceiling on those total expenditures? In other words, is the position of the President of the Privy

June 7, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
Council that he is prepared to consider at least a government contribution related to the total range of expenditures of a candidate, but he is not prepared to recommend a ceiling on publicity expenditures, despite the fact that the government would be contributing toward the total expenditures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I said that I would be prepared to consider relating the contribution to the over-all expenditures that a candidate would list on his return, rather than just to advertising expenditures. I have considered this and I do not believe there is necessarily any logical contradiction in agreeing to the proposition urged by the Leader of the Opposition and not agreeing to placing everything under a limit. But perhaps my logic does not work in the same way as that of others. At least I think that that area has to be considered in the committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am not clear on what the minister said. Perhaps I missed something he said regarding the recommendation of the special committee on the limitation of expenses of a party. I am sure the minister is aware that the limitation which the special committee recommended was 30 cents per elector in the aggregate number of constituencies in which the party runs candidates, provided they qualify. Would the minister tell us what his feelings are on this, and if there is no over-all limitation on the parties in that sense does that not nullify much of the rest of the bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I mentioned, there is a virtual limit on broadcasting and that, we have been told, is the area where the greatest expansion of expenditure has taken place in the last ten or 15 years. So that is capped; there is a limit on that. I have said that the intent of the bill is to prohibit parties from spending money in a way that will assist the candidate in piercing his limits on advertising. It seems to me that those are two effective limits on parties. If you put a dollar limit on the over-all expenditure you would strike out the broadcast limit, because why have two separate limits?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is that more of the MacEachen logic?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister has spoken with such a pleading voice to members of the House that one feels almost uncomfortable in telling him off, but I will suffer the discomfort. May I say to him that no one doubts that his mind is open. The question is whether it is merely ajar on the points that he has indicated, or whether it is really open with respect to some of the basic principles of this bill which my colleagues have indicated, which the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) indicated and about which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke today.
Let us look at the situation and find out why the minister is so eager to push this bill through. The question of election expenses has been on the agenda of public discussion in Canada for God knows how many years and, as has already been pointed out on a number of occasions, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) undertook in no uncertain terms in the campaign of 1968 to deal with the matter of electoral reform on a first priority basis. At one point he said-if I remember correctly and I am sure I do-that

he would deal with it at the first session of Parliament if he were elected Prime Minister.
We have waited four years. It is clear from what the Prime Minister and the Chief Electoral Officer have said publicly to the committee that even if the bill were passed quickly, it is not likely to be available for the next federal general election unless that election does not take place for a year. So why is the government so anxious to push this bill through, when they know perfectly well that it will not be available, even if it were not changed, for the next federal election?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The answer is obvious.


David Lewis: As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said, the answer is obvious. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the Prime Minister want to be able to go across the country waving a piece of paper in the air and saying that they have done something about electoral reform.
So far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we do not intend to make it easy for them to mislead the Canadian people that they have engaged in electoral reform. If the President of the Privy Council admits, with the Prime Minister and the Chief Electoral Officer, that this law cannot be of use in the next federal election, then I say to him that the proper thing to do is to take a great deal of time with the bill and see whether we could not arrive at changes that are basic to the whole concept of election expenses.
Not with any surprise, Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Leader of the Opposition agree with the government party against requiring full disclosure of election contributions. I want to emphasize that so far as the NDP is concerned, we stand firmly on the proposition that the people have a right to know who has contributed to parties and to candidates. Other people have dealt with this question in a personal way. Let me put it to you, Mr. Speaker, in a personal way. I am certain that if there were full disclosure of personal contributions to my campaign, I would lose some contributors because some persons who contributed to my campaigns in the past are not of my party but are well known supporters of some other party. But for some aberration or other that I would not like to define, they have decided they would send me $100 or $200 to assist me in my campaigns.
It may well be that if I had to disclose their names, they would telephone me and say, "David, I am sorry. I did it during the last few elections but I cannot do it now because I don't intend to make public the fact that I make a contribution to you." That may happen to all members of this House and it may happen to all parties in this House, but I think that is a very small price to pay for the important and basic principle by which our party stands, that the people of Canada have a right to know who is contributing to my campaign, who is contributing to my party and how much is being contributed to my campaign and to my party.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the honourable gentleman a question?
June 7, 1972


David Lewis: Yes, certainly.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is the hon. member aware that under the present law he would be obliged to disclose the names of these contributors, that is, he being a candidate? We will not need any change in the present law to accomplish that objective.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows what I am talking about. I am surprised at his intervention. I know this is not in the act, and I also know it is not going to be made public.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Why not?


David Lewis: Is the Chief Electoral Officer obliged by law to make public the names of my contributors? Am I obliged by law to make public every contributor who gives me money?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


David Lewis: I do not read the bill this way. My return goes to the returning officer for my constituency.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is the law, but it is circumvented legally.


David Lewis: You mean under the law at present? My heavens, if I had thought the minister was talking about that I would not even have been as polite as I was. He knows that every member and every candidate lumps contributions into some constituency organization, or something else, and thus those contributions are listed as coming from the York South constituency organization. Everyone knows that that is the case.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is it lawful?


David Lewis: I think this is the way the present law is worded. Therefore, there is need for a change in the present law to oblige every candidate and every party to make public the names of the contributors and the amounts contributed. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that this will cause embarrassment to some contributors. It may cause embarrassment to corporations which make contributions to both the other parties in this House.
It may be that it will take a few years before people accept the practice as being necessary and desirable for our democratic society, and it may be that there will be some loss of contributions by candidates and by parties. And maybe that is not a bad idea. Maybe to have a law that produces contributions from those organizations and people who really support the candidate and party, rather than contributions which are given as a matter of insurance by persons, corporations or organizations, would be a good thing for democracy and for society.
I gather, Mr. Speaker, that the government is not prepared to deal with the question of disclosure of all contributions. Therefore, that is one basic principle of this bill that we cannot accept and to which we thoroughly object. I want to make perfectly clear that I mean all contributions: I mean the contributions of all corporations which contribute to the Liberal party, to the Conservative party
Election Expenses Bill
or to my own party. But I have never known of one that does so, although there may be such.
I also mean all the contributors who contribute to the NDP, and not only contributions in cash but in kind. I want to have a law that clearly obliges my party and myself to disclose to the people of Canada all information about the sources of my funds and the funds of my party, precisely, fully and completely. I believe every party in this House has to be prepared to do precisely that. That is the only way in which the people of Canada can gauge what is subliminally influencing candidates and parties in this House, and it must be remembered that the subliminal influences not infrequently are a great deal more important than other influences.
The minister says it is difficult to enforce limits on parties and so he has confined himself to the limit on the media. Let me say two or three things about that. As he was speaking I recalled being on a plane several months ago with a leading Liberal who is a member of the other place-and, incidentally, why we have a habit of saying the "other place" instead of saying directly "the Senate", I will never know. This man is a Senator. He was one of the directors or chairmen of the Liberal party campaign in
1968.	He informed me during our conversation-I am sure he will not mind my saying this-that Liberal party expenditures on the media during 1968 were very few. In fact, if I remember correctly he said they did not spend any money on media expenditures, as a party.
I asked why, and his answer was that the Prime Minister was getting so much coverage on television and radio that was free, that the Liberal party did not have to spend any money on buying time on the media. I do not know just how accurate that may be and I do not know whether the people of Canada appreciated the exposure that the Prime Minister received then. I do not know how much they will appreciate it in the future. I merely mention that conversation to indicate that it is an illusion to think that merely limiting media expenditures is a real limit on party expenditures.
You can organize anything if you have the money. I have never had that pleasure or experience in politics, but you can organize all sorts of things. If you have the money you can organize all sorts of affairs and shindigs, all sorts of circuses, all sorts of pancake breakfasts, and all the rest of it. The people in the media, the public relations firms employed by the Liberal and Conservative parties, are pregnant with ideas all the time and they usually require only a few hours rather than nine months of gestation. They come forward with every sort of gimmick, every sort of thing that can be done without coming under the heading of media expenditure at all.
You could spend literally millions of dollars, as was the case in the province of Ontario with the Conservative party in the recent election. You could spend hundreds, thousands and probably millions of dollars on all sorts of gimmicks and ideas and services. You could get all the coverage and media exposure that you needed without actually having to buy the time. There are all sorts of ways it can be done. So when the minister tells us that limiting expenses on the media is an effective limit on

June 7, 1972
Election Expenses Bill
party expenses, I tell him, "Rubbish". It just is not so. All he is doing is making it possible for the rest of the money to be used in such a way as to get media exposure without directly paying for it.
There is no reason why we cannot enforce a limit on party expenditures, unless we assume that the political parties in this country are thoroughly dishonest, will not obey the law and will find ways of evading it when they can. I do not make that assumption about any party in this House. I am confident that if the law requires limits, requires disclosure to be made, the political parties in this House will be meticulous in observing that law. If my confidence is misplaced, I am sorry for democracy in Canada. That is what we need, Mr. Speaker. So long as there is objection to enforcing limits on party expenditures as well as candidate expenditures, we cannot accept this bill. This, to us, in principle is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke the other day he pointed out on our behalf that the reimbursement formula is totally unjust, that to put a formula on a percentage basis merely means that the public treasury gives more to him who has more. We have had too much of that from this government and from our society as a whole. We have too many laws, too much legislation, too many practices that give more to him who already has. The time has come to think seriously about giving to those who do not have. That is as true for candidates in elections as it is for anything else in a genuine democratic society.
I was not here at the time but I am sure my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is accurate, as I have found him to be, when he states that the minister said that if you do not make an allocation on the basis, for example, of the number of electors in a constituency and pay each recognized candidate a certain number of cents per elector, then you give money to somebody who cannot get money anywhere else. Mr. Speaker, I say, so what? There is a provision in the bill that before he is entitled to any reimbursement a candidate must have received 20 per cent of the votes cast. That is the requirement and that is high enough. Indeed, I think it is too high; it could easily be 15 per cent, without violating anything.
The point I want to make is that if a candidate is to receive at least 20 per cent of the votes cast before he is entitled to reimbursement, that is requirement enough. If 20 per cent of his constituents thought well enough of him to give him their support, surely the law ought to give him a reimbursement equal to the number of electors in his constituency. The amount of money he will have to spend, even if it is very little, is related to the number of electors in his constituency.
If the candidate is a member of a party which cannot give him very much money, or if he cannot raise very much money-perhaps my remarks are a little self-serving because we have some candidates in that situation- and he has to get 20 per cent of the votes cast, then I suggest that on the basis of principle on which reimbursement rests he should be entitled to reimbursement on a just percentage. That would mean reimbursement by a certain number of cents per elector in his riding.
What is the philosophy behind reimbursement? The philosophy behind reimbursement from the public trea-

sury, and I am not saying anything that every member of this House does not know, is obviously that for a democracy to function there ought to be an opportunity for the person who is poor, who does not have the means, who does not even have the sources to go to for the means, to be able to stand as a candidate. That is the philosophy behind it. Then the minister destroys that philosophy by saying that in order for a candidate to get reimbursement he must raise money outside and then he will be given a certain percentage-25 per cent of what he raises. If he raises $30,000 for publicity-I think it is limited to publicity-then he will get $7,500; if he can only afford $2,000 for publicity, then he will only receive $500, and if he can only afford $1,000 he will receive $250.
I ask the minister as seriously as I can, how does that jibe with the principle and philosophy of public reimbursement? If the people of Canada are going to make it possible for candidates who are poor and do not have large resources at their disposal to seek election, is that a just way for the people of Canada to act? I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to ask the people of this country-assuming that they agree to make any reimbursement, which is something I wonder about in view of the attitude that is sometimes prevalent in regard to politics and politicians-if they were in favour of reimbursement and whether they would do it on a more fair basis or on the basis of giving more to those who spend more, the overwhelming majority would say that the reimbursement should be just.
If I run in a constituency which has 50,000 electors and my opponents can raise as much money as I hope I may be able to raise in my campaign, they ought to be entitled to the same reimbursement as I because they have exactly the same constituency, the same number of electors, the same function to perform and the same job to do. That would be fair. The other method is not fair at all and it is another principle that we cannot accept.
The question of closing off partisan comment in newspapers, radio or television must be dealt with. There is one major difference between radio or television and printed material. It happens that as a young man I was national secretary of the CCF and represented my party on a committee which discussed the rules regarding broadcasts, including the question of blackout in the last 24 or 48 hours. At that time it referred to radio because television had not arrived at the end of the thirties. One of the reasons the radio people urged such a blackout was that on radio-this is also true of television-comment in the sense of editorial comment was not as frequent nor as important; the important thing was the public affairs newscast. So long as newscasts are not prohibited, radio and television can serve their purpose and function in society. Obviously, newscasts are not prohibited.
The Leader of the Opposition has already referred to the unfortunate incident of June 14, 1968, in Montreal that was carried all over the country on radio, television and in the newspapers. That incident may have had as much effect on the votes cast the following day as any other single incident. There is nothing in the rules to prevent television and radio carrying such a newscast. There is nothing in the rules to prevent a speech made by the
June 7, 1972

Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party or the leader of the Credi-tiste party (Mr. Caouette) being carried on radio and television. That sort of news reporting is a major aspect of the electronics media and shows the importance of the media. That is the point I am making. They have not made much fuss about not being able to sell time in the last hours before election day because they will sell enough in the earlier weeks of the campaign.
Furthermore, according to the advice I have been given it is very doubtful if radio and television are interested in selling such time in the last 24 or 48 hours of an election campaign. Since according to law our elections must be held on Monday or, if Monday is a holiday, on Tuesday, the last hours of bought time would be time available over the weekend, and I am told it is not sensible to do it this way. Nor are the media people anxious to sell that time, because on Saturday on Sunday there are other events which interest their audiences much more. That is the situation-I think I have outlined it correctly-with respect to the electronics media.
An entirely different situation applies to the print media, to the written word. Background articles, newspaper attempts to dig deeper into the election situation, to make a deeper analysis of individuals as well as of parties and programs, reports on the progress of campaigns and editorial comments, all these fall within the purview of the written word, of the newspaper, daily, weekly or otherwise. In this area the printed word still necessarily outdoes, so to speak, the electronics media. My party and I have not always been recipients of the most favourable comments in printed material every day of our existence, Mr. Speaker, so that it can be seen I am not arguing for one party. I am saying that the function of the newspaper is different from the function of the electronics media. Therefore, I doubt whether the limits imposed on the electronics media are really sensible, because newscasts are often much more important than commentaries.
Applying considerations with respect to the electronics media blindly and automatically to the newspapers seems to me to be somewhat illogical and overlooks the difference between newspapers and the electronics media. In any event, newscasts and news stories carried in the newspapers and on the electronics media are much more important than any commentary. The only consolation I enjoyed in my political activities before becoming a Member of Parliament as well as afterwards was from learning that according to surveys only a small percentage of the people read editorials. Most people read news stories rather than editorials and sometimes they read only the headlines and not the news stories.
At all events, it is news stories that people are interested in, so saying you cannot make partisan comments is not of very much help. News stories will be carried in the newspapers and on the media, and when you consider the way in which news stories are written it seems to me that we shall face incalculable difficulties in enforcing the law. You will need to consider the headline-whether it is partisan,- whether it should make a positive statement instead of a negative one, and so on. You will need to consider whether the name of the party spokesman should be included in the headline, whether the name of
Election Expenses Bill
the party should be in the headline, whether the headline has been deliberately concocted to do harm to the spokesman or to do somebody else good. This, really, brings us to the area of quasi-censorship and I do not think it is desirable for Parliament to enter that field, although my mind is not closed on this matter in view of some of the comments the minister has made and some of the arguments I have heard.
I do not want to make a long speech. I need not go further except to say to the minister that he has not persuaded us that the basic principles of the bill will be touched in committee. I am glad he is willing to consider some change in the matter of reimbursement. Obviously, he is not willing to consider changes which would make the reimbursement more just, changes in the formula for reimbursement. I think he is willing to consider merely a change in area-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Wait and see.


David Lewis: The minister says that I should wait and see. Let me say to him that we must oppose this bill on second reading, and that when it goes to committee we will do our very best to see that he makes the bill a workable one. In conclusion, I say that there is no reason for the government's hurry and there is no reason for pushing this bill through quickly, except a political reason affecting the Liberal party. I note that in the present political circumstances in Canada, that party needs all the favours it can get. However, I do not see why we in the opposition should help that party in this respect.


An hon. Member:: Who is helping?


David Lewis: We do not hesitate in saying that the bill before us is a phony. It does not deal with election expenses in a meaningful way and it does not serve the democratic process in a meaningful way. If it becomes law, and I suppose the government majority will make it law, I think it will be a disservice to electoral reform. I say this for one reason. Life has taught us that once you create an institution, once you put a law on the statute books, it takes a long time to change that law or tradition or institution established by law. Therefore, passing an inadequate bill, a bill that does not meet the principles of democratic reform-and this bill does not-is not doing a service to the people of Canada.
I reject the notion by which the minister and others say, "You cannot agree on everything but you must concede that this is a step forward." Mr. Speaker, there are some steps forward, so to speak, that are stopped in their tracks. The feet become locked, as it were, in the morass of the bill and you cannot pull out of that morass for years, years and years to come. We want to pass the right kind of bill. We want a bill that deals with election expenses in a meaningful way. If we want that, now is the time to insist on it. Now is the time for members of the Liberal party, as well as of the other parties in this House who harbour real regard for the idea of electoral reform, who harbour genuine concern for a good law dealing with election expenses, to show courage, to stand on their feet and say to the government, "This is not a political matter. Electoral reform is not a partisan question; it touches the democratic process of our society."

June 7, 1972
Division
Members of the Liberal party who agree with me should have the courage to rise to their feet and to say to the government, "We will not accept this bill." Of course, I do not think I will see that. However, if they did that they would render a service to Parliament and to our democratic process.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All 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.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
June 7, 1972
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that I call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Election Expenses Bill


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.