1973-07-12

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: May I refer to procedural difficulties which took place in the House yesterday toward the end of the question period when, in the course of an exchange in the House, a voice was heard to utter words which were judged by the Chair to be unparliamentary. Failing a clear identification of the voice at the time, the Chair felt that he could only register a protest in general until a further look at the record could be had. Hansard at page 5517 charges the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) with the responsibility for the remark.
I think that in the circumstances the Chair has no alternative but to bring this to the attention of the House and seek the co-operation of the hon. member for Crowfoot in this respect. I think hon. members are well aware of the numerous citations and precedents on this point. Hon. members are entitled to disagree with one another; they are entitled to disbelieve what is said to them from one side or the other of the House. But there are proprieties which require that certain terms, certain language, certain expressions should not be used in order to preserve the dignity of the House.
It is in this respect that I seek the co-operation of the hon. member for Crowfoot, and I hope that he will be kind enough to assist the Chair in this respect.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I owe you an apology, I suppose, for causing some difficulty to your good office and yourself by having made the statement which is recorded on page 5517 of Hansard and attributed to me. I made that statement. At the time, I did not have the floor; I was occupying my seat. Many thoughts are uttered out loud by members who do not have the floor. I did utter the remark and it is recorded in Hansard. The problem which I had at the time in listening to the remarks of the Prime Minister arose when he said:
I did try to have a good cross-section of Albertans there, both from various parties, political parties in Alberta

Perhaps it was the manner in which he expressed himself when he said he had made a sincere effort to have a good cross-section of Albertans there. I did not think he had made a sincere effort. He is recorded in Hansard as saying that he did try. I can honestly say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe he tried very hard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: His efforts may well have been good enough to have allowed him to say that he had made
an efffort to have a good cross-section of Albertans there, but having now seen the statement recorded in Hansard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I hope we do not get into a debate. This is what caused the difficulty yesterday. There was a debate as to whether an attempt had been made or whether it was a sincere attempt. A question was asked by one hon. member to my left which sparked this rather fiery exchange, and I suggest there is not much point in renewing the debate which took place yesterday. We are now facing a strictly procedural problem. I have asked for hon. members' co-operation. I hope that now the hon. member has made his statement he will reach the essential point of his remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to make things more difficult for you today. All I was attempting to do was to explain the thoughts that went through my mind and why I did not readily rise yesterday to withdraw the remarks when I was asked to do so by various members in the House. Now that the remarks are recorded in Hansard and I understand how great an effort the Prime Minister has made in getting a cross-section of Albertans, I can, through you, Mr. Speaker, withdraw those words that were attributed to me on page 5517 of Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]



TABLING OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION CONCERNING TELEPHONE SERVICE FOR MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table of the House an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, held on Wednesday July 11, 1973, with regard to telephone services for the members.
The text of this extract appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House I should like to move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang):
That the extract of the minutes of the Commissioners of Internal Economy relating to telephone services, laid upon the table this day, be concurred in.


July 12, 1973
Public Works


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in English and in French the initial background papers for the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. Further background documents will be tabled next week.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The matter in question is the ice and wave damage done to properties on the shores of the St. Lawrence, particularly in Bellechasse, and in general in Kamouraska, Charlevoix and Lotbiniere constituencies which are especially affected by the present policy, the absence of retaining walls or the existence of defective walls.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member like to state the motion he is moving under Standing Order 43?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I was about to do so, Mr. Speaker.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House instruct the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to study this serious problem and to submit recommendations with a view to amending the present policy of the Department of Public Works concerning the construction and maintenance of retaining walls along the St. Lawrence.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43 it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[ English]



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning the rental of office space by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie):
That this House instructs the government to initiate a judicial inquiry into all matters relating to the rental by the Department of National Health and Welfare of space at 255 Argyle Street in Ottawa from a company in which Mr. A. I. Rosenberg of Kitchener, Ontario, is a principal officer, including the relationship between Mr. Rosenberg, the Liberal Federation of Canada and Mr. Mel Mclnnes who was at that time special assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members realize that motions proposed to the House under Standing Order 43 are subject to the rules that apply generally to motions. Hon. members know that they cannot, in the form of a motion, make a charge. I have some reservations about this motion which the hon. member proposes, and I am thinking of course of the aspect to which I have just referred. I would think that the House might want the Chair to take the matter under advisement, and I will advise later on whether the motion can be put in order to determine whether there is unanimous consent.



HOUSING


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises from figures released yesterday by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which, in contradiction to the prediction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) a week ago in this House, showed a decline of 5 per cent in urban housing starts for the month of June as compared with June of last year, and a virtually static position with respect to comparative figures for the six month period January to June. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier): That this House instruct the government to take immediate measures to alleviate the housing crisis in Canada and, specifically, to introduce legislation that would make it mandatory for federally-chartered financial institutions to allocate a certain proportion of their annual investments to housing at a rate of interest not exceeding 6 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 12, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the mounting discontent among railway workers across Canada which may develop into a strike.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member from Vancouver East (Mr. Neale):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour to exert all possible influence to bring about an easing of tension by directing both companies to re-examine their treatment of their work force, and further that the Minister of Labour intervene in an effort to bring about a settlement between the parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
July 10, 1973-Mr. Hales-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Railway Act".
Mr. Speaker:: As I have indicated to the hon. member in the course of previous conversations, the bill which is in his name proposes an amendment to the Railway Act to provide for an application for payment of assistance from the Consolidated Revenue Fund with respect to uneconomic commuter train services which the act at the present time specifically excludes. When these provisions were introduced in 1960, the bill was accompanied by a recommendation which particularly referred to the payment of assistance from the fund to railway companies where they are required to maintain uneconomic branch lines or passenger train services.
At least prima facie, therefore, the bill would appear to encroach on the financial initiative of the Crown. However, I would be quite prepared to hear the comments of the hon. member for Wellington in this respect. Perhaps
Motion to Adjourn-Grain
he might give the matter some thought and at his convenience, tomorrow or next week, he might give his views on the point I have raised for the guidance of the Chair following which a ruling can be made. For the moment, with the approval and consent of the hon. member, the bill would be allowed to stand.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   GRAIN DOMESTIC FEED GRAINS POLICY

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the threat to Canadian agriculture created by the United States action in licensing and controlling the export of oil seed products, and the consequent threat of higher prices to Canadian consumers for meat, poultry and dairy products, and the urgent need for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to outline to parliament the government's proposals for its new policy on the sale and pricing of domestic feed grains.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is substantially the same as one which he proposed last week. At that time the Chair recognized the importance and urgency of the matter and the general interest and concern among members of the House, and expressed some willingness to consider the matter sympathetically later. It is on this basis, I assume, that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar brings the matter forward. I have given further thought to it in view of the notice given earlier today by the hon. member. The questions asked in recent days and responses given to statements made in the House by members of the government indicate that this is a matter of concern and urgency and, in light of the reasons which I had given to the House last week, I am prepared to consider this motion sympathetically.
There is some difficulty perhaps in relation to the time which might be allocated to the consideration of the motion in accordance with the terms of section (9) of Standing Order 26, and I would be inclined to suggest that the motion be allowed to stand over for consideration until three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. However, I am prepared to hold that aspect of the matter in abeyance. I will put the motion on the basis that the debate will take place at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. If hon. members can agree between themselves to hold the debate at some other time, certainly I would have no objection. However, if the matter is found to be of such importance that we should engage in an emergency debate, I would think hon. members would be prepared to be here at three o'clock tomor-
5536

July 12, 1973
Oral Questions
row afternoon to debate it. I will, therefore, put the motion.
Has the hon. member leave to move the motion for the purpose of discussing the matter stated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed. Subject to consultation with House leaders, as I indicated a moment ago, the proposed motion will stand over until three o'clock p.m. tomorrow.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his statement yesterday that he could not say whether or not he will be making a statement this week or next on whether or not the government will be announcing some new measures with regard to inflation control or whether it will be introducing emergency measures to help those on fixed incomes. The Prime Minister could not give an answer to that question yesterday. I would ask him whether he can provide the House with an answer today, before he leaves to meet his friends in Vancouver.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


OIL AND GAS-POSSIBLE TWO PRICE SYSTEM-DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has told the House that he is having consultations with the provinces regarding a pricing policy on oil and gas. I should like to ask the minister whether he has made a definite proposal to the provinces with regard to pricing policy on oil and/or gas, or both.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have not made a definite proposal but I have discussed at least with the western provinces-and I expect to meet the rest of the provinces during the next ten days-the problems particularly posed with regard to the impact of external prices on Canadian price levels for both oil and natural gas. I might say that I have had from the provinces a variety of viewpoints on this question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has made definite proposals to the provinces regarding a two-price system for oil or gas? Has he made any such definite proposal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. gentleman to the various options stated in the energy analysis.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the price situation and in view of the increasing concern of Canadians about prices and living costs and their concern and perhaps frustration because nothing is being done about this, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is considering selective price controls in such areas as some basic foods, interest rates, oil and gasoline prices-


Mr. Fairweather:: Wages.


David Lewis: -and products that go into the production of housing and the like, such as lumber and steel. May I ask the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to selective controls in important areas affecting the cost of living.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party is asking me a very general question about whether consideration is being given. I can only answer generally, yes, Mr. Speaker. I have said many times to the House, as has the Minister of Finance, that we have been looking at plans for various forms of price and income and wage controls; so, we have been giving a great deal of consideration to these matters. I should like to add that I would not want the House or the country to draw any conclusions as to those decisions or as to what form of control we would implement if, indeed, we decided to proceed with any form of control.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any action is being contemplated, particularly in view of the position indicated by one spokesman for the Conservative party yesterday that his party is now prepared to support putting teeth, I think those were the words, in to the food prices review board and making it more effective? I heard that for the first time yesterday. Is the government considering legislation to render the food prices review board an effective agency to lower food prices or at least keep them from going still higher?
July 12, 1973


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I answered yesterday, I am not at all prepared to concede the board will not be an effective agency for the purpose for which it was set up. On the precise question of whether we are contemplating legislation, the answer is no.


FINANCE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It is on another subject, but in the same area. In view of the fact reports this morning indicate a drop of 5 per cent in housing starts, following a drop in the month of May, and in view of his statement of July 5, recorded at page 5322 of Hansard, when he said he would look at the June figures when they arrived-unfortunately for his forecast they have arrived-will the Minister of Finance now consider taking steps to impose, by law if necessary, much lower interest rates on mortgages, in order to make shelter costs less burdensome for Canadian families?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the method proposed by the hon. member would have the effect of dislocating other interest rates. I ought to say to the hon. member he should not be quite as selective in his citation of statistics. The starts for housing in the first six months of 1973 were larger in number than those of 1972. I am advised by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, that our predictions still for a larger number of housing starts for the entire year than last year.


INQUIRY RESPECTING LOAN TO INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
My question is composed of three parts, in order to avoid supplementaries.
Everyone learned yesterday that the Canadian government loaned $1 billion to the International Monetary Fund in order to support the American dollar. Would the minister tell us where this billion came from, at which rate it was loaned and whether it represents assets increasing by as much the reserves of the Canadian chartered banks?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not a loan but a swap arrangement; it represents reciprocal credit granted mutually by Canada and the United States, as well as between the United States and other industrialized countries. As it is not a loan, the two other parts of the question do not apply.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary.
Did the arrangements between Canada, the United States and other countries not get the blessing of the
Oral Questions
government or the Minister of Finance, because a credit is involved? Where does this credit come from?


John Napier Turner: The credit is reciprocal, and the United States have absolutely no intention of using it. This was an effort on Canada's part to help the United States and other countries stabilize the monetary system.


SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES DOLLAR BY CENTRAL BANKS OF EUROPE-POSITION OF CANADA AT MEETINGS IN WASHINGTON AND NAIROBI-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: As the Minister of Finance knows, the central banks of Europe have agreed to support the United States dollar. Is it the official position of the Canadian government that this is a proper move to take?


John Napier Turner: We have no position with regard to what Europeans may or may not wish to do. As far as our own dollar is concerned, and its relationship with the United States dollar, we are relying on free market forces.


James McPhail Gillies: Is the Minister of Finance saying that the Canadian government will attend the meetings in the fall holding the position that the United States dollar shall continue to float?


John Napier Turner: Not necessarily. We shall be going to the meetings in Washington at the end of July and in Nairobi for the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund. We have to move toward a series of margins for adjustable, stable exchange rates.


James McPhail Gillies: Given the fact that the Minister of Finance has stated at various meetings of the Finance Committee that the position of the Canadian government is that there should be a clean float, would the minister, before parliament rises, make a statement in the House setting out the specific proposals the Canadian government will take to the meetings in Washington and Nairobi?


An hon. Member:: How the hell can he?


John Napier Turner: I will take that suggestion into consideration, as I told the hon. member for Edmonton West. All I said in committee was that the position of the Canadian dollar is one of a clean float, that is, the Bank of Canada on behalf of the exchange fund intervenes only to maintain an orderly market. That was the limit of my opinion. I did not express any view before the committee as to the level the United States dollar ought to reach.
5538

July 12, 1973
Oral Questions


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for York South. As the New Democratic Party has now been converted to the position taken by the Official Opposition that the federal prices review board as presently constituted is ineffective, and as this point of view now constitutes the opinion of the majority of members of the House of Commons, will the Prime Minister bring forward legislation and/or regulations changing the terms of reference of the prices review board so as to make it an effective instrument to halt inflation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that housing starts in the first six months of this year show an increase, as compared with the same period last year, of a mere .0001 per cent, would the minister tell the House what steps the government intends to take to alleviate the housing crisis?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: As the Minister of Finance stated earlier, starts in the first six months of 1973 exceeded those in 1972- 92,038 in 1973 as opposed to 91,824.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: That is Liberal dynamism.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I might add that starts on single family dwellings increased by more than 6 per cent as compared with 1972. Our prediction based on the information we have at present, is that more housing units will be built in 1973 than in 1972. Moreover, only a few weeks ago the House passed important major amendment to the National Housing Act. Together with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I am making every possible effort to see that this legislation is put into effect as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's answer was nearly as long as the question.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that housing starts in metropolitan Toronto are down by 17 per cent, and the related fact that the cost of housing in that city is the highest in Canada, can the minister, in his sweet, complacent way, indicate to the House what the government intends to do about housing in that area?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We are working with the Ontario government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -in order, for example, to get on to the market some major land assemblies in that whole area of Ontario. We are presently consulting the Ontario government with regard to the opening up of the Malvern land assembly project. I could go on and on, but Your Honour has cautioned me about not giving long answers.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPRIETY-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INVESTIGATION
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In the light of the minister's suggestion yesterday that officials of the CMHC had withheld from him for some months information with respect to allegations of criminal activities in relation to projects financed under the National Housing Act, will the minister now agree to set up an independent judicial inquiry rather than rely on the in-house inquiry which involves CMHC investigating itself?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have requested that a report be prepared for me on this subject and it is in the course of preparation. As I have indicated, any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of public servants or private citizens which comes to my attention will be referred to the proper authorities. In addition, with regard to the financing of Rochdale and those other matters, the foreclosure action involving Rochdale has been set down for trial. I hope it will be dealt with as a matter of urgency in order that the subject may be dealt with in judicial proceedings as soon as possible.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister demanded an explanation from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the former minister of the circumstances in which, after allegations and admissions that CMHC tenders for Ontario student co-operatives were rigged, the minister and the corporation continued up until this spring to award contracts to the individuals concerned and their companies without any thorough investigation of the allegations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have discussed this matter with the minister and with the former minister. I have not discussed the details contained in the question. I will consider them and decide whether I should ask for further explanations with regard to it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In order to achieve a credible public explanation of these matters, particularly the spectacular failure of the minister and the CMHC to act, is the Prime Minister now prepared to appoint an independent inquiry to investigate the situation and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The position of the government is that stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last Friday when I was absent from the House, as hon. members will recall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 12, 1973


George Harris Hees: With Bill Harris.


An hon. Member:: How are all the boys?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The responsible minister asked as early as last February for a thorough inquiry into this matter.


Mr. Baldwin:: Five months!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has reported progress to the House. The position of the government is that if, following this inquiry, there is any reason for there to be a public inquiry, we will hold one. However, for the time being there is nothing of a nature which would incline me to believe we should order a public inquiry at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a third supplementary, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that the inquiry requested by the minister of state might possibly contain some of the same elements as alleged in John Dean's investigation of the Watergate affair-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -will the Prime Minister not order a public inquiry now so as to get at the facts, and enable witnesses to be called and provide the necessary answers? I ask that a public judicial inquiry be undertaken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the same question for the second time, or making an argument in favour of a question he has already asked. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the serious situation in some of the Indian reservations with regard to law and order, and in view of the willingness of the RCMP to train recruits on the Indian reserves to act as policemen on those reserves, and in view of the fact that 30 recruits in Saskatchewan are waiting to be trained, has the government made any decision with regard to the training program this fall?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet completed negotiations concerning the cost sharing between the provincial and federal governments and we
Oral Questions
expect an answer very shortly so that the program might take shape as of next fall.


MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER ON RESERVATIONS- CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, if I may follow up with one more question for information, did I understand the minister correctly to say that he is asking the provincial government to share in the cost of policing something that is surely a federal responsibility, law and order on Indian reservations?
[ Transla tion]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is the course that negotiations have taken so far and this is the position that the provincial government has taken.

[ English]


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN APPROVAL OF PROJECT &quot;SERVING THE POLISH COMMUNITY IN PARKDALE&quot;
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, in view of the continued absence of the Minister of State for multicultur-alism. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had discussions with the Minister of State for mul-ticulturalism in connection with the questions I raised in the House yesterday, and in connection with the matters in the press today, and whether he is assured that there is no conflict of interest in connection with that matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have neither seen nor spoken to the minister since the question was raised, Mr. Speaker.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, in view of that fact may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would undertake to speak to the minister and request the minister to make a statement in the House. I should also like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the situation he feels there might be some additional urgency in bringing down the proposed guidelines on conflict of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see any conflict of interest in the question which was asked by the hon. member yesterday. I certainly will refer the question to the acting minister, and he might be prepared to handle these questions today or later.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I might reply to the question. As I indicated yesterday to the hon. member the alleged conflict of interest is totally without substance. As he knows, as other members of the House know, and as the paper which primed the story knows, the girl in question was not part of the project when it was funded.

July 12, 1973
Oral Questions


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out, without adding to the fire, that the issue which creates a question of conflict of interest, which I suggest is a totally improper act, is not the fact that a daughter of some member of this House was on an OFY committee- there is no reason that children of members of this House should not participate in this program-but the fact that $15,000 of OFY money was to be used for propaganda purposes in the riding of the minister. That is the conflict of interest. So that there will be no misunderstanding, may I say I do not mean this minister. I mean the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether this is a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. member has raised the matter by way of a point of debate and the minister may reply.


James Hugh Faulkner: It really does not matter a great deal whether the question is addressed to me or any other minister. The point which I would have thought the hon. member for York South might have wanted to consider before he made that observation is that he should have studied the project in question to see whether it qualified in the terms he pronounced. I suggest that if he will take five minutes with me after the question period we could go over the project and he will see that it does not justifiy his comments.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Rocky Mountain on a supplementary followed by the hon. member for Portneuf.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary for the Secretary of State. In light of the great concern about this question and the announced intention of the government not to make a statement on motions about the future of the OFY program, will the Secretary of State give his undertaking now concerning his willingness to appear again, before the House recesses, before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, to discuss the OFY program?


James Hugh Faulkner: have no objection to appearing before the committee. I have always enjoyed appearances in the past and will be available in the future if we can arrange to have the matter looked into again. I might deal with the first point which is the suggestion that we have precluded the possibility of a statement on motions. That is not the case as I understand it. It might very well be that at the time the announcement is made we will proceed by that route. That has not been decided yet.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Would he consider making soon a statement to the House to inform us of the department's projects concerning the construction and maintenance of retaining walls along the shores of the St. Lawrence?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is necessary to make a statement on motions regarding this. The government policy is quite clear: where erosion is due to shipping, we regard ourselves as responsible and we take the required steps to have damages repaired. But where damages are due to natural causes, then this is not government responsibility.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since navigation on the St. Lawrence is extremely close to the shores, could the minister tell us what was the basis of his criteria last year when he ordered the construction of a retaining wall in Riviere-au-Renard where boats are travelling 25 miles offshore?


HOUSING
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up on some questions I put to the Minister of Urban Affairs. In light of the fact that the minister said yesterday he was not informed of criminal allegations connected with the student co-operative projects, and in light of the officials of CMHC saying they were not advised of the secret inquiry by the minister, will the minister now change his position after discussion with the Prime Minister and let us have a judicial inquiry to air the matter rather than have the wishy-washy answers we have been getting for the last few days?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear, we are having a report prepared which will serve, of course, as advice to myself and to the Prime Minister concerning what further action should be taken. I have had some difficulty getting some of the documents I have wanted. For example, on Tuesday the hon. member for Calgary North assured the House-and I quote the hon. member-"I am prepared to do that, although I have not the number. I have the affidavit, if he"-the minister-"would like to look at it". I have been waiting since Tuesday for that affidavit from the hon. member and it now appears that he misled the House and does not have the affidavit. So, Mr. Speaker, I
July 12, 1973

have been having some difficulty getting some of the documents. I am trying to get them as fast as I can.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would think the minister would want to be fair. I think surely I have a point of privilege. I wrote him on July 10, as follows:
Dear Mr. Basford:
The following information was telephoned to me from Toronto.
Then, I referred him to the Supreme Court of Ontario case of Vincent Lapetina, plaintiff, versus ALLprovince Contractors Limited, defendant. The letter continues:
Affidavit sworn and filed dated October 19, 1971. Cross-examination on the affidavit, November 3, 1971, by defendant's counsel Mr. B. Chernos.
I gave the minister that information. He said at that time he would take it to the police.


INCOME TAX
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the fact that in connection with a contractor by the name of Murphy there was material allegedly sent to his home and his farm and he made a disclosure to the Department of National Revenue, was there any police investigation, this being something improper so far as the Income Tax Act is concerned, and were any charges contemplated against the contractor in that regard?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member mentioned some tax implications in this case, I think it was yesterday in the House, I asked my officials in taxation for a report. I will be glad to tell him what I can when I have that report.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister who, quite inadvertently I am sure, omitted to answer the question a few moments ago about conflict of interest. I have asked the right hon. gentleman a number of times myself when he is going to make a statement in the House with regard to the government's position on conflict of interest. Can the Prime Minister tell us today when we may expect such a statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that but I am not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition said I omitted in my answer. Could he please clarify that?
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to take the time of the House, but the Prime Minister was asked a moment ago when he was going to make his statement with regard to conflict of interest. If he did not hear it, I am asking him now to make a statement with regard to that matter.


George Harris Hees: On your feet, boy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That is about as close as you ever came to answering the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am seeking the co-operation of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. He is certainly not helping the good conduct of business of the House by these exchanges across the aisle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Fifteen love for Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to find out from the right hon. Prime Minister what the government's position is with regard to conflict of interest, and having asked the Prime Minister this question a number of times I ask him again more earnestly when he will make the position of his government known with regard to conflict of interest as applied to members of the House and members of his government as well as senior officials.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have answered this question many times. I have said I would make that statement to the House before the House rises for its summer break. I think that time is getting shorter every day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River. I hope that hon. members will be prepared to extend their co-operation so that in the eight or ten minutes left before the end of the question period we might give an opportunity to a number of distinguished members of the House who have been waiting a few days to ask questions.


INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will forego asking the Prime Minister if he has had a letter from President Amin with good wishes for recovery, and I will ask him whether he is going to bring to the House before the House recesses for the summer legislation dealing with conflict of interest.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I
answered this question also last time when I dealt with this subject. I said I would make a statement on motions, that we will bring forward a bill in draft form or the substance of a bill on the matter of conflict of interest as it concerns members of parliament, that we would then hope the House would study this draft bill or the substance of the bill, and therefore in a technical sense it would not be legislation but rather a prerequisite to legislation. We will

July 12, 1973
Oral Questions
draft the bill after we have heard all parties in the House make their very valuable contributions.
*	He *


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. In light of the fact that Mr. Mel Mclnnis, the former special assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare maintained an association with Mr. A. I. Rosenberg who rented the Argyle Street building to the Department of National Health and Welfare and the following year went to work for Mr. Rosenberg, may I ask the minister whether he caused an inquiry to be made into this whole matter and, if so, is a report available to be tabled in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether this question is in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no hesitation in answering the question because the matter was first raised with me earlier this week by a reporter from the Toronto Globe and Mail who asked me whether I recalled a rental at Argyle Street while I was minister of national health and welfare. I told him that I did not recall any such rental. I subsequently checked and found that the whole matter, as is the normal practice, had been handled by the Department of Public Works.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suggested later to the reporter that he discuss the matter with the deputy minister of Public Works who would provide full details, and I suggest that course to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can we have from him a statement in the House elaborating and, I hope, clarifying the position of the government in relation to aboriginal rights and aboriginal land titles prior to the summer recess of parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the persistent reports that many Frenchspeaking countries of Africa are suffering from extreme starvation, what new action is the government taking or does it intend to take to bring relief to those countries?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to questions on the same subject in recent days I have said that the Canadian government has approved the expenditure of several millions of dollars to provide food for the countries on the rim of the Sahara that are suffering from unprecedented drought. The Department of National Defence has provided Hercules aircraft to fly supplies to places that are distant from ports. I believe that the president of CIDA, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, will personally be there to investigate the situation.


OLYMPIC GAMES, MONTREAL, 1976-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FINANCIAL ASPECTS BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact that a motion presented to the committee dealing with the financing of the Olympic games asking for an appearance by the right hon. gentleman was defeated, would the Prime Minister consent to appear voluntarily before the committee to eliminate the confusion created by the contradictory and inadequate testimony of the President of the Treasury Board and the Postmaster General?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member is procedurally defective on many grounds. He is reporting to the House proceedings in a committee of the House. To that extent the question is clearly out of order. Perhaps the hon. member might be recognized to ask a question which would be in order.


Otto John Jelinek: In simple words, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister consider clarifying to the Canadian public, either through this House or elsewhere, some of the obvious financial discrepancies that have come out of the Olympic bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the right hon. Prime Minister, but I do suggest to hon. members that when a bill is before a committee, and I appreciate that there might be difficulties in the consideration of the bill in committee, there is not much to be gained and no point in bringing to the floor of the House debates
July 12, 1973

which have taken place in the committee. The right hon. Prime Minister may be allowed to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. But if it is helpful in any way, and if the hon. member wants to write me about what is concerning him in terms of discrepancies, I will see if I can provide him with a satisfactory answer.


SUGGESTED BROADCAST TO WARN YOUNG PERSONS OF DANGERS OF GLUE-SNIFFING
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises because of the number of representations that have come to me in connection with the grave danger to physical health and to the brain of those who sniff glue. I would ask whether or not the government has made any decision to have this question brought generally to the attention of the Canadian people by way of a television or radio advertising campaign, to the end that the many young people across Canada who would suffer irreparable harm from this practice will be warned in advance.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The problem he raises is certainly a very serious one which is a cause of concern to all Canadians. It relates not only to glue-sniffing as such but to all kinds of other products that have effects as damaging as glue-sniffing itself. We will certainly carefully study the suggestion made by the right hon. member, but I must say there is a difficulty in this respect in that any advertising or promotion might be counterproductive in this field. We have committees of experts with which we are working to consider the effect of publicity in this field to determine whether it may be counterproductive.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his very complete answer. Just for the purpose of making the Canadian people aware of how terrible the danger is I ask, has there been any census taken with a view to ascertaining the number of young men and women, boys and girls, who indulge in this practice?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker, except for a certain number of tragic accidents of which the public is very well aware.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister
Oral Questions
of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that on a number of occasions the minister has indicated the shameful situation in Canada where many hundreds of children are suffering from lack of proper nutrition, and since he said on several occasions during the past few weeks that he was going to introduce family allowance legislation "next week," would he indicate which week he means? Will he give a definite date on when this legislation will be introduced?


Marc Lalonde: I would hope to do so next Monday, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Marshall: Will the minister indicate whether he has completed consultation and negotiations with all the provinces with regard to the new family allowance legislation, and will he further advise the House whether we will be able to complete consideration of the legislation before the summer recess?


Marc Lalonde: So far as the first part of the question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have completed discussions and consultations with my provincial colleagues. As to the second part, this is not a matter that is in my hands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the widespread unrest among CNR workers in western Canada over the application of Canadian Transport Commission rules intended to enforce safety measures, and in view of allegations that employees are being unjustly dismissed through the misuse of safety disciplinary provisions, can the minister tell the House if his department is investigating the disciplinary procedures of the CNR?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
CTC is, Mr. Speaker.


Nels Edwin Nelson: As a supplementary question, in view of the strong possibility that basic democratic rights are being denied these voters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nels Edwin Nelson: -that basic democratic rights are being denied these workers through the denial of supporting evidence in kangaroo courts, can the minister say how soon this investigation will be concluded?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. gentleman is talking about the working conditions or the accidents which happen on the railway. I would like to know to which of the two he is referring.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period.


Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker-

July 12, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has had a supplementary. He might pursue the matter tomorrow. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth before calling orders of the day.

[ Translation]


ATOMIC ENERGY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Can he tell the House whether there is any new development concerning the construction of heavy water plants and, if so, will he make a statement on the matter before the summer holidays?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering the financing of the construction of a heavy water plant. I am not sure whether those proceedings will be completed before the recess.


GREAT LAKES HIGH WATER LEVELS-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES AFFECTED
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Is he aware of an Ontario government report that the already dangerous high water levels of the Great Lakes may rise to even more disastrous levels next year, and can he advise whether the government of Canada is taking any direct action to assist families affected by these very high water levels?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we are working co-operatively with the province of Ontario and a joint plan is being developed for future years.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader about his intentions for the business of the House between now and such date as the government may think fit for being the start of the summer recess.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the debate on the election expenses bill, to be followed by the Immigration Appeal Board bill, the two

budget bills-excise tax and Customs tariff-and amendments to the Criminal Code. Hopefully, we will have the Olympics bill and the electoral boundaries readjustment bill out of committee and we would want to deal with them also.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the business of the House but more specifically with respect to the decision Your Honour made earlier today regarding a debate under Standing Order 26, as proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, on domestic feed grains policy. May I say, believe it or not, that there have been discussions among the House leaders during the last hour and it has been made known to us that the Minister of Justice, in other words the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, cannot be here either tonight or tomorrow afternoon.
The request has been made by the government that this debate be postponed until Monday night at eight o'clock, and I may say that this request has been thoroughly considered. We are prepared to agree to it, and I believe the other parties are also prepared to do so, on the understanding that if the Minister of Justice has any statement to make on this matter, he will not make it over the weekend at a western Liberal conference but will make it in the debate beginning on Monday night at eight o'clock.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put the matter more positively, if I may, and confirm to hon. members that the government's policy on domestic feed grains marketing in Canada will not be announced indeed until after the dates of July 24 to 26. I put it in those terms because I may well be speaking about a lot of things that relate to a lot of subjects touching on grains, but in regard to the policy on feed grains we do not intend to make it until after those dates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in light of that statement we would be satisfied if Your Honour were to ask if there is agreement to a House order that this debate take place at eight o'clock on Monday night.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair, of course, will go along with the House if there is unanimous consent, although I might say that the Chair has reservations about postponing "emergency" debates for some days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: When hon. members take it upon themselves to seek the adjournment of the business of the House for a matter which they consider urgent, it is my impression that it is so urgent that it ought to be debated that very day or perhaps 24 hours later. I am always a little surprised when hon. members feel that such debate should be three or four days later: this appears to put in question the judgment of the Chair.
In any event, I appreciate the spirit in which the discussions have taken place. Taking into consideration the substance of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, it is obvious that in the absence of the
July 12, 1973

Election Expenses



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
minister the debate could not have taken place today or tomorrow. I would inquire whether there is unanimous consent to have the debate on the basis suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
['I believe the limits of expenditure for parties and for individual candidates are still too high. They may not be too high ten years from now, but they are still too high. They permit a party and its candidates to spend a total of $7 million or $8 million dollars. I made a rough calculation; it works out to a total of about $4.5 million for the party on the basis of 30 cents for each elector, and another several million with respect to the total of the candidates of that party if it runs candidates in all or most of the constituencies.\nFor any party to be able to spend seven, eight or nine million dollars in total during an election is still too expensive a proposition, particularly when one considers that the federal treasury is paying money out to the candidates. I realize, of course, that it is included in the ceiling-I am not under the impression that it is in addition to the ceiling-but if money is to be paid out in various ways then I think it should be possible to make election expenses much more modest than the bill now contemplates. I wish it were possible to persuade the minister to lower the ceiling so that we would have no need to worry about the amounts which might be spent by some other candidate or by some other party.\nI read the clause about deductibility from tax of contributions to parties or candidates a little differently than did the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). It is possible to read this clause so as to mean that the deduction is applicable to $500 in total. The minister might ask the law officers to look at it again because some of my hon. friends have asked me questions about it, too. He might make sure there is no possibility of interpreting it in a way which he did not intend-that a person could make a number of contributions, tax being deductible with respect to each. The minister seems to indicate by movements of his head that he agrees and it is the intention of the government to set a limit of $500 upon total contributions. If there is any doubt, the clause should be amended so as to make that intention clear. I will simply add that I would prefer the limit to be $300.\nI end my remarks in the same way as I began. I congratulate the minister for having brought in a bill which does contain the major elements of good election expenses law. I am very happy to know that my hon. friends and I have made some contribution to the nature and thrust of that bill. My hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre committed us yesterday to having no more than two speakers in this debate. He was the first; I am the second and the last from my party. I hope with all my heart that it will be possible to end this process of second reading today and send the measure to committee. I hope the committee will act on it expeditiously, and that the House will be able to\n\npass it on third reading within the next few days in the hope that its provisions may be available in time for the next election so that our democratic process will be improved. I am sure everyone agrees that improvement is desirable.']
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we would be quite prepared to do so. We consider it an emergency as long as the Minister of Justice is dealing with the issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, obviously, since we have already indicated our agreement, we stand by that. But on a point of privilege-and I call it a point of privilege because of the reactions that have come from the other side-it was not our request that this matter be put off until Monday. The request came from the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. If there is any criticism from that side about it, we would be prepared to have the debate take place tonight, or right now if the minister would agree.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, the substance of the point made on this subject as first put to Your Honour included the need for an announcement on the subject matter. I would just like to add that at least I have the support of the Premier of Saskatchewan in not making that announcement immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should not have the debate now.
[Transla tion]


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, our party was consulted about the need for such an emergency debate and we agree with the Chair that if there is any urgency, the debate should be held as soon as possible, that is today.
We will be pleased to co-operate so that hon. members from the west may get justice. We want to take this opportunity to point out to them that when we ask, as we have already done, for an emergency debate on a policy concerning the east, we would like them to extend the same courtesy to us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe perhaps I might inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St. Barbe.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the government House leader. Just in case he does not read Hansard, I wonder if he would pay attention to the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare said he would introduce the bill on family allowances on Monday. Would he confirm that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare proposes to have the bill on the order paper very shortly, hopefully on Monday.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with that part of the bill which is concerned with the limitation of expenditures to be made by individual candidates in a general election. I do so because I believe, after very considerable experience in this regard, that if this matter is handled in a better way than it is at present or is proposed in this bill, we stand a much better chance of obtaining the best possible people in the country to present themselves for election to this House of Commons.
Today, in a general election a candidate usually ends up spending far more than he had any intention of spending when he accepted the nomination. When the election is called, the candidate and his committee sit down to work out a budget which they think is satisfactory to elect the candidate and which they believe is a reasonable expenditure of funds which they intend to seek during the election campaign. As the election progresses, the various candidates in the ridings try to outdo each other with elaborate mailing pieces, radio presentation, television presentation and other forms of advertising to further their candidature. As one puts forward one presentation, the others counter and try to do a little better and things mount as the campaign goes along.
The result is that when the election is over, the candidate usually finds that he or she has spent twice or three times the amount of money that was planned when the election was called, and they end up with a very serious debt which they personally have to pay off. It may take them very many years to pay off that debt.
Mr. Speaker, the knowledge that this sort of thing very often happens in a riding campaign is what deters excellent potential candidates who have considerable ability, but rather limited finances, from offering themselves for election to parliament. When that happens, the country loses. I believe the only way we can effectively remedy this situation is to set strict limits on the amount of money which a candidate is allowed to spend during an election campaign.
I suggest that we now consider what the bill proposes in this regard. The bill proposes limits as follows: $1 each for the first 15,000 voters on the voters' list, 50 cents each for the next 10,000 voters on the voters' list, and 25 cents each for all remaining voters. In order to find out what this would amount to in the average riding in Canada, I spoke to the Chief Electoral Officer and was advised that the average number of voters on the voters' list in the average riding in Canada today is almost exactly 50,000. By simple

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
arithmetic, it is easy to see that in the average Canadian riding today a candidate is limited to spending $26,250.
Mr. Speaker, anyone in this House who has been a candidate knows that limit is far too high. If a candidate spends that much money in a general election, even though he or she receives a contribution from the party- as we all do-even though the candidate's committee is able to collect a reasonable amount of money from well wishers within the riding, and even though the government contributes toward the candidate's expenses in the way this bill proposes, a candidate who spends the limit placed on expenditure by this bill, namely $26,250, will incur a personal debt which may take many years to pay off. Every member knows that is a fact. Many members of this House today are struggling to pay off debts they incurred in the last election, and some are still paying off debts they incurred in the 1968 election.


Mr. Dinsdale:: At very high and inflated interest rates.


George Harris Hees: I believe that my suggestion would greatly improve the electoral process in Canada. I therefore urge strongly the members of the committee who will be studying this bill in detail to give my suggestion very serious consideration because I believe it will bring obvious improvements to the electoral system in this country.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliament Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-203. It is an important bill, providing for disclosure of contributions in excess of $100 to political campaigns. It involves a limitation on expenditure in political campaigns and public involvement in that expenditure to a limited extent. As well, it contains a worth-while proposal for a tax credit for those who make contributions to the political party of their choice. In addition to limiting expenses, I am pleased to see that from the tax standpoint the bill provides greater benefits to those on low incomes, inasmuch as people on low incomes who make modest contributions to political campaigns and expenses will benefit more than those who are in a position to make large contributions. This provision will go a long way toward involving the public more directly in the political process in Canada. That is very worth while.
I have very positive feelings about the proposed act. That does not mean to say I have no reservations. Hopefully, when the committee reviews this bill in detail it will do so not only with an eye to the problems I intend to bring forward in my remarks, but also to the suggestions made by other members who have taken the time to study this bill and its implications. As far as reduction of expenditure is concerned, there is one point which has been overlooked in terms of reducing the cost of campaigning in Canada and at the same time eliminating what I think is a great nuisance in political campaigns. I refer to the presence of thousands, and in some cases hundreds of thousands, of electioneering signs that clutter the countryside and private and public property. This involves a lot of money and effort. I would estimate that approximately 50 per cent of the money spent by a candidate is spent on this kind of thing.
I do not think any candidate in any political party feels these signs are productive in terms of votes. However, this practice is counterproductive if you do not do it and your opponent does. Now that the whole question of election expenses has been opened, the committee should give very serious consideration to this matter. It should do something positive to eliminate the sign pollution that is generated in campaigns, and thus substantially reduce the expenditure involved in electioneering.
I would make a number of suggestions in this regard. Clearly, I have no special wisdom in the matter but I am concerned about it. I hope the committee will consider the following points and zero in and do something about one or more of them. First, the committee could consider an outright ban on signs connected with political activity. They could ban the erection of political signs on public property. That would still allow lawn signs, but not tree signs, road signs and the large four-by-eight signs which pollute the countryside.
Election Expenses
There is another possibility the committee might consider, other than banning all signs, or at least signs on public property. The committee might limit the number of signs produced, and the size, in order to have some degree of control. There are people who argue it would be a violation of a person's individual freedoms and human rights if the government were to outlaw the use of signs on private property. Clearly, a person does have a right to be identified with a party and make his identification known. I accept that argument. But I think there could still be an outright ban on signs without frustrating that principle.
An individual could very easily identify his political persuasion, if he chose, by the use of a campaign button or wearing something on his person. In addition, I think it would be quite adequate if a person were to put a sign on his car, a bumper sticker or something similar. I do not think it is necessary for candidates or their organizations to go to the enormous expense of erecting these signs, which are often torn down. God knows who does it. Everybody denies doing it, but the fact is they are torn down almost as fast as they are put up. This is a complete waste of money contributed by people who would like to do something worth while to get their particular candidate elected. I believe it would be welcomed by almost everyone in Canada if we eliminated this kind of pollution by outlawing these signs completely.
We ought to do something else in terms of reducing election expenses. We should reduce the time between the calling of an election and the taking of the vote. If I recall the elections act correctly, it now provides for a period of 59 days. In order to reduce the campaign period, the bill before us does something in terms of public advertising for the first 30 days, and so on. However, that only scratches the surface of the problem. We must reduce the time required to prepare for an election and to put one in place. This involves the establishment of a permanent voters' list in Canada. This is a very expensive proposition but it could be done under a cost-sharing arrangement among the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments, all of which have elections. We could set up, in conjunction with the other levels of government, some kind of committee to look into the whole question of preparing a permanent voters' list. It could be operated by and serve all three levels of government. I realize the criteria for voting are not the same at each level. There are property considerations in municipal elections that do not apply to federal elections. However, in this age of the computer that kind of problem can be overcome.
We should prepare a permanent voters' list and keep it up to date. The cost-sharing could be on a 50-40-10 per cent basis among the three levels of government, depending on seniority: the federal government could pay 50 per cent of the cost, the provincial government 40 per cent and the municipal government 10 per cent. I am not married to those figures but it appears reasonable that some kind of cost-sharing agreement could be entered into so that a permanent voters' list could become a reality. Permanent voters' lists exist in other countries and I see no reason why we cannot have them in this country. If this were done, we could reduce the length of time between the issuing of the writs and election day to 30 or 40 days at most. That would have a significant impact upon the cost

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
of electioneering and the amount of money required to campaign.
There are other amendments that are required. I hope I am not out of order by speaking out on this matter, but we have opened up the elections act so at the same time we should look at other aspects of elections and their implications. It was clear in the last election, although it was not understood by many people, that the intent of the voter was not really the thing that counted, although I had that impression prior to the amendments to the elections act when we dealt with it previously. There is no doubt that the interpretation of how a person voted is arrived at in a very restrictive and technical way. Whether a person intended to vote for a particular candidate or not is almost incidental. That matter ought to be dealt with and the form of the ballot to be corrected. At the present time it is printed black on white. It should be printed white on black so that when a person puts an "X" on the ballot it can go only where it properly belongs. At present it can go anywhere, and it is not counted unless it is exactly in the place which is technically prescribed. This situation should be corrected because it is important that democracy should work and that people who express their opinions in a normal way can be sure of their acceptance.
There is another point which occurs to me. I am not sure how it can be dealt with. In most cases, if people put an "X" against something, it means they are against it; but in the polling booth an "X" is a mark of favour or support. Some people become confused by this nrocedure and end up marking an "X" against the name of the candidates they do not want, and none against the name of the candidate they wish to elect. We seem, traditionally to have become locked into a situation in which we ask people to make a mark on a piece of paper in the opposite way to the way in which it is normally interpreted by many citizens.
Moreover, there are a number of terms in the act which are inconsistent with each other. For instance, the instructions to voters are, in a couple of instances, diametrically opposed to the instructions contained in the elections act. This should be attended to. The instructions given in the polling booth are not in line with some of the prohibitions contained in the elections act.
One fear I have with regard to the bill before us is this. I am afraid that because of the restrictions it contains, we are likely to approve provisions which would benefit the dishonest politician. The bill, as I read it, contains many loopholes by means of which people can undertake expenditure over and above that permitted by the spirit, at least, of the legislation, and get away with it, or do so with only very modest penalties for their misbehaviour. For example, provision is made for a fine in cases where a candidate spends more than is permitted: the party or the candidate would be fined $1,000. To a lot of people, this is peanuts. It does not mean very much to a man who is willing to spend an extra $5,000 or $10,000 to buy himself a seat: he will not be worried about such a provision. I was impressed by the British practice mentioned by the hon. member who preceded me. He indicated that in Britain the consequence of serious violation of the legislation is loss of the seat. I think this is the only procedure which has

real meaning. To fine a person $1,000 is no deterrent if he makes up his mind to thwart the act.
Another matter which concerns me is the question of expenditure by groups or individuals other than political parties for the purpose of obtaining support for ideas held on an issue of public policy, or for the purpose of advancing the aims of those groups or individuals. This means that pressure groups can arise during the course of an election, inspired by opponents of a candidate or even by candidates themselves. They could direct their efforts toward a major issue and, in effect, they would be campaigning for one of the parties running. I do not believe this is acceptable. It would lend itself to a great deal of abuse.
I am sure everyone in the House agrees that individuals or groups should be able to put forward their views at any time, but we are talking about a very special time-during the course of an election-and I do not think it is proper to allow pressure groups to spend any amount of money they wish in favour of advancing their views on any issue they may choose, something which might well exert specific political influence in the election. If a provision of this kind remains in the bill-and I doubt very much that it should-a further provision should be included under which an injunction could be taken out against such a group in the event it could be shown it was acting for political reasons. The committee should look very carefully at this problem.
There is another matter to which consideration might be given. It is the whole question of the remuneration paid under the elections act to district returning officers, clerks, scrutineers and others-really, servants of the government-who look after the mechanics of an election. The establishment of a permanent voters' list would, of course, remove the necessity of a great deal of this work or, at least, I would hope so. But in the meantime, in the absence of such a list, I think it is high time we began to pay these people a suitable amount of money for their services. I think there is no doubt that if we were to count the number of hours spent by these people on the job, we would find that none of them earned the minimum wage as laid down under federal jurisdiction. This situation should be corrected.
Another matter concerns me. The intent of the bill appears to be to limit the possibility of people making major contributions to political parties or candidates and, as a result, exerting undue influence upon them after an election. I subscribe to this approach. But surely we cannot have it both ways. The bill is designed to achieve this purpose, and it is also designed to encourage poor people and those with moderate incomes to participate fairly in the running of an election. If we talk in terms of, say, 50,000 voters in a constituency, the maximum expenditure permitted would be $26,250. In these circumstances, the permitted contribution from the public would be $7,750, leaving a balance of $18,500 to be taken up by the candidate, his supporters in the riding or the national party. To my mind, this does not really hurt a person who can rely upon outside support or funds from his own pocket. However, many candidates will still experience difficulty in waging a reasonable campaign against a man
July 12, 1973

who is willing to put up funds of his own to increase his expenditure to the maximum permitted.
There are two ways to solving this difficulty. One is to reduce the total amount of expenditure allowed. I have no objection to this being done, because if it is reduced fairly and if all the loopholes are blocked, all candidates will still have the same chance. There is another alternative, and it is to allow for a greater degree of participation by the public. I do not know whether this is a satisfactory solution, and I have no axe to grind one way or the other, though I rather feel the public might.
If we are really saying that candidates should have an equal chance before the electorate, and that money should not buy a seat in the House, these are the only two alternatives which occur to me. We can reduce the expenditure or increase the ante, or we can reduce the expenditure and increase the ante. I have talked this over with a number of constituents and some of them feel that a contribution of 50 per cent of the expenditure might be more reasonable. I do not know. All I know is that the gap should be reduced between the $26,250 and the $7,750 which is presently suggested as being the contribution from the public purse.
There is one further point that might involve revising the over-all expenditure permitted in the bill. It is that one mailing be distributed at public expense. Under the provisions of the act, what is commonly called a "you vote at" card is to be prepared by the elections officer in the riding to be distributed to all the voters in that riding. There is provision in the act to permit candidates the cost of a first-class mailing, which amounts at the present time to 8 cents for every person in the riding.
That seems to me to be a pretty naive suggestion. First of all, the cost involved in a mailing is considerable more, merely,in terms of just preparing the mailing. Envelopes have to be prepared for every name on the voters' list. It seems to me that the elections officer has in fact access to that information. It is his responsibility to prepare the "you vote at" card under these provisions in any event, and since he has to provide that service he should provide an addressed envelope for the first-class mailing for every person in the riding for each party candidate who is running.
At the present time, all that is provided is the cost of the first-class postage. I do not see any provision in the act which would obligate a candidate to use that money for a first-class mailing. Perhaps my reading of the act is not clear, although I have read it two or three times. It seems to authorize the cost of a first-class mailing without providing any obligation to actually send out the mailing pieces. A person may not wish to send out a mailing; he may have a modest organization without the facilities to prepare the mailing for distribution. So I suggest that in addition to the "you vote at" card being provided, we provide an envelope for the candidate with the necessary postage affixed.
There are a number of other points in connection with this bill which cause me concern but I shall not deal with them at the present time. I intend to appear before the committee and I may make some representations at that
Election Expenses
time. I think this is an important step in the right direction and will clarify a matter over which there has been a cloud. It is important to encourage political donations by individuals and ensure that major contributions are identified by name. I think, too, that it is a very wholesome step forward to allow a tax concession to those who contribute to political parties. I have some reservations, however, and I think the major one involves how it will work and how it will be supervised in order to make sure that all candidates live up to the terms of the elections act so that one does not do something outside the act and thereby gain an unfair political advantage.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-203 to amend the Canada Elections Act in respect of election expenses seems good if we stop at the title. But if one makes a thorough study of it, as I did, one realizes that it is very complicated and that it is definitely to the advantage of the old political parties.
But who prepared that bill? Public servants, which means persons who were never elected but appointed for life in the public service. If there is a bill about which all members know something and which falls within their experience, it is surely the bill on election expenses. Public servants, who are never elected, nevertheless drafted the bill concerning the financing of members. That is why it is very complicated, confused and lacks practical common sense.
Before coming to the heart of the matter as regards this bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the record in Hansard the statement made by the president of the American Lobbyists Association when, in similar circumstances in the United States, a bill was to be introduced to limit election expenses. The president of that association stated, as he opposed such a piece of legislation, that politics belong to big corporations, banks, finance companies and that people had nothing to do with it. He contended that financiers knew better than anybody else what was good for the people, that finance experts, who managed politics and politicians, were the most qualified people to lead politicians. Later on the bill on election expenses was amended; expenditure limits were dropped and today the sky is the limit, as one could see during the last American election.
Limiting election expenses is a commendable objective but I would like to get at the precise meaning of this bill. The Social Credit Party of Canada has been the party which, to this day, has suffered most from the intervention of high finance in the election fund coffers of the old political parties. We have only to open the newspapers published during the last two weeks of an election campaign. We have only to listen to the radio or watch TV to realize how much has been spent during the election campaign and to see that election propaganda is something that takes millions to buy, and that makes use of a kind of brain-washing through the various media, as is done by the multinational soap companies. With this type of brainwashing and political propaganda, it is not surprising that the people are asking questions and that 40 per cent of the voters no longer go to the polls. And unfortunately, some of the people in this 40 per cent say to themselves: Politics

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
must really be dirty business if it needs so much whitewashing at election time!
Before introducing this bill, a full investigation of the most serious kind should have been held into the funding of all the political parties so that we would have available all the essential facts to guide us before this bill is adopted.
An investigation, Mr. Speaker, would surely have taught us many things about the contents of electoral funds and the behaviour of certain parties as a result of contributions. Tell me who finances you and I shall tell you who you serve! That maxim, Mr. Speaker, would have been applied in broad daylight.
To my mind, electoral funds are diametrically opposed to sound democracy.
Democracy, Mr. Speaker, as defined in the Oxford dictionary is: government by the people, direct or representative. Now, this bill will enshrine electoral funds in our statutes, and the status of anonymous electoral funds, supplied by anonymous subscribers, to obtain anonymous favours, will not be altered because it will have become law. We should not enshrine what is bad in our electoral mores.
As for the argument for limiting electoral expenses, as I have just said, what happened in the United States showed that expenses, far from decreasing during the last electoral campaign, increased after the bill designed to limit them was passed. Here are the figures we are given: According to the Ottawa Journal for November 6, 1972, the two presidential candidates alone spent $54 million.

Although this is the first United States presidential election since the sweeping new campaign spending laws came into force, the mudslinging over campaign cash is a hotter issue than at any time in recent history ...
Over-all it has been estimated by a number of experts in this field that between $250 million and $300 million was spent on the 1968 elections-
[ Transla tion]
Mr. Speaker, I also have at hand statistics to the effect that there was an increase of more than $25 million in these expenses during the last campaign for the two presidential candidates alone.
Mr. Speaker, this bill aims at restricting election expenses, but it is full of holes and can hardly limit the expenses. I would invite my colleagues to read and study very seriously clause 20, on page 35, which stipulates exactly the contrary of what we are told in this House as concerns the limit for election expenses. It reads:
(1) There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable by a taxpayer under this Part for a taxation year in respect of any amount contributed-
-it does not say "of all amounts contributed"-
-of any amount contributed by the taxpayer in the year to a registered party or a candidate-
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if someone wants to give $2,196 to a candidate, he simply writes four cheques for $549 each and deducts from his income tax $2,000 of the $2,196 he has contributed to party funds. This calculation relates to individuals and not to corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I have been talking with lawyers these past two days to know the exact interpretation of the legislation. When it says "any amount contributed to a registered party" it does not mean "all the amounts contributed". The aggregate of the amounts contributed must not exceed $550. It says "any amount contributed". This means that one can write a cheque for $550 today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow and there is no limit except for that of $550 for "any amount contributed" and not for "all the amounts contributed".
Before making this allegation I studied the bill seriously and I also had it studied by lawyers and accountants who told me: Mr. Rondeau you may of course collect funds and accept all the cheques you want provided the limit does not exceed the other terms. As for the contributions, you may accept several $550 cheques if you want to obtain receipts for tax purposes since the law does not state which total amount is eligible for a taxation year but only provides for any amount paid during a taxation year.
The French version stipulates no precise limit. Mr. Marcel Gingras stated in an editorial of Le Droit of May 26, 1972, and I quote:
How can we believe in the efficiency of a legislation which limits only the candidates' expenses and allows the party any amount of expenses? Whatever the law hypocritically forbids to the individuals, it will allow the political parties.
There is no limit to the election expenses of a party except for the .30c per voter whose name is registered in a constituency where a party has candidates. The hypocritical formula used in the bill will give the traditional parties still better control over members and election funds. The party with no expense limitation and the corporations with no contribution limits will be able, through election funds, to help the candidates best considered by the financial establishment of the party involved.
I have studied the American bill aimed at limitating election expenses and the Canadian bill is strangely similar. In the United States, they defeat the law by resorting to candidates' friends. Since they are not affected by the Elections Act, they may spend all the money they wish.
In spite of the mystery in which the election funds have always been wrapped in Canada and in Quebec, some facts have been put in full light, made known to the people which believed in the men they voted for but who obeyed those which paid for their election.
The sheer size of election expenses has finally forced the politicians supported by those funds to admit their existence while saying that elections are not expensive, without nevertheless mentioning the official figures of the contributions nor their source.
In the July 14, 1972 Ottawa Citizen, we can read the following: And an Ottawa Carleton University professor said this:
The next federal election . . . could cost $40 million or more . . .
Khayyam Zev Paltiel, professor of political science at Carleton University, estimates in a study called Political Party Financing in Canada that the cost to parties and candidates in 1968 was $21 million. The government spent $13.8 million on the election.
July 12, 1973

[Transla tion]
Who paid for that and why? In order to answer these questions-I understand that this may hurt some hon. members' feelings-perhaps we should examine together what the election funds scandals in Canadian history have established-those at least which could not be kept secret and exploded in the open.
The following appeared in the April 3, 1972 issue of the Ottawa Citizen:

Election funds tied to scandal, record proves.
The report of the parliamentary committee on election expenses (1966) .. . found ample cause for concern in the present method of financing political parties by contributions of big businesses . . . Some of the more famous referred to by the committee are:
1872-Prime Minister Macdonald (Pacific scandal).
1891-McGreevy scandals (kickbacks from contractors in Quebec).
1906-07-Parliamentary scandals (called by the committee the most scandal-ridden parliament on record).
1930-Beauharnois scandals (contract kickbacks).
Referring specifically to the Beauharnois scandal, the committee said, "It revealed that $700,000 to $900,000 had been given by the Beauharnois Corp. to the previous Liberal government, and that an extremely valuable government contract had been given to the corporation. It was in many ways one of the worst scandals in Canadian history, and one which rose directly out of campaign fund corruption."
The committee, for obvious reasons, was ignored, but its report remains for the record.

Again, Mr. Speaker, here is what appeared in the August 1, 1969 issue of the Globe and Mail concerning a $40,000 gift to the election fund: That was in the United States.

The House of Representatives Banking and Currency Committee will make a full-scale investigation into lobbying by banks after finding that a committee member, although deeply in debt, received an unsecured $40,000 loan at a preferred rate from a large New York bank.
The loan was made as the committee was about to consider legislation vital to banking interests.
Committee chairman Wright Patman announced the investigation yesterday and charged that the committee's proposed bill on one-bank holding companies, passed over his protest, was not in the public interest.
New York Congressman Seymour Halpern, who last December was granted $40,000 loan by the First National City Bank of New York, was one of 15 Republican committee members who voted for the bill last month . . .
Mr. Patman said that for years the powerful banking lobby has been eager to do big favours for committee members. "They have been offered huge blocks of bank stock-free of charge-and directorships on bank boards.
[ Translation]
Again, Mr. Speaker, in an editorial of the June 4, 1973 issue of the Ottawa Journal appeared another story, this time in Ontario and involving the party which represents the official opposition.
The Globe and Mail says the Ontario Progressive Conservative party is re-organizing its fund raising methods.
Election Expenses
The newspaper says William Kelly, the party's chief fund raiser and a key figure in the Fidinam affair last fall, will not have such a central role ...
It was revealed last fall that a development company, Fidinam (Ontario) Ltd., had given Mr. Kelly a political donation of $50,000 shortly after receiving a government contract to build new offices for the Workmen's Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker, there are also some other extremely interesting reports, such as the one published in the Toronto Staroi April 15, 1972, concerning the chief bagman for the Liberal party. That article was written by Mr. John Doig who met Mr. John Morrow Godfrey.

The two older parties' heavy almost exclusive reliance on big business for their campaign dollars as well as their continuing administrative expenses worries Godfrey because it is "bad" for a government and its major opposition to depend "on one segment of society" ...
He calls on corporations . ..
He tells them it is in the interests of the corporations, as well as the country, to assure the efficient functioning of a "two-party, free enterprise system."
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this is extremely interesting and I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) is applauding as he learns that corporations exist to keep him in office, applaud in the House and look after their interests.

Executives of American-owned companies sometimes tell the bagmen that it is illegal for corporations in the U.S. to give money to political parties.
"I talk to them like a Dutch uncle," Godfrey says, eyes twinkling. "I tell them they're operating in Canada and I tell them it's an honest government. It may be misguided-but it's honest."
Godfrey also suggests, he says, that corporations should "give exactly the same to the Liberals and the Tories."
[ Translation]
The man responsible for raising funds for the Liberal party tells corporations: You ought to give exactly the same amount to both the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties.
This, Mr. Speaker, confirms what we have been saying for a long time inside and outside the House, that both are so alike that they are being given the same amount. It is Mr. Godfrey, the chief bagman for the Liberal party, who keeps singing that tune while soliciting big corporations or doing public relations work on behalf of political parties. Then, they will tell us that we are politically independent, that we have the right to say what we want.
Mr. Speaker, I am short of time to dwell further on the extensive information which I have on the matter. One has to be quite credulous or else seriously implicated to believe that huge contributions are made by civic-minded individuals. During the investigation on organized crime in Quebec, it has been discovered that some questionable organizations had officially stated that they had contributed to electoral funds. It is no secret that banks also give tidy sums to electoral funds to protect the system which favours them.
The recipients of patronage also contribute to electoral funds because they want to stay on the receiving end. I

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
could name hundreds of companies doing business with various governments and which include in their contracts the percentage of the promotion costs of their business with the governments through electoral contributions.
Socred candidates have never been influenced by contributions to electoral funds, and I must pay tribute to all the people who have been and are volunteers in the field of politics and who, in exchange for their voluntary help, are interested in politics for the common good and not for the promotion of personal objectives.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents have proved, since 1962, that they could indulge in politics with a large "P", and I pay them a special tribute since they did not resort to any electoral fund, except for the traditional passing of the hat at our meetings, and we will continue to act as in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the famous fund raising dinners which have always been successful for old line parties to help them fill their electoral coffers. I recall in particular one of these dinners at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal where corporations and patronage seekers had bought tickets in advance, which was a sort of contribution, but since these corporations and many patronage seekers did not want to be identified with politics, they did not attend these banquets so they might say afterwards that they were not involved in politics. Well, during the few days preceding the dinner, in order to ensure full attendance, they had to find voluntary guests who would use the tickets paid by corporations so that there be one guest for each of the many tickets sold to those who contribute to electoral funds. I then happened to see a political party that had not enough guests rent buses and offer free transportation for community college and university students so that there be a sufficient number of guests. And the next day, in the newspapers, one could read: Last night 5,000 people attended the fund raising dinner of Mr. So and So.
Politics financed through election funds, Mr. Speaker, is nothing but an undemocratic show and if what the bill suggests is to be implemented, that is the limitation of election expenses, the following amendments to the bill will have to be brought in before I support it.
First, candidates of a recognized party should no longer be required to deposit any amount; second, polling stations officers and representatives of recognized parties in all polling stations should be paid by returning officers in their ridings, and they should be reimbursed by the government; third, the cost of limited advertising should be paid by the returning officer in the riding and reimbursed by the government; fourth, any advertising should cease a week before polling day.
And, Mr. Speaker, I have some remarks to make on that last point. It is unthinkable if the voters of this country are asked to make a serious decision in going out and choosing a government of their choice that during the week previous to polling day, radio stations and newspapers, television, behave as in a national circus, to do everything to keep people from thinking so they will make the least serious decision possible. They are getting pushed around and, as I said a few moments ago, propaganda worthy of the greatest and best international soap

companies is going on to further party politics and detract Canadian voters from what has happened in their government administration in the last four years. That is why I say that any advertising should cease one week before polling day, and for all political parties, in order to allow voters to think and prepare to vote seriously.
Fifth, all recognized political parties, both old and new, should be equal before the law so as to eliminate all discrimination. Sixth, election day should be a statutory holiday. Seventh, we should draft a permanent electoral list in order to stop hanky-panky thus avoiding any preliminary work, list checking and greatly shortening the electoral campaign.
Eighth, we should prescribe the use of the identity card to ensure true democracy, not one in favour of election meddlers. Such card could be put at the disposal of civilians for many identification purposes or others.
Ninth, a $5 maximum per polling station should be paid to the election agent of any candidate of a recognized party, so as to repay him, without any supporting documents, various costs such as rental of halls and loudspeakers; tenth, the CBC should provide equal minimum air time to all recognized political parties for their electoral campaign; eleventh, all those advantages should be granted to any candidate of a recognized party which gained at least 10 per cent of the vote.
Mr. Speaker, the twelfth and last recommendation is the following: the election should always take place on the first Monday in November, every four years, so that the voters in this country would know that they will have to cast their vote at a predetermined date. This way, the House of Commons would become more serious, with a less permanent election mood. This would allow us not only to improve our parliamentary status but also to improve our rules; also, the voters would be in a better position to judge the government on its management during the last four years and not only on promises or legislation introduced in the House in order to gain a great number of votes but which were not passed because it did not really want to do so.
I understand that the government party will not favour playing politics with the bill under study because it is always in a position to do political propaganda with its legislation since it will be facing elections at regular dates.
Mr. Speaker, I am upset to see that under clause 20, we will not restrict in any way an individual or a shareholder who may want to give money to a candidate. A shareholder can contribute any amount he wants and deduct these amounts from his income tax through the formula I explained a few minutes ago, because the bill says "any amount contributed" and not "all amounts contributed" during a taxation year. All amounts contributed must not exceed $550 but it is possible to report many amounts contributed during a taxation year.
The bill amounts to eye-wash for the Canadian electorate, if it says that electoral expenses will be limited, but it has the good effect of helping some political parties with regards to their electoral funds.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred that no bill had been brought forward rather than the bill now before us, because we, in the Social Credit party cannot
July 12, 1973

claim the same financial status for our electoral funds as other parties. We have our views, we do not want to be the servants of those who finance, we do not want to be bothered by those who are interested or not interested in seeing legislation passed in this House. We do not want any lobbying, we want to serve the people of our ridings. We do not want to serve individual interests and that is why the bill still leaves the door open to individual interests which will be able to influence the legislation by way of electoral funds.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate to make just a short statement because of the importance which my party has attached to the subject of the bill before us ever since I have been actively associated with it, which goes back some 37 years. I want first of all to congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) for the thrust of the bill which he has put before the House. This is, I have no doubt, the result of the composition of this House since October 30 last.
When one compares the bill now before us with the bill which we had a year ago, the important changes that one sees, the fact that there is now some limit of party expenditures, the fact that there is now provision requiring disclosure, and several other aspects of the bill which are different from the one presented a year or so ago, one comes to certain conclusions. The vast improvements in the present bill cannot be due to anything but the fact that the government is not a majority government, that it has to pay attention to opposition parties and their views on this matter, and that the government knew and the President of the Privy Council knew from conversations with me throughout the last number of months-I am sure he had discussions with other members of this House as well-that the kind of things which at least my party would insist on in any such bill were the elements which I have already mentioned and which I am happy to find in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I will not deal with many details of the bill, but with only one or two. I think it is important when discussing this measure to try to see the reason why, throughout many years, so many people in this country and other democracies have demanded this kind of legislation on the statute books. Why have we done that? Why have we wanted this sort of bill? I suggest to you that there are three overriding objectives that genuine democrats of whatever political allegiance have always had in mind. The first is that elections ought not to be the property of those who can get the largest amount of money somewhere at election time; that elections ought not to be bought by large amounts of money by parties, in the democratic process, and this is what has happened in the past.
The second objective that all democrats of whatever political allegiance have had is that candidates ought not to be discriminated against because they themselves have not the funds, or are not in a position to collect the funds to fight an election in this modern age of electronic media which are very expensive. The third, and perhaps most important, objective which everyone has had in mind is that the people of a democracy are entitled to know the
Election Expenses
source of the funds which political parties and political candidates use at election time and between elections.
I have frequently accused-and I make no apology for it-the Liberal and Conservative parties of this country of being psychologically and sometimes, if you like, sublimi-nally-without being conscious of it-in fact obligated to the source of their huge funds. These funds, according to one money raiser for the Liberal Party-I think it was Mr. Godfrey in Ontario-Come primarily from 95 corporations. I think it was Mr. Godfrey, an important fund raiser for the Liberal Party in Ontario, who said that.


An hon. Member:: It was Mr. Rankin.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am told that it was Mr. Rankin rather than Mr. Godfrey who made that statement in Ottawa some months ago. I say that when a party, whether Liberal or Conservative, is able to collect several millions of dollars-and Professor Paltiel was dealing with what the Liberal and Conservative parties in Canada spent in 1968, and is still working on the 1972 election- that party which collects a major part of its huge sum of money from 95 corporations is bound to be affected and influenced by the source of that money.
I make no apology for having felt throughout my political activities and throughout my life that there is no way in which a party placed in that position is not likely to give preference to the wishes and objectives of the large corporations of this country. I have no doubt in my mind that the reason there is in our taxation system a whole raft of unjustified and, indeed, antisocial concessions to the large corporations of this country stems from the fact that the Liberal Party-and the Conservative Party when it is in power-is obligated to those very corporations for its lifeblood as a political party between elections and at election time.
This is not an accusation that those funds are given on condition that some good is to be returned to the corporations that give money. That is not the way it works, Mr. Speaker. All of us in politics are much more subtile than that. We do not need to be hit on the head to know exactly what is wanted. It is not that there are strings attached to these contributions; it is the very fact that they are made by the large corporations, and all that that involves must concern us. We must be concerned about the close relationship between the corporations and the fund raiser for a political party and all that that relationship involves, because it results inevitably in an influence, whether consciously or unconsciously, being exerted on governments and parties in their relationships with the corporations which provide the funds.
What if someone says to me, "What about the NDP? It gets contributions from labour organizations in this country"? That question is perfectly right, perfectly justified, and I have never denied the fact. Indeed, I have deliberately made public since becoming leader of my party, and I did that even when I held office in my party when I was short of being the leader, that we get contributions from unions in Canada, from Canadian union members and Canadian union locals. I am pleased and proud to have that support from the labour organizations of this country.

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
However, I think one is drawing a totally wrong analogy if one tries to compare the contributions made by Canadian men and women who work and are members of unions and who make contributions by voting at their local union meetings, or through a vote of the local executive, with the contribution of a corporation made by an officer of the corporation, since that contribution is often made without consulting the shareholders and in some cases without even consulting the board of directors. Comparing those two things makes no sense at all.
Undoubtedly, the New Democratic Party has been much more inclined, and I hope will continue to be so inclined, to be more in tune with the working people of this country, organized or unorganized, than with the corporations of this country. I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker, that speaking for myself I have a great deal more affinity in my thinking and feelings with the organized worker, the organized fisherman and the organized farmer than with the corporations of this country. That will continue to be the case.
What I have said about other parties holds equally true for the NDP. I believe that we ought to be required by law to disclose the source of our funds, so that the people of Canada can make their judgment about us in the same way as they ought to be able to make a judgment about the other parties represented in this House and in this country. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, without seeking to be self-righteous-


An hon. Member:: Good heavens.


David Lewis: -that we have already given such disclosure. If any members of this House want to visit our federal convention which will take place in Vancouver next week starting on the nineteenth, one week from today, they will find distributed to the delegates and media representatives at that convention audited financial statements dealing not only with the operations of the New Democratic Party between elections but also with the source of funds and the expenditures made by the federal office of this party during the election last fall.
That information will be open, and always has been open, for anybody who wants to see it. It will not be a statement made by the secretary. It will be an audited statement. If all the information that people are interested in is not contained in that statement-I do not know what it contains, not having seen it yet-a media spokesman or anybody else present at the convention or, indeed, any person in Ottawa has merely to apply to the federal secretary, Mr. Cliff Scotton, and all the details as to where the money came from for the election fought last fall and for the operation of our party during the two years since the last convention will be made available.
Of that difference I am proud, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we regard the provisions of this bill favourably. The three reasons why all people concerned with the democratic process have demanded bills of this sort are, first, that there ought to be a limit on the buying of votes. I use that phrase not in any illegal sense but in the legal sense. There ought to be a limit on the buying of votes as a result of large expenditures by parties. Second, candidates without much money and who cannot raise much money ought to be able to function in an election in Canada. Third, disclo-

sure is necessary so that the members of the public will know the source of the funds of those who claim to represent them.
I have said to reporters who have interviewed me from time to time, and this is probably true of those who run for office, that it is necessary for those who think they have the nerve and the capacity to represent the people of York South, or Winnipeg North Centre, or anywhere else, to have a certain degree of self-assurance. I suppose that those who think they have the capacity to lead a party must have an ever greater degree of self-assurance. That self-assurance is necessary. It is necessary for those who are candidates for office to feel the assurance that they can serve intelligently and with integrity the people they represent and the party they support. That is necessary, but it ought to be available to all Canadians without regard to their financial situation or the financial situation of their friends.
We welcome this bill because it goes a very considerable distance in the right direction. I have no doubt that the reason this bill is so much superior to the bill we had in the last parliament is because of the composition of this House of Commons. I think I can say without boastfulness that the fact that my party, my colleagues and myself stand for certain things in the realm of election expenses had some influence on the contents of the bill now before the House.
I want to deal with a few broad areas the bill presents and say a few words about each of them. I am concerned, as are one or two other members, that as long as there is a level below which disclosure is not necessary, you open up a large loophole. Whether the ceiling is $50, $100 or $150, this opens up a loophole. There are people who do not want it to be known they have made a contribution to a given political party. This is particularly true of corporations that have made contributions to both the Liberals and the Conservatives. They may not want this to be known, or they may not want to be known the precise proportions in which they have divided the goodies between the two old-line parties. I understand it has usually been 60 per cent to the governing party and 40 per cent to the official opposition. The corporations may not want it to be known there is this kind of division.
A contributor can get around the provisions in the act quite legally, and to some extent not seriously improperly, by making 200 or 250 individual contributions of $100 or less to each candidate of a party across the country. Although that would not violate the law, it would violate the spirit of the law. I believe the law ought to provide for full disclosure regardless of the contribution made by any individual, union, corporation or association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I have no doubt that in the first election to which this kind of law will apply, some people who made contributions previously will not do so. I am certain that some contributors to my campaign in York South would not contribute if their contributions would have to be made public. They may not be supporters of the New Democratic Party or of its leader as the leader of that
July 12, 1973

party. They may be merely supporters of the individual who is running They may be well known as supporters of some other party. But they may be prepared to make a contribution to my campaign as long as it does not become public. However, they may not be prepared to do so if it does become public.
That is a loss any member of this House and any candidate of any party across the country ought to be willing to accept as the price to be paid for real disclosure of contributions to political parties and candidates. Further, I am certain that after one election the people of Canada will get used to the notion that their contributions will be public. They may hesitate the first time, but once it becomes the tradition of the electoral process in this country, the Canadian people, corporations and unions will live by that tradition. If the loss is to be considered at all, and in my view it ought not to be, it will be shortlived; maybe one election and no more. I believe the people of Canada will recognize the value of disclosure to them and to the honesty and the integrity of the political process. After an initial hesitation they will be prepared to have their name disclosed as well as the amount.
Since I am the leader of my party I have to make this clear. I am not making this a condition of our support of the present bill because we believe it goes a long way and ought to become law as quickly as possible. However, I hope the committee which studies this bill, and the President of the Privy Council, will seriously consider the suggestion I make on behalf of my party, namely, that the bill should provide for full disclosure, the name and amount of contribution by any person, association, corporation, trade union, and so on, regardless of whether the amount is $100 or less or more than $100.
The second point on which I wish to say a few words relates to a contribution to candidates out of the public treasury. Reservations and concerns have been expressed by some members of my party about the provision that the public treasury help finance the election of candidates in this country. I have no hesitation in supporting the principle. It is one of the best ways of making certain the relatively poor person can be a candidate, and the relatively poor political party can do a job for the people of Canada during an election. Therefore, I think it is a good provision in principle.
I do not know why the members of the Liberal and Conservative parties insisted, in the committee which sat about a year ago, that the cut-off of a candidate's entitlement to any payment out of the public treasury be as high as 25 per cent or 30 per cent. They finally agreed to 20 per cent. I do not see why they should insist on a relatively high level-I hope I am not doing them an injustice by saying this-except that they want to make it as tough as possible for parties that are not yet as strong and well organized across the country as those two parties. If that is their reason for insisting on so high a level for a candidate before he can be paid out of the public treasury, I suggest it is a shabby and undemocratic reason. It is a self-serving reason that has no place in any genuine democratic consideration of this subject. The only justification for any floor of support before money is paid out of the public treasury is to keep out freak candidates, nuisance candidates and the like.
Election Expenses


Mr. Reilly:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of them got elected.


David Lewis: I was about to say that. There are freak and nuisance candidates connected with political parties, and if some of my Conservative friends continue to make cracks I will draw attention to some of the freak and nuisance candidates in this House.
The only logical and moral justification for saying that not every candidate is entitled to this privilege is to keep out men and women who are not serious candidates- perhaps that is the best and least offensive description- people who are candidates only because they want to get their names into a newspaper or their names on a ballot, something like that. That is the only justification for the floor. If money is to be paid out of the public treasury, every serious candidate running for election should be in the same position as any other serious candidate. He should not be penalized merely because he does not get as many votes as some other candidate.
I suggest, therefore, that 10 per cent should be the figure. My hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested 5 per cent, and I do not quarrel with that. But it seems to me that 10 per cent is surely sufficient. Let me tell hon. members why I say it is sufficient. Every one of our constituencies in the urban centres, and most of those in the rural areas, contains 40,000 or 50,000 voters. A total of between 30,000 and 40,000 votes will be cast in most of the constituencies represented in this House-more in some cases. Ten per cent of 30,000 or
40,000	votes amounts to 3,000 or 4,000 votes, and I maintain that any candidate who gets the support of several thousand voters in a constituency is a serious candidate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is the person who only gets 500 or so votes, say 1,500 at most, who might from one or other point of view be regarded as not being a serious candidate. We in this party have been represented by candidates-and no doubt this would be the case in the future for some little time-who have received only a few hundred votes. And still they are serious candidates in the opinion of the New Democratic Party, doing what we believe to be an important job of bringing to the electors, to the extent they can, the message which we want to bring to the voters of certain constituencies. This is our right. However, it is true that in the context of the particular constituency, leaving aside the opinions of the party, they are not serious candidates. If they poll only a few hundred votes, I am not arguing they should get any contributions from the treasury toward the campaign. But to require that they should get 6,000, 7,000 or 8,000 votes before they can obtain payment from the treasury is to my mind a totally unreasonable and undemocratic requirement. It cannot be justified except that the majority in this House, Liberals and Conservatives, insist on making it more difficult for the NDP and for the Social Credit party or, for that matter, for any new party which might arise, to carry out its work in accordance with the judgment and the conscience of those

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
who form that party. I believe it is possible for the committee to look again at this aspect and do something about it.
I will try to finish my remarks. I am afraid I misled the hon. lady from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who might be seeking the floor after me, when I told her I would be finishing earlier. I apologize to her and I shall try to finish in the next two or three minutes.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Thank you.


David Lewis: I believe the limits of expenditure for parties and for individual candidates are still too high. They may not be too high ten years from now, but they are still too high. They permit a party and its candidates to spend a total of $7 million or $8 million dollars. I made a rough calculation; it works out to a total of about $4.5 million for the party on the basis of 30 cents for each elector, and another several million with respect to the total of the candidates of that party if it runs candidates in all or most of the constituencies.
For any party to be able to spend seven, eight or nine million dollars in total during an election is still too expensive a proposition, particularly when one considers that the federal treasury is paying money out to the candidates. I realize, of course, that it is included in the ceiling-I am not under the impression that it is in addition to the ceiling-but if money is to be paid out in various ways then I think it should be possible to make election expenses much more modest than the bill now contemplates. I wish it were possible to persuade the minister to lower the ceiling so that we would have no need to worry about the amounts which might be spent by some other candidate or by some other party.
I read the clause about deductibility from tax of contributions to parties or candidates a little differently than did the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). It is possible to read this clause so as to mean that the deduction is applicable to $500 in total. The minister might ask the law officers to look at it again because some of my hon. friends have asked me questions about it, too. He might make sure there is no possibility of interpreting it in a way which he did not intend-that a person could make a number of contributions, tax being deductible with respect to each. The minister seems to indicate by movements of his head that he agrees and it is the intention of the government to set a limit of $500 upon total contributions. If there is any doubt, the clause should be amended so as to make that intention clear. I will simply add that I would prefer the limit to be $300.
I end my remarks in the same way as I began. I congratulate the minister for having brought in a bill which does contain the major elements of good election expenses law. I am very happy to know that my hon. friends and I have made some contribution to the nature and thrust of that bill. My hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre committed us yesterday to having no more than two speakers in this debate. He was the first; I am the second and the last from my party. I hope with all my heart that it will be possible to end this process of second reading today and send the measure to committee. I hope the committee will act on it expeditiously, and that the House will be able to

pass it on third reading within the next few days in the hope that its provisions may be available in time for the next election so that our democratic process will be improved. I am sure everyone agrees that improvement is desirable.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Natural Resources-Statement by Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that more processing must be done in Canada-Government position; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Agriculture-Termination of Prairie Farm Assistance Act-Disposition of funds-possible establishment of disaster program; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) - Manpower-Possible unification of Local Initiatives and Opportunities for Youth programs-Request for statement.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre) moved: that Bill S-6, respecting Centre Amusement Co. Limited, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Fabian Hugh Poulin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is agreed that we proceed now until six o'clock or earlier to discuss the objections that have been placed before us by members from Alberta with regard to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
July 12, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: On June 14, 1973, notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment for a few moments on the proposed boundaries for Alberta. I shall be followed by other members from the same province. I shall begin by talking about the distribution of the north end of the province. It has been traditional in the past in northern Alberta, as well as in the northern part of all provinces, to allocate almost the whole area to one member. The population in the northern portion of the province is sparse, with small settlements scattered many miles apart which are accessible, generally speaking, only by air and only on certain occasions by land or water; not unlike, I suppose, the situation in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
In order that the people living in such areas have adequate representation, it is necessary for the member to visit these communities on a fairly frequent and regular basis. Having represented one of our northern ridings for the past five years, it is my experience that it is an almost impossible task to provide the type of service to these isolated communities to which the people in the south are accustomed and entitled. In my view, the people of the north are entitled to the same service in this regard as are the people of the southern area.
I suggest that the custom of designating the entire portion of the north end of a province be discontinued and that the northern portion be divided into several parts and allocated in such a way that it is served by several members. It would appear logical to me that if a member represented a smaller portion of such a territory he would be in a better position to serve the area through more frequent and regular visits.
The other objection I have to the proposed boundaries is in general terms. The rural areas have been deprived of representation equal to that of urban areas. Generally speaking, in the past the tradition has been that because of the increasing difficulty involved in representing a rural constituency, because of the distances a representative must travel, it is reasonable to expect a rural riding to have a smaller population than an urban riding which is much easier to service. The distance involved may be only one or two miles and the member can go out in the morning, walk across his riding with no difficulty and return home the same day. Because such a riding is very compact it is much easier to provide service to the constituents, therefore it is possible for the member to look after a larger number of people than could a member in a northern area during a similar period.
Redistribution
I think that is a sensible approach which has been used in the past. In this 1973 report, however, there has been a radical departure from that principle. The departure has been so radical that in fact the population in the proposed new rural area will be greater by a few thousand than the average population in the proposed new urban constituencies. I would be inclined to think the commission was expecting continuation of normal depopulation when it drew up these boundaries. I suppose if one looks at the agricultural policy of this government one could not be blamed for holding that view, but I do not think it is justified. While normal depopulation may continue, I do not think one can justify a situation in which greater areas and larger numbers of people are involved compared to the urban ridings. I therefore vigorously object to that principle.
Insufficient attention has been paid to community of interest and lines of communication in the province in setting out the proposed boundaries in the report of 1973. If we take the northern part of Alberta, for example, all highways lead to Edmonton. That seems to be the general situation in the province. If we take a constituency such as Athabasca as at present or as proposed, it becomes quite obvious that to get from one end to the other, and particularly from east to west, is difficult because there are no good highways or lines of communication by air or water. Most lines of communication are north and south.
In order to travel from east to west in my riding I have to leave the riding four times when going by car. The proposed changes will reduce that problem: I will have to leave my riding twice in order to cross from east to west, and that is an improvement. The point I want to make is that more attention must be paid to lines of communication, particularly highways, because it follows that if you pay attention to lines of communication you also pay attention to community of interest, because community of interest tends to develop along the lines of the highways.
I was a little disappointed with this report because after numerous representations by virtually all representatives of the constituencies the final report came out completely unchanged so far as boundaries are concerned. The only change was to two names. As a result, the hearings appear to have been exercises in futility because no attention was paid to the representations. I suggest that the representations made at that time be reviewed once again and that attention be paid to the matters which were discussed, particularly to the three general topics which I mentioned, namely, that the rural areas be made more uniform in size, that the northern areas be divided into more than one or two pieces, and that rural constituencies have a lower population figure than urban constituencies because of the increased difficulty in servicing these areas. Finally, greater attention must be paid to lines of communication and to community of interest of the population involved in order that better representation can be provided to these people.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief contribution to this debate. My own constituency of Rocky Mountain, which it is proposed to be dissolved on the new map, is undoubtedly an awkward

July 12, 1973
Redistribution
riding to represent and probably there is ambivalence of opinion as to whether the riding would be better off left as it is or changed. However, I think there is one matter which it is important to put on the record, that is, the view that there is a certain frivolity involved in the frequent changes to constituency boundaries.
The Rocky Mountain constituency, if it is to be changed next year, will have been in existence only six years. In that time people will have to come to terms with an entirely different concept of representation since they will be asked to make another radical change. It is important to make the point that there is widespread hope in that constituency that there will not be further changes that would add to the opinion that these things are being done frivolously.
I underline, of course, the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) about the difficulty of covering areas of great distance. I think it is important to recognize that when one represents a large rural constituency there is not only a problem of distance. A member of parliament for a constituency like Rocky Mountain must not only cope with extravagant distance but must also provide a wider range of services than a member representing a more compact urban area. In Rocky Mountain, for example, there is no industrial development office, there is no chamber of commerce with a staff, no architects, lawyers or other professionals, and no common media.
The member of parliament must in some measure fill that gap, and if he is conscientious he must also assume the more onerous responsibilities of resisting the insidious assaults of policy-makers, public and private, who have become bemused by population projections. I want to make the point about population projections particularly in relation to the Alberta map because clearly in this case there has been a reversal of the tolerance rule. Instead of exercising the tolerance rule in a way that would be of benefit to rural areas, it has been exercised by the commissioners in Alberta in a way that is harmful to rural areas. It assumes their decline. That is because of the unnecessary fealty to population projections. I think these projections have acquired everywhere something of the force of a proverb, which seriously limits analysis and obscures other evidence and options.
The danger inherent in projections is that once they become accepted, they also become self-fulfilling. For example, in Canada I believe the anticipation of rural decline has allowed the railroads to contrive line abandonments, it has allowed industry to ignore rural locations, and governments to establish metropolitan models in the future, all of which are sufficient to accomplish the anticipated decline. Yet there is no reason why modern industry must settle in cities and no inevitability about the concentration of Canadians in metropolitan areas. In fact, in my own constituency there is much contrary evidence, such as the establishment of modern industry like the Phillips Cable plant and the increasing removal of United States plants and head offices from uncomfortable metropolitan areas to smaller eastern U.S. cities and even towns.
In my own area, the exodus to communities like Pridis and Bragg Creek so as to avoid the pressure of the cities

indicates that people who are rich enough want to move. It indicates that they are not bound by these projections. So there is no reason why policymakers should be bound by these projections. I say that there has been in Alberta a reversal of the tolerance rule. That has had an unfortunate effect, not only upon the map with which we might be forced to live but also as a means of affirming this fealty to projections which, I think, is leading us toward a light that is much more concentrated, in an urban sense, than it need be.
The last matter that I want to raise at this stage is a very minor one, but it is important to my area because it concerns the adequacy of discussions and debate of the proposals of the commission in the province of Alberta by the people affected. It has to do with the opportunities for discussion and debate throughout the province. Certainly, while the letter of the law was adhered to in regard to new boundaries being communicated to residents of my constituency, the letter of the law is inadequate for many town councils and residents in the area who have a vital interest in it. They did not know, until they were informed by several members of parliament from Alberta, that the boundaries had been redrawn, that there was an opportunity for discussion; they did not know the location and the time of the discussions.
That sums up the basis of my concern about the map as it has been redrawn. I would like to repeat my fundamental concern, that there has been too much bemusement with population projections and, in Alberta at least, a complete reveral of the tolerance rule which was designed to recognize the problems of rural areas and which in Alberta has served only to accentuate those problems.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are now, for the fifth or sixth time debating the report of the commissioners on the redistribution of electoral ridings in several provinces indicates or should indicate to hon. members that some of us, as my colleague and friend the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and some others, who have been through two redistributions under this law are satisfied that there are basic deficiencies in the law itself.

I want to point out here that the fact that we are here debating in this way and repeating the debates on redistribution that occurred some years ago indicates that there is a fundamental difficulty with the act as it now stands.
First of all, I would submit that the frustration of my colleagues who have spoken on this matter, their frustration at the performances throughout the hearings in the various provinces and at the reports that came out of the hearings can be traced to the fact that the commissioners need to give their reasons for making changes. No explanation is given. The whole burden lies upon the populace, upon the members and upon those organizations that are interested. They in turn must launch the attack. The commissioners never have to justify their decisions.
In the last debate the phrase, "gerrymandering by ignorance and competence" was used, and I am afraid it will be
July 12, 1973

used in this debate also because there was some fundamental ignorance of some of the basic principles of what representation in Canada means. I call it ignorance, or a failure to take heed of what it means to represent people both from the point of view of the electorate and from the point of view of the elected member of parliament, just like the editorial which appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail. It reads very well on paper, within the confines of a comfortable chair in the editorial offices of that or any other newspaper, but I suggest to such an editorial writer and to the political scientists who have written reams and spoken volumes about redistribution and the value of the one man-one vote principle, that in all of this so-called neutrality the loser is the elector. Confusion is created by arbitrary changes that disregard community of interest, that make a mish-mash of traditional well recognized boundaries within cities and in rural areas.
In the province of Alberta there has been a complete reversal of the traditional principle that I, as a city member, insist should apply, namely, that there be a preponderance in the number of voters in an urban constituency over those in a rural constituency. I say that urban constituencies in my province should have a considerably higher average than the rural constituencies. A good rule of thumb is six urban to four rural voters. But just look at what has happened. On the basis of the 1971 census there are nine rural constituencies with a total population of 786,099, or an average of 87,344, whereas the total urban constituency population as proposed is 841,775 for ten constituencies, or an average of 84,177. And when you move within the urban constituencies, for some unknown reason the corporate part of the city of Calgary was given five seats, taking it down to an average of 80,665, or 7,000 people less than the average rural constituency.
The city of Edmonton is just about even in numbers with the rural constituencies. This ends up in an assumption that I and my colleagues from Alberta refuse to accept, that it is inevitable that rural constituencies must decline both relatively and directly. I do not accept that. We know that metropolitan areas are growing, but on the other hand in the province of Alberta the government there is seeing to it that the populations in rural constituencies are being maintained.
I come to another matter. The cities are divided off within their present corporate boundaries, ignoring completely the metropolitan development that is taking place on their peripheries. The net result is that we have two doughnut constituencies around the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. Both those neighbouring constituencies should be rural, but the net result of the redistribution is that they are both dominated by fringe city areas. I do not want to deal in particular with the riding of Pembina, adjacent to Edmonton, because my colleague who represents it will probably be speaking about it, but it is dominated by three dormitory suburbs just a few miles outside the city. As a matter of fact, some of them are almost contiguous to the city. Yet it is supposed to be a rural constituency.
The people in the fringe areas have a community of interest within the city, and not outside in the rural areas. They work in the cities. Their children attend schools in the cities. If they were included in the urban constituen-
Redis trib u tion
cies then we could have essentially rural constituencies of a much more manageable nature, getting away from some of the oddball boundaries that have now been drawn. I would like to take each member of an electoral boundaries commission and sentence him to serve some of these constituencies for two years-I would send a newspaperman with him also-to see just how difficult is the job.
There is further injustice so far as the member of parliament is concerned, on the basis of this so-called neutral distribution which has emerged from I do not know what theories, in that all members are paid on the same basis both as to expenses and salary. But many of the rural members have a terrible load on their shoulders with regard to expenditures. They have tremendously awkward constituencies, as a result of what in effect is gerrymandering by lack of appreciation of the real factors that go to determine what should be the best district for an elected member to represent, and to represent the people in it best.
The electors are not mere ciphers. Yet those who show an ignorance of the tolerance features in the act, of the demographic principles that should apply, and who insist more and more on the mathematical formula are those who consider that citizens are mere ciphers. So far as the province of Alberta is concerned, with respect to some of the constituencies the results might have been just the same if they had taken a census of gophers. They would have given just as much consideration to the boundaries for them as to the boundaries for people.
I could go on and on and give any number of reasons why these proposed redistributions are in error and why in the case of Alberta, the commissioners should go back to square one and start all over again. Many excellent briefs were presented. I am particularly disappointed that the commissioners said that these briefs, 99 V2 per cent of which were highly critical of the methods used, reinforced the opinions and decisions of the commissioners. It was an exercise in total futility for the people who were effected. The only people who seem to matter are four men and their opinions, and everybody must conform. I think that is wrong.
I would say in conclusion that the sooner this House gets back to re-examination of the acts on constituency redistribution and to providing that there shall be reasons given and that those reasons be debated here, the better. It is not a case that we are going to imprint our own reasons. Since we have no right of vote, we cannot make the changes ourselves. Rather than this so-called laundered type of mutual redistribution commission there would be far more intelligence, far more fair play and less frustration if the commissions were composed of a chairman and representatives appointed with the approval of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the redistribution commissioner-people who have some knowledge of political representation, the difficulties of it and the needs of the electors. We always get somebody who has had very little, if any, exposure to those factors and the results show it.
The last time we had any debate about it, it was all critical debate. This time every province calls the redistri-
26446-SI

July 12, 1973
Red is tribu tion
bution into question. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Members are not just looking after their own interests, as was suggested in the editorial in the Globe and Mail to which I referred. They happen to know, and have a greater interest in, the rights of the electors and how to service the electors than those people who sit on the fence and pontificate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise and say one or two more words about redistribution and how it affects the province of Alberta. As I understand it, this debate sends the whole question of redistribution and the map proposed by the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Alberta back to that commission for what might be considered a re-examination for another look at the wisdom of some of the boundary lines they have drawn. We do not expect them to accept any changes but, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has said, we have seen and witnessed,-I would not really call it gerrymandering, but what I would call complete ignorance of representation in a province such as Alberta.
I think the debate here and the brief submitted to the electoral boundaries commission shows that the province of Alberta is unique in that both city members and rural members have complained about the job that was done. The Globe and Mail today has an editorial based upon, and referring to, some remarks that I have made in the debate on the redistribution bill. The article reads:
Conservative Jack Horner is therefore attacking what never existed when he attacks representation by population, and he knows it.
Representation by population has not been adhered to exactly in Canada because of certain conditions laid down in the British North America Act. I am fully aware of that. We in the province of Alberta, though, are unique in the fact that we neither gain nor lose in numbers in the redistribution.
One would expect, them that a certain shift was necessary to correspond with the shift in population based upon the 1971 census. In this particular case the commission felt that they must superimpose their expectations upon the future ten years and take 1971 only as a base. When I appeared before the commission they advised me, in answer to my questions, that they expected Calgary to grow faster than Edmonton. Calgary was rated at 80,000 and the city at Edmonton at 87,000 average. I suggest, if this is the case, Calgary will soon surpass Edmonton in population, according to their expectations.
Since I appeared before the commission, figures reveal that Calgary over-estimated their population, and the census of the city of Calgary is in question. It is suggested that Calgary could have upped their census to get a better redistribution of money out of the provincial government than the city of Edmonton. All these things come into play. At no time did the commission have to substantiate why they felt Edmonton would grow more slowly than Calgary in the next ten years.
The commission specify that the population in rural areas will continue to decline, and fail to take into consideration some of the growth centres in the province of Alberta particularly, but not necessarily, those in the

major cities of Calgary and Edmonton. In my own constituency of Crowfoot the town of Brooks will easily reach
10.000	by 1980. They did not consider this. In fact, I doubt very much if members of the commission had a very good knowledge of anything outside the two cities of Calgary and Edmonton. They hardly knew what the irrigation district was doing and the development in the western part of the province in the Rocky Mountain area that was taking place. They seemed bent on the idea that they, and they alone, could forecast the growth centres in the province of Alberta.
With 19 seats existing now and no gain at all, one could expect not major disruptions in the electoral boundaries system but minor disruptions, taking into consideration the growth indicated in the 1971 census-not the expected growth of some wishful thinkers and boards of trade in some of the cities. It is obvious the city of Calgary was given the idea that it was going to grow at a tremendous rate. If it does, surely many people today would assume that the city centre would not be the growth centre of the city, not populationwise anyway, but that it would be the suburban areas of the city that would grow.
In this latest redistribution, Calgary centre has remained at about 81,000, less than the constituency in which I now find myself called Medicine Hat, which in this redistribution was given a population of 84,000. Why would the commission expect Calgary centre to grow in population? As the hon. member for Edmonton West has said, they should be asked to substantiate the mess they have made or the good case they have made, whichever it might be.
Why take the eastern part of Alberta and block out a rectangular area a little better than 200 miles long and a little better than 100 miles wide, and say that it has a community of interest and that geographically that area should be together? In Alberta traffic on highways moves east and west. It comes from the east to the city of Calgary, and from the east to the city of Edmonton, and does not move north and south along the Saskatchewan border. This projected riding makes no sense to me whatever.
The town of Hanna which has been the centre of some ridings-the one that I first represented called Acadia- has very little in common with the city of Medicine Hat. So why put the two together? They are 250 miles apart, there is no community of interest in the area at all, yet we see them together in the same riding. We see a direct refusal to accept the principle of the 25 per cent formula.
There is no question that they took the population of the province of Alberta at 1,600,000 and divided it by 19, getting a quotient of 85,600. Then they said quite clearly that no riding should have a population greater than
107.000	and less than 64,000. They did not even attempt to get close to those extremities. Why? They have never had to substantiate why they did not. They felt that they knew best and went along with their own concepts of where the growth areas would be.
The commission showed complete disregard for the concept of representation, that the people of the riding should get to know a member and feel they can approach him.

This is particularly true in rural areas. I think there is a good case to be made for the least disruption possible in order to comply with the shift in population, as made evident in the census 'taken in 1971. Instead of heeding some arguments, the commission brought about a major disruption for no cause whatever. In any event, they did not really justify that major disruption. It listened to arguments that were presented, it heard from the people, yet paid no attention and made only two changes in name. That is all. It never changed boundaries. It changed the name of Battle River and added "Vegreville". I suppose that may please the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and please the town of Vegreville. The commission also changed the name of Wetaskiwin to Wetaskiwin-Yellowhead. Edmonton-Strathcona, of course, has already been changed.
Why was the commission so concerned about names? Why could they not leave Crowfoot alone? I have had the honour to represent the constituency in two elections, and it bears a name that is of historic importance in the history of western Canada. Chief Crowfoot and Colonel Macleod signed the peace treaty back in 1877. We are approaching the centenary of that important occasion. Chief Crowfoot had a lot to do with bringing about a harmonious settlement between the Indians and the settlers of that time, and I think that name could have been attached to that of the city of Medicine Hat. The commission should have paid respect to the political heritage of western Canada and to that historic event which played so large a part in the settlement of the prairies. If the commission was considering only name changes, it ought to have considered such a change of name.
Without doubt, we do need a completely different system of redistribution every ten years. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) suggested, we need a system under which the electoral boundaries commission will need to answer to higher authority and substantiate the changes that have been made. In this instance we have gone through a ritual. The commission has listened to arguments but has not had to substantiate the changes. It need not alter any redistribution that it has devised for any particular riding. I think, also, that the men who are appointed to such a commission should be men who work in each and every area of the province and come from every segment of society in that province.
Having looked at the map of Alberta and studied the personnel of the commission when I appeared before them, it appears to me that they were not interested about our problems. Although they expected to be criticized about the way they dealt with the eastern and central part of Alberta, they did not know if they were right and wondered if I could advise them about possible changes.
It was obvious that some adjustment had to be made to that long constituency called Rocky Mountain, which stretched to the western boundary. But surely they did not have to do what they did on the eastern boundary. The commission could have easily extended Crowfoot west to the British Columbia border and given Crowfoot another
7,000	or 8,000 people, instead of altering the boundaries of the constituency of Lethbridge so as to include part of the constituency of Crowfoot. The commission could have moved Crowfoot closer to Lethbridge and given Crowfoot
Redistribution
a greater population. Under this redistribution proposal, Lethbridge is to have a population of 97,000; Calgary North is to have a population of 77,000 and Calgary Centre a population of 81,000.
I am certain that the Lethbridge board of trade would be disappointed to think that Lethbridge is not expected to grow, even though it is in a growth area of the province. Certainly that is what the commission must have thought in devising these boundaries. It must have felt that Lethbridge will not grow at all. On the contrary, Lethbridge has a future large potential for growth, with the further development of the tourist industry in that part of Alberta. There is its proximity to Waterton National Park and the irrigation area, and as well we must consider that many small industries want to get out from larger centres and locate there. Therefore, Lethbridge has the potential for phenomenal growth in the next number of years.
Apparently, the boundaries commission thinks that Crowfoot has reached its peak and will not continue growing in the next ten years, but it never had to give its reasons for so deciding. The Commission gave part of the old riding to Medicine Hat and suggested that the latter constituency should have a population of 97,000. To me that was an error. It is quite likely that Lethbridge in future will grow more quickly than the centre of Calgary, or even the centre of the city of Edmonton. Therefore it should not have been given an extra population of 15,000.
Actually, that constituency has a population that is
20,000	greater than that of Calgary North. To me, having looked at the map of Alberta, I think what has been done shows clearly that we need a completely new process of redistribution in this country. The present action shows clearly what is wrong with the system. That all is not well is evident from the complaints of members representing city ridings, who have complained even more loudly than those who, like myself, have traditionally represented rural ridings.
It is interesting to point out that the present riding of Crowfoot could include part of the city of Calgary. If the commission had wanted to add to the population of Crowfoot, it could have included six or seven blocks of Calgary in the riding of Crowfoot and so increased the population of Crowfoot without bringing about the major disruption it has brought about in Alberta. Instead it introduced a completely unacceptable concept in representation in Alberta. As I said a minute ago, the commission's action is a perfect example of what is wrong with our redistribution system. I think that the entire system should be thoroughly examined with a view to devising other acceptable ways for bringing about redistribution.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
things the commission overlooked in proposing the suggested division for representation in Alberta is the social and travelling habits of the people. Perhaps the riding of Red Deer is affected less than any constituency in the province. Nevertheless, I am sure that the commission did not take into consideration the fact that we, in our riding, are served by 16 newspapers, approximately a dozen radio stations and half a dozen television stations. We have 19 telephone exchanges and are divided by six rivers along with numerous lakes.
5562

July 12, 1973
Redistribution
It is grossly unfair for any commissioner or system to consider only people and not where they live. Representation by population in the future must take into account where people live. Over a period of approximately 10 years, our southern boundary has changed by approximately 30 miles and our western boundary by approximately 60 miles. A portion of the area which used to be in the western part of the constituency of Red Deer is now represented by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). Under the proposed new boundaries it will again be part of the constituency of Red Deer. This has a diverse effect on the people of that area. They become not only accustomed to that area but acquainted with those who represent them. When boundaries are changed it disrupts these people tremendously. I am sure this is never considered by the commissioners.
Any mathematician can devise boundaries, if numbers are all you are going to consider. This is one consideration which must be taken into account in the future. Perhaps legislation will have to be changed, but those responsible must devise new ways and means of representation.
Another aspect of the system that is at fault is the fact that commissioners seldom consider the wishes and desires of the people. I am sure the people would appreciate greater consideration being given to them. Apparently no thought is given to the wishes of municipalities. Counties are divided with the greatest portion in one constituency and a small part in the other. This means that reeves or secretaries of counties or municipalities have to communicate with two and sometimes three federal members of parliament. This not only creates a problem but is not conducive to consistency.
When drawing the borders of a constituency, there is too much reliance on statisticians and mathematicians. Rivers are not taken into account. If bridges are not nearby, the people are segregated. These factors must be considered in the future. I live practically in the middle of my constituency. I have to travel 65 miles to one end of my constituency and 45 to the other, and this involves considerable travel. Rivers isolate people. There are certain areas to which people travel, not only for their business but socially. This is seldom taken into account.
Telephonic communication presents considerable problems when it is necessary to go through many exchanges to communicate with constituents. A representative in an urban area can perhaps contact all his people on one exchange. However, a rural representative may have to go through 19 or 20 exchanges. This constitutes a great problem. When commissioners are selected by the government in the future, they should be instructed to consider all these aspects when setting up new boundaries for future electoral divisions.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I notice it is almost six o'clock, but perhaps I can say a few words with regard to what has been proposed by the boundaries commission of the province of Alberta.
I must say at the outset they have done a totally inadequate and inappropriate job of dividing the province into electoral divisions. The job that was done in 1966 or 1967 was not much better. This House should not take much

pride in the legislation that set up these commissions. As far as I can judge, the redistribution that was done previous to this by the members of this House was much better and longer lasting. If the minor alterations that were necessary in 1966 had been made, we would have had much better results this time. Because everything was botched up in 1966 and we are still operating under the same ground rules, we still have a bad job.
I notice it is six o'clock. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to continue these remarks later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The further consideration of the objection to the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the Province of Alberta 1973 stands deferred. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I have unanimous permission to revert to motions fok the purpose of tabling the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections
[Stage Direction]
Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, having reluctantly abandoned my own bill on the subject I am sure you will understand if I say I think the measure presently before the House could have been improved had the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) seen fit to adopt some of the recommendations in my bill.
The aim of Bill C-203 should be twofold. First, it should introduce an openness and a candour in our system of political financing so as to eliminate past inequities and abuses and the equally important perception of them in the public mind. Second, it should regulate expenses so that each individual desirous of seeking public office on behalf of a registered party will have an opportunity to do so without being put off by the high cost of running for election.
I do not believe the bill presently before the House goes far enough toward meeting either of these goals, but before I elaborate on these matters I should like to comment on the mood of euphoria which has characterized this debate so far. I interpret it as a self-congratulatory mood, evident on all sides of the House, almost smug in its assertion of virtue.
Nowhere was that more evident than in the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) this afternoon. Looking at the record of electoral reform in this country I think such an attack was singularly inappropriate. Not since 1920 when a number of minor amendments were effected has a government found it necessary or expedient to revise the existing laws. This is not to say that pleas for reform and innovative proposals have not been voiced by private members or discussed in committee, but governments in office have been reluctant to raise the matter or even to broach the subject, except, of course, the pallid measures introduced by the government in the last Parliament. As a result the issue of election financing has long been consigned to limbo. For years we have operated under the false assumption that problems could not or would not arise as a result of the way in which elections have been financed in this country.
After 50 years of inaction on the part of successive governments, a committee on election expenses, the Bar-beau Commission, was appointed in 1964 to conduct a thorough review of the financing of election campaigns; but like many another report to government its report languished in obscurity for years. Furthermore, the very excellent research done for that committee, which confirmed the benefits and advantages that disclosure of election funds and disbursements would have on our political system, was ignored by the commissioners themselves who, in the face of parliamentary and political opinion of the day, could not bring themselves to make a firm recommendation on the matter of disclosure. We have arrived at this piece of legislation today not because we are any more open or candid about these matters than were earlier parliaments, not because we have voluntarily
Election Expenses
decided to clean up our Augean stables, but because we have been overtaken by events which have threatened the credibility of our political system.
Public opinion has finally shocked us out of the apathy and lassitude with which politicians have perennially regarded this subject. Instead of leading public opinion in this field, we have been compelled to shape our strategies in reaction to events occurring around us. Having said that, I believe the regulation of election expenses is a goal long accepted as intrinsically desirable by most Canadians. The problem has been the widely held belief, not only by those in the political arena but by the public generally, that it was well nigh impossible to implement major reform of election financing, rather than that it was a good idea. And while governments and parties at all levels and in all provinces were reluctant to tackle the matter, public pressure until recently was negligible.
In recent months that situation has changed drastically. Watergate, apparent conflicts of interest in our own country, revelations in Quebec and Ontario, soliciting of funds from multinational corporations, have all had an effect on public and political opinion. We are now at a fortunate moment in time for this kind of legislation. Not only is it considered to be inherently right, but public opinion demands it.
In my opinion events such as those I have enumerated demand not partial but full disclosure of campaign funding and disbursements. The mystery and secrecy which have so long shrouded political funding have succeeded in generating suspicion among the Canadian people. As a consequence, the image of Canadian political parties has suffered, their motives called into question, their activities made suspect. Insistence of the privacy of the political purse is equated with something to hide. By its lack of candour the whole exercise has invited harassment, distortion and abuse of our political system.
There are some who believe that full disclosure will result in the curtailment of campaign donations. This has not been the case where disclosure has been required by law, as for example in the state of Florida. There it has had the effect of reducing contributions from a limited number of large donors, but as these have decreased they have been offset by the significant increase in the number of small contributions. And surely this should be the name of the game, to broaden the base of party funding, to make it more representative.
A possible objection to full disclosure is that the privacy of a donor is a principle that must be respected. My reply to this is that I do not really see why we, as party activists, should encourage perpetuation of a situation that treats political participation, no matter to what degree or in what form, as something to be hidden or denied. I doubt that parties will succeed in improving their standing in the Canadian community until they start asserting that political support, whatever its nature, is to be commended rather than condemned.
Democratic government rests on trust. But that trust will not and should not be accorded simply on faith. If there ,s no other lesson to be learned from Watergate, there is surely this one: those who seek concealment will inevitably be assumed to have something to conceal. No doubt can be permitted to remain, no suspicion can be

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
permitted to arise. Full public confidence will be accorded only if there is full public scrutiny. I believe our responsibility in this matter can be expressed in terms of a general principle. Private activities which have a public implication cannot be reserved from public scrutiny.
This leads me to the further point that legislation of the kind we are discussing here today by itself will not relieve the causes of public concern. We need to establish without delay legislation to require disclosure both by permanent and elected public servants, of all private interests which may be relevant to the execution of their public responsibilities. Disclosure of private investments and associations which may be affected by public decisions is as essential to the establishment of public trust as is the disclosure of the source of campaign funds. Comprehensive legislation to effect these purposes should be brought forward without delay. In every case in which we do not fully disclose our relationships with special interests we leave room for doubt and suspicion.
There are two other specific points in the bill which I wish to touch on. With regard to limitations imposed on spending by candidates, I would favour a much more stringent measure than that proposed by this government legislation. The provisions in Bill C-203 would mean allowable expenditures of approximately $27,000 in my constituency. Rather, I would propose that the total amount of money spent by any candidate be limited to an amount of money equal to 25 cents for each enumerated voter in the constituency. If such were the case, my campaign expenditures would be limited to $14,000. That is a far cry from the $30,000 spent in my campaign last fall.
The reason for taking this more parsimonious approach with regard to spending is that, while it forces all candidates to cut their cloth according to the amount available to them, it also allows persons for whom the high cost of elections had previously proven a deterrent to offer themselves as candidates. This, I may say, is particularly applicable to women to whom access to financial sources is extremely difficult. This more stringent regulation on allowable expenditures, coupled with federal subsidies, would make election to public office a realistic goal for the many rather than for the few.
Further, as proposed in my private member's bill, I would like to see the present legislation amended so that federal subsidies are available to any candidate receiving at least 15 per cent of the votes cast in his or her constituency. The requirement of a higher percentage than 15 per cent of the total would, in my opinion, be particularly discriminatory to candidates in recognized national parties whose fortunes fluctuate regionally. With a percentage above this figure, the candidate who runs for the Conservative party in Quebec, the NDP in the Maritimes, or the Liberal party in the Prairies, might do his or her utmost legitimately to represent their national party, only to find their efforts are not to be reimbursed or recognized to the extent their colleagues' efforts are in other parts of the country.
There is one final matter I would like to raise. Our sincerity as members of parliament in this matter will be judged by our willingness to enforce this legislation.

Surely none of us is so naive as to think that the spirit and letter of the present bill will be universally adhered to unless extraordinary ways are devised for enforcing them. The history of successful violations of many important features of income tax legislation, or in the field of industrial relations-and notably by the more powerful and affluent sections of the population-suggests that the best legal and accounting minds could be utilized to enable those who can afford them to ingeniously evade the intent of this legislation. It is therefore essential, if we are really serious about this undertaking, that we create at once a mechanism for the automatic, continuous and free review of the implementation of these measures.
At the same time-and the two tasks could be performed by the same person and his staff-we ought to establish an electoral ombudsman responsible directly to parliament to whom breaches, irregularities or simply actions contrary to the spirit of the act will be reported. This official should have powers to investigate and report on any developments or incidents deemed by him to impede the full implementation of the basic intentions of Bill C-203. The field of inquiry should be so defined as to permit investigation into areas not explicitly covered by the present act, such as, for example, the unfair use of government advertising, or activities by business, industries or unions constituting, in effect, electioneering although technically outside the scope of the proposed measures.
We should, in short, create the legal framework for a new public morality in the field of elections; and we should establish an officer of parliament with the authority and resources to strengthen our conscience and our conscientiousness at moments when these might be in danger of flagging under the pressure of excessive zeal and partisanship, however well intentioned.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to say a few words on Bill C-203, the election expenses bill. I want to express congratulations to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) for bringing forward this bill. He has been much involved in this process ever since the special committee was established in the spring of 1971 and held its hearings and discussions during the winter of 1971 and 1972.
I believe that the bill before the House tonight is a stronger bill. It represents many more of the recommendations of the special committee and the Barbeau Commission than the bill which was presented to parliament last year. In fact, this bill represents the culmination of a great deal of public discussion on this matter which started in 1964 with the appointment of the Barbeau Commission by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lester Pearson. I believe that this bill implements nearly every recommendation of the Barbeau commission report. It covers the point relating to making political parties legal entities, and it covers the points regarding the provision of a greater degree of equality among candidates. It seeks to broaden the range of political contributions through tax concessions to donors. It seeks to shorten the campaign period by placing limitations on expenditures on the mass media by candidates of parties, and it requires candidates and parties to disclose their source of income. It also implements the seventh recommendation of the Barbeau commission
July 12, 1973

report relating to broadcasting legislation and to the improvement of political communications.
The one point that is dealt with in a different way is whether there would be a separate act relating to election finances. As I understand the bill, it would make provision for that by amending the existing legislation. The special committee of the House of Commons had some 49 meetings and made some 52 recommendations. It heard from members of parliament of the provincial legislatures of Quebec and Nova Scotia where they have legislation of a similar nature. It also heard from experts in the field like Dr. Palteel, who has written a book on the subject and is especially knowledgeable on election expenses and electoral reform.
I should like to pay tribute to the chairman of that special committee, Mr. Hyliard Chappell, the former member for Peel South. Every member of parliament realizes how much effort goes into the preparation of a report by the chairman of the committee. This was certainly true of this committee report because of its very detailed and complicated work. There was a flood of recommendations of many types, and the chairman certainly did a tremendous amount of work in the preparation of the report on which many provisions of this bill are based.
The committee in its hearings gained some very distinct impressions from hearing from the various political parties, interested individuals, members of parliament, defeated candidates, professors, and from many groups throughout the country. Members of the committee gained the impression that the cost of elections is rising very rapidly, that the old campaign with party leaders travelling on trains is long gone. This is the jet age, and the cost of the national leaders' tours, the cost of signs-and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) suggested this afternoon that signs should be banned because of the high cost-and the cost of television for a moment of advertising is thousands of dollars.
The committee was also especially aware of the tremendous cost of campaigns, and its members, all being members of parliament, had a personal insight into those costs. There was concern that the average person, without bags of money or sponsorship by big unions or big business, could not successfully run for office. There was concern that the talented, dedicated person anxious to serve his or her country could not have a chance to run for public office, or if that person did run he or she could only do so with tremendous financial assistance.
Concern was expressed by the committee members that the costs incurred by political parties were escalating at a rate that was out of control, and the political parties, in submitting their briefs, indicated their tremendous concern. Attention was focussed on the belief that somehow or other we should get away from the idea of the political contribution being a back room operation, an under the table operation, something not quite respectable. Many people felt we should move towards the idea that a donation to a political party should be as acceptable as a donation to a church, to a charity, or to a community project.
Election Expenses
It is a matter of real concern to me personally that somehow or other people feel there is something not quite respectable about the political process in our country until you "make it", until you get elected. I feel that is wrong. If it is respectable for the man or woman once he or she is elected, then the whole process should be respectable-the organization, the committee work and so on.
We want to broaden the base of public participation in politics. We want to make it respectable not only to work for a political candidate but to make public donations of financial aid. An interesting example of the idea that is prevalent that politics is not quite respectable is that many school boards will allow a member of parliament to have meetings in one of their school buildings in his constituency, but they feel there is something not quite acceptable about a political party having a meeting in school buildings. I think we should move away from that idea. If the members of parliament, after they are elected, are completely acceptable, being the people who have the responsibility of representing other people, then I believe the whole process should be completely respectable.
Concern was expressed in the committee about the people money was raised from, how it was raised for political parties, the quantities that were raised, the control of these electoral funds, and what effect money was having on our whole democratic process. The process of reform in this area has now culminated in Bill C-203. It extends the proposals in Bill C-211 which was introduced a year ago last May and which had many substantial amendments made to it at the committee stage. It also fulfils a promise by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), soon after he was elected Prime Minister, that this was one area in which he wanted to see reform take place.
The bill puts a ceiling on expenditures both by candidates and by parties. For parties it amounts to some 30 cents per elector for each constituency in the country where a party runs candidates. For candidates it imposes an upper ceiling limit of about 66 cents per elector in a constituency. For example, in a constituency with about
30,000	electors there would be an upward limit on expenditures of about $20,000.
The bill requires disclosure of donations to parties and to candidates of amounts over $100. It opens up the books of the political parties. It gives a maximum tax credit for donations of $500. However, this is balanced in favour of the small donor. The person donating up to $100 gets a tax credit of 75 per cent of the amount of his donation.
The bill also provides assistance to candidates in the form of "You vote at" cards. This is a valuable contribution. Most candidates now send them out and it represents quite a cost to them. Often they are prepared in a very hurried way and there are errors. The poor elector may have two or three of these cards coming into his home, and if one is wrong and the other two are right this causes confusion. This will be eliminated in future because no more than one card will be sent out to each voter by the returning officer for the constituency.
The bill also provides for a cash contribution to candidates who receive over 20 per cent of the vote of some 16 cents for each elector up to the first 25,000, and 14 cents for each elector above 25,000. It also provides travelling expenses in large rural constituencies, and this represents

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
a real form of assistance to them. The bill also provides for a cash amount of $250 to each candidate who receives 20 per cent of the vote. This, as was proposed in the committee report, is to provide for auditing fees.
The bill restricts advertising to 29 days prior to the date of the election and puts a limit of 6 Vi hours on time for broadcasting. This time is allocated among the various parties through the CRTC and representatives of the various parties. There is a further public subsidy in that one-half of this time is being paid for out of the public treasury.
The bill also makes provision that the rates charged will be the regular minimum rates, not the inflated rates that many of us have run into when buying time on television and radio stations during an election campaign. It seems to me that this provision shortening the public advertising period will be most merciful to the people. Anything beyond 29 days stretches the campaign out beyond all reasonable limits, at least at the public level. The 6V2 hours of time recommended for television, which works out to some 13 minutes per day, does not seem very much. Of course, when the largest percentage of this is concentrated in the last few days I am sure most Canadians find it adequate to listen to.
The tax credit for donations represents a significant contribution from public funds in view of the loss of revenue to the public treasury. However, I personally hope that the fact that a person gets a deduction on their tax will give their donation a certain air of respectability and acceptance by the public and that it will act as an incentive for making donations to political parties, which is highly desirable. The Barbeau commission spoke about the idea of broadening the base so that we have many people giving smaller amounts of money, and of course the tax credit system is designed for that; it is weighted toward the small donor.
These proposals in Bill C-203, Mr. Speaker, represent the most sweeping reforms in election campaign expenses in Canada's history. They embody most of the proposals of the Barbeau commission report and the special committee of the House of Commons; they meet many of the concerns that the committee had and that Canadians in general have; they place a limit on expenditures by candidates and parties; they shorten the campaign of advertising on the broadcast media; they prevent gouging by T.V. or radio stations of candidates in their charges for advertising; they provide assistance for candidates who receive 20 per cent of the votes cast in the election; they provide assistance from public funds for radio and T.V. advertising by parties; they provide for disclosure of donations to parties and candidates of over $100; and they provide tax incentives to make donations to political parties. I believe the bill removes the veil of secrecy from party financing which, when it is open to the light of day, I think will seem less spicy and less interesting.
I am pleased to support the bill, Mr. Speaker, and to see that all parties in the House are supporting the bill. I hope it will proceed to adoption by the House after a thorough study in the standing committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, like other members of the House I welcome the bill that is before us and I certainly support its basic principles. I think there are a number of particular faults that have been enumerated by others who have spoken before, and which will be re-enumerated by others speaking in the debate tonight. It is the clear will and intention of the House to get the matter into committee quickly so that we can give it the careful and detailed examination necessary to bring a better bill back to the House.
I welcome also the interest of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) in amendments. I am prepared to overlook the fact that he has no alternative on this issue in this minority parliament. It seems to me to be the particular genius of the President of the Privy Council to act gracefully when he has no alternative. I presume that his expression of interest in amendments was a kind of apology in advance for the draftmanship of the bill. Clearly the bill is so riddled with holes and uncertainties as it stands that one is almost tempted to think that the cabinet ignored the services of the law officers of the Crown and drafted it themselves. The bill needs extensive tightening and amendment and this will occur during the committee stage.
I think an important point to make is that this matter will not come back before us again. This is the only time we will have to consider the question of election expenses and questions of related abuses. We must therefore take care in committee to ensure that we achieve the best bill possible, and to ensure that we get it out of committee and into this House in time to be in effect before the next general election.
While I welcome the bill I do not welcome the atmosphere which brought it here. That is not an atmosphere of Watergate, which is a consideration which is irrelevant, at least to my party. We were on record for the need for improvement and reform in this area well before Watergate, and on record as assigning the highest priority to this question of reform. The atmosphere I speak of is one of cynicism and suspicion which was developed deliberately for partisan purposes by spokesmen of the New Democratic Party at great cost to the public's respect for public life in Canada. Indeed, Sir, if any Watergate analogy is apt, it is the analogy between the apparent immorality of the advisers there, who believed that any means justified the end of re-electing the President, and the amorality here of the political operatives of the NDP who deliberately and over time, and virtually without evidence, sought to create a mythology of corporate control of the political process, thereby deepening cynicism and public distrust.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was at it again today, drawing dark implications with his usual lack of specific evidence. I do not intend to dwell longer on this point except to say that we are talking in this debate about honesty in the political system; and if it is dishonest for a politican to be bought-as we all agree it would be-so it offends any sensible concept of honesty to suggest that one's opponents are bought, subliminally or otherwise, when you know that they are not.
That atmosphere of cynicism is unfortunate, not simply because it undermines respect for the system and the process of politics, but also because this contrived ques-
July 12, 1973

tion of the influence of corporations or unions has turned attention away from the more serious question of the abuse by a party in government, for partisan purposes, of the power of government.
This is a far more dangerous assault upon a free and equal electoral system than all the imagined influence of multinational corporations and international unions. Moreover, it is a danger which we know exists. There is evidence as recent as the advertising campaign of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), who is a little bit responsible for multiculturalism, and as recent as the campaign for the re-election of the government of Manitoba, which campaign was so close in its results that the ambiguous use by the party in power of the advantages of office may very well have provided the narrow margin of victory.


Marc Lalonde: What about Ontario?


Charles Joseph Clark: I will specify later some of the practices of the party in power in Manitoba. I will refrain from references to the party in power in the province from which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) comes.
The abuses of the party in power in Manitoba are a textbook warning of the extent of abuse that a government party can engage in. But, Sir, the point I want to emphasize now is that the capacity for abuse and the reality of the abuse of office by a party in power is a subject on which this bill is completely silent.


Mr. Baker:: Right.


Charles Joseph Clark: Only the naive would consider that to be accidental, particularly when the bill stands in the name of the master strategist of the Liberal Party. It is no accident that the area of abuse left untouched is the area of abuse which, in federal politics, is most acceptable and most advantageous to the Liberal party.
The President of the Privy Council has said that he will welcome amendments, and we will give them to him. If the NDP is serious about wanting to control abuses, they will support our efforts to limit or eliminate the capacity of a party in power to use public funds for advertising, use of aircraft and other facilities to advance a partisan cause, to frustrate the system and to attack the spirit of free and equal elections.
I recognize that it will not be easy to spell out the distinction between partisan and legitimate uses, but it would be utterly irresponsible for parliament to let this bill pass without limiting the capacity for abuse of office by a party in power. As it stands, this bill is an invitation to unilateral disarmament. Opposition parties are at a disadvantage anyway in our parliamentary system. Even though the things we say make more sense than the things the government says, government statements carry the promise of action and thus get more attention. For example, the proposal by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to stop the tax system from profiting from inflation had less force as his proposal than it did when it was adopted holus-bolus by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in one of the flip-flops that have come to define
Election Expenses
that man of principle. There are other disadvantages of opposition, Sir, not the least of which is the danger of appearing negative because of the constitutional requirement to be skeptical of things the government proposes.
These disadvantages are an inescapable part of the system, and we will live with those for the short period we remain in opposition. But, Sir, they are in a category apart from the illegitimate advantage governments draw from their access to the public purse. The government proposes in this bill to limit further the already limited capacity of opposition parties to compete, while retaining unfettered the single most important weapon in the armament of a party in power-the ability to abuse public funds for party purposes. This bill will be a fraud unless we add amendments to limit the government party as effectively as we limit opposition parties.
I said that I would return to the question of Manitoba. The examples of abuse there are not simply examples of abuse: they also underline the fact that the NDP in practice prove that their motive in chasing the money changers from the temple is simply to take over the trade. The only way the NDP in office has changed bad practice is to make it worse. They have practised abuse with moral authority. I would ask the House to consider these facts of life in Manitoba in 1973, and to let each one of us here ask himself, what multinational corporation, or other bogeyman, has so abused power to distort the principle of an equal chance in elections?
The Manitoban election was in June. From January into May there was an accelerating program of advertisements on radio, television and in the newspapers, ostensibly telling how to apply for an education rebate, but in practice extolling the program.


James Hugh Faulkner: What about the practice in Ontario?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Secretary of State is responsible for the campaign to do with multiculturalism.
During the same time, a general and accelerating increase in government paid advertising in Manitoba by various departments and agencies was explaining, of course, what wonderful things the Manitoba government was doing as a prelude to the election. In May, in the mail box of virtually every farmer in Manitoba, there mysteriously appeared a government brochure forecasting the great plans of the government for agriculture, at public expense. The same month, a week before the election was called, a personal letter on the stationery of "The Office of the Premier" was mailed to every resident in the province advising of the removal of the medicare premium. Prior to that, on the same stationery, with the same taxpayer paying the post, a personal letter was sent from the premier to every citizen whose home improvement grant was approved. This personal approach, over the signature of the premier, was made in a province where, you will remember, the party in power was anxious to hide its own name, and emphasize the premier's name, at public expense.
In the campaign itself the premier Hew around in a Saunders Aircraft plane.


An hon. Member:: Davis did the same . tario.
5568

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses


Charles Joseph Clark: It is interesting to hear from the NDP, those paragons of virtue, that somebody else was as bad as they were. Saunders is controlled by the Manitoba Development Corporation, and the NDP had the plane rent free, on lease, from a middleman, who had it rent free from Saunders. When he was caught, the premier offered to pay, overlooking the fact that Saunders is not licensed by the Ministry of Transport to charter, and thus not eligible to collect.
This is not to mention the numerous executive assistants to ministers who managed campaigns, or the other public officials who worked to sustain the party in power, or the very severe pressure brought to bear to contribute upon people who are doing business with the government.
It has been pointed out in interventions in the House that that pattern is not limited to one province. A similar apparatus is being established in British Columbia, and certainly it exists in Saskatchewan. It is clearly here in Ottawa, although the Liberals here have not been so sanctimonious about condemning others for the things they do themselves. There was an order for return made to a question of the hon. member for Colchester-Cumberland North (Mr. Coates) indicating the abuse during election campaigns whereby aircraft of the state were engaged by ministers on partisan campaigning activities. There is the ad of the Secretary of State, sometimes responsible for multiculturalism and, indeed, the whole program of that minister who, from time to time when it is safe, appears in the House. It appears to be a contrived program, contrived for partisan purposes, even to the point of assigning to the minister an executive assistant whose chief former function was partisan, even though it was not always successfully partisan.
There has been recently in the House on the part of the very minister who introduced this legislation, a refusal to conduct a public inquiry into the harassment connected with the ITT contribution, harassment that is only possible when it is supported by a party with the force of government behind it.
There was the reference yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), to the partisan use even of Her Majesty's visit. I do not begrudge the Liberal candidates in Alberta an audience with the Queen. The point is that no one attends state dinners in a personal capacity. Guests are chosen as representatives, and the significance of this most recent event is that 15 of the duly elected federal representatives of the people of Alberta were deliberately excluded, their places taken by individuals who represent nothing more than the Liberal party in Alberta, which in Alberta is not very much. That is inexcusable partisanship, particularly when it involves Her Majesty unwittingly in an embarrassment she has no practical power to resist. In terms of this debate it is one more graphic instance of the developed practice, the habit, of the Liberal party in power to use prerogatives which attach to the government for purposes which are narrowly and simply partisan. This is a habit we must break, and since no amount of exhortation will reform the Liberal party, legislation must.
The danger here goes far beyond elections.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member would save our souls.


Charles Joseph Clark: There has been for several years an important confusion among Liberals about the distinction between their party and the government of Canada. That, perhaps, is natural because they have been in power far too long, for most of the last 75 years. In a system such as ours there is usually and hopefully a healthy strain between the public service and the government. Here, instead, there is consistent inbreeding. Consider the way in which during the question period one can look across the way and see the former deputy minister of the department of trade and commerce, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), conferring with his front bench seatmate, the former deputy minister of defence production, now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). There are others who have moved, without changing their style or attitude, from the public service to the front benches or backbenches of the Liberal party.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Has the hon. member anything against the public service?


Charles Joseph Clark: I have nothing against the public service, but I think there is a very unhealthy attitude when there is no distinction between the public service and the party in power, as in the case here.


An hon. Member:: That does not apply in all cases.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is the exception which proves every rule. Mr. Speaker, I remember once overhearing a conversation by the predecessor in parliamentary gymnastics to the President of the Privy Council the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, who had gone to that reward he designed for himself but has now retired. He referred in passing to what he called an unfortunate interlude in Canadian history, the unfortunate interlude being the six years of Diefenbaker government, because they interrupted what he and his colleagues had come to look on as the normal state of affairs in Canada; that is to say, a state of affairs when a Liberal government was in office. That is the same man whose great regard for parliament, when he sat on this side of the House, was such that he developed obstruction to an art form, indicating the extent of his commitment to parliamentary government.
There are other instances throughout our history of confusion in the Liberal party about the distinction between the public interest and the interest of the Liberal party. There is the suspicion that persists that it was the Liberal party which caused the death of "This Hour Has Seven Days" from the CBC.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Members opposite can laugh. It is interesting to record the degree of seriousness which the Liberal party attaches to the independence of the CBC. I am particularly sorry to see joining in that revelry the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who is responsible for reporting to the House for that corpora-
July 12, 1973

tion. There was the emasculation of the Company of Young Canadians when it became inconvenient to honour its mandate. There was the subtle attack by the former minister of finance who has now gone to that preserve for defeated Liberal politicians. There was the sudden attack on the independence and capacity of the Economic Council of Canada. There is the attitude which is evident in this House right now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but he seems to be ranging somewhat further afield than the purposes which are being considered, namely the amendments to the Canada Elections Act and certain other acts.


Charles Joseph Clark: I can respect that comment, Mr. Speaker. The point I am trying to make is there has been consistent confusion in the minds of the Liberal party between the partisan politics of that party and the public interest of the nation. This bill, if it is to have any sensible effect and treat all parties in this country equally, cannot remain as silent as the draft which was introduced.
The omission of any reference to the abuse of power by the party in government was not accidental. It has to be seen in the context of the way this government has acted in recent years. There has been the change in rules which has seriously limited the powers of parliament and the incident the other night when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) frustrated the right of parliament to object to specific expenditures. It must be seen in the context of Information Canada with the simple and singular purpose of advancing the cause of the party in power. It must be seen in the context of the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), before his temporary repentant period, when he referred to members on this side of the House as nobodies.
This bill is one more weapon of the Liberal party against democracy. It limits the capacity of other parties to compete, leaving their own party and their own capacity to campaign untouched. This is the major weakness in a bill which is good in principle and which has several useful reforms which members of my party have advocated over the years. However, it has several flaws. We clearly need to give it detailed and careful consideration in committee.
This matter will not come back before us again. We must deal completely with it now. We must not deal with only half a bill such as the government has brought forward, which serves its own interest and leaves its own greatest weapon unhampered; we must deal with a bill that includes the reforms we intend to propose which will place real limits on the capacity for abuse by a party in power of the prerogatives of office. We are willing to prepare positive amendments to make it a good bill. I hope there is a general disposition in this House to support them in committee.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, some of the proposals before this House tonight have been proposals of this party since prior to 1967. It is clear this party has been on record for a great period of time as favouring action to control expenses at the time of elections.
Election Expenses
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who paid tribute to the former member for Peel South. I, too, pay tribute to his efforts during the last parliament in attempting to produce legislation that would somehow control expenses. The government refused to pay attention to that legislation. It went to the country in October making sure there was no legislation that would in any way control election expenses, even though there was ample time in the four and one half years of misrule to do something about it.
The hon. member for Algoma suggested that one of the reasons people do not enter politics or political campaigns is the cost. To some extent that may be true. However, with respect to the major political parties I suggest that is largely nonsense. In many parts of Canada political candidates pay no money whatsoever out of their own pocket to run for office. The major discouragement is not the cost of the campaign but the cost when you come here at the end of the campaign.
Perhaps this is a bit off the topic, but in answer to the hon. member for Algoma I say it is about time members of parliament were paid salaries and allowances equal to a high school teacher, high school principal, a court clerk, junior provincial judge or some of the 10,000 civil servants who work for this government. One of the major problems in getting people of consequence and ability to run for political office is the enormous cost to them and their families to come to Ottawa and represent their area in the parliament of this country. Nevertheless, I must compliment the government for at last bringing forward a bill which will in some ways control election expenses.
This bill has been wanted by Canadians for a long time. It has been wanted by politicians for a long time. A great many of us are tired of the situation where we have to get in a spending rat race at the time of an election. With a limit on that spending rat race, it will be a lot easier for all of us.
This bill must go to committee as soon as possible. It should be studied by the committee during the summer recess so that the committee can examine evidence from across Canada, if necessary. The committee can report this bill back to the House immediately after vacation to be adopted and put into law as soon as possible. I do not want to see this whole matter dilly around in committee and have this parliament face another election without some control on elevation costs.
I want to set out some of the concerns I have which I hope the committee will consider when this matter is before them. One concern is the limitation of expenses where the limitation unduly loads the dice in favour of present members of parliament.
Does this limitation not mitigate against people who are attempting to gain office, trying to oust a sitting member or having a realistic crack at it? My own personal expenses in the last election amounted to some six or seven thousand dollars over and above the limit which would be allowed on the basis of population under this bill. I might not have had to spend that money had I been a little wiser or a little more experienced. But getting known in an urban area is difficult; it may be difficult in a
26446-62J

July 12, 1973
Election Expenses
rural area, too. A new man coming into the game must spend a great deal of money just to get known, whereas a sitting member of this House has the advantage of franking privileges, stationery, constituency privileges and the great advantage of being reported by newspapers and other media. A new man coming along does not possess these advantages and to some extent he can only obtain them by the use of money. The bill before us treats everyone in the same way. I am not saying this is wrong, but I am concerned about this aspect and it is one which should be considered by the committee.
The difficulty confronting new candidates is increased by the provision limiting advertising to the last 29 days of the campaign. No doubt it is a good thing to limit the length of the campaign, but the sitting member is not prevented from issuing press releases about the things he is doing. The new man does not have the same facilities to advertise the things he would like to do.
Then there is the provision that volunteers are not counted as an expense. This business of volunteers has been discussed before; I believe it was mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). It sometimes happens that people are conveniently allowed holidays by their companies or by their unions, and they just happen to volunteer because there just happens to be an election in progress. Some of these people happen to be the kind of volunteers who are professional union organizers or professional sales people. They are very good at doing things. All of a sudden they appear in great numbers.


An hon. Member:: Ask the NDP.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) would probably know about union organizers getting holidays on these occasions. Somewhere along the line the committee had better reach a decision on just who is a volunteer.
Then there is the question of the value to be placed on goods and services. We are supposed to treat as an expense the cost of services and the cost of goods. But what is the cost of an extra sheet of paper run through a Xerox machine, and what is the value ascribed to the use of a Gestetner whose owner was not using it after five o'clock? How does one estimate the cost of signs? Are they to be valued at the cost of acquiring them from a union printing shop or on the basis that one's volunteers make them in the shop at night? Is stationery to be valued at its cost in the store or is it to be valued at a distress price because it was surplus to some company's inventory? These are matters which must be examined by the committee in connection with the relevant portion of the bill.
How does one assess the value of the use of a car given to a candidate during the period of the election campaign, or the use of a truck in the same circumstances, or the use of some staple guns which happen to get lost after a sign has been put up? Or the cost of space which had not been rented before the election and which is not likely to be rended after, and which just happens to be available to the candidate? Somewhere along the line a clear understanding must be reached on the subject of these costs. Otherwise, the limitation placed on expenses will mean nothing. There is need to define what constitutes election expenses.

For that matter, we might ask ourselves just when we do, in fact, begin running for an election. This has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) tonight. Some of my hon. friends tell me they start running for the next election as soon as an election is over. They say they are always running for election. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain went into detail about the way in which ministers of the Crown run for election. This bill must do something to control the full-page advertisement, the billboard with the minister's picture on it, the press release which is not a press release but, rather, straight propaganda to advertise the minister. That kind of thing is straight electioneering. In some cases it even goes on during election campaigns.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Somewhere along the line this bill will have to control the activities of ministers of the Crown in the performance of their duty and limit the personal exposure practised by ministers of the Crown in the fulfilment of their functions. One of the worst features of our society today is continuing inflation. Indeed, these are times when one could almost use the phrase "galloping inflation" to describe it. Costs are advancing at a rate of 8.3 per cent on an annual basis. A study was recently made of Post Office finances by a well-known firm of accountants and they suggested that by 1975 the first class mail rate in this country will be 12 cents. To some extent the bill before us recognizes that this is the case and that the mail rate will not remain at 8 cents for very long, because the contribution made to candidates receiving over 20 per cent of the popular vote is expressed as 16 cents for the first 25,000 electors plus 14 cents for all others, to meet the cost of mailing a first-class letter weighing not more than one ounce. So clearly the drafters of this bill have foretold the Canadian people that the postal rates will not remain for long at 8 cents.
The question of escalation of costs must be taken into account. Indexing seems to be a popular suggestion these days and perhaps the committee might look into the question of indexing the costs. Because costs do rise. Certainly costs will rise if we are governed by a government which does not care about inflation. Presumably on that basis we must allow for increases in costs.
A peculiar paragraph in the bill is in connection with the "You vote at" card. Apparently it now becomes a crime to send these out, and for no reason at all. If the returning officer is to send out a "vote at" card to every person on the voters list, fine; but why is it wrong if some candidate wants to be foolish enough to use his limited electoral expense money in this way? Why should he be penalized because he wants to advertise in that fashion? The bill is a double kill.
If there is something wrong with the "vote at" cards then they should be banned completely, but why provide that the returning officer must send out the "vote at" cards and then forbid a candidate to send one out himself? If he wants to be foolish and demonstrate his stupidity, why penalize him further by making it an illegal act?
July 12, 1973

On the question of disclosure I appreciate that there has been some suspicion by the public in respect of the way politicians act. I suggest that suspicion is totally unfounded. I suggest also that to some extent the control of the disclosure provisions may cause more harm to the government than the harm that non-disclosure is perhaps causing. I think the committee should look into the evidence of what bribery and corruption has taken place as a result of a non-disclosure, because one of the basic rights we have as Canadians is the right to privacy. When the wiretap bill was before this House the big argument of members of the New Democratic Party was that no one is entitled to peep into my room or listen to my phone. They were saying, and I support them, that the citizen has the right to be private. When I give money to my church I do not want to have spread out before the country exactly how much I gave. And I am not really interested in how much my neighbour gives. One of the things we fought for in this country for a long time, if we look back in history, was that a person could walk up on a platform and say that he voted for so and so. Then we brought in the secret ballot. To a large extent this question of disclosure of campaign funds is saying to the person who gives that no longer does he have a secret ballot. I appreciate that the public wants to be sure that there is no bribery or corruption, and that is good; but perhaps we can look into proposals whereby the returning officer would have the right to see the disclosure and the donation made, in the same way as the church treasurer does, but be sworn not to tell anybody else who made the donation in question. Let us have that kind of disclosure made to someone who is independent, so that if somebody wants to accuse someone of having been bribed, the evidence is there and can be subpoenaed into court, if necessary, to find out whether there has been dishonesty. Somewhere along the line we must consider very carefully whether the disclosure provisions are not of such a nature as to destroy the right that I have to vote without you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone else in this country knowing how I vote. That kind of thing is important. The confidentiality of the donor must be considered.
I come next to the question of the tax deductibility of donations. I think this is an excellent proposal. I am totally in favour of the tax credit proposal. This proposal is fair. It treats the man with a low income in the same fashion as it treats the wealthy person, because it is a write-off of tax of $75 on $100. This will encourage public participation. The provision says, in effect, that if you give $100 to your political party it really costs you only $25. That is good. It will encourage people to donate to the party of their choice. I say the effect of that is that the state, this government, is picking up 75 per cent of the cost of political activity in this country.
When the state picks up 75 per cent of the cost of political activity I suggest the state has done its share, that we must inquire very deeply into the validity of the suggestion that the state should further compensate candidates for the costs they have incurred during an election. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) on this point said that if you have 10 per cent of the public vote you should get your 16 cents free mailing and everything else. I say that he is again trying to get into the public trough. If 75 per cent of your campaign expenses are paid
Election Expenses
by the state through income tax deductions, surely you do not need to get into the public trough any further.
Let us not have a situation where it is conceivable, with the 16 cents free mailing and so on, that a person could in fact make a profit as a result of running for election. I want to come to this question of making a profit from running for election and speak for a moment about what I think is the most ridiculous part of this bill. I refer to the provision whereby, regardless how many votes a candidate has-he can get one vote by voting for himself-he receives $250. Under the Elections Act, with a deposit of $200 a person can get his name on the ballot. In other words, a person could vote for himself, put up the $200 and get back $250. Is that not an intelligent proposal!
Some days ago a young man who was somewhat disturbed broke into the House of Commons. That young man ran against me in the last election. He is really a publicity hound. He likes publicity and he figures that the easiest way of getting publicity was to hand in $200 to the returning officer, get 25 copies of the Canada Elections Act, 25 copies of the voters list, his share of free time on local radio, his share of free space in the newspapers, and his share of free time before any audience in the country. Now we have the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen) saying to this nuisance candidate-and I say that advisedly-that he will be getting $250 when it is all over.
What is the point of the $200 deposit? What the President of the Privy Council should be doing is to increase the deposit required in view of the provisions of this act, with its juicy gifts which in fact encourage a great number of nuisance candidates and which do not increase the validity of a good democratic process at all. We must have an act that ensures that serious candidates are encouraged to run. We cannot have a situation where the act encouraged people just to put up their names, get publicity, and take advantage of some of the provisions in the act.
There are a number of other loopholes in this act. There is no control of pre-election expenses. There seems to be no control whatsoever over nomination advertising, even though nomination advertising may be done by the existing member who has a 100 per cent chance of winning the nomination. He can cover the riding with billboards advertising his nomination before the 29 day period. These are monster loopholes. If we are to make this act sensible, these loopholes must be plugged during the committee stage.
Basically, I think that the act is a good piece of legislation to go before the committee, but there is a great deal of work for the committee to do. I would like to see the committee get at it now and be in a position by the October 1 at the latest to report to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[Stage Direction]
July 12, 1973
Immigration Appeal Board Act IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-197, to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the intention of the parties, as I understand it, after the discussions that were held among the House leaders, to give this bill third reading this evening. I do not intend to impose upon the goodness and charity of the House to any great extent, but I do believe that in the next five or six minutes I should relay to the House and to the people of Canada some of our thoughts at this particular time.
I have watched the face of Canada change over the past 20 or 25 years. It seems to me that this country has grown because of the influx of immigrants, regardless of their colour, race, cultural background, skill or lack of skill, education or lack of it. I believe it is through their diversity in this regard that this country is becoming greater and more significant and the envy of many countries throughout the world.
We have seen that the people who have come to Canada-and I do not say this lightly-believe in the work ethic, whereas some of us who had the privilege, the honour and the opportunity of being born here have moved away from this principle on which our country was built, in other words, the work ethic. We have seen these people come to this country because they believe that in this land they will find an opportunity to work and to contribute to the building of the nation. I myself have seen this happen in my own city of Hamilton. I will not single out any particular culture. The same is happening in the city of Montreal, in Winnipeg, in Vancouver, and throughout this entire nation. We have seen this nation reaching toward its ultimate destiny as a result of the input of many of those people who have come to this country in the past 20 years.
To get to the meat of this bill, because of the opportunities that have been offered to these immigrants, some who have come through devious means now find themselves boxed in. Apparently Bill C-197 will assist these people. I gather from the answers which the minister gave in reply to questions we put to him in committee that he will close an eye in order to assist these people, some of whom have been here for years. I refer to persons who have come to Canada through the back door, illegally. I think they are successful right now, there is no question about that. I am not referring to crooks such as Xaviera Hollander. I am referring to people who have wanted to become part of this multicultural society of ours, this Canadian mosaic. So I hope the minister, in accordance with the promises he gave us, will bend over backward-and I do not think I am taking him out of context-in order to show that he is sufficiently interested to encourage these people to come

forward and register in accordance with the provisions of the bill, and that compassion will be shown them.
I know that there are a few people who represent groups, particularly from the city of Montreal, who question the sincerity of the government or the minister.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Wrongly so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I say respectfully that I think I am right. I know the minister. We do have our little differences now and again in the House and we will continue to have them, but I cannot question his sincerity in this regard having listened to the intensive questioning of the minister by all members of the House.
I hope the minister does not let me down because then all hell will break loose, as can usually happen between he and I. Let all those who are reluctant to come forward, who have a fear of coming forward, know that we in the official opposition will keep a guarding eye on the conduct of the government and the minister in this regard. I say let them come forward and register. Let them take advantage of this last chance.
Some people were worried about the quality of the temporary members on the board, and I think rightfully so. Some were concerned that there might not be a sufficient number of lawyers who could have the skills necessary to interpret legal precedents. We were going to move an amendment, but once again the minister was able to convince the members of the standing committee that he would keep this matter in mind, that there would be sufficient number of lawyers, though he did not want to be tied down.
I hope he will see to it that there is a certain amount of legal background provided by barristers or advocates who can give of their wisdom and expertise on a very difficult matter, and at the same time possess the necessary compassion, understanding that they are dealing with human beings who will be coming before the judicial process to take advantage of this last chance.
In committee members were most concerned about how we would communicate with these people who are living underground. This is one case where all hon. members would underscore the need for massive advertising, whether by radio, television, or through the ethnic press. Leaders of cultural groups and community leaders will have to be involved. There will have to be massive advertisements, something similar to that which occurred when the minister was lowering the boom on November 3 last with respect to the necessity for work permits after January 1.
This is one bill with which we do not have many problems. Everybody is agreeing with everybody else. I would ask the minister to get involved with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and convince him of the necessity of such advertising. I notice the minister nodding his head in the affirmative. I hope he can give some indication that this will be a priority.
Once these people are brought out from underground we will have to concentrate on providing immigrant services. In this respect we have been totally lacking in trying to

reach all ages, all nationalities, and in advising them on, and educating them in, our way of life in Canada. Immigrant services are necessary-some may not like the expression-in order to integrate people into our society in general terms. I stress that some people like to hang on to their cultural backgrounds, and this is understandable. In this regard I understand the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), through the work of Dr. Frieda Hawkins, is undertaking a study.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: This has been going on for some years.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Since 1971. Right now she is on the verge of holding consultative meetings arranged between municipalities, the provinces and the federal government, not to mention social agencies and various other groups, in order to arrive at the necessary recommendations that will be submitted to the government so that it may have some inkling of what is required by way of immigrant services.
The minister must crack down on unscrupulous profiteers, on agencies that misrepresent opportunities here in Canada. Self-styled immigrant consultants have to be checked. Even some lawyers were charging exorbitant fees for nothing whatsoever. We all hope that this sordid mess that was brought upon us by the government through its perpetuation of the system that has been in existence since 1967 will be cleared up. We intend to support the minister in this regard, but let me say that if we see any hanky-panky, any harassment, or any overzealousness that would lead us to believe there was some question of the minister's sincerity, he can expect to hear from the official opposition.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, all of us are anxious to have third reading of this bill tonight. In the last 25 years the volume of immigrants to Canada has caused a change in Canadian society. It has brought forth greater richness in culture, in language and in productivity. Just recently in Toronto we saw a caravan program which depicted the many nationalities that have come to this country. It gave examples of the different foods, cultures and personalities. It was a rich experience for Toronto. As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said, this display program has been shown in other major cities.
Even the small towns where many of the immigrants settled have benefited from them. Of course, their arrival caused strains on the educational system, not to mention the housing problem and the unemployment problem. That is why I hope that the minister, when he brings forth legislation in the future dealing with immigration problems, will consult and co-operate with the provinces, because in the final analysis the weight of these problems falls on the provinces and municipalities.
The hon. member for Hamilton West was quite right in saying that not only must we bring in new immigrants but we must provide services for them. We want them to take their rightful place in society. They have to learn the language and the skills which we have in this country.
Bill C-197 has been introduced to correct an honest mistake that the government made in allowing visitors to come to Canada and permitting them to apply for landed status from within Canada. As I say, it was an honest
Adjournment Debate
mistake based on the conviction that people should come to Canada, test the community, and then, if they were satisfied, apply. But this right was grossly abused, and as a result there are 17,000 cases now before the appeal courts.
We have had studies on immigration, and we have had recommendations, but they have not been translated into legislation. I hope that the minister regards this as a first step to the development of an immigration policy that brings many people to Canada. At the moment there is a common thought and feeling that any person over 45 years of age who is unskilled stands a very poor chance of coming to Canada and being part of the community. This appears on the face of it to be grossly unfair. We appear to be looking for young people and for skills, and sometimes we drain from underdeveloped countries people who may be able to make a good contribution within their own country.
I hope we have the charity to embrace people from different countries and cultures even though they have not the absolute requirements that we think they have at the moment. I think the minister has a philosophy that can embrace that type of thinking. We should see if we cannot bring to Canada a greater variety of people, rather than adhere to the strict policy we have at the moment of looking to young people with skills.
I look forward to legislation in the near future after more study of these problems and consultation with the provinces, so that we can be justly proud of any immigration policies that we have.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There seems to be a disposition that we call it ten o'clock and proceed with the adjournment debate. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on March 29 of this year I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether his government intended to respond to the need to establish machinery to work out a co-ordinated resource processing and export strategy for this country, and whether there was any suggestion of a

July 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate
meeting with the provinces in this regard. In his usual sincere and kindly way the Prime Minister made a certain suggestion. It was even printable and that is why I have decided to pursue the matter a little further this evening.
No one doubts that there is a problem here and that more manufacturing and processing must be encouraged in Canada. Likewise no one doubts that the tax concessions to the manufacturers and processors do not by themselves cure these problems of encouraging more of such manufacturing and processing activities in this country.
It is obvious to anyone who studies the subject that the Prime Minister and his government are still without any comprehensive plans for directing the economic affairs of this country. They must know that most of our trading partners have little or no tariffs on the importation of raw materials and very high tariffs on manufactured and finished products. Therefore these nations make every effort to import our raw materials and shun, in most cases, our more refined and finished goods.
We need tax policies that take this situation more into account. The less processing in Canada that industries do, in certain areas at least, the more they should be taxed. Canada, in going into the negotiations this fall on the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, is grossly unprepared. Judging by the position papers released by the United States and the powers given to President Nixon, the Americans know what they want and are determined to achieve it. I wonder if our government is equipped to deal with the challenge facing Canada in this matter. Can they cope? Are they capable? Judging by past experience, I doubt it.
The provinces should, of course, be consulted. After all, although international trade and commerce clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, one must remember that provinces have basic rights under the British North America Act regarding their natural resources. Already there are instances where provinces have required by law the processing of raw materials to a certain stage before they may be exported. Just as Ontario required that pulp must be made into newsprint and not exported raw, similar measures could be taken regarding minerals, so as to require processing. But each province cannot "go it alone", Mr. Speaker. Another province could take advantage of the situation by being more lenient, and thus attract industry away.
The federal government should show a little concern and leadership to unify these sorts of efforts and perhaps shape transport costs to reflect the desirability or not, almost automatically, shipping raw materials. Rather we should make it more expensive in certain areas to do so, and favour manufacturing by giving finished goods a break in freight charges. In effect, we would have subsidized rates for manufactured or processed material versus raw material.
The government could also consider concepts like export licences for exporting raw material in areas where unemployment is particularly high, or where no valid reasons exists why manufacturing and/or processing of the raw material in question cannot occur in the particular region. This would have to be modified, of course, according to world demand vis-a-vis Canadian needs; a difficult but nevertheless possible concept.
(Mr. MacKay.]
The current foreign review legislation now in committee may have some desirable effects-indirect, perhaps, but desirable-on this whole issue. Current tax policies which favour manufacturers and processors are not going to provide by themselves the answers. As the July 7 issue of the Globe and Mail pointed out, our unfavourable trade balance is worsening in trade of manufactured goods. The article by Wayne Cheveldayoff points out;
During the past year or so, the sharp increase in energy exports has helped prevent the Canadian dollar from declining as it should if it were to reflect the deteriorating trade position for manufactured goods.
Our energy exports are not going to take up the slack. The article goes on to say:
In 1972, Canadian trade with all countries resulted in a merchandise trade surplus of $1.3 billion. This was made up of a $2.9 billion surplus in crude materials, a $3.1 billion surplus in fabricated materials, but a $4.7 billion deficit in end products.
Trade with the United States alone last year yielded a merchandise trade surplus of $1 billion, with a $1.3 billion crude materials surplus and a $2.5 billion fabricated materials surplus, more than offsetting a $2.7 billion end products deficit.
Mr. Speaker, it is time the Prime Minister and his colleagues who are directing Canadian economic affairs showed some concern and initiative and abandoned their ad hoc policies, designed only to keep them in power while they try to create an illusion of progress, at least until the impending election. Let us see some courageous implementation of hard, practical policies for the long term good and growth of this country.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member from Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I think he has raised some very fundamental questions about industrial development in Canada, about the need to maximize benefits to Canadians, and about the desirability of having the fullest co-ordination of government activity in this area.
I note the hon. member's questions were raised in late March and they were related to a public statement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) who, at that time and on many occasions since, expressed his desire to see Canadian companies get greater value out of the natural resources we produce. I can say that this aspect was part of the minister's discussion with the provinces during his recent meetings with them.
In terms of interdepartmental co-ordination and government support for this objective, I would be remiss if I did not mention the efforts of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) respecting the corporate tax benefits to industry, as well as the very welcome statement yesterday of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) concerning the proposed establishment of the Industrial Bank and Development Agency.
I have said that the government is very interested in resource development and the maximizing of benefits to Canadians from this process. I think the hon. member will agree that this is one of the underlying elements contained in the DREE staff papers which were tabled in the House several weeks ago and which are being scrutinized very

closely by the other levels of government as well as by the public.
While these reports are fairly broad in scope, they do attempt to identify possible opportunities for development in Canada. The federal government's goal or hope is that- and I am now quoting from staff papers:
-the discussions with the provincial governments will lead to greater and increasingly more effective federal-provincial action to overcome regional disparities and to encourage economic and social development in the slow-growth parts of Canada.
I think that it is safe to predict, and the hon. member assumed correctly in his question on March 29, that the result will be a more integrated regional development strategy for this country.


AGRICULTURE-TERMINATION OF PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT-DISPOSITION OF FUNDS-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF DISASTER PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) present tonight to respond to the question I wish to ask. This is a most important subject.
On May 16 last I asked the following question in the House:
In view of the announcement of the minister that in the near future he hopes to introduce legislation to bring an end to PFAA, would he inform the House what will happen to the $10 million in the PFAA emergency fund, and is the minister giving consideration to developing an over-all disaster program for western producers?
The minister replied by suggesting that the money would be handed out equally, etc. Actually, he did not give an answer and we want to give him an opportunity to answer tonight.
The point I am raising is this. We have now come to the point of providing crop insurance for the western producer. It is a substantially improved crop insurance program, and most farmers I think have taken out crop insurance. Therefore, we want to know on what basis the government is eliminating the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
So far as I am aware, there have not been withdrawals from the prairie farm assistance fund for a number of years, and there is now slightly under $10 million in that emergency fund which could be used, perhaps in conjunction with crop insurance, as a regional disaster fund. The fund could take the place of the PFAA fund, and could to be used to assist farmers hit with disaster. I wish to cite three examples of disaster in this country. The minister could call this fund the Whelan fund, or the Whelan disaster fund, or whatever he likes. I think there would be considerable merit in using it to meet a disaster situation.
For example, last fall problems developed in the Peace River country. That region of the west was hit with disaster in the form of premature snowfall, and farmers did not get their crops out.
My second example is northeast Saskatchewan, where there has been a great deal of flooding and rain, to the extent that farmers have not even got their crops in the ground, and therefore crop insurance does not apply.
Adjournment Debate
The third example involves my area. There has been a severe outbreak of grasshoppers there, and the cost of using certain sprays has run as high as $600 per farm. The sprays are not very effective. Some farmers have sprayed two or three times, yet lost one-third of their crops. If the kind of fund I suggest had been established, it could be used to render assistance in meeting the cost of spraying, and this could be done through the different municipalities involved. I have had lots of letters regarding the outbreak of grasshoppers.
If we can assist a specific area that has been hit with a severe outbreak of grasshoppers, it will be of benefit to the entire crop area. The minister has been asked about using Dieldrin to wipe out grasshoppers, but the government has refused because of concern about its effect on the environment. Present sprays are not nearly as effective.
The cost is mounting and the farmers are becoming extremely frustrated. This is happening in a year when there is a real need for every bushel of grain we can get in terms of domestic and world demands.
I hope the minister will respond to my request to establish a regional disaster fund which would override crop insurance to take care of particular problems that develop. I want to point out that the Standing Committee on Agriculture passed a motion agreeing in principle with this idea. The Conservative party voted against it, and every Tory who comes from the dried out areas of Saskatchewan or Alberta should hang his head in shame. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) were not at that committee meeting. If they had been there, it might have been different.
In spite of the announcement in the Globe and Mail that there is no grasshopper problem, I want to tell the minister the grasshoppers are there chewing away and we are having a hell of a time trying to kill them.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, my press clipping service shows me one thing, and that is that more papers than the Globe and Mail have indicated the grasshopper issue is not as bad as we expected it to be. Reports which I received in my office indicate there are certain problem areas where the little grasshoppers are chewing away at certain crops. My reports also show the grasshopper infestation is caused by different batches. Regardless of what spray we use, we have to spray more than once, whether it is dieldrin or something else.
The hon. member has asked what will happen to the $10 million in the PFAA emergency fund. In my press release I stated, and I quote:
Whatever money is left after payments are completed for the 1973 year will be used for the benefit of prairie farmers.
The suggestions by the hon. member are recorded and will be recognized. Possibly they will be referred to from time to time. Of course, we have to work very closely with the provinces. This infestation is not just in the dried out areas, but in areas of northern Saskatchewan that are very wet. There are some 4,000 farmers in those areas, 2,000 of which have crop insurance and 2,000 which do not. How do we use that fund? If a man took out crop insurance, he should be entitled to payment in government funds just as

July 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate
much as the man who did not. Some provinces have different plans for crop insurance. Some have a no bare land type of policy. If there is no planting, that is available for farmers. Some are using it here.
The hon. member made reference to those people who over a long period of time have found PFAA essential. PFAA was established a long time ago to serve a specific need. It served that need well, but times have changed and now PFAA is no longer adequate. I urge the hon. member to study the benefits of crop insurance. I am sure he will come to the conclusion that it gives much more protection than PFAA. The hon. member has already stated this. I quote again from the press release:
Crop insurance is available in all of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Peace River area of British Columbia. Only in Alberta are there areas without crop insurance and where PFAA will be available in 1973.
The hon. member can rest assured that no prairie farmer has been left without protection unless he himself so wishes. The fund, to which contributions have been made by the people of Canada, since the national treasury contributes to it, will be used in the most proper fashion to help those in greatest need.


MANPOWER-POSSIBLE UNIFICATION OF LOCAL INITIATIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAMS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on July 5 I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) whether he would explain to the House the criteria which are being used in arriving at a decision about the Opportunities for People program which the minister had previously said the government was contemplating as a merger of LIP and OFY.
The minister did not give a full answer to the question I asked, so I am returning to the subject tonight. I do so because it is one which merits far greater examination in the House than we have so far given it. Both programs are now multimillion dollar efforts. They were brought in by the government a couple of years ago as temporary programs to help solve the unemployment crisis. They were make-work projects, intend to be temporary in nature, and in the past few months we have received complaints from people who have been affected by the discontinuation of some of these grants and the dislocation consequently suffered.
What we are experiencing now is a move toward what I would call transitional permanency. Though brought in to help solve the unemployment problem, the programs have shown a tendency to become built into the framework of government, to slide into permanent acceptance without this House giving any formal endorsement, as far as I am aware, of the idea that emergency make-work programs should be maintained in being.
Mr. Maurice Western, writing about this subject in the Winnipeg Free Press recently, had this to say:
The puzzling fact is that there appears to be a growing reluctance within the federal government to part with its emergencies . . . To cancel programs once they are part of the welfare state would invite political criticism and so, like the emergency gold

mining legislation, they must be preserved forever, come what may.
These are my sentiments. The fundamental question which must be answered is this: Are these programs truly meant to be a solution to unemployment, or are they now crossing the threshhold; that is to say, on the verge is being justified by their social value to the community?
I ask the minister to tell us whether the maintenance of LIP and OFY is justified by him on the ground that these programs are a solution to unemployment, or whether it is because they make a social contribution to the communities in which they operate. In the absence of an answer to this question we shall be unable to reach a proper decision in the House as to whether there should be a permanent Opportunities for People program.
I think the LIP and OFY as presently constituted should go because they are increasing the dependency of people on the government. I think the function of the government is to create an economic climate in which jobs will become plentiful, in which opportunities will be given and in which there will be a natural flow of business in this country. The federal government should not have to mount multi-million dollar programs which are very often run in a political way that is totally unacceptable. We have seen some examples of this in the OFY program. I think that the Opportunities for People concept has some value if it will help young people to find a career.
I think the project money should be given to existing institutions and not be given out at random and in an ad hoc way to young people to use as they wish, even though their programs are monitored by the government. In this country we face escalation of government expenditures. We are now at the $20 billion level. As I say, there will come a point when we must pull back and say we will stop adding government programs, increasing taxation and increasing the dependency of people on the federal government.
That point will be reached very quickly, if it has not already been reached, as a result of the very severe strain that is made on the vast majority of Canadians who are overtaxed because of over-expenditure on the part of the federal government.
I think there is a real responsibility on the part of the minister to inform us what his criteria are so that we can decide if make-work programs should be given any further consideration. I say that as constituted now they ought to be ended. The government should not be able to get off the hook in regard to its own responsibility to the people of the country, and its responsibility for providing opportunities for permanent employment. Make-work projects need very careful examination. I think the government ought to reveal its criteria now so that we can make that examination.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the question put by my hon. friend, as recorded in Hansard, contained so many points and aspects that it was difficult to know in what direction his blows would fall and it is strange, at this stage of our work, that the member asking a question has seven minutes to do so, while the person answering has only

three minutes. I do not think it possible, in such a short space of time, to give a fitting answer to all the interesting aspects of the question raised by my hon. friend. I will therefore limit myself to a single point in the hope that he will understand the situation and I shall try to pass his comments on to the minister, who may be able to supply a fuller and more appropriate answer to aspects of the question he has raised.
The discussions which have just recently begun on the future of the Opportunity for Youth and Local Initiatives progrms, are still in the preliminary stages. In fact, negotiations are now under way between the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Unfortunately, the answers which the hon. member is looking for are not yet available since no agreement has yet been reached.
With regard to the question now being asked as to the future of the Opportunities for Youth program, I have discussed the matter with the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and he has informed me that he would be delighted to hear the comments of the hon. members and
Adjournment Debate
of the Canadian public in general. The minister has always been prepared to listen to the opinions of hon. members and he invites all those wishing to contribute to the improvement of the program to let him know their views. The minister also pointed out to me that he had received many recommendations about the program from social planning councils, associations and agencies of every kind, and from members of the Canadian Council on Social Development. The government is now studying all these suggestions and will, of course, evaluate all the advice given.
Having listened to my hon. friend, I realize that his question has to do with criteria. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to give a full answer, but I can assure him that this matter is of concern to me and I shall try to go into it further. I admit that my answer is not wholly satisfactory, but I hope that I can make up for that in the next few days.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Friday, July 13, 1973