1973-12-19

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege which is of the utmost gravity. It involves the rights of members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works in particular, and of all members in general, to question civil servants and public officials, and the extent to which ' cabinet ministers may assert executive privilege in restricting and limiting the appearance of such persons as witnesses and the extent of their examination.
The particular issue revolves around the refusal of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) to allow a particular public official to freely give his testimony save under the control and direction of the minister and his assertion that this is a principle which is applicable in all such cases. The refusal of the minister involved the committee hearings on Bill C-236 which, bluntly, has the effect of giving to the government and the minister more power and authority in peace time than has been the case since Herr Schact was appointed economic Czar under the Third Reich.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: The result of the minister's prohibition will prevent hon. members on the committee from securing, probably for the first time, accurate and positive information on the facts upon which the government seeks to justify the passage of this bill, and to learn the extent of the tremendous powers that could be invoked.
In particular, the members of the NDP and Liberal coalition on the committee, in their support of this proposition, make it impossible to have an adequate and essential study of the facts,
I regret, of course, that the transcript of the proceedings of last night is not available, but there are other hon. members here who can testify as to the accuracy of this statement. If, therefore, a prima facie case is made, it would move as follows:
That, saving only questions of policy, this House reaffirm the duty of public officials and civil servants to be called as witnesses before standing and special committees and to give evidence without inhibition or restraint from cabinet ministers or others with regard to relevant facts which the committee is considering, and that, if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources persists in interfering with this right, that the committee be authorized to exclude the minister from committee hearings at such time as such witnesses may be examined.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to prevent the minister from answering the statement made by the hon. member for Peace River, but the hon. member gave me notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of a question of privilege and I am now prepared to make a ruling. Perhaps it might be preferable to deal with the matter this way rather than revive the difficulties which are apparently taking place in the committee.
The hon. member for Peace River is, of course, referring to a very important principle relating to evidence given in committees or in any other circumstance. Whether the grievance the hon. member for Peace River or other hon. members may have in this respect should be considered by the House by way of a question of privilege is another matter.
I think it is a long established principle, perhaps as important as the one cited by the hon. member for Peace River, that procedural difficulties that come up in a committee, to the extent they are procedural difficulties, ought to be settled there rather than in the House. I am sure the hon. member realizes this and appreciates the difficulty procedurally to which his point has given rise. That is why, rather than suggest that a proceeding which is taking place in the committee be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, he submitted for the consideration of the House what is effectively a substantive proposal. If the hon. member has a substantive proposal, it becomes an ordinary motion which requires 48 hours notice. It cannot be taken up in the House by way of a question of privilege.
I certainly do not want to minimize in any way the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River, but I suggest to him it is not possible for the Chair to find there is a prima facie case of privilege which would make it possible for the House to consider a substantive motion at this time. That is certainly not in accordance with long established tradition of the House relative to matters of privilege. Therefore I must find against the hon. member in respect of the very limited procedural question which is before me, namely, whether there is or is not a prima facie case of privilege. The ruling of the Chair must be in the negative.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I trust Your Honour's ruling is without prejudice to my right to bring in another motion supported by the written transcript of the evidence when it is available if there is persistence in this practice.
8884

December 19, 1973
Privilege, Mr. Reynolds



MR. REYNOLDS-AVAILABILITY OF FUEL IN UNITED STATES TO CANADIAN AIRCRAFT-MINISTER'S ANSWER TO QUESTION

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege revolves around an answer given yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) when I asked him about the differences between Canadian and American airlines in picking up fuel. He answered that he doubted that in fact Canadian airlines are treated any worse in the United States than American airlines are in Canada.
The facts are these. Pacific Western Airlines, which travels to Hawaii, has been given a quota of 75,000 gallons of gasoline a month with no guarantee that this will be increased or decreased in the future. This means the company will be obliged to cancel close to 10,000 passenger trips in the next quarter, which will cost this country money. In the United States Canadian airlines are paying 58 cents a gallon for gasoline, an increase from 14 cents only two months ago. American airlines flying into Canada, which are loading up excessively right now, are paying only 24 cents a gallon for gasoline, less than half of what they are required to pay in their own country.
My question of privilege arises because the Minister of Transport was aware of these facts-I know he has been sent telegrams and letters by these companies. I realize that in the past Your Honour has ruled that this might be a matter of debate, but I wonder how a private member, when a minister misleads the House either as a result of carelessness in his own office or simply because he wishes to mislead hon. members, is able to seek redress. I know the minister's facts were wrong yesterday. I know he was misleading the House and I think there should be some means by which private members can have the subject discussed in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that ministers will give honest answers and we can solve the problems.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of a question of privilege. The hon. member thinks there should be some way in which disputes arising as to facts can be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. For the protection of hon. members, perhaps it is fortunate that the practice of the House does not make this possible, because if it did we should have to adjourn the House and spend a great deal of time in Committee on Privileges and Elections. The essence of proceedings in this chamber is that hon. members argue and debate about facts and interpretations of facts. I have to refer the hon. member and the House again to citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament... A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
The hon. member claims that inaccurate information has been given to him in response to a question. That may be so. I assume that the member or the minister who gave the

information must believe his facts are correct. This is a dispute as to fact between two members. I have to say there is not a prima facie case of privilege which ought to be investigated by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the concern expressed by the Food Prices Review Board in connection with market concentration and restrictive trade practices in the food industry and in view of the fact that for the past two consecutive fiscal years 61 per cent of the operating budget of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the agency responsible for reporting on such matters to the minister, has been allowed to lapse unexpended, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to look immediately into the operations of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and specifically into its failure to inquire into and report upon restrictive trade practices in the food industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing concern in the passage last night through second reading stage in the Ontario legislature of Bill 274. This measure, if it becomes the law of that province, will contravene basic civil liberties established in national and international law throughout the world. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House instruct the Minister of Justice to examine Ontario Bill 274, and upon confirmation of its violation of the principle that a person has the right to leave his present employment, take the appropriate steps leading to federal disallowance of the legislation.
December 19, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgency-it has been a matter of urgency for a number of years-arising from the fact that farm machinery has increased exorbitantly in price, and farm machinery parts and repairs have in many instances doubled or more than doubled in price during the last 12-month period. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That selective price controls be placed on the steel and farm machinery industry and that a committee be appointed to study the pricing mechanisms of these industries with the view to recommending price rollbacks if there are unconscionable profits.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce a system for public opening of bids in the Department of Supply and Services effective immediately. This decision stems from a study which I initiated last December to review our policies, procedures and practices dealing with the solicitation, receipt, handling and opening of suppliers' bids. In my study of this whole matter I discovered that Canadian government policies and practices, which have essentially been in effect since 1941, are in the forefront by international comparison. I have no hesitation in comparing our current policies and practices with any other jurisdiction in Canada or abroad. But there is always room for improvement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: What I have done in my review is (1) to ensure that the good portions of our existing policies and practices remain in force and are respected; (2) to introduce new ones and to improve others where this could be done; (3) to provide for a uniform approach in our headquarters and field operations; and (4) to provide
Public Tendering
greater visibility as to our method of carrying on business. My aim was to accomplish balanced economy, efficiency, and the achievement of national objectives in a way that will provide fair value for the taxpayers' dollar and, at the same time, provide equity of opportunity to all qualified suppliers to compete for government contracts. In this regard, the new policies continue to support Canadian industrial and regional development while at the same time recognizing our international obligations, particularly the defence production sharing program.
Let us now look at what was done specifically. Public tender opening is not an entirely new development in the Department of Supply and Services but, truly, not much in use. Eight years ago the department, after consultation with the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association, introduced a system of public openings for certain shipbuilding requirements and, more recently, we have had public openings for requirements of the new major postal facility in Toronto.
But even if the use of public tender opening was very limited in the past, information relating to prices of the successful and other tenderers for government requirements has always been available from my department. This information is made available after a full evaluation has been undertaken and the contract has been awarded.
[ Translation]
What I am now introducing is a generalized system for the public opening of tenders. This decision, along with existing policies and practices dealing with the provision of information on tenders for all our requirements, either in regularly published form or as a result of special requests, provides a degree of visibility regarding Canadian government purchasing operations which, I believe, is as good or better than any system in the world. An important consideration in this regard is the fact that we are charged with the responsibility of operating a large and complex system of procurement. This involves upwards of 275,000 purchase orders per year in an amount which far exceeds a billion dollars. Some sixty thousand firms participate in this program which covers many thousands of different types of commodities and services.
It is within the context of this mass operation that one has to relate our new system for the public opening of tenders. First, the purpose of the public opening of tenders is to ensure tenderers that the prices which they have quoted are the ones which are used in the assessment of tenders. This is essential. But it must always be remembered that price is only one factor in the assessment process. Other factors, of course, include delivery time, the availability of spare parts, the financial, technical and managerial competence of the companies concerned, and the degree to which they meet all the other conditions stated in the tender. It is only after all these factors have been assessed that a decision can be taken as to what supplier will be awarded the contract.
In order to improve the system, I have now decided that effective immediately all written tenders for requirements expected to result in contracts over $10,000 will be opened publicly both in headquarters and in our regional and
26695-50J

December 19, 1973
Public Tendering
district offices. There will be two general exceptions to this rule: (1) confidential requirements particularly in the field of defence, and (2) cases where the tenders cover a multiplicity of items and destinations. Let me explain the latter exception, the intent of which is to avoid possible misinformation rather than to avoid public disclosure. Certain of our requirements are for multi-items going to multi-destinations; for example, 250 different types of spares to be delivered to 14 different locations. Tenderers are permitted to quote on portions of these requirements either in terms of numbers of items and/or numbers of locations. The simple reading out of a single figure at the end of a column in my judgment would do more to confuse than enlighten a tenderer. In addition, the reading out of all possibilities would be, to put it mildly, exceedingly time consuming and therefore costly for all concerned. I am exploring this particular area further to determine the means by which this kind of information could be made available at the same time of tender opening.
The threshold of $10,000 for public opening, which, by the way, compares favourably with other jurisdictions, has been chosen because it was felt that this amount was sufficient to interest suppliers in travelling to the tender opening location. In any event, for tenders whose anticipated value is likely to be under $10,000, the present highly secure system which has stood the test of time for upwards of 30 years will continue with as many improvements as we can make to it. Further, hon. members should know that the introduction of a generalized system for public openings will increase government costs due to the need for additional personnel and facilities to perform this new task. The amount of this increase depends directly on the threshold selected and therefore the number of tenders falling within this new policy. We have, therefore, tried to select a figure which in my judgment takes economy and efficiency as well as increased visibility into consideration.
I want to assure hon. members that I will be constantly reviewing this matter to determine whether this figure and our new practices should be modified in the light of experience.
I have a brief outline of the procedures which we will use regarding the receipt, handling and opening of tenders, and I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the minister was good enough to supply me with a copy of the statement he has made today. As I ran through my copy I made a mental note to underline the final sentence of the first paragraph which states: "But there is always room for improvement". Having listened to the minister and having examined the statement I think I can conclude that the keynote of my response this afternoon must be that there is much room for improvement.
The Department of Supply and Services was established some four years ago. It was brought into being by the Government Organization Act of 1969. It was a response to one of the recommendations of the Glassco Royal Commis-

sion. The main purpose of the department was to bring about efficiency, economy and decentralization in government purchasing. I think it is fair for those of us who have been following the department closely over the past few months to conclude that the department has failed to achieve any of these objectives. This is demonstrated by an examination of the figures of the annual departmental budget. Its efficiency is still to be proven. Administrative costs, as is the case with all government departments, are still going onward and upward. Indeed, the minister in his statement today indicated that the introduction of public opening of tenders will require more public servants in his department. Certainly little has been done to disperse government purchases across the country.
We in the opposition have pursued this subject for some months now both in committee and in the House of Commons. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has been diligent in his questioning of the minister on the subject. In response to a question last May the minister declared it was his belief that the opening of tenders other than in public was illegal on the part of the government. It has required all these months to persuade the government to come to a legal position in its handling of the vast expenditures of public funds which now amount to more than $1.2 billion annually.
I should like to refer to the exceptions outlined by the minister in his statement. He points out that price is not necessarily the only criterion. In this regard I remind him I am fully aware of what has taken place with regard to the awarding of contracts in the very sophisticated area of the provision of machinery for mechanization of the postal service. I have been pursuing questions on this subject. It is obvious that price is not the sole criterion there. We will be continuing our interest in that subject in the days that lie ahead.
There is also reference to defence requirements as an exception to the principle of public opening of tenders. I remind the minister and members of the government it is in this area that the biggest scandals have arisen in government purchasing and contracting. There have been too many Come-By-Chance Bonaventure episodes. We will have to leave this subject in the capable hands of the members of the Public Accounts Committee and its chairman, the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales).
I notice that the threshold price has been set at $10,000. In view of the minister's declaration that the non-public opening of tenders is an illegal act, I wonder why it is legal below $10,000 and not legal above $10,000. Perhaps this is a subject we can pursue at a later date as well.
The minister did not indicate whether public relations contracts with public relations firms would be awarded at a public opening of tenders, nor did he indicate whether architects' fees would be covered by this principle. Indeed, the principle the minister has enunciated of giving greater visibility to the department's methods of carrying on business I am afraid will not be achieved by what we have heard in the minister's statement today. It is more like the iceberg approach to the problem. I can assure him that all hon. members on this side of the House will be following his admonition that the practices of this department will
December 19, 1973

have to be modified and kept under very close scrutiny and review.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the minister I wondered whether the handling of public tenders involving amounts over $10,000 will be similar to the department's handling of cost claims by contractors under assistance contracts to the tune of $269,000 that his department never bothered to verify, as pointed out in the Auditor General's report tabled yesterday. I certainly hope that the handling of public tenders over $10,000 will be done in a much more judicious way than was the case with the assistance contracts where moneys were paid by the department, according to the Auditor General, without having been verified.
The principle of awarding tenders publicly for contracts over $10,000 outside the public sector is not a principle that should be adopted only in the operations of the Department of Supply and Services but one that should be extended to every department of the government. The reason this kind of change has come about in the Department of Supply and Services is related to the fact that the Auditor General has pointed out to members of the House that, for example, in the handling of the repair of aircraft engines for the Department of Transport, the very department which the minister represents, in 1971 allowed contractors to be awarded a contract for the repair of aircraft engines with no public tender. This was again carried out with the same contractor in 1972-73 and the total cost of this one item was $290,000. Therefore the principle of awarding tenders publicly for contracts over $10,000 is a good one but it should be extended to every department.
May I give one simple example of the glaring lack of the use of public tenders by another department, which justifies my position that the awarding of tenders publicly should be applied to all departments. I refer to the Post Office Department. The Auditor General states in his report that 37 contracts were awarded by the Post Office to contractors across the country without any kind of approval from Treasury Board. They amounted to some $1.6 million. Also, the Olympic coin contract was awarded without any kind of public tender.


An hon. Member:: Patronage.


William George Knight: Let me give one final example of the ludicrous expenditure of public money by the government without the use of public tenders. Last fall the Post Office printed a calendar. The basic postal information on that calendar took a great deal of time to ascertain. The department had a private firm print one million calendars of 28 pages each. The printing cost was $174,000. There was no contract. In November that arrangement with the private company had to be scrapped because the calendar was full of errors. The calendar was then revised and cut down to 24 pages as it was going to the printing press because further errors were found in the information it contained. Because of no public tenders and the lack of guidelines regarding the expenditure by the Post Office Department in this regard, the $174,000 contained in the original agreement to print the calendar was included in the final bill given to the Post Office by the private contractor. The Auditor General has made this statement with regard to
Public Tendering
such arrangement and the importance of the principle of public tenders:
It seems apparent that the difficulties encountered by the Post Office in administering the arrangement and controlling its cost stemmed from undertaking the project at such a late date and failure to set out in a formal manner what was required.
I believe that statement supports extention of the principle of calling for public tenders.
The final point I wish to make is that in the minister's enunciation of his position relating to public tenders for contracts over $10,000 it is glaringly apparent that one department is exempt from the requirement of calling public tenders, and I believe that this department is probably the one where there is the greatest amount of ineptitude and inefficiency in the spending of public moneys. I refer to the Department of National Defence. The Auditor General pointed out that in the agreement which the Department of National Defence has with the United States and the United Kingdom through the Department of Supply and Services in terms of the various cost-sharing contract there is no internal control within this government of these expenditures. Advances to the United States amount to $2,300,000 more than the amount reported by any department of the government, as pointed out by the Auditor General. I believe that the exemption of the Department of National Defence is merely a means of covering up the waste and ineptitude that is taking place in the operations of that department.
I hope to hear some justification from the minister with regard to the figure of $10,000 for public tenders. I should also like to see a requirement that all government departments call for public tenders relating to advertising contracts or any other aspect of business involving the private sector.
The Minister of Supply and Services has spoken about the principle of ensuring that certain supplies are purchased across the country from different regions instead of being centralized in one area. I wonder, in terms of what has been enunciated by the minister today, whether that principle will be carried out. I hope that in the coming months we will have verification that this principle is being extended and in fact carried out.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, we were very happy to receive, before today's proceedings, a French copy of the minister's statement, and I am glad to mention this as the government very rarely provides the French copy at the same time as the English version.
We are also happy to note the minister's position about calling public tenders but we are somewhat surprised to see his satisfaction since he said before that our procedures since 1941 were the best possible, and he now is the first one to suggest the corrective action required, which has been requested for many years.
By taking this attitude, the minister is providing much greater opportunity for Canadians in general or the Canadian economy and alternatives which probably did not exist before for different companies. Unfortunately the minister admits that even if procedures existed before the policy statement which he must made, they were not

December 19, 1973
Public Tendering
always followed. We certainly hope that henceforth the minister will follow the procedures that he set down today for these new public tender calls and that he will truly practice what he says.
However, even though he admits that we shall now be able to ask questions on such or such a tender call, we have noted in the past that when members of the opposition have asked questions, the departments or ministers have often refused to give specific answers, arguing that it was not in the interest of the Canadian public as a whole to obtain such and such information concerning a corporation.
In spite of the minister's intention to make tender calls universally open to the public, it is clear from his statement that he reserves the same rights as previously, namely that other deciding factors in addition to price will be taken into account when the time comes to award a contract, which is understandable.
The minister indicated that these other factors are ability to deliver, availability of parts, solvency as well as technical and administrative competence of the various corporations. I suggest that one may very well wonder if, in the future, this competence will be, as was the case in the past, that of Liberal organizations or companies.
If this fondness for Liberal business heads continues, the problem is not solved but it does enable the minister to justify himself to the House.
In another paragraph, the minister speaks of the possibility of ignoring the procedure he detailed today, this with regard to two spheres that are even more important, namely that of defence and the most significant contracts for distribution of goods in various areas. Once again, it is understood that the minister retains the authority to select the company of his own choosing, without giving out any details, while contenting himself with a statement that those purchases have been made for distribution to various regional offices.
Finally, I consider the overall statement quite good; however, the details give the minister or the government the right to continue doing what they did in the past: showing favoritism towards some industries. This time, the right to do so is more explicit. I somewhat regret those last paragraphs but, all in all, I trust the hopes expressed at the opening of the minister's statement will become reality because they are required for a better administration of public assets.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[ Text]
Mr. Coates: What was the total cost, in dollars, of the repairs, alterations and refurnishing, carried out at the Prime Minister's summer home at Harrington Lake, for each of the fiscal years from 1964-65 to the present?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Repairs	Alterations	keful nishin"fi	Total$	$	*	$1964-65	4,573	-	4,5731965-66	.. 10,944	-	3,324	14,2681966-67	. 9,463	-	1,939	11,4021967-68	. 9,756	-	-	9,7561968-69	. 4,075	-	3,105	7,1801969-70	... 5,784	-	271	6,0551970-71	... 13,006	-	-	13,0061971-72	. 16,710	-	369	17,0791972-73	. . 11,005	709	11,714Note:	Totals by fiscal	year for	years 1968-69 to	1972-73
included in totals given in reply to Question No. 2,600.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): For each of the crop years 1968-69 to 1971-72 inclusive (a) what was the total amount paid by the Canadian Wheat Board and charged as a marketing expense and paid out of the Canadian Wheat Board Pool account for demurrage for ships which were held up on the Vancouver Harbour awaiting wheat cargoes (b) was there a deficit in the Canadian Wheat Board Pool account in any of the said crop years and, if so, what was the amount paid in the deficit years by the government for demurrage for ships which were held up on the Vancouver Harbour awaiting wheat cargoes
(c)	what were the corresponding figures for barley?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: (a) Wheat Crop Year	West Coast	East	Total*	$	$1968-69	1,600,915	21,864	1,622,7791969-70	. .. 516,903	-	516,9031970-71	... 121,354	12,163	133,5171971-72	... 1,255,650	32,003	1,287,653
(b) There was a deficit on operations of the board on the 1968-69 Pool Account, wheat. Included in the expenses charged to that account was $1,600,915 in demurrage charges incurred at the West Coast.
December 19, 1973

(c) Barley Crop Year	West Coast	East	Total$	s	$1968-69	... 12,406	-	12,4061969-70	... 26,275	-	26,2751970-71	... 70,645	-	70,6451971-72	... 579,118	4,293	583,411
There was a deficit on operations of the board on the Pool Account, barley in each of the crop years shown except 1969-70. Included in the expenses charged to these deficit accounts were, respectively, $12,406, $70,645 and $579,118 in demurrage charges incurred at the west coast.


Mr. Cossitt: Were any sums of money spent by the government on furniture, fittings, fixtures or contents of any kind whatsoever since April 30, 1968 at the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake and, if so (a) what are the individual items involved (b) what was the cost in each case?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: (a)	(b)

1968-1969	Supply and install rugs	 2,699.00
Mattress, box spring and bedspread	 406.26
3,105.26
1969-1970 Supply and install rugs	 181.50
Extermalite number 455	 89.50
271.00
1970- 1971	Nil
1971-	1972 Roller Blinds	 218.11
Venetian blinds and roller blinds	 150.56
368.67
1972-1973 Traverse rods	 93.78
Venetian blind sunflex	 13.95
Three-seater chesterfield	 260.00
By town side table	 42.00
Telephone table	 45.00
Student's desk	 80.00
Round coffee table	 70.00
By town side chair	 29.00
Library table	 75.00
White Chateauneuf drapes	 69.93
17 Exlite roller blinds	 148.18
4 Sunflex Venetian blinds	 123.42
4 Dalite roller blinds	 27.14
1 Nordland rug	 94.50
1,171.90
1973-1974 3 water pressure extinguishers	 59.85
Note: Above expenditure included in reply to Question No. 2,600.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many passenger seats are in the normal configuration of the DND Boeing 707 that completed a round the world trip in August 1973, with the Minister of National Defence as a passenger?
2.	How many passengers were carried between each of the stops on the trip?
3.	How much is the estimated cost to the taxpayer for the recently completed flight?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The normal configuration of the DND Boeing 707 for this type of trip is 120 seats.
2 and 3. These questions were answered in reply to Question No. 2,596 on December 3, 1973.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	What are the names and addresses of the members of the advisory board for the Opportunities for Youth Program in the constituency of Roberval for 1973?
2.	How many meetings did the board hold?
Hon...James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State): 1. There was no advisory board for the Opportunities for Youth Program in the constituency of Roberval in 1973. Because of difficulties encountered in establishing an advisory board in the Lac St-Jean region, which includes the constituency of Roberval, and in order to avoid delays in the implementation of the 1973 Opportunities for Youth Program in the region, an ad hoc committee was set up, consisting of four members and two resource persons. The members were all federal or provincial public servants, whose area of work and interest lies in eastern Quebec. The resource persons were Opportunities for Youth project officers in the Lac St-Jean region.
2.	The ad hoc committee met twice.


Mr. Corbin: 1.	Since the establishment of the U.S. Strategic Air Command base at Loring, Maine, near Grand-Sault, at the Canada-United States border, how many aircraft from the base (a) crashed in or exploded over New Brunswick and at what community (b) how many lives were lost?
2.	Were there any nuclear armaments on board and were all explosive devices which fell on Canadian territory recovered?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1.	(a) None, (b) Not
applicable.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Company of Young Canadians on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?

December 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1 and 2. 1972-73: Campbell Printing, 880 Wellington St., Ottawa, Ontario, $3,175.20; 1973-74: Ross-Ellis Limited, 300 Ann St., Montreal, Province of Quebec, $3,800.44; Purpose of contracts: Annual Report.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Veterans Affairs on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 1972/73, $94,620; 1973/74, $95,568.
2.	1972/73, John Doherty & Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, $2,864; 1973/74, John Doherty & Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, $7,615. To enable Public Relations to cope with peak work load for which it would be uneconomical to provide continuing positions; to provide services such as arranging speaking engagements for minister and Veterans Affairs senior management.
1972/73	1973/74	
$	$	
5,465	52,976	Advertising30,804	9,013	Artists and Technicians Fees16,696	9,048	Books of Remembrance10,104	1,768	Photography3,875	390	Hospitality18,540	10,459	Printing and Publishing6,272	4,299	T ravel


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many officers commissioned from the ranks for each rank Lieutenant or above, have earned degrees from universities in the past three years?
2.	How many of these officers have been promoted subsequent to earning these degrees expressed in an absolute and in a percentage of those who had received them?

3.	How many officers, having entered the regular forces on a full-time basis as Lieutenant or above, had degrees either at the time of entry or earned them within the past three years?
4.	How many of these officers have been promoted once having earned such university degrees expressed in absolute terms and in a percentage of those who had received them?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Lieutenant-Colonel, 1; Major, 9; Captain, 12; Lieutenant, 5.
2.	Five officers have been promoted representing 18.4 per cent of those who received degrees.
3.	Three hundred seventy-three officers.
4.	Seven officers have been promoted representing 1.87 per cent of those who received degrees.


Mr. Leggatt: How many widows of retired federal employees receive a pension of less than $100 per month?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	13,402 widows of former public servants are receiving
pensions of less than $100 per month. This figure includes widows of retired public servants as well as of those who died prior to retirement.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Were several members of the Canadian Forces Naden Band flown to the Hawaiian Islands on September 23, 1973, by service aircraft, returning by commercial aircraft on September 26?
2.	(a) How many engagements did they play while in Hawaii and what were they (b) what was the type of aircraft that they flew out on (c) what is the cost per mile of flying such an aircraft
(d)	what was the cost of the return flight?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. From the Canadian Forces Naden Band, 18 members were flown to the Hawaiian Islands on September 23, 1973, by service aircraft. This aircraft was a scheduled flight to return from Hawaii support personnel who had participated in a major Australia/Canada/U.S. exercise. The flight was not scheduled for the purpose of flying the band to Hawaii. Fifteen members returned to Victoria by commercial air on September 25, 1973, in order to join up with the remainder of the Naden band to begin a band tour scheduled for September 27, 1973. The other three members returned later by service aircraft.
2. (a) The Naden Band contingent played three engagements: September 23, 1973, A special concert; September 23, 1973, A dance for personnel from the three participating countries; September 24, 1973, A Canadian reception; (b) Boeing 707. (c) The fuel cost per mile varies considerably depending upon speed and over-all aircraft weight including fuel. The cost per mile of the Boeing 707 at current fuel price varies between 65 cents and 73 cents per mile, (d) $2,448 for the 15 members.
December 19, 1973


Mr. Dick: 1.	How many millions of gallons of gas will be required to ferry Canadian troops by air to Cairo and from what source is this petroleum to come?
2.	How many millions is it estimated will be required to keep our troops supplied while there and from what source is this petroleum to come?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) the amount of aviation fuel required to ferry the Canadian contingent to Cairo in support of the UNEF Middle East was approximately 3,230,000 gallons, (b) The sources of the fuel were as follows: Canada, approximately 880,000 gallons; Canadian Forces Europe (Lahr, Germany), approximately 1,220,000 gallons. Refueling stops at the following airports: Reykjavik, Iceland; Prestwick, Scotland; Gatwick, England; Shannon, Ireland; Nicosia, Cyprus; Cairo, Egypt. Approximately 1,130,000 gallons.
Note: The gallonage supplied at each of the above airports has not yet been determined.
2. It is not possible at this time to estimate fuel requirements since the final definition of activity and duration of Canadian troop commitment has as yet not been established.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kings-way): 1.	What are the terms of the agreement reached between Sport Canada of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Kellogg Company of Canada Limited?
2.	Do these terms include the expenditure of money by the government and/or the Kellogg Company of Canada Limited and, if so, how much by each?
3.	What is the term of this agreement?
4.	Are any other commercial products being sponsored by the Department of National Health and Welfare?
5.	What are the names of the firms involved?
Hort. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare): 1. The terms of agreement reached between the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Kellogg Company of Canada Limited, are as follows: (a) Kellogg's will procure and during the period June 1 to October 31, 1973 will distribute free of charge in every 12-16 and 24 ounce package of its corn flakes sold in Canada one "Sport Canada Sportpatches" decal, (b) At least ten million decals will be distributed in this way.
2.	The Crown paid jointly to Creative House Ltd. and Canada Decalomania $100,400 for the cost of six million decals. Kellogg's is responsible for the cost of all remaining decals. It is estimated that Kellogg's will expend over $500,000 on this program.
3.	See 1(a) above.
4.	No; the Department of National Health and Welfare does not sponsor commercial products.
Order Paper Questions
5.	(a) Canadian Decalomania; (b) Creative House Ltd.; (c) McClelland and Steward Ltd.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	By year since its inception, how many requests for statements of earnings for the Canada Pension Plan were received?
2.	How many disputes involving differences between contributors' records and CPP records occurred in the same period?
3.	How many such disputes were refused investigation by officials of CPP for reason of expiry of the four-year deadline for corrections to such statements?
4.	In how many instances were changes made to contributors' records as a result of action initiated by contributors?
5.	What percentage of these disputes involved the Quebec Pension Plan records and the CPP records?
6.	How much was spent by year since the inception of CPP on informing Canadians of the existence of the four-year deadline period?
7.	How much money has been allocated for the 1973-74 fiscal period in order to make this policy known to the public?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1.	1971 and prior, approximately 6,000; 1972,
9,453; 1973, January 1, 1973 to October 31, 1973, 10,190.
2.	Statistics are not maintained in this respect. However, should such a difference arise, it is resolved in his favour, if the contributor is in a position to provide the Canada Pension Plan with acceptable evidence of valid contributory earnings and contributions under the Plan.
3.	No records are kept in this regard. However, we have not refused to review any case where such a request has been forthcoming with suitable documentation indicating that there could be a possible discrepancy.
4.	Statistics of these changes are n jt kept. However, if satisfactory evidence of valid contributory earnings and contributions are submitted or revealed in a case review to the Canada Pension Plan, the necessary changes are made to the Record of Earnings.
5.	Statistics showing this breakdown are not maintained. If it is determined that the person making the inquiry also made contributions to the Quebec Pension Plan, steps are taken to ensure that the applicable changes are made. There is a close working relationship between the two jurisdictions to resolve problems of this nature.
6.	It is virtually impossible to separate the cost of services that could be attributed just to information concerning the four-year deadline, from general informational services provided by the Canada Pension Plan program.
7.	No specific allocation of funds has been made in this regard. The areas of general information will, of course, be maintained; the extensive network of district and local offices; the dissemination of booklets and pamphlets; the availability of staff members to explain all facets of the Canada Pension Plan legislation when further interpretation is required by individuals, groups and employers.

December 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the status of the government's consideration towards equalizing the contributions and benefits receivable and payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act and eliminating the differences based on the sex of the employee?
2.	On what date does the government expect to introduce legislation to this end as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
The government has fully considered the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women concerning equality of treatment of male and female employees under the Public Service Superannuation Act and legislative amendments are being prepared.
2. The government intends to introduce this legislation early in 1974.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 3.182-Mr. Forrestall:
Is it the intention of the Minister of National Defence to recommend that the Privy Council approve the transfer of that DND property located to the south-east of the present Rockcliffe STOL administration buildings now under construction so that planners for the National Museum of Science and Technology may proceed with plans to erect new buildings to replace the present ones which are in need of repair and replacement and, if so, on what date?
James Armstrong Richardson: No requests have been received for the transfer of property from DND for the utilization by the National Museum of Science and Technology other than three hangars at Rockcliffe Airport which were made available in May 1968 by DND to DPW for use of the National Museum of Science and Technology.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	How many students were employed in Riding Mountain National Park during the summer of 1973 (a) how were they hired and were the positions advertised (b) how many of these students were from the Province of Manitoba (c) how many of these students came from each of the other provinces?
2.	How many of these positions were processed by (a) the Office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) the Public Service Commission (c) Manpower?


James Hugh Faulkner: have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission. 1. There were 26 students employed in Riding Mountain National Park during the summer of 1973. (a) The students were hired in two ways: 11 of them were recruited on university campuses via a poster-advertised competition, and 15 were recruited from Canada Manpower Centres, (b) Of these 26 students, 21 were recruited from the province of Manitoba, (c) Insofar as students from other provinces are concerned, two were from Alberta and three were from Quebec.

2. (a) None of these positions were processed by the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That department, however, processed eight positions advertised by poster on campuses, (b) The Public Service Commission processed three of these 26 positions as part of its Career Oriented Summer Employment program. The three students were recruited on university campuses via a poster-advertised competition, (c) Canada Manpower Centres processed 15 positions.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	How many people other than students were employed for summer positions in Riding Mountain National Park in 1973 (a) how were they hired and were these positions advertised (b) how many of these employees were from the Province of Manitoba (c) how many of these employees came from each of the other provinces?
2.	How many of these positions were processed by (a) the Office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) the Public Service Commission (c) Manpower?


James Hugh Faulkner: have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission. 1. Other than students, 82 people were employed in summer positions in Riding Mountain National Park, (a) Twenty-one people were hired for the summer of 1973. The other 61 were "seasonal" employees who return each summer, (b) All of these employees, 82, were from the province of Manitoba, (c) None of these employees came from the other provinces.
2. (a) None of these positions were processed by the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That department, however, processed 61 positions, (b) None of these positions were processed by the Public Service Commission, (c) Manpower processed 21 of these positions.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by T. Chase-Casgrain, Vice-President of Export Development Corporation (salary range: $26,000-$32,500), to (a) Washington ($642) (b) Vienna, Munich, Lisbon, Amsterdam ($1,478)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Export Development Corporation states that: 1. The purposes of the trips made by T. Chase-Casgrain, Vice-President, for which he submitted travel expenses in the fiscal year 1971-72, were: (a) Washington, to attend the Annual General Meeting of the Union d'Assureurs des Credits Internationaux, and meetings with the Export-Import Bank of the United States; and (b) first, Vienna, via Munich, to attend meetings with the Osterreichische Kontrollbank and with the Trade Commissioner in Vienna, and second, Lisbon, via Amsterdam, to attend the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Union d'Assureurs des Credits Internationaux; the stop at Munich was to meet a connecting flight to Vienna, and the
December 19, 1973

stop at Amsterdam, a forced one due to airline strikes, was to meet a connecting flight to Montreal.
2. The trip mentioned in (a) above was made in May 1971, and that mentioned in (b) was made during the previous fiscal year, in the month of January 1971, but expenses were submitted during the fiscal year in question.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by V. L. Chapin, Vice-President of Export Development Corporation (salary range: $26,000-$32,500), to (a) Royan, Paris ($1,076) (b) Washington ($575) (c) Paris, Rome, Athens, UK. ($1,560) (d) New York ($245) (e) Mexico ($700) (f) Paris ($1,493) (g) London, Madrid, Athens, Rabat ($1,501) (h) London, Tel Aviv ($1,902)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Herb Breau: Export Development Corporation states that: 1. In the fiscal year 1971-72, V. L. Chapin, Vice President, made trips to (a) Royan, via Paris, to attend a course of French language; (b) Washington, as Canadian delegate to the Annual Meeting of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund; (c) Paris, for financing negotiations regarding a sale of ships to France, and the United Kingdom, for international banking discussions; he did not travel to Rome and Athens on this occasion, although he had planned to do so and received a refundable travel advance for the purpose; thus a reference to Rome and Athens in the answer to question 928 was erroneous; (d) New York, for discussions with banks and investment houses;, (e) Mexico, for negotiations with the Comision Federal de Electricidad, Nacional Financiers and private banks in Mexico regarding EDC loans; (f) Paris, as head of the Canadian delegation to the "Paris Club" meetings in connection with the Chilean debt rescheduling; (g) London, Madrid, Athens and Rabat, for discussions on financing related to the export of Canadian capital goods; and (h) London and Tel Aviv, to join the Minister of Trade and Commerce for financing talks with the government of Israel.
2. The trips mentioned in (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) above were made in July /August, September, May, May and December, 1971, respectively; and those mentioned in (e), (f) and (h) were made in January, February and January, 1972, respectively.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by L. Rowebottom of Statistics Canada (salary range: $25,000-$31,000), to Denver, Frankfurt, Addis Ababa, New York, Washington ($2,003)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?
Order Paper Questions


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: 1 and 2. The following table shows the destination, the month of the trip, and the reason for the trip, for each trip made by L. Rowebottom during the fiscal year 1971-72.
Note: These were several trips made over the year, not one continuous trip as indicated in the question.
Denver, August, To attend American Statistical Association Conference in Fort Collins; Frankfurt, February, Change planes on way to Addis Ababa; Addis Ababa, February, To represent Canada on Economic Commission of Africa meeting on Censuses; New York, November, To hold discussions with members of the Population Council; Washington, November, To discuss vital statistics problems with officials of the Bureau of the Census and the Center for Health Statistics.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by S. Goldberg of Statistics Canada (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to Washington, Princeton, New York, Sweden, Denmark ($2,159)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: 1 and 2. The following table shows the destination, the month of the trip, and the reason for the trip, for each trip made by S. A. Goldberg during the fiscal year 1971-72.
Note: These were several trips made over the year, not one continuous trip as indicated in the question.
Washington, August, To attend 38th Session of the International Statistical Institute; Princeton, November, To attend Conference on Research in Income and Wealth; New York, December, Meet with officials of the United Nations; one trip Sweden and Denmark, Aug./Sept., To attend IARIW Conference Ronneby and to visit statistical office of Sweden; August, To visit Statistical Office of Denmark.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by W. E. Duffett of Statistics Canada (salary range: $33,000-$35,000), to Washington, New Orleans, Denver, Geneva ($2,365)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: 1 and 2. The following table shows the destination, the month of the trip, and the reason for the trip, for each trip made by W. E. Duffett during the fiscal year 1971-72.

December 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Note: These were several trips made over the year, not one continuous trip as indicated in the question.
Washington, August and December, To attend 38th Session, International Statistical Institute; New Orleans, December, To attend meeting of American Economic Association; Denver, August, To attend American Statistical Association meeting, Fort Collins; Geneva, June, To attend Conference of European Statisticians.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by T. M. Burns, Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to (a) Hong Kong, Peking, Tokyo, Singapore, Canberra, Djakarta, Kuala Lumpur, London, Germany ($3,774) (b) Sweden ($1,351) (c) Williamsburg ($270) (d) Paris ($1,008) (e) Washington ($155)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Herb Breau: Destination	Amounts Purpose of Trip
Months of Trip
(a) Hong Kong Peking Tokyo
Singapore $3,774 Canberra Djakarta Kuala Lumpur
Liaison visits to Trade January and Commissioner Posts and February 1972 to attend Heads of Mission conference in Canberra
(b) London	For consultation with May 1971
Germany $1,351 German and U.K. govern-Sweden	rnent officials and to lead
a mission of Canadian Industrialists to Sweden.
(c) Williamsburg, $270 Virginia
To address a meeting of June 1971 the Associated Merchandising Managers of Allied Merchandising Corporation.
(d) Paris	$1,008	To attend Paris Air Show June 1971(e) Washington	$155	Meeting with U.S.	May 1971
officials
Destination	Purpose of Trip	Month of Trip(a) Tokyo	Ministerial Mission	January 1972(b) Algiers	Ministerial Mission	November 1971(c) Cologne Bonn Frankfurt	Ministerial Mission	April 1971(d) Cologne Bonn Frankfurt	Heading Scientific Mission	March 1971


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by M. Schwarsmann, Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (salary range: $25,000-$31,000), to (a) Paris ($1,470) (b) Paris ($1,475) (c) Paris ($1,906) (d) Tokyo ($5,056) (e) Mexico ($557) (f) Washington ($211) (g) Sydney, Canberra ($2,802)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?
Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry,	Trade and Commerce):	
Destination	Purpose of Trip	Month of Trip(a) Paris	Attending OECD meetings	February 1972(b) Paris	OECD Special Trade Group meeting	January 1972(c) Paris	Same as above	November 1971(d) Tokyo	Head of Textile negotiations	June 1971(e) Mexico	Cotton Yarn negotiations	August 1971(f) Washington	Consultations with U.S. government re Auto Agreement	July 1971(g) Sydney Canberra	To accompany the Hon. J. J. Green on a mission	April and May 1971


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by A. G. Kniewasser, Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (salary range: $12,448-$14,145), to (a) Tokyo ($1,168) (b) Algiers ($1,627) (c) Cologne, Bonn, Frankfurt ($1,262) (d) Cologne, Bonn, Frankfurt ($2,048)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Herb Breau: 


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by J. H. Warren, Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to (a) Washington ($95) (b) Hong Kong ($2,096) (c) USSR ($110)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Herb Breau: December 19, 1973

Destination	Purpose of Trip
(a) Washington	Accompany Hon. Messrs.
Benson and Pepin
Month of Trip August 1971
(b) Hong Kong
To accompany Minister, June and .July 1971 IT & C on Economic Mission
(c) U.S.S.R. To accompany Prime
Minister on official visit
May 1971
Order Paper Questions
Geneva to attend the International Wheat Conference, (c) To attend the Agricultural Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting in Paris, (d) To conduct a study of the Agricultural Assistance Projects in Tunisia, (e) To attend, as a delegate, the Food and Agriculture Organization Meeting in Rome.
2. (a) December 1971. (b) January 1971 (1970-71 fiscal year), (c) May 1971. (d) October, November 1971. (e) November 1971.
PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY deMONTIGNY MARCHAND, ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1971-72


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by deMontigny Marchand, Assistant Deputy Minister of Communications (salary range: $28,000-$35,000) to Washington ($481)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1. To attend the third Plenary Conference of Intelsat.
2. May, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by A. E. Gotlieb, Deputy Minister of Communications (salary range: $34,000-$40,000) to (a) Geneva ($1,598.23) (b) Washington ($206) (c) Paris ($1,394) (d) Washington ($84)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. (a) To attend Space World Administrative Radio Communications meeting in Geneva, (b) Signing of Intelsat Agreement, Washington, (c) To attend UNESCO Conference in Paris and official visits in London, (d) To meet U.S. officials to discuss U.S./Canada communications.
2.	(a) June, 1971.	(b) August, 1971.	(c) October
30-November 7, 1971. (d) November 22-24, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by R. P. Poirier, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture (salary range $28,000-$35,000) to (a) Moscow ($65.04) (b) Paris ($255.94) (c) Paris ($360.06) (d) Tunisia ($358.97) (e) Rome ($324.87)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The
purposes of the trips made by R. P. Poirier, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture, are as follows: (a) To attend as a delegate, the Canadian Mission on Agriculture to Moscow, (b) To attend the Agricultural Committee of the Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting, in Paris. The cost includes a trip to


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by Mr. S. B. Williams, Deputy Minister of Agriculture (salary range: $37,500-$42,000), to (a) Washington ($53.40) (b) China ($95.50) (c) Paris, Rome, Israel ($617.24)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
purposes of the trips made by Mr. S. B. Williams, Deputy Minister of Agriculture are as follows: (a) To accompany the minister, for discussions with the Secretary of Agriculture and other United States Department of Agriculture officials in Washington, (b) Economic Mission to China, (c) Paris; to attend the High Level meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Rome; to attend the Food and Agriculture Committee Meetings. Israel; to accompany the minister to inspect agricultural practices, including irrigation, on the invitation of the Israeli government, including discussions on matters of mutual interest between the Israeli Minister of Agriculture and department officials.
2. (a) June, July 1971. (b) August 1971. (c) November 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by W. E. Jarvis, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to Paris ($583.20)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
purpose of the trip made by W. E. Jarvis, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture was to attend the Centre National Des Exposition et Concours Agricole International Symposium, in Paris. The cost includes a trip to Geneva to attend the Agriculture Committee of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade.
2. February, March, 1972.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by A. Fortier, Assistant Under Secretary of State (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to (a) Paris ($1,149) (b) New York ($163)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?

December 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions


James Hugh Faulkner: Trips made by A. Fortier when he was Assistant Under Secretary of State: (a) Paris ($1,149)-To attend meetings of the International Council of the French Language and of the Joint Commission, and to meet people involved in cultural fields, September and October, 1971; (b) New York ($163)-Meeting with Lou Harris & Associates-to develop a research program for the arts, March, 1972.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by E. A. Cote, Deputy Solicitor General (salary range: $37,500-$40,000), to (a) Washington ($154) (b) Mexico ($414) (c) Ivory Coast ($1,545)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) To
attend Tripartite Conference on Narcotic Control; Cana-da-Mexico-U.S.A. (b) To attend Tripartite Conference on Narcotic Control; Canada-Mexico-U.S.A. (c) To attend a Seminar on the Scientific Methods Used in the Search for Truth, in Abidjan, January 10-16, 1972.
2. (a) October 1971, (b) March 1972, (c) January 1972.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What percentage of persons in receipt of Public Service Superannuation are eligible for benefit under the Public Service Supplementary Retirement Benefit Act as of November 30, 1973 (a) including those affected by recent changes in relevant legislation (b) excluding those newly brought under the legislation?
2.	What are the absolute figures for the above?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
All persons in receipt of pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act are eligible for benefits under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. Payment of these benefits begins on the January 1 following the year of retirement or, in the case of death before retirement, payment of widows' and children's benefits begins on the January 1 following the year of death. The recent amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act did not change the eligibility of such persons but will increase the size of their benefits effective January 1, 1974.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Godin: Since the government pays half of all welfare allowances, what is its share when provincial governments recover overpayments due to fraud or error?


Marc Lalonde: When the provincial governments recover overpayments caused by fraud or administrative error, 50 per cent of such recoveries are credited to Canada by means of a credit entry in the next monthly claim statement.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): For what reason or reasons does the government not intend to take any action to apply in Canada the rules applied to the BBC and independent television in Great Britain establishing a category of free-time ministerial announcements to which there is a formal right of reply by the opposition?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: The Broadcasting Act requires that the programming of the Canadian broadcasting system should, amongst other things, provide reasonable balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern. Generally, broadcasters seem to adhere in their programming to this general requirement of the act. A specific rule such as that referred to did not appear to be required when the Broadcasting Act was passed in 1968. In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: Broadcasting policy for Canada as set out in Part I of the Broadcasting Act requires that programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should provide reasonable balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern. For example, it is the practice of the CBC, the national broadcasting service, to provide access for matters of urgent importance to the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces. Should these broadcasts be viewed as not non-partisan, the CBC reserves the right to offer the combined opposition the right of reply. Opposition parties have the right to demand this free time of the CBC should it, for some reason, not be offered. The government, therefore, does not see any need to impose specific rules such as those referred to in the question.
ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS Nos. 2,316, 2,598, 2,599, 2,600, 2,601


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to Questions Nos. 2,316, 2,598, 2,599, 2,600 and 2,601, on what exact date and time were these received by the Privy Council Office, who received them, what are the names and job designations of those to whom they were assigned for the purpose of compiling answers, has the Privy Council Office at any time attempted to expedite the answers and, if so, on what specific dates?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: See reply to Question No. 3,366 relative to the Parliamentary Enquiries and Co-ordination Division of the P.C.O. Question No. 2,316 was referred to the appropriate official in the P.C.O. by the Parliamentary Enquiries and Co-ordination Division on June 21, 1973. The time frame in which questions are answered varies depending on workload, time involved in compiling statistics, research, etc. In each instance an endeavour is made to answer questions as expeditiously as possible. However, one must bear in mind that questions are an addition to the usual workload of divisions and sections and there are times when other duties devolving on officers responsible take priority. Questions Nos. 2,598, 2,599 and 2,600 required statistical information from D.P.W. and/or N.C.C. Question No. 2,601 required information from D.P.W., N.C.C. and P.C.O.
December 19, 1973


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What is the breakdown of Members of the Canadian Pension Commission by regions represented by province?
2.	Is there a Member of the Canadian Pension Commission representing any of the Atlantic Provinces and, if not, what is the reason for such discrimination?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Members of the Canadian Pension Commission are not appointed to represent particular regions or provinces. At the time of appointment, the domicile of commissioners and ad hoc commissioners was as shown below: Nova Scotia, 2; New Brunswick, 1; Quebec, 4; Ontario, 12; Manitoba, 1; Alberta, 1; British Columbia, 2. There is one vacancy at the present time.
2. There are three members of the Canadian Pension Commission who were domiciled in the Atlantic provinces at the time of their appointment.


Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the budget allotted by the government to the Company of Young Canadians for 1973?
2.	Among how many employees is this amount allocated (a) throughout the country (b) in the Province of Quebec?
3.	Where is the headquarters of the Company located?
4.	In what cities does it operate?
5.	In each location, what work has been accomplished by such employees?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1.	$2,803,000.
2.	(a) 209; (b) 103.
3.	323 Chapel Street, Ottawa, Ontario KIN 7Z2.
4 and 5. This information is contained in the CYC report entitled "Strategies".


Mr. Marshall: Under the War Veterans Allowances Act and Civilian War Allowances Act whereby a male veteran if married can qualify for the married rate of allowance, even though the wife is not a veteran, can a female veteran if married and where the husband is not a veteran qualify for the married rate and, if not, for what reason is this practice allowed to prevail?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, a female veteran if married, even where her husband is not a veteran may qualify for the married rate of War Veterans Allowances.
Order Paper Questions



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How much money was expended in 1972 (a) by ministers (b) by each minister of the government for travelling while on official business?
2.	How much money was expended during September and October, 1972 (a) by ministers (b) by each minister of the government for travelling while on official business?
Return tabled.



COST TO CANADIAN TAXPAYER OF TRIPS MADE BY THE PRIME MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS AND THEIR AIDES

Mr. Masniuk: What was the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer for trips made inside and outside of Canada by (a) the Prime Minister and his aides (b) all Cabinet Ministers and their aides, by each department, during the period September 1 to October 30, 1972?
Return tabled.



TRAVEL EXPENSES OF EMPLOYEES ON MINISTERIAL STAFF, 1971-72

Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of employees on the ministerial staff (including the Office of the Prime Minister) who, in the fiscal year 1971-72, submitted travel expenses?
2.	In each case, what were the amounts of travel expenses, what were the destinations, and what were the salary ranges of these employees?
Return tabled.



TRAJECTOIRE 73, PARIS, FRANCE-CANADIAN ART

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How were the pieces of art chosen for exhibit at Trajectoire 73 in Paris, France?
2.	What were the (a) names (b) addresses (c) positions held by the selection committee?
3.	In each case, what was the cost involved for such selection committee for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) meals (d) per diem expenses (e) other expenses?
4.	Who bore the cost of these expenses?
5.	How many pieces of art were chosen and from what locations in Canada?
6.	Did the selection committee visit each province of Canada?
7.	Did the selection committee (a) buy (b) lease (c) financially compensate any individual artist or any agency in respect of the art work chosen and, if so, in what amount in each case?
8.	Was Canada officially invited to participate in Trajectoire 73 and, if so (a) by whom (b) on what terms and conditions (c) on what date?
Return tabled.



TRAJECTOIRE 73-NAMES OF CANADA COUNCIL OFFICIALS AND ARTISTS ATTENDING

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many officials of the Canada Council (a) went (b) are going to Paris for Trajectoire 73?
2.	What are the (a) names (b) present positions held (c) salaries of each official either attending or planning to attend?

December 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	What, in each case, is the cost involved for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) meals (d) per diem expenses?
4.	Are the spouses and/or families of each of those officials accompanying them in Paris and, if so, at what cost in each case?
5.	How many pieces of art (a) went (b) are going to Paris at government expense for Trajectoire 73?
6.	What was the cost involved for (a) gathering (b) handling (c) shipping (d) storage (e) insurance for Canadian exhibits at Trajectoire 73?
7.	How many artists (a) went (b) are going to Paris for Trajectoire 73 at government expense?
8.	What are the (a) names (b) addresses (c) work exhibited of each artist attending Trajectoire 73 at government expense?
9.	What, in each case, is the cost involved for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) meals (d) per diem expenses?
10.	Are the spouses and/or families of such artists accompanying them in Paris and, if so, at what cost in each case?
11.	What government departments or agencies are bearing the costs involved and in what amount in each case?
Return tabled.



RENOVATION OF PRIME MINISTER'S CENTRE BLOCK OFFICES

Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date were the present renovations of the Prime Minister's Centre Block suite of offices undertaken and under what authority and what department's responsibility?
2.	Were outside interior decorators involved in the planned renovations and redecoration of the suite of offices and, if so (a) what was the name of the individual or firm involved (b) how was it selected (c) what was the payment for the plan in question (d) were any other costs involved in the plan, other than those monies already paid for services rendered?
3.	What was the total yardage of carpeting involved in the redecoration, what was the type, color and cost of such carpeting and was it secured through public tenders and (a) if so, what were the names of the firms submitting bids, the quotations of each and was the lowest bid accepted (b) if not, for what reason?
4.	(a) What is the material covering the chesterfields that are situated in the hallway surrounding the Prime Minister's office (b) what was the cost of the chesterfields (c) how many are there and were tenders called for the supply of the chesterfields and, if so, what were the names of all of the firms submitting bids, the quotations and was the lowest tender accepted?
5.	(a) What are the other items of furniture that are located with the furniture in the hallway surrounding the Prime Minister's suite of offices, by item (b) the cost of each item, whether it be an ash tray or an Eskimo art carving (c) how were these items secured, was tendering involved and, if so, what was the cost of each item and the name of the firm supplying same?
6.	Has the interior of all the Prime Minister's offices been redecorated and, if so, what portion of the total cost of the redecoration is apportioned to the offices as compared with that portion which is located in the hallway?
7.	What new furnishings have been provided for the offices, by item and what has been done with the furniture that was formerly located in these offices?
Return tabled.



LIVESTOCK IMPORT PERMITS

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1. What was (a) the name (b) the regular occupation of each individual or company granted an import permit for the importation of livestock from continental Europe in each of the past four years?

2.	In the case of each such individual or company how many permits were (a) requested (b) granted?
3.	What was (a) the name (b) the regular occupation of each individual or company which has unsuccessfully requested import permits for the importation of livestock from continental Europe in each of the past four years?
Return tabled.



EXPENDITURES BY GOVERNMENT ON CONTENTS AT PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL RESIDENCE

Mr. Cossitt: Were any sums of money spent by the government on furniture, fittings, fixtures or contents of any kind whatsoever since April 30, 1968 at the Prime Minister's official residence in Ottawa and, if so (a) what are the individual items involved (b) what was the cost in each case?
Return tabled.



COST TO GOVERNMENT OF PRIME MINISTER'S SUMMER RESIDENCE AT HARRINGTON LAKE

Mr. Cossitt: What has been the total cost to the government for all aspects of the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake for each fiscal year since March 31, 1968?
Return tabled.



TOTAL COST OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL RESIDENCE SINCE MARCH 31, 1968

Mr. Cossitt: What has been the total cost to the government for all aspects of the Prime Minister's official residence in Ottawa for each fiscal year since March 31, 1968?
Return tabled.



SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	How many Search and Rescue operations were conducted in each year 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1971 and 1972 (a) south (b) north of the 60th parallel?
2.	What are the points of origin of Search and Rescue operations into areas north of the 60th parallel?
3.	If there is not a Search and Rescue unit located permanently in a location north of the 60th parallel, for what reason?
Return tabled.



STATISTICS CANADA-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by Statistics Canada on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
December 19, 1973

Returns tabled.



CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Canadian Transport Commission on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



PERSONNEL OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names of all persons employed by, attached to, on loan to, or in any way associated with, the Prime Minister's Office as of this date?
2.	In each case, what is their specific function, on what date were they hired, what is their annual salary and what previous positions, if any, did they hold in government service?
3.	Are there any plans to enlarge the size of the staff of the Prime Minister's Office during the next year and, if so, in the opinion of the government, what are the reasons that make such a step necessary?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS IN CONSTITUENCY OF ABITIBI, 1972-73

Mr. Laprise: 1.	What works were performed by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Abitibi in 1972-73?
2.	What works does the Department intend to undertake in that constituency during the fiscal year 1973-74?
Return tabled.



CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS

Mr. Gleave: 1.	What was the total amount of money available in Canada for Canada Council grants?
2.	How much money was made available to (a) Manitoba (b) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta?
3.	How many applications were received from (a) Manitoba (b) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta?
4.	How much was made available to each constituency (a) Assiniboia (b) Battleford-Kindersley (c) Mackenzie (d) Meadow Lake (e) Moose Jaw (f) Prince Albert (g) Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (h) Regina East (i) Regina-Lake Centre (j) Saskatoon-Biggar (k) Saskatoon-Humboldt (1) Swift Current-Maple Creek (m) Yorkton-Melville?
Motions for Papers
Return tabled.



PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY H. T. AIKEN, PRESIDENT OF EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 1971-72

Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by H. T. Aiken, President of Export Development Corporation (salary range: $31,500-$37,500), to New York, Washington, U.K., Monaco, Algeria ($4,849)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 266 is acceptable to the government.



COPY OF CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT BY GOVERNMENT AND EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT LTD., WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 266-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the contractual arrangements between Evergreen Development Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba and the government or any of its departments or agencies.
Motion agreed to.
COPY OF ENGINEERS' REPORTS RELATING TO REHABILITATION AND/OR RECONSTRUCTION OF CAVE AND BASIN, BANFF
Motion No. 260-Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all engineers' reports concerning the costs of, and need for, rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of the Cave and Basin at Banff.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 260 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the conditions and reservations mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 260 be deemed to be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 19, 1973


Mr. Stanfield:: As the bill provides powers to the government for mandatory allocation only in the event of a national emergency, and since the minister is not prepared to say there is a national emergency, how does he propose to deal with these particular cases of shortage, for example, of bunker fuel in the instance of British Columbia, since there is nothing in this bill anyway which would give the minister power, short of a declaration of an emergency which the minister is not prepared to say exists?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition, however belated, of the Leader of the Opposition that the procrastination of himself and his colleagues has been causing serious harm to various parts of Canada, particularly the lower mainland of British Columbia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister chose to level an accusation at me instead of answering my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I assert that the minister is not prepared to say that there is a state of national emergency within the meaning of the bill, that there are no powers within the bill short of a declaration of such emergency, and I want to know, sir, how in those circumstances the minister proposes to deal with these important but local difficulties when the minister is not prepared to say that conditions exist which will enable him to invoke these powers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions
[ English]



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE OVER LAST THREE YEARS RELATING TO DRUG ADVERTISING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 239-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House to issue for a copy of all correspondence between individual doctors and/or provincial or federal medical organizations and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and/or officials of his Department, related to drug advertising in the past three years.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not acceptable to the government in that the material requested is of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped? Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it the position of the minister that there now exists a national emergency within the meaning of clause II of Bill C-236, relating to the mandatory allocation of oil supplies in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can comment on a bill which is now before a committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated to the committee, we anticipate that there is a possibility of an emergency occurring during the course of the current winter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister to answer my question whether it is the position of the minister that a national emergency now exists within the meaning of that section?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, certainly grievous difficulty is being caused in many parts of the country by the shortage of supplies which, in the absence of this legislation, the government is not in a position to correct.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I see a guilty conscience showing there. The bill provides for the creation of an energy supplies allocation board which will have the specific responsibility of examining the situation as it exists in the country and advising the government. My first step, once given the authority, would be to constitute the board and ask it to make an up to date report on all complaints received from hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Kent-Essex and the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte, to see whether in fact such a declaration should be made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition, then try to complete the first round of questioning, and then return to this important and interesting subject for supplementaries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please!


Mr. Hees:: Quiet, you barbarians!
December 19, 1973


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have ascertained what I wish to know. I have confirmed that there are no powers until an emergency is declared, and the minister is not prepared to say that this state exists today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brant. May we have order, please. These exchanges across the floor make it very difficult for the hon. member who has the floor to put his question and for others to hear him.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the question I asked the Minister of Justice on Monday. As Bill 274 has now passed second reading in the Ontario legislature and as sections of the bill are contrary to civil liberties, to be precise, forced labour, is the minister now in a position to recommend the disallowance of this provincial legislation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question is clearly in its terms hypothetical since disallowance can hardly apply at this stage. It is the general position of the government that the power of disallowance is a rather extraordinary one to be used in special circumstances. The ordinary remedy for dealing with laws of the provinces lies in the political processes in the provinces.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Has the minister been in contact with his provincial counterpart with respect to the legality of Bill 274?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.

[ Transla tion]


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Can he tell us if the Ontario government made him a request like the one from the Quebec government concerning the reimbursement of part of the funds used by the RCMP, since Quebec and Ontario have their own police force?


William Warren Allmand: No, they have not, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Has the minister advised the Quebec Minister of Justice to integrate the Quebec Police Force into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, thus allowing the province to get back the $362 million requested from the federal government?
[ English]


William Warren Allmand: No, I did not, Mr. Speaker.


OIL-SUGGESTED INVOKING OF CERTAIN STATUTES TO MAKE ALLOCATIONS IN CASES OF SHORT SUPPLY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce supplementary to that asked by my leader. I would ask the minister why he and the government have not invoked the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act, the National Energy Board Act and the authority of the Calafoil case which was decided by the Federal Court of Canada, to distribute and allocate in cases of shortages of particular commodities, which these acts and that litigation give the government the authority to do?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will find-


Some hon. Members:: Gillespie, Gillespie!


Mr. Fairweather:: We want the other minister to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will find that there is no such authority in the Export and Import Permits Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister improve his very scanty knowledge of law by consulting his legal advisers? Under the authority of the Calafoil case there is such authority but this government does not have the guts to act on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OIL-NATIONAL SURVEY TO DETERMINE WHERE SHORTAGES EXIST-MAGNITUDE OF SHORTFALL
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister undertaken a national survey to determine where local energy supply problems exist and what the magnitude of these regional supply difficulties is? If so, can he give the details of his findings?

December 19, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board, in conjunction with the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply, has been examining the situation very closely. The hon. member will recall I gave a number of details in committee last night. I would be glad to expand on that.


William Gordon Ritchie: What immediate specific steps has the government taken, and what action has the National Energy Board taken to use its considerable persuasive powers to solve local problems?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have given a number of examples of this, for example, in response to the hon. member for Temiscamingue. However, in a fair number of instances persuasion is not enough for private parties which, subject to a change in the law, have no obligation to do what the board requests.


ASSESSMENT OF RESERVES OF CRUDE PETROLEUM- SUFFICIENCY TO MEET DOMESTIC NEEDS AND EXPORT COMMITMENTS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary arising out of the minister's recent answer. Has the federal government or the National Energy Board assessed our present reserves of crude petroleum in Canada, and have we enough for Canada's total needs and to fulfil any export commitments we have made to date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the board has specifically delivered decisions in this regard, which were discussed very thoroughly in the standing committee. Of course, any export of petroleum which takes place on a month to month basis can only be made if the board is satisfied there is a surplus to Canadian requirements.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will be forthright in this respect and tell us now whether, from reports of the National Energy Board, there is a sufficient supply and surplus of crude petroleum not only to supply Canada's needs-that is, our total needs everywhere- provided there is transportation but to fulfil any export commitments at this time. Surely that question is clear and we can have a yes or no answer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, surely the answer is perfectly clear. There would have been no exports this month if the board had not been satisfied in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Portneuf wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Godin:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will see him in a few moments, after having heard some other supplementary questions.


ACTION TO ENSURE SAVINGS ON WESTERN OIL USED IN EASTERN CANADA PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the minister's statement in committee last night that five million barrels of western Canadian crude oil have already been shipped to eastern Canada and that another seven million barrels will have been shipped via the Panama Canal by the end of the first quarter of 1974, what policing mechanism has the government instituted to ensure that the savings of over $25 million in lower priced Canadian crude used by eastern refineries will be passed on to the consumer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to shipments made through the seaway there is the possibility of lower cost. This would be taken into account in any cost increases the companies sought to pass on. With regard to shipments through the Panama Canal, the estimated average freight per barrel is around $3 which at the present time would not indicate very much advantage in terms of cost savings.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE OIL PRODUCT PRICES IN EASTERN CANADA WILL NOT RISE THIS WINTER
Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the announcement by OPEC that oil prices will go up on January 1, will the minister guarantee that prices of oil products will not rise in eastern Canada during the winter season?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's question. I cannot guarantee, if there are substantial cost increases in the eastern part of the market, that prices will not go up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South and then the hon. member for Portneuf.


OIL-WILLINGNESS OF CANADA TO SHARE IN SHORTAGES IN OECD COUNTRIES
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister indicate to the House if the chairman of the National Energy Board is visiting Paris as the head of the Canadian delegation to the OECD oil committee and, if so, what mandate has the government given to the chairman for this visit? Will the minister say specifically whether Canada will indicate a willingness to share in OECD shortages and to what extent?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the chairman will be participating as a member of the Canadian delegation there. It is very possible that in conjunction with the discussion of the current situation there may be discussion of the possible allocation of supplies to other members of OECD
December 19, 1973

who may be in short supply. Canada, of course, would be as co-operative as our situation would permit in those circumstances.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Is the minister prepared to seek parliamentary approval for any shortfall Canada may be asked to share by the OECD before Canada makes such a commitment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that into consideration. However, it seems to me that kind of co-operative action is something that would remain within the prerogative of the government.
Oral Questions
committee on petroleum supply and demand to reassess the projected 200,000 barrels per day shortfall having regard to the fact that 65,000 barrels per day are now coming into eastern Canada from the Trans Mountain Pipe Line and having further regard to the fact that 50,000 barrels per day are expected from the Shaheen refinery?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I specifically had the opportunity of meeting with the technical advisory committee yesterday. They recommended that the government seek the authority to carry out mandatory allocation as requested in the bill.
[ Transla tion]


AIRPORTS
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the recent contract for snow removal at the Quebec City airport.
Is the minister aware that officials of his department have called for two kinds of tenders, that is public tenders through newspapers and private ones by telephone? If so, can he explain how the highest bidder managed to obtain the contract.


An hon. Member:: By telephone!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that this question should be put on the order paper or considered on the adjournment motion tomorrow night.
* *
*


OIL-AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE SHORTFALL THIS WINTER ABORTION   SUGGESTED LEGISLATION TO ENABLE GRANTS TO GROUPS WISHING TO COUNSEL PEOPLE ON POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I gave him notice of it prior to the question period. In light of the minister's recent admission that while the federal government gives money to groups facilitating the obtaining of abortions under the present very liberal law but has no program to fund groups seeking to counsel people on the positive alternatives to abortion, will the minister tell the House whether the government is prepared to introduce legislation that will allow the granting of funds to groups seeking to reduce the horrendous figure of some 40,000 abortions in this country each year by counselling people on the positive alternatives?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would not in my answer like to appear to endorse the premise of the hon. member's question. However, I have already indicated to him that I am reviewing the whole aspect of financing in this area at the present time and I will be in touch with some of the organizations concerned in the near future.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the answer the minister gave to the last question on this subject, has he reassessed the projected shortfall of oil this winter which he indicated previously to the House might amount to some 200,000 barrels a day? If so, has this figure been raised upward or downward?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I referred at some length to this question in the committee last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be allowed a supplementary following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: In view of the minister's generosity to the committee, is he now prepared to inform the House whether he has asked the government's technical advisory


OIL-SCOPE OF SUPPLY ALLOCATION BILL-REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Scarborough East. It follows on the minister's answer that the technical advisory committee advocated compulsory allocation. Having regard to Mr. Stabback's statement last night that members of the technical advisory committee are not at all unanimous in their views as to the scope of the bill, will the minister specify the nature of the criticism of the scope of the bill and will he consider reducing the scope of this bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will be allowed to reply briefly to the hon. member's supplementary ques-

December 19, 1973
Oral Questions
tion, but I hope hon. members will make an effort not to bring into their questions the proceedings which are before the committee. I think the question was asked in an irregular way. The hon. member cannot refer to proceedings which are currently before the committee and base his question on those proceedings. The question might be asked directly without reference to any proceedings outside the House.


Harvie Andre: In that case I ask whether the minister will consider reducing the scope of this bill so as to cover allocation and supervision, and possibly provide a time limit?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member has precise suggestions to make in this regard, I would be glad to hear them in the committee. We can, of course, make amendments there,


Mr. Bell:: There is lots of time.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Are his purchasing criteria designed to give preference to Canadian products manufactured and distributed in Canada by Canadian companies?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is an important consideration in the assessment of contracts.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If those are the criteria, can the minister tell us what formula he is using or plans to use?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we would really have to make a policy statement and I do not think that it would be proper to do it now. In short, it is not possible to answer such a complicated question.


FINANCE
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Since the Auditor General has drawn attention to the use of special warrants involving several millions of dollars in circumstances where the public good did not urgently require it, can the minister inform us whether he is considering a change in the legislation, in particular

amendments to the Public Administration Act and the Appropriations Act, to ensure that funds spent will have the authority of parliament behind them?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker,


William George Knight: Since the Auditor General has proposed to the Parliament of Canada that he be given authority to carry out efficiency studies of the administration of the various departments of government as part of his duties, which would be of great assistance to individual members of parliament in reviewing public expenditures-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


William George Knight: -can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether he is prepared to allow the authority of the Auditor General to be extended in this way to ensure individual members of parliament the right to examine the books closely?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Auditor General has proposed-and the public accounts committee concurred in his proposal-that a study committee be established to make recommendations to parliament as to precisely what his powers should be. I am heartily in favour of this study being made and of being guided by its conclusions. I do not believe, however, the Auditor General has proposed that he be made responsible for efficiency reports.


REQUEST THAT INCREASE IN IMPORT DUTY ON WORK BOOTS AND SHOES FROM SOCIALIST BLOC COUNTRIES BE POSTPONED
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that immediate implementation of an upward valuation for duty purposes of work boots and shoes from socialist bloc countries will result in an increase of about $5 a pair at the retail level, will the minister, as a small contribution toward the containment of inflation, agree to postpone the proposed increase for a few months?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am not sure I can give that undertaking but I will take the matter under advisement. I might add that I shall have more to say about the footwear industry of Canada later this week.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Since a 25 per cent increase in the price of work boots is inconsistent with any sensible industrial strategy, would the minister make an early announcement to the House that he has agreed to postpone this increase.


Alastair William Gillespie: I think I have already answered that question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: One final supplementary. It is very simple. Will the minister guarantee an adequate supply of work boots at reasonable prices so that the working people of
December 19, 1973

Canada can put the boots to the government when the election is held?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member has overworked this subject, Mr. Speaker.


AMOUNT OF WESTERN OIL THAT CAN BE MOVED OVERLAND TO EASTERN CANADA THIS WINTER
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from the recommendation of the government's technical advisory committee that "the movement of crude oil by unit train from Ontario to Quebec cannot be implemented this winter because of the time required to design and construct suitable and safe loading and unloading facilities". Would the minister tell us on what basis he is confident that 40,000 to 60,000 barrels a day can be moved overland this winter, which was the estimate he gave this House on November 28?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The earlier figure was suggested to me by the committee. It has now revised this estimate, noting that additional facilities would need to be constructed in order to achieve that level of movement by rail.


William Herbert Jarvis: Noting that the St. Lawrence Seaway is to close tomorrow, would the minister tell us what immediate steps the government is planning with a view to increasing the movement of oil overland?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A certain amount of oil can
be moved by truck, but as the report indicates there is not sufficient capacity to move by rail within the next four months the volumes we have been talking about.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
An Air Gaspe aircraft was involved in an accident December 17 in Gaspe. This aircraft was coming in from the Magdalen Islands.
Several passengers, most of them islanders, suffered serious injuries. Can the minister say whether his department has undertaken an investigation into the cause of this accident?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, investigators have immediately gone on the site to find out the cause of this unfortunate accident.
Oral Questions FINANCE


GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESSES-REQUEST THAT MAXIMUM BE INCREASED
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the higher cost of materials and equipment in the industry, does the minister intend to act so as to enable chartered banks to increase the $25,000 maximum on loans to small businesses?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is a most interesting suggestion.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Since industrialists are screaming for such services, can the minister say what is the obstacle to an increase in the $25,000 maximum for these loans? I think that it would be a great service to the industry. I ask the minister whether he can act directly and as soon as possible.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will consider all the aspects of the question.


MOVEMENT OF OIL FROM WEST COAST-ALLOCATION OF DOCK SPACE AT VANCOUVER
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from the statement by the minister that the government requires legislative means to deal with the allocation of dock space at the Vancouver terminal of Trans Mountain Pipe Line. I quote the minister: "Allocation of dock space is required at the Vancouver terminal of Trans Mountain Pipe Line for shipments to eastern Canada in a situation where available space appears to be overnominated"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question instead of quoting a statement at length?


John Douglas Reynolds: I just wanted to make sure the minister knew what he said yesterday. Is the minister aware that no tankers are tied up at the Vancouver terminal today? Also, has he been made aware by the port manager of Vancouver harbour that no dock space shortages are apparent?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is contrary to the information I have received from the oil companies which are attempting to transport the oil.


John Douglas Reynolds: Would the minister contact the port manager at Vancouver, who was formerly a Liberal, and find out what are the true facts in regard to Vancouver harbour?

December 19, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will follow that up, but it is contrary to the information received from the shipping companies.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the hon. member for Temiscamingue asked the minister a question about air charter and other air traffic agreements and the minister replied that the bilateral agreements had been initialed. Would the minister reveal to the House the details of how charter traffic is to be shared between the United States and Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be phased in over a period of a few years. For the first two years, I think, the Americans will be entitled to 10 per cent of the traffic to Florida and 10 per cent to Hawaii, with an average for all the other sun spots of, say, 15 per cent. For the two following years it will be 20 per cent to Florida and 20 per cent to Hawaii, with an average of 25 per cent. From 1978 on it will be 25 per cent for each of Florida and Hawaii, and I think a 35 per cent average.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in view of the complexity of the agreements and their long-range effects, would the minister be agreeable, particularly in light of the fact that the United States government has to ratify the agreements, to refer the subject of these bilateral air agreements, and especially the charter arrangements, to the transport committee at an early date?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as it is signed I can refer it to the committee, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a further supplementary, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is fairly simple. In the one case the United States government, which means its legislators-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was about to ask whether the minister would be prepared to do this prior to ratification by the cabinet and the United States government.


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it has ever been done in the past. We may be right or wrong in signing the agreement, and if it is not a good agreement we can be criticized. But I do not see how we can negotiate with a foreign country, reach an agreement, then refer it to a committee and then the committee says it does not agree with the agreement. In such circumstances it would be useless to enter into negotiations with any country in the world.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the continuing, long delay in the processing of applications for pensions, and the fact that many veterans will pass away before their applications are considered, does the minister propose to seek additional personnel and resources to speed up the processing of these applications, thereby alleviating the hardships that many of these veterans are presently undergoing through the effects of inflation?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report that the processing of applications has been speeded up considerably in my department. We have taken on additional staff, commissioners, and so on. I should like to inform the House that it takes some time for people to learn to cope with medical problems and with the legislation, but we have added some back-up staff which has just about completed its work. Pretty soon I shall be able to report to the House of Commons on the situation. But we are progressing quite well.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Would the minister advise whether his department is catching up on the backlog, and can he say why those who made application several years ago are still waiting? They are between 70 and 80 years of age now.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when put in those terms it does not sound very cheerful. Many of our applicants are now on pension. The 1971 legislation which was brought in by the previous government encouraged many veterans to reapply. As a result, the process is a long one; but the backlog is being decreased.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE OIL SUPPLIES TO EASTERN CANADA AT LOWER THAN INTERNATIONAL PRICE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe the minister said that the long-term thrust is to secure for Canadian industry oil and petroleum products that flow from oil at a price lower than the international price. Having regard to the fact that Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are now paying international prices for oil, what short-term industrial strategy does the minister have to implement the long-term objective of the government?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should put the question in balance. For some years Quebec and the maritime provinces have had the advantage of a lower oil price than the rest of Canada. It may take some years until we have reached full self-sufficiency.
December 19, 1973


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Does the government have a short-term industrial strategy aimed at lowering domestic oil prices?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has pointed out that, as far as the Maritimes are concerned, there are more sources of energy than oil. He announced the federal government's participation in a nuclear power generating facility.

[ Translation]


STEPS TO OVERCOME SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN IN EASTERN CANADA-PRICE LEVEL
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Since feed grain reserves are now at the 430,000 bushels level in Quebec, while at this date last year they reached 3 million bushels, can the minister assure the House and eastern Canada farmers that the latter will not endure a feed grain shortage in the near future and that they will not be subject to a price increase?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting only last Monday of the various persons interested in the movement of grain. Steps are being taken to ensure that the rail movement of grain that will be needed to augment supplies this winter will be carried out efficiently and will bring the supplies most critically needed to the right place as quickly as possible. There are, of course, adequate supplies in the west, and with the new feed grains policy there is the assurance that the same feed grain prices will apply all across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe on a supplementary.

The hon. member may ask a supplementary question, but the oral question period is just about expired. I will then recognize the hon. member for Levis.

Then the Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister.
What action has the minister taken to assure eastern Canada of a stepped-up supply before the St. Lawrence Seaway closes?
[ English]


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, grain movement through the Lakehead and the Seaway were given very special attention to the point when the Seaway closed, and as well will be given attention so long as boats are able to move
Oral Questions
through the lakes. In addition, rail movement will be augmented this year and will no doubt be larger both for domestic and export purposes than was the case in previous years.


HARBOURS
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Since he indicated the government was considering guaranteeing a loan to the Maritime Employees' Association with respect to financial help for the port in Montreal, can the minister say if similar financial aid will be given to other ports in Canada?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. I think this problem applies only to those ports in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City. The only other help will be with respect to the port of Halifax that will be receiving this year a grant of $1 million for its operating expenditures and that is the only port to receive such attention from the federal government.


ALLOCATION OF OIL SUPPLIES-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO MEET CONDITIONS NOT CONSTITUTING NATIONAL EMERGENCY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask the minister whether he is contemplating the introduction of legislation which would authorize the government, or some agency of the government, to allocate oil supplies under conditions that do not constitute a national emergency within the meaning of clause 11 of the bill where there are difficult particular or local situations that cannot be satisfied and met by voluntary persuasion. Does the minister contemplate filing that vacuum in terms of legislation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will know, the constitutional jurisdiction of the government can only extend in the case of an emergency. We would, of course, have to have an emergency to find a constitutional base in that regard. The purpose would be that with widespread national evidence of the effects of disruption on people we would seek the guidance of the board, when established, for the purpose of determining whether or not the Governor in Council should make the finding provided for in the statute.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and then call orders of the day.
8908

December 19, 1973
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


YUKON NATIVE LAND CLAIMS NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION OF WHITE RESIDENTS ON FEDERAL TEAM
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the anxiety and concern expressed by many residents of the Yukon over the native land claims negotiations, would the minister give immediate consideration to representations made by members of the territorial council and members of the Yukon Council of Indians and other groups that an acceptable person or persons from the non-native community in the Yukon replace one or more members of the federal negotiating team, all of whom are appointed governmental officials?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we appointed the commissioner for the Yukon as a member of the bargaining committee. He may be replaced at times by one of the elected members of the Territorial Council sitting on the executive committee. I received requests similar to that made by the hon. member and I took good note of them. If there is reason to make any changes, we shall make them in due time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In view of the fact that one-half of the negotiating team is composed of native people from the Yukon and the other half are federally appointed public servants, one of whom is the commissioner, would the minister give real consideration to having the white community in the Yukon included on the negotiating team as their interests are far more germane to the negotiations than those of the deputy minister in Ottawa?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at the outset that there is not a single deputy minister sitting on that committee. I trust the Yukon commissioners. Another member of the team, namely the chief negotiator, is not a public servant. He is a lawyer from Victoria. Thus, I believe everybody's interests will be well safeguarded. I do not think one should stand on both sides of the fence like the hon. member.
[ English]


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He is
from British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 18, consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; motion No. 7 (Mr. Rodriguez) and motions Nos. 17 and 31 (Mr. Benjamin).
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand).


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the first time in eight years that I stand in this House to make such a comment. Last night, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made in this House an assertion which I consider absolutely slanderous, unworthy of this House and probably unworthy of him. And I wish to emphasize it in this House for if I knew that such a feeling were shared by a good number of members, one can be sure that I would know what to do and that I would pull myself out very quickly.
Here is what the hon. member declared, without any reason nor any proof, nothing. He said, and I quote: [English]
In Quebec, the situation was entirely different.


Thomas Miller Bell: What page?


Jean Marchand: Page 8877 of Hansard for December 18, 1973. He said:
In Quebec, the situation was entirely different. It was more heinous because in Quebec the national campaign fund collector was none other than the then minister of regional economic expansion-
On the one hand, he was giving out $6 million to IBM and the next day he went knocking on their door saying, "I am collecting funds for the Liberal Party".
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I never collected or received a cent for any political party, including the Liberal party. I never went to the International Business Machines Co. Limited for any consideration, except for a visit of the plant. And I believe the words used by the hon. member are called slander. If he wants to repeat them outside this House, he will try to find evidence or even to gather some elements of evidence, that I conducted myself with public money in such an unspeakable manner as he has mentioned.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: the time of adjournment and the intention is that the question should be put now, unless there is further debate.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) had risen on a question of privilege, and if that were the case, inasmuch as it related to what I said last evening I would assume there is an obligation for some sort of response. This is not to continue debate, but if the minister wants me to reply I will gladly do so-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Frank Howard: -and point out that it seems passing strange to me that the same allegations were made on a number of occasions in months past when the minister held the dual position of co-chairman of the national campaign committee and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He took no avenue whatever over the past couple of years and during the time he held dual capacities to refute any of the sort of remarks that I made last night.


Jean Marchand: Never.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why he would take this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is a long-established and accepted practice in this House that hon. members should not refer to other hon. members using defamatory language or making personal accusations. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate this. When an accusation is made against a member and that member makes a statement as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has done, it is incumbent on all hon. members, including the member who made the statement, to accept the statement made by the minister.
I would caution the House against making personal attacks and allegations of a personal nature against members. I am sure hon. members would be well advised in their remarks in the consideration of the business before the House to observe the well-established and long-established practice that this kind of remark should not be indulged in.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that I for one am required to accept the statement that the minister just made, when it is not a factual statement?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is subject to the rules of the House. I am sure that he, as a resident of this institution for some time, knows it is elementary that all members, including himself, are subject to the long-established rules of the House. The hon. member and all hon. members have to accept the statement made by another hon. member.
Election Expenses
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to continue the debate on motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) which would, in effect, amend this section to require that donations be in Canadian funds and directly from Canadian sources. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) raised what I thought was a very interesting point yesterday in which he questioned the definition of "Canadian sources". I think it was a very valid point. I had the same kind of reservation when looking at this amendment.
The question of a "Canadian source" calls for such a vague definition that, without anything further in that particular section, it would seem to me we would leave a court in a very difficult position in trying to define what is a Canadian source. There may be a corporation which is 30 per cent owned by Canadians, 5 per cent by Americans, 10 per cent by the English, and so on. Even though there may be a majority of Canadian ownership, it may represent less than 50 per cent: there may or may not be Canadian control of the corporation, and therefore we may not have a Canadian source if that particular corporation decided to make a political contribution.
So I rise really in support of the point made by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I believe his point is valid and I agree with him that this particular amendment is too vague. Merely to use the expression "Canadian sources" in an amendment would leave the courts and lawyers in terrible confusion in attempting to define what in heaven's name is a Canadian source.
My friend says that everyone would understand it except lawyers. I think that lawyers have a better understanding of these things than most people. In any event, I believe this particular clause needs clarification. I should like to make some suggestions that might be of assistance in clarifying the bill. I have in front of me a document from the Committee for an Independent Canada which was submitted to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That committee made the following proposal which is an excellent one:
We would propose the following criteria for distinguishing foreign from Canadian organizations. A corporation would be considered foreign for the purposes of this act if 50 per cent or more of its voting stock was owned abroad or if more than 10 per cent of its shares were held by any foreign group or individual. In other words any corporation 51 per cent of whose stock were in Canadian hands and not more than 10 per cent were held by any foreign group or individual could make donations to political parties. For trade unions, foreign union head offices would no longer be allowed to contribute to Canadian political parties. However, money collected from Canadian workers and administered by union officials elected by Canadian workers (as opposed to appointed from foreign headquarters) would be allowed to contribute.
Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that as a practical suggestion in terms of defining Canadian sources, whether corporate or union sources are involved. There are other problems in defining Canadian sources. There is the question of societies, the derivation of the funds and the question whether they were derived from a foreign source and merely funnelled through a Canadian source. I submit
26695-51J

December 19, 1973
Election Expenses
that would create a problem under this bill. I should also like to read into the record something else that comes from the Committee for an Independent Canada, which has carried out a very interesting and, I believe, detailed study of this problem of political donations. Their suggestion on page 5 of this document is as follows:
On of the major reasons for a lack of public confidence in the Canadian electoral system is the suspicion that the political parties are individually influenced, if not controlled, by foreign- mainly American-forces. The implication in the public mind is that the political parties are thus not free to make policies that are in the best interest of Canada in those areas of Canadian life that are dominated by multinational corporations or American-controlled unions. To make donations to political parties from alien individuals and institutions illegal would help raise the credibility of the political system as a whole.
On that last statement I would rest my case in terms of this amendment. When I rose, I did so to criticize this amendment as being far too vague. I hope that these comments will encourage someone to introduce a subamendment to this particular clause which would perhaps better define Canadian sources. I do not have any problem in respect of Canadian funds, but I have a problem in trying to define what is a Canadian source. I think the judicial system would be caused considerable difficulty in this respect because it would be impossible to make a judgment, despite what my friends say about lawyers having difficulty here. I suggest that they have not looked carefully at this particular amendment.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the debate on this question I found it really quite startling that there should be opposition from any quarter of this House to the acceptance of this amendment. There may be some uncertainty in the minds of some of the legal fraternity in this House despite the explanation given by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) last night concerning the assistance he had in drafting this motion. If there is uncertainty in their minds, I am sure the House would be prepared to consider a clarifying subamendment on this point by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). If such a subamendment made sense to a layman like myself, I would be very willing to support it if it clarified the objective which I think is quite clear in the terms of the amendment as it stands.
We hear a great deal from time to time in this House about the need to retain a Canadian identity. I think it is true to say that political parties in Canada which have evolved in the now more than 100 years since confederation have been, by and large, Canadian institutions. Despite all that, when one assesses some of the statements made about the funding of political parties, and when one considers the actual facts in respect of what has happened in our economy with particular reference perhaps to the period since World War II, I think members of this House should be prepared to take a good look at what we should have, in a legislative sense, to ensure that the political parties in Canada remain in fact Canadian institutions.
It is perhaps rather unfortunate that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not in his seat today to make a contribution on this question. I am sure that if he were here he could bring the issues involved in this amendment into focus for members of the

House much more eloquently than I can. In fact, those of us who have been members of this House for some time recall occasions when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was at his eloquent best on this very issue.
Some hon. members may recall the political storm which developed over the suggestion that the embassy of another country in our capital was not unconnected with certain events related to an election in Canada. That incident, the full facts of which were perhaps never determined to the entire satisfaction of all members of the House at least, should cause us to think about this matter while we have a bill of this sort before us. It is not very often that the House is seized with the question of the manner in which Canadian elections are financed, and the source of the funds contributed.
I heard one hon. member interject and ask what is wrong with getting foreign money into a Canadian election. Some people might be prepared to argue that money is money and that you get it where you can. One of my colleagues suggests there have been occasions on which Canadian money has gone south of our border to assist certain elections in the country there. I suppose that is primarily a matter of concern to the people of the United States, although it is not a practice which I would encourage because in my view too much money flows out of Canada for various reasons into the coffers of various bodies in the United States.
I think my colleague who suggested that there are times when our money has gone south would probably not disagree that the potential danger to the Canadian identity is much greater than any danger which might arise from a Canadian making a contribution to an election campaign in the United States. The duty of legislators, in so far as it is possible for us frail human beings to do so, is to project our minds into the future, particularly when we are considering legislation. Although I have no indication that there has been an intervention by nationals of another country, either individual or corporate, into Canadian elections to a degree which would be disastrous to our country, nevertheless that possibility does exist. We have examples, which I think are fairly well documented, of large corporations having moved in and interfered in the internal affairs of other countries.
In this connection, reference is often made to such corporations as ITT and the kind of influence it has had in various countries, particularly in the southern part of this hemisphere. Those interventions may not have been by way of making contributions of money to election campaigns, but some of them have involved substantial sums of money. According to some information I have with regard to ITT, those funds in some cases have been spent, not on influencing the democratic process of election, but, rather, to subvert the political process and the operation of the government of the country concerned.
I well recall a situation shortly after World War II, which was during the period I first became active in politics, when a very active and well financed campaign was being conducted by a political organization known as the communist party. Although I do not have any documentary proof, it is certainly my honest judgment that at
December 19, 1973

that particular period in Canadian history quite substantial sums were being provided to that organization from abroad. I have no reason to believe that that is the case at present with respect to that organization. However, during the time Stalin was the head of the government in the U.S.S.R. I am satisfied from the events that transpired in this country that there was financial intervention into the political affairs of this country through that Canadian medium which, in my view, was deleterious to the processes of democracy in Canada.
So I suggest that we are not dealing with something which is entirely hypothetical when we talk about putting into the law an inhibition against Canadian political parties receiving funding from foreign sources. Coming back to the organization which I mentioned earlier, namely ITT, it is my view that in certain parts of Canada that organization has been given great concessions in respect of jurisdiction over some of Canada's natural resources.
Having regard to the history of its operations in other parts of the world, which operations have been documented in part from time to time, I would say its very existence in Canada is perhaps reason for us taking precautionary measures in the context of this bill and to say to it and to all other foreign interests, "We neither want nor need your money in the conduct of the political affairs of Canada." It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I hope this amendment; either in its present form or with clarification by some of the legal beagles in the House, will receive the support of all hon. members and that in dealing with this question of election funding we take what to me is a basic and rather elementary precaution to ensure that Canadians, in this respect at least, remain masters in their own house.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to state for the benefit of Hansard that I am a Progressive Conservative. The last seven speakers to this bill have been members of the New Democratic Party, at least the last seven substantive speakers. Of course, it may be unfair to say that seven of them made speeches. One of them, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), took advantage of a question from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) last night to give him a 20-minute answer which I understand does not count as speaking to the bill. But it should be clear by now that members of the NDP are determined that this bill will have very lengthy passage through the House.
As one of the charter members of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which considered this bill at committee stage, I would like to express a few general remarks on the bill, and specifically on the amendment later.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) but I wish to point out that it was agreed yesterday-I am not sure if he was in the House at the time-that after general speeches were made, one from each particular corner of the House, the Chair was directed to ensure that remarks were strictly relevant to the bill. I think the hon. member must be bound by this agreement which was
Election Expenses
suggested by the hon. member for Renfrew-Lanark-Carle-ton (Mr. Dick).


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall try to abide by your direction. But I was present in the House yesterday when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) took us through his constituency, almost town by town, describing the rallies he held and the relationships he had with his agents in the various parts of the constituency. I shall try to confine myself to amendment No. 7, although I think the second last speaker referred to it as No. 6 in error.
Perhaps I would be permitted the indulgence of the House to extend my congratulations to the committee and to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who appeared at almost every one of its 51 meetings. I would also like to congratulate the committee chairman, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), who chaired the meetings with patience and fairness. The story of the number of amendments found necessary to make the bill at all acceptable has been well told. Each amendment was carefully considered and one by one we dealt with them until the bill was completed. I must admit that while there is no single section of the bill left that I cannot now live with, taken as a whole it is rather freightening. It is like building an airplane in your garage. Although put together with tender loving care, one still remains nervous about flying in it. The main concern I have about the bill is that it will add a large administrative tail to every candidate. I do not know if any candidate really wants to add more administrative structures.
Dealing specifically with amendment No. 7 and the other amendments grouped with it, it was moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who unfortunately is not in the House today. This amendment is identical to one submitted, considered and rejected in committee. At that time the hon. member for Skeena mentioned, as he did yesterday, that he had consulted a lawyer concerning the wording of the amendment. After the amendment was rejected in committee, partly because of its wording, I thought the hon. member would try a new laywer, but apparently he did not. I contend that the amendment would lead to confusion. The clause, if amended, would read as follows:
-all money provided by an individual other than the candidate or by a corporation, trade union, unincorporated organization or association for any expenses incurred on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the election, whether as a contribution, gift, loan, advance, deposit or otherwise, shall be in Canadian funds and directly from Canadian sources, and shall be paid on his or its own behalf out of moneys to which he or it is beneficially entitled to a registered agent of the party-
And so on. It is my contention that this might lead to the conclusion that as long as one dealt in non-Canadian funds, one might be exempted from the restriction to make the donation through an agent, which would defeat the purpose of the section.
A second exception I take to this amendment is its wording concerning Canadian funds. The point raised last night by the hon. member for Hamilton West was well taken. Is the wording "Canadian funds" meaningful or practicable? I phoned my bank manager this morning and asked if it would be possible to exchange $50,000 U.S. for $50,000 Canadian. He assured me that there is no restric-

December 19, 1973
Election Expenses
tion whatsoever, no records are kept, nor is there a requirement to keep such records. This indicated to me that the result of adding the words "Canadian funds" in this context would be meaningless.
During yesterday's debate the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) quoted Dr. Palteil of Carleton University, but he only quoted him in regard to the financing of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties. I would not want this House to be left with the impression that Dr. Palteil only reported upon the two major parties. In fact, I would recommend that all hon. members read Dr. Palteil's August, 1973, paper and also his book "Political Party Financing in Canada" which was published in 1970. I wish to give just a couple of quotations to balance the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming. The first is from Dr. Palteil's 1973 paper:
It is clear that trade unions directly or through the Committee on Political Education of the Central Labour Organization are the prime sources of funds for the NDP party's national election fund.
The second quotation is from Palteil's book in which, when he was speaking about the NDP, he said:
Practically all the sums spent by the federal office on the 1962 and 1963 campaigns came from labour sources. In 1965 approximately ... 72 per cent of the expenditures of the federal party was covered by the trade unions, notably the United Steel Workers and the United Packing House Workers.
Palteil then expresses an opinion on these donors as follows:
Trade unions are the financial foundations of the NDP. While such contributions differ qualitatively from the contributions of business corporations, it is also true that such donations are unlike the voluntary gifts of individual citizens.
I would like to read just one more quotation, this one from last night's speech by the hon. member for Skeena, as reported in Hansard at page 8877:
We know that if there is a political party contribution which comes from a particular source there is a tendency for the recipient thereof to lean in that direction.
And later:
There is the tendency to say that he who pays the bills will receive the prime consideration, and that he who pays the accounts will get the attention or that he who does not pay the accounts will not. We are trying to prevent the extraterritorial aspect of corporations, trade unions, individuals, associations and groups in other countries having influence, especially an undue influence, on the politics of this nation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very fine statement for the hon. member for Skeena to have made and I agree entirely with it, although possibly for different reasons. I submit that the United Steel Workers, the United Packing House Workers, General Motors of Canada and Ford of Canada are all equally suspect in the minds of most Canadians in so far as foreign influence on their policy decisions is concerned. The hon. member for Skeena worries about the influence of corporations and businesses. I worry about the influence of giant, multinational unions. I hope my fears are as ill-founded as his.
I believe that the possibility of tracing the original source of funds suffered a real setback when the President of the Privy Council informed the committee that it was not the intention of the bill to trace donations back to

their original sources. I am sorry that I have not had time to look up his exact words in the minutes of the committee, but doubt that he would wish to deny the inference I have drawn. Faced with this, I believe the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt would serve only to confuse further an already complex but well-intentioned bill, without achieving its aim. I therefore recommend that the amendments be defeated.
The NDP, as well as our party and the Liberals, submitted many amendments and many were accepted. Our party was particularly appreciative of the NDP amendment submitted by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). One of our amendments proposed that the Auditor General should supervise the act. However, our amendment was rejected. The hon. member for Greenwood suggested the appointment of a commissioner, and we welcomed his amendment.
In closing, I should like to say that I have no particular objection to the 42 amendments having been moved by one party in the House. Despite the fact that almost all the amendments were given a trial run in committee and were rejected, the NDP are within the rules in resubmitting them and that closes the matter as far as I am concerned.
Voltaire, in somewhat similar circumstances, said, "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." Well, I disagree with each of these amendments, and while I am not prepared to go to the lengths suggested by the gallant Voltaire, I certainly support their right to move these amendments. Perhaps I am willing to go along to some extent with Voltaire because it has not escaped my attention that Walpole said of Voltaire that he was "one of those heroes who liked better to excite martyrs than to be one".


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, not being a student of Voltaire in the original French, although having seen his works in translation, I do not know whether I would class myself as one who wants to be a martyr. If, however, I wanted to be a martyr, conceivably I could embrace martyrdom in connection with this particular amendment which I think is fundamental to Canadian democracy. The amendment I refer to deals with contributions to political parties being Canadian contributions made in Canadian funds by Canadian organizations.
I was pleased to hear the argument of the hon. member who preceded me. He suggested in so many words that the NDP is financed by large, American-based unions. That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. Certainly it is not true of the steelworkers with whom I held office for seven or eight years. It is not true of the IWA, with whom I spent some time as international representative for the district of eastern Canada; and it is not true, to my knowledge, of the UAW where I have had experience. However, as the previous speaker, who is an honourable man, believes what he alleges, he will wish to strengthen this clause and make it impossible for the NDP to be financed by those American unions. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are to a large degree financed by multinational corporations with headquarters in the United States. For that reason I am interested in seeing a provision making it mandatory for donations to Canadian political parties to be made by Canadians in
December 19, 1973

Canadian funds. Further, those donations should be made only by corporations which are controlled by Canadians.
My colleague who preceded me quoted from "Some Aspects of Campaign Finances in Canada". I should like to read something contained in that pamphlet. The heading of the part I shall read is, "Bill C-203-The latest reform proposal". Near the bottom of page 17 begins the Part I shall read, as follows:
Scandal and rumour, however, continue to beset the fund raising process at the provincial and federal levels. In Quebec there have been revelations concerning contacts between Liberal politicians including a former minister and alleged underworld characters; in Ontario sums purportedly collected by Conservative fund raisers from property developers doing business with the provincial government as in the Fidinam affair have prompted the provincial Premier William Davis to instruct the Ontario Committee on the Legislature which has been charged with proposing changes in procedures and practice to bring in a proposal for the disclosure of campaign contributions. On the federal scene the Liberals have been shown to have developed in 1972 a systematic procedure for collecting funds in the United States from the headquarters of corporate subsidiaries in Canada, including a presumably abortive approach to the heads of the giant multinational International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. Although shrugged off by Liberal bagmen with countercharges that their Conservative counterparts were doing likewise and claims that the New Democrats received funds from international trade unions headquartered in the United States, the charges touched a sensitive nerve of an increasingly nationalistic Canadian public opinion concerned about the so-called corporate rip-off.
Although it is claimed by some that the NDP is the legislative arm of the Canadian trade movement, and although it is true that most Canadian trade unions prefer their members to participate in the political process and vote for the NDP, attempts to influence workers have been clearly unsuccessful in many areas. Further, with regard to the raising of funds there is considerable difference between the way the NDP tries to raise money in Canada from Canadian trade unions who support a political party and the way the Liberal and Conservative parties attempt to raise money, inasmuch as those parties go to headquarters of companies like the International Telephone and Telegraph Company in the United States and ask for contributions.
In Canada both the steelworkers and the auto workers participate in the decisions of their unions. Those unions enjoy the almost complete support of the various locals across Canada. Votes taken at regularly and duly constituted meetings make it possible for supporters of these unions to affiliate directly with other unions. As people who know about the Steel Workers of America will be aware, after the death of Philip Murray, a progressive man, MacDonald took charge. MacDonald decided at a convention that his organisation would not provide support for any socialistic party in Canada. It resulted in the Canadian delegation en masse threatening to walk out of the convention. In the following election, the vote was almost totally for Canada against MacDonald and he was defeated as president of that international union.
In Canada they have always exercised their right to support a political party local by local. To my knowledge that situation remains the same today. This goes on between elections as well as at elections. This is one of the reasons we pressed very hard for the idea of a constituen-
Election Expenses
cy agent so that if a person in my constituency wanted to make a contribution to my political party and my campaign, he was able to do so. We would be able to keep control of that money in my constituency. I was surprised we were thwarted in this regard. The same can be said with regard to other segments of the American labour movement.
Some members may have heard Mr. Meany, the president of the CIO of the United States, recently recant on television what was said at their last convention. He said he no longer supported Nixon, that he thought Nixon should be impeached and that as a gentleman he should resign. He certainly backed away from the support his organization had overwhelmingly given to one of the most reactionary political parties on the North American continent. If my colleagues in the Conservative Party believe the situation should be that way in the United States, and at the same time they are going to donate money to the most left wing national party in Canada, they do not know Mr. Meany and the leaders of some of the other unions.
It is a fact that in Canada there is such autonomy. It is also a fact that autonomy does not exist in the boardrooms of Canada where votes are not taken as to who gets the donations. This was well illustrated by Palteil who did an investigation on this matter. He said if you are going to collect money from Canadian subsidiary corporations doing business in Canada, you will have to go to the head offices. I suggest in going to those head offices, both the Liberal and Conservative bagmen may have to be cleared by the CIA and other government agencies before even being allowed to make a request for that kind of money.
Anyone who believes the New Democratic Party receives contributions from the American trade union organization should be prepared to support an amendment that will make it impossible for any political party in Canada to get money for an election campaign from persons, corporations, boards of directors or any other agency not under the total control of Canadians by Canadians or those normally resident in Canada either by landed status or over a period of time.
If the Liberal Party has not yet found it out, I am sure they will very shortly find that the multinational corporations do not only play ball in the United States. It is not a case of getting a bilateral agreement. You have to go to OPEC; you have to go to corporations that may exist far from this country to find out whether money was received from Imperial Oil, Texaco or any other financial giants in the oil industry. They do not exist except on paper. The multinational corporations are like the hydra; you cut off one head and another grows. They are a financial bureaucracy that is self-supporting and self-effacing. They have no national conscience.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Like the international unions.


William Arnold Peters: I have explained that, unlike shareholders in multinational corporations, shareholders in Canadian unions, international unions, the CNTU or syndicates have a vote.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Hallelujah!

December 19, 1973
Election Expenses


William Arnold Peters: They are autonomous at the bottom level. To my Bible-quoting friend I suggest this is not true of the multinational corporations. If members want clarification, I am prepared to move as follows:
That the word "sources" at the end of the three amendments be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"citizens, persons with landed immigrant status, corporations which have no less than 50 per cent of their voting stock owned by Canadian citizens and no more than 10 per cent of their voting stock owned by any foreign group or person, trade unions which are located in Canada, and associations or organizations which are established pursuant to a statute of the Parliament of Canada or of a province"
This motion will be seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would have someone else move his motion, since he seconded the three motions that are now before us. This would clearly be out of order.


William Arnold Peters: It will be seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the moving of the subamendment that is giving the Chair difficulty, not the seconding. I understand that is being done by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight). The motion that is being put before the Chair will have to be moved by someone other than the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) because he has already moved or seconded the three motions now before us at the report stage. Perhaps this could be done by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then I would so move, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia, moves the proposed amendment to the motion which was read by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Possibly the Chair could look at the motion for a moment, since we are dealing with three amendments. I presume it is the intention to amend each of the three motions before us. The Chair has examined the proposed amendment that has been presented to it. I find no difficulty in putting it to the House, but if there are points of order arising therefrom I will reserve decision for a few moments. It covers motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31 and reads as follows:


O (1630)
[Stage Direction]
That the word "sources" at the end of the three amendments be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"citizens, persons with landed immigrant status, corporations which have no less than 50 per cent of their voting stock owned by Canadian citizens and not more than 10 per cent of their voting stock owned by any foreign group or person, trade unions which are located in Canada, and associations or organizations which are established pursuant to a statute of the Parliament of Canada or of a province".
I believe the proposed amendment is in order though it comes to us in an irregular way inasmuch as it was presented in the speech of one member and moved by another member. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Timiskiming (Mr. Peters), and since the point

of order has probably taken up four minutes he will be allowed his full 20 minutes.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: He has just spoiled a good amendment by that subamendment. The bookkeeping necessary to keep track of it will be impossible.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I need 20 minutes to justify the amendment. I do know there are sincere differences of opinion as to the kinds of contribution which should be allowed. I believe there is a growing body of opinion that Canadians should pay for their own elections. This has been my view for a long time. It is obvious that money is needed to run for federal election, though I must say that I myself have never had to spend large amounts in my constituency. The people there did not supply me with very much money but instead they supplied me over the years with a great deal of assistance in other ways. They have provided me with a lot of help and have done a great deal of work to see that I was elected; and I can always be sure that the assistance I am receiving is assistance from Canadian citizens who are interested in the progress of legislation which is enacted with their interests in mind.
I am sure most Canadians will be aware, unless they live with their radios turned off, that huge sums are spent in the United States in the course of election campaigns and that the very size of these funds may lead to wrong decisions being taken. When Mr. John Dean was asked during the early, electrifying days of the Watergate hearings to tell the Senators what had gone wrong, how he as a lawyer who had taken an oath to uphold the law could have got himself into the circumstances which led to his appearance, his answer was that the Republican Party had too much money at its disposal. As I say, there has to be some money but it need not be a very large amount. I would be the first to oppose the idea of the New Democratic Party receiving large sums of money either from Canadian or foreign sources. I recall an occasion when in the province of Ontario we were offered a sum which was, for us, a very large one. I suppose it was $5,000 or $6,000-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: All that much?


William Arnold Peters: Well, in those days the party had between $15,000 and $20,000 at its disposal to run a provincial election. I was on the provincial executive, and $5,000 probably amounted to 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the total amount of money the provincial office had available to run an election. We turned this offer down. We turned it down for two reasons: first, we were dominated at that time by the teetotal element in Ontario; second, we were not sure what we would have to do in return for this donation. This was a period during which the temperance group in Ontario had the largest influence in the Ontario New Democratic Party, rather than the trade unions by which, according to most people, we have always been dominated. I believe the position has changed now with changing social attitudes.
As I say, I would be opposed to large sums of money coming into the party, simply because I do not believe large amounts of money are needed. What happened in the United States was this: the Republican Party had $3 million or $4 million left over and no place to spend it, so they
December 19, 1973

looked around and set up their dirty tricks committee and appointed some bright young fellows to run it. And they came up with some lulus! It seems to me that when large contributions from outside flow into local election funds, they are a factor which distorts the ability of individuals to make a contribution to their political parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It was my understanding that the hon. member was allowed an additional four minutes. He has gone well beyond those four minutes. Unless the hon. member receives unanimous consent, he will not be able to pursue his remarks. Are hon. members willing to allow the hon. member for Timiskam-ing to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before you took the chair the previous occupant allowed the hon. member 20 minutes to speak on the subamendment that he had moved, not four minutes. The four minutes came from the four-minute period that the Chair took to analyse whether the subamendment was in order. I respectfully suggest that the hon. member still has at least 12 minutes, even though he has now perhaps exceeded the four minutes, in view of the order made by the Chair when considering the subamendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I hope we do not get into a debate on this question of procedure. Actually, the House made a special case and allowed another hon. member to move the amendment of the hon. member for Timiskaming. Otherwise, if he had not been the seconder of the motion, he would have moved the amendment and been allowed the same time as any other member moving an amendment, which is 20 minutes. I think the extra four minutes allowed by the Chair was fair. But instead of going into a procedural interpretation of what was decided, there could be agreement if the hon. member wishes to ask for an extra few minutes.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to ask for an extra few minutes. I should like to thank the Speaker for his clarification because I had not understood how the extra time came about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It arises pursuant to Standing Order 29 which provides that when two or more members rise in their place at the same time, as occurred in this case, namely, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) a member may move that one of the members be now heard. Therefore, I move that the hon. member for Mississauga be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Hon. members are aware of Standing Order 29 which provides that there
Election Expenses
shall be no debate of the question. I wonder whether the hon. member has a seconder for his motion.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Assiniboia.


An hon. Member:: Let him get up himself.


Frank Howard: Then I so move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I do not see a seconder at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, following along the lines spoken in this House earlier today, although I may not agree with the motion I will protect the hon. member's right to move it, and I second it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), moves that the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) be now heard. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Olivier:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I did not vote because I did not want to vote on foolish things like that which make the House of Commons look ridiculous.


Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on this motion because I feel it is an abuse of the rules. In my view, the members of the House of Commons should have been reminded that it is really ridiculous to move motions of this kind.
[ English]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite improper for a member of the House of Commons to cast a reflection on the vote of other hon. members. It is quite improper, also, for a member to refer to any action by another member when he is casting his vote in the House as being ridiculous or otherwise. This sort of thing should not be entertained by Mr. Speaker, and if it continues it will set a precedent which I am certain this House will regret.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the three motions presently being debated with respect to Bill C-203, particularly the one providing that election campaign funds should be Canadian funds and should come directly from Canadian sources. While I realize there might be difficulty in determining what is a Canadian source, I must admit that I am inclined to support that part of the motion. It is not a question of whether it can be implemented. Quite often in politics it is not necessarily a question of what you are doing but of how the voter perceives that you have done it. We have already laid down certain laws with respect to foreign investment in Canada. We will allow only 10 per cent foreign investment in our banks, and none in our newspapers and other news media. Surely, as a parliament, we should be proud to declare that money spent on the election of members to this House should come from Canadian sources.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) spoke of the rumour which is often touted about his party, that it gets a great deal of money from international unions. He attempted to assure the House that, from his knowledge, this is not the case. I point out that he is not a collector for the NDP; he is not a finance man for the NDP; he does not know where the money comes from for his party. And
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).
December 19, 1973

after listening to him, I still believe that a great deal of it comes from international unions.
It is interesting to read the subamendment which has been moved. Many members were not present to hear it when it was moved. After the word "sources" it would add:
-citizens, persons with landed immigrant status, corporations which have no less than 50 per cent of their voting stock owned by Canadian citizens and no more than 10 per cent of this voting stock owned by any foreign group or person, trade unions which are located in Canada-
In other words, no political contributions should come from a corporation which has more than 50 per cent of its stock owned outside Canada. But with respect to unions, the reverse is stipulated, the figure there being 10 per cent with respect to trade unions which are located in Canada. Isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker?
Imperial Oil of Canada is 30 per cent owned by Canadians, and 70 per cent owned in the United States; but it is located in Canada. International unions may be located in Canada, and in this part of the amendment "located" is the key word for unions. The hon. member tries to create two worlds, one for the sanctity and safety of his group and the other for those terrible giants, the corporations. He is out to get them. This is going back to the old myth that the CCF portrayed across Saskatchewan years ago when there was always somebody they had to get. The hon. member is always after the corporations while protecting the unions, which is not a very honourable thing for a member to do with regard to an election expenses act which is very important to all members of this House.
I do not want to prolong this debate, Mr. Speaker, but if this amendment is to be voted on, I would certainly give some thought to changing that figure of 10 per cent. Why allow a union 10 per cent that is located in Canada? That is the way I interpret that amendment, that if it is 10 per cent owned in Canada, it can contribute funds. I see the hon. member for Timiskaming shaking his head in a negative manner. I hope he will have somebody get up and explain this amendment, because that is the way I interpret it.
Maybe I have a suspicious mind, but I think all people should have suspicious minds when we are talking about involving the government of Canada in paying part of our election expenses. We do not have to look very far for examples. Everybody thought that control over election expense contributions would clean up the problem with elections in the United States. The Americans passed a bill, and then got into difficulty in the Watergate affair. I say that we must be very careful when passing this bill.
As I said at the beginning, there is no question in my mind that there is some merit to the amendment as it stood before the subamendment was moved, some merit to the suggestion that funds should come directly from Canadian sources. It would be very difficult to control and police, but at least it would be something which would prohibit what we saw during the last election campaign when Liberal party finance men were phoning businesses and corporations in the United States seeking donations. It would cut out that; that would be taboo.
I well remember the 1963 election when the Liberal Party accepted one of the top men in the Democratic Party
Election Expenses
in the United States to come up here and run their campaign for them in Canada. There is hidden secret about that. Money came with that man. He was one of the key advisers to the President of the United States, or his brother was a key adviser to the President of the United States. He masterminded the Liberal Party campaign in 1963 and brought money with him, and the government changed hands in Canada. I am not suggesting for a minute that it was because of this person's interference that it changed hands.


John Mercer Reid: Who was he?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You check back in the records. Your government House leader knows who he was.


Mr. MacEachen:: I would like to know.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know his name very well.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let us in on it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is common knowledge. Ask one of the venerable press men for the Southam chain. Charlie Lynch knows his name.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Charlie isn't here. You are.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am here and I guess, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be here next week too, and I will speak next week too and maybe I will be able to find out the exact spelling of that person's name and be able to put it on the record next week. I will have another speech on this bill ready by then. As I was saying, it is common knowledge that in 1963 a foreign government, a foreign country deliberately interfered with the elections-I might say with the free elections in Canada. It is common knowledge who the Liberal Party hired from the United States; let me put it that way. Maybe they did not send him up here, but they hired him. It is common knowledge, also, that in the last election campaign Liberal Party finance men went to the United States, to ITT and other corporations and asked for money.
Can the amendment as it was first moved be policed? I readily admit that this would be very difficult. But the moral spirit of that amendment would have to be lived up to by the parties. They would not be able openly to send their finance men into the United States to collect money. They would not be able to go down to the United States and hire men, something which is not necessarily wrong but in spirit might not be quite correct. But this subamendment, tagged on this afternoon, certainly spoiled what was a good intention. Rather than attempting to clarify and simplify the situation, it has only complicated it by creating two levels, 50 per cent for corporations and 10 per cent for unions located in Canada. An international union may have its head office in Chicago and it may locate in Canada if it so desires. Many international companies locate in Canada and international unions could locate here also if they desired to change their head offices before an election. To move from Chicago to Toronto would not be an impossible thing for the Brotherhood of Railway Engineers. That could be done in order to contribute legally to the party of hon. friends to my left.
26695-52$

December 19, 1973
Election Expenses
I therefore urge the House to reject this motion as amended because it will only cloud the issue and make it more difficult for elections to be fought in the spirit of fair play. Political campaigning across the country must always be undertaken in the spirit of fair play. We have never had the political bag of dirty tricks that they have used in the United States. That sort of thing is alien to Canada; we try to fight elections in a spirit of fairmindedness.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government should not use Christmas holidays as a way of blackmailing members of this House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We must continue to fight fair and free elections. I am not enthusiastic about the concept of the government paying election expenses. I think that will only increase the cost of elections for members and will not curb expenses. However, I am not debating the matter of expenses so much as I am debating the hon. member's amendment. I am concerned about Canadian funds from Canadian sources being used to finance Canadian election campaigns.
In the last few years we have seen Canadian nationalism come to the fore. Organizations such as the Committee for an Independent Canada have been concerned about our resources; some of them have misstated facts with regard to our oil and said that international companies own our oil. I suggest that Alberta owns 80 per cent of our oil, the rest being owned by Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and even Ontario which owns a small part. Obviously, Canadians are interested in seeing Canadians control Canada. There is nothing wrong with that. Also, there is nothing wrong with the spirit expressed by the initial motion, which suggests that the government ought to put up a certain portion of election expenses and that the rest of the money for fighting the election should also come from Canadian sources.
As I say, there is nothing wrong with the spirit of that motion. Nevertheless, I should like to see this House vote on and defeat the subamendment and then vote on the original motion which I think has merit. Actually, we are speaking on three amendments at the same time. They are more or less the same, each dealing with money contributed directly from Canadian sources. The concept is not bad, although how the provisions of the bill are to be policed I fail to see. At any rate, the bill attempts to correct some of the abuses which we have witnessed in years gone by, specifically in 1963 and in the last election of 1972.
Having said that, I hope more members will consider this matter. If I have misinterpreted the subamendment moved this afternoon, and misinterpreted the concept with regard to unions being located in Canada, I think the matter ought to be cleared up because as it is I think the subamendment is muddy.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? He suggested that he may have misinterpreted the subamendment. He may have misread it. Admittedly, it is in handwritten form. I think the hon. member was looking at a photocopy of a handwritten amendment and it may be difficult to find the commas. If

he reads it again, he will find that the 10 per cent reference is to corporations. The subamendment speaks of corporations, of which Canadian citizens own not less than 50 per cent, and of which not more than 10 per cent of the voting stock is owned by foreign groups or persons. Then comes a comma, and then you come to the words "trade unions".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is quite correct. I was reading a photocopy of the handwritten subamendment and the writing is rather indistinct in places. Perhaps there was not enough ink in the machine. There is a comma after the word "persons". The subamendment, after the comma, reads, "trade unions which are located in Canada, and associations or organizations which are established pursuant to a statute of Parliament of Canada or of a province". That wording would make it more difficult for trade union money to move readily from one country to another, but it still can be done. I still have my doubts about the word "located". The wording should be "Canadian unions", period. There should be no reference, directly or obliquely, to international unions. These big international unions take our workers' money but do not spend it in Canada; they spend it in the country in which the union headquarters are located. That is what worries me.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion which the House is now considering, which concerns Canadians investing Canadian funds in Canadian elections. First, may I say that this bill was introduced in the House on June 22. When it was considered on second reading, I and others urged that the committee continue sitting during the vacation period as we knew that the committee would need to consider many amendments. Unfortunately, the committee was not organized until after October 15. The committee worked diligently and actually rebuilt this bill from stem to gudgeon. It did a fair job of producing a fine piece of election expense legislation.
We do not know if the legislation will work. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has suggested that all members may run into difficulty with regard to the legislation in the first election that is fought under it. At any rate, the bill represents a good effort by the committee. The committee should be recommended highly for the enormous amount of work it did, for its dedication in coming together for meeting after meeting and for really working hard to make sure this bill could be reported to the House well in time to be passed before Christmas.
Having spoken to a number of members, I can say that if there was any urgency with regard to this bill it probably could have been passed this afternoon, despite the number of amendments proposed. It is apparent, sir, that it is necessary for this House to be kept sitting in order to debate some of these amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that the rules are strict. The debate should be strictly on motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31; there should not be general debate on other topics. I ask the hon. member to return to the motions before the House.
December 19, 1973


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for wandering from the topic. In my preliminary remarks I wanted to commend the committee for the excellent job it did. I think the whole House should commend the committee for that. If I may deal with the particular amendments before us, I suggest that they represent a deathbed repentance on the part of the NDP: suddenly they realize that their total source of funding has been international unions.


Frank Howard: Nonsense.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: These unions have their head offices in the United States. The subamendment goes a bit farther and alludes to trade unions which have offices in Canada. Sir, the location of the branch office does not matter. We are concerned about head offices. The intention of the amendment is clear and I am delighted to see this deathbed repentance. We have the New Democratic Party now declaring they will no longer rely on funds extracted by compulsory methods from workmen in other countries, as well as in this country, and used by the directors and union organizers largely responsible in a foreign jurisdiction demanding that political influence be felt outside their country.
[DOT] <1740)


William Arnold Peters: Now we will use the taxpayers' money.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I therefore commend the spirit of this amendment. However, I am afraid the mover of the amendment does not really appreciate the nature of the bill as it has been put before us by the committee. Under the bill there are financial inducements to individuals to contribute to political campaigns. It should no longer be necessary for big corporations and international unions to finance political parties. The Liberal Party has obviously been the party of international financing. They even send their bagmen across the line to collect.


Mr. Brewin:: You do exactly the same, and you know it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There will no longer be the necessity for this kind of large collection system that we have had in the past. In dealing with the bill, the hon. member should realize that if you pay $100, $75 is a tax allowance, and so on, up to $1,500 in personal donations. That should no longer make it necessary for us to worry about foreign control in election financing.
The amendment is really not necessary. I am sure that with a little bit of effort by the government House leader in negotiating with the movers and seconders of these amendments, they would see the reasoning behind the fact the amendments are no longer necessary because of the long and protracted committee hearings. A number of the amendments that are proposed were discussed in part in committee. Unfortunately, the mover and seconder of this amendment were not there and therefore do not understand how the whole nature of election financing was altered by the excellent work of the government House leader and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) in the committee. If they would use their good offices and speak to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and others who have proposed amendments, I am sure they would understand that with the bill as now
Election Expenses
reported to the House, and the amendments and changes that the committee was able to effect after many, many hours, their amendments are no longer necessary. Unfortunately, there has not been that consultation. If there were an effort at agreement and at instructing the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) as to the nature of the bill as reported to the House, they would very quickly see that this amendment in particular is redundant.
I now wish to deal with the subamendment. I do not want to bore the House and take extra time because it is unfair that we should do that. Usually these problems can be solved by understanding and negotiation. However, dealing with this subamendment we get into the question of defining who is a Canadian. That is one of the problems we have had with many pieces of legislation which have been before this House. We then go on to those who have landed immigrant status. Would they need to have landed immigrant status and never apply for citizenship, or have landed immigrant status for six years and if they do not apply for citizenship be deemed to be foreign?
That was the problem of Bill C-132 which was before us a short time ago. There is also the matter of the percentage of share ownership-50 per cent of voting stock. Hon. members will recall that when dealing with Bill C-132 we said it was control, not a question of per centage of stock. We went into that subject rather deeply. It may be the bill should provide for the kind of funds to be donated. I do not really think it matters whether it is Canadian currency or not. I suggest that is the only kind of money that can be donated to political party. However, we have the horrendous problem with regard to election funding whereby this amendment and the subamendment once again require us to define what is Canadian and what is not. Frankly, I am tired of legislation that tries to precisely define when a person who is a Canadian is a Canadian.
We have this problem in connection with the Elections Act. There are Canadians who, like my father, have been here almost since birth. My father came here from England when he was four years old. That was a long time before 1947; it was in 1904 to be exact. He will have to prove he is a Canadian. That is a disgraceful situation. It is one of the problems this government has yet to face. People always have to prove they are Canadian. This amendment is not necessary. The committee fully analysed the kind of financing which elections require. It has made a good arrangement whereby election expenses are deductible. There will no longer be the massive need of financing from foreign corporations or trade unions.
I again commend the NDP members who have reduced these amendments to a deathbed repentance, saying they will no longer have to rely on foreign money to fight their battles in Canada. I suggest this amendment to the bill as placed before the House by the Committee is no longer necessary and is redundant.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am more amazed all the time at the gyrations which go on in the Conservative Party about this question. Last night the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) raised a query about the amendments. The question had been raised in committee by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and others in the Conservative Party about its

December 19, 1973
Election Expenses
vagueness. Some hon. members did not see how they could support such an amendment. The members of the Conservative Party said it is a good amendment, they endorse it, they embrace it, they are Canadian, but they do not see how they can support this good amendment because it is too vague and they do not understand it.
I tried to explain to the hon. member in committee and to the hon. member for Hamilton West and others in the House last night that the original phrasing of the amendment was based on advice from lawyers who were schooled in the area of drafting legislation. However, they persisted in saying it was too vague and needed some points of clarification, expansion and interpretation. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), in consultation with other members, tried to spell out what was meant by the phrase "Canadian sources". The subamendment spells out as clearly as possible what is meant by "Canadian sources". The Conservative Party spokesmen say that is a good idea, but they do not think they can support it because it is not clear enough. They say it was better the way it was previously. In other words, we should not have moved the subamendment. They cannot have it both ways.
The indication is that hon. gentlemen in the Conservative Party are using a spurious element of ignorance, confusion and misunderstanding to cover up the fact that they wish to continue to get their funds from outside this country. They wish to continue to have their bagmen pick up Yankee dollars as in the past, but they do not want the general public to know this. So they take two stances. The amendment was good, but they could not support it because it was not clear enough. The subamendment was good but, again, they could not support it because it was too clear. We know where the Conservative Party gets its funds; they get them to the extent of about $4 million collected for the last national campaign-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: By voluntary contributions.


Frank Howard: By voluntary contributions, that is right; and that is exactly the position with respect to the NDP.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No way. You use coercion.


Frank Howard: I always know when the truth bites home: the Tories start to chatter like magpies, especially the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). But it is documented. Corporate industry and the financial community centred in Toronto is the principal source of Conservative Party funds. However, the party has the benefit of considerable help from donors in the province of Alberta. This does not surprise us, because Alberta has these links with Gulf Oil, Shell Oil, Imperial Oil, Texasgulf, and so on. Then again, the party receives some assistance from Nova Scotia, not to speak of monetary assistance from corporations in Hamilton, London and Montreal. The bagmen have moved from oil capital to insurance and trust company capital.
Conservative candidates have filed returns of election expenditures under the Elections Act. The name of one trust company comes to mind, the Victoria and Grey Trust Company, as having made a contribution to the Conservative Party. The Victoria and Grey Trust Company denied that they had made a contribution. However, the Conservative candidate, who was subsequently elected to parliament, filed a declaration saying the Victoria and Grey Trust Company had contributed to his campaign fund, and surely we must accept his statement.
The point was made clearly in an intervention by my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) when the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) was talking about campaign funds from international unions and international corporations. He indicated we would not have to worry about that in future because in this bill we are embarking on a process of putting our hands into the public till and considering the payment of election expenses out of the public treasury. We are demanding that the taxpayers subsidize political parties and candidates, though not paying the whole shot, not preventing anyone else from contributing. This is the source of funds about which the Conservative Party is concerned, funds which have their origin in the United States. Those who donate these funds will now be too embarrassed to disclose them. Either the money will come in through the back door-


An hon. Member:: It will to your party, through the international unions.


Frank Howard: If the hon. member had listened to me last night, he might have some understanding of the position. I am talking about the party to which the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) belongs. That is the party which has set itself up as Mr. Clean in this debate.


An hon. Member:: The only one.


Frank Howard: The money will still come in through the back door, or it will not come in at all and the shortfall will be made up by the taxpayer. Further on in the bill there is a provision we have to consider, in terms of funds to pay 50 per cent of the shot for national advertising, national television, national radio.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock!


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I first express to the government House leader and his party the fondest hope that they have a successful Christmas party tonight, as we did a short time ago. May I ask a not unrelated question? What will we be doing tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for his good wishes. Maybe he will turn up; we shall be glad to see him. Tomorrow we shall continue with the same item, election expenses.


Frank Howard: Good.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 20, 1973