1973-12-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Jerome.

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Buchanan.
[Editor's note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1973.
I wonder whether on behalf of my colleague and seat-mate, the President of the Treasury Board, we could not ask for the unanimous consent of the House to send the Auditor General's report to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in my statement on July 18, 1973, concerning conflict of interest, I outlined standards of conduct which would apply to cabinet ministers. On July 17 my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), had earlier announced government policy concerning Members
of Parliament and Senators and indicated that it was his intention to refer the government's green paper to a standing committee. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has been heavily involved with other matters, as the House knows, until now. However, it is my understanding that the President of the Privy Council may be able to move that the green paper be referred to that committee this week. I know that members will give this matter very careful attention when the motion for the reference is taken up in the House and, later, in the committee.
In July I also indicated that the government was actively considering the proper steps to be taken with regard to the public service and those appointed to various offices by the Governor General in Council. I wish today to announce the government's policy in that regard.
Canada can take pride in her public service and in the individuals who serve within it. In any large organization, however, it may be necessary from time to time to give direction as to the manner in which people must conduct themselves in the course of their employment. In these matters it is as much a benefit to the employee as it is to the employer to have clear standards apply.
The government believes that in setting standards it is important not only to protect the public interest adequately but also to protect the rights of those who are affected by the standards. We have opted, Mr. Speaker, for a series of guidelines which have been incorporated in an Order in Council covering all employees in the public service which, with the permission of the House, I now table.
Central to our policy is the principle that it is not sufficient for a public servant merely to act within the law. We believe that there is an obligation to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny. Public servants, therefore, must not place themselves in a position where they are under obligation to any person who might benefit from special consideration or favour on their part or seek in any way to gain special treatment from them. Equally, a public servant must not have a pecuniary interest that could conflict in any manner with the discharge of his official duties. Public servants will be expected, as are ministers of the Crown, upon appointment to office, to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest from arising if there is any risk of that occurring.
Public servants are being asked to exercise care in the management of their private affairs so as not to benefit, or appear to benefit, from the use of information acquired in the course of their official duties that is not generally available to the public. In matters of contract, public servants must not place themselves in a position where they could derive any direct or indirect benefit or interest from a government contract over which they can influence decisions. Regarding outside employment, public servants

December 18, 1973
Conflict of Interest
are being asked not to accept outside office or employment that could place on them demands inconsistent with their official duties or call into question their capacity to perform those duties in an objective manner. In the performance of their official duties, public servants must take great care to ensure that no preferential treatment is given to relatives or friends or to organizations in which they or their relatives or friends have an interest, financial or otherwise.
t Translation]
Our policy, Mr. Speaker, clarifies for the public service responsibilities, which although they are not new or additional to the traditional ones long understood by public servants, are being made clear and formally published at this time. In order to assist public servants in determining where areas of conflict of interest may arise, particularly in areas related to business, commercial or financial interest, we are asking that public servants disclose in confidence, all business, commercial or financial interests where such interests might conceivably be construed as being in actual or potential conflict with their official duties. The onus to disclose such interests and to determine where such interests might be construed as being in conflict with official duties, is being clearly cast upon the public servant himself. Only those matters which the public servant believes are in actual or potential conflit of interest will require disclosure.
As with public servants, it is our belief that, for their guidance and for the protection of the public interest, those appointed to office by the Governor General in Council should be provided with guidelines. Officials appointed by order in council will in general be required to adhere to standards which will approximate those which have been decided upon for Cabinet ministers. These additional standards, and indeed all standards, must be viewed not as abrogating from any specific legislative provisions, but as conplementary to them.
There is a broad range of positions to which appointments are made by order in council. Five broad groupings have been made: appointments to judicial and quasi-judicial boards, agencies and tribunals; appointments to positions where the holders report, or are directly responsible, to Parliament (servants of Parliament); appointments to senior positions in Crown corporations and autonomous agencies; appointments to the major operational and policy positions of the government; and appointments to a host of miscellaneous positions which do not clearly fit into any of the other groups.
The nature of the duties performed by these officials, with few exceptions, set this group apart from the rest of the public service and require that more stringent rules apply to them in dealing with their personal affairs. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that generally no less stringent standards than apply to Cabinet ministers should apply to this group.
In more specific terms, the servants of Parliament, and appointees to the major operational and policy positions, should have precisely the same standards apply to them. Appointees to senior positions in Crown corporations and autonomous agencies should also be the subject of the

same general guidelines as for Cabinet ministers, with specific requirements to be promulgated by the ministers responsible to Parliament for a Crown corporation or agency. For miscellaneous positions, which cover a broad range of duties, functions and responsibilities, responsible ministers are being asked to examine the particular positions falling under their jurisdiction with a view to promulgating such guidelines as seen best to meet the needs of the position itself.

With regard to appointments to judicial or quasi-judicial boards, agencies and tribunals, it is our hope to extend the same general guidelines. There are, however, some legal problems. I have asked that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) review this matter with a view possibly to recommending amendments to existing legislation to bring it into conformity with established standards of conduct.
Members will recall that in my statement to the House in July I indicated that ministers would have three options open to them in dealing with property other than residences, automobiles and other things of a personal nature of that kind. These were: total divestment, the use of a frozen trust or the use of a blind trust. After further consideration, the government has decided that a fourth option should be added to the three just mentioned. This fourth option will apply to cabinet ministers and to Order in Council appointees who are being included under the ministerial guidelines.
The option will provide for the registration of a declaration of ownership of property with a registrar who will be appointed for this purpose and for the purpose of assisting ministers and others in dealing with matters covered by the government's policy on conflict of interest. It will be possible for a minister, or other persons under the same rules, to deal with property so registered. Declarations and the details of the property covered by them will be open for public inspection in the office of the registrar. The property which may be registered under this fourth option will depend on a number of factors including the nature of the property, whether its value might be affected by decisions of government policy and whether the property could even remotely give rise to a conflict of interest situation. This arrangement, and the scope for individual management it provides, will not be available for stocks and securities traded on public stock exchanges.
The government has also decided that the categories of property exempt from treatment under one of the four options should be extended to include bank balances, Canada savings bonds and securities of any level of government in Canada and agencies of any government. It is apparent that a conflict of interest cannot arise from any such holdings.

We have concluded, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of policy the subject of standards and procedures for employees of Parliament should also be considered at an appropriate time. We would recommend that standards and procedures for employees of the House of Commons be referred to the Commissioners for Internal Economy and for employees of the Senate, to the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. It is our
December 18, 1973

hope that an examination of those groups may be undertaken at an early date.
With regard to the employees of Crown corporations, whether appointed by order in council or not, we are of the view that standards similar to those which I am announcing today for the public service should be developed. Crown corporations and agencies will be urged to develop further standards and procedures within their own organizations, which in the view of the corporation or agency and the minister responsible for it, best meet the operational requirements of the corporation or agency and the employee positions within it.
These guidelines will not, of course, be any substitute for the qualities of honesty and integrity, long recognized as a hallmark of Canada's public service. But we are confident, Mr. Speaker, that they will assist public servants and officials in the performance of their official duties and in knowing with greater certainty what limits must be imposed on their private interests. Details of the administrative arrangements are currently being worked out by the President of the Treasury Board. He will shortly be sending a circular letter to all heads of departments and agencies explaining the administrative arrangements which are required to give effect to the guidelines.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I suggest that since the guidelines the Prime Minister has tabled are quite short they be printed in Hansard? I wonder whether this would meet the approval of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of Order in Council containing guidelines, see Appendix A.]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I welcome wholeheartedly the Prime Minister's statement. It deals with a most important subject. I recognize that it is not possible to eliminate entirely all possibilities of conflict of interest. Still, I should like to make a few comments on the Prime Minister's statement.
With regard to the part of the declaration related to the public service in general in which provision is made for the disclosure of conflict of interest, the Prime Minister makes it very clear that the onus to disclose such interest and to determine where such interest might be construed as being in conflict with official duties is clearly being cast upon the public servant himself.
I recognize the high quality of our public service. I recognize that ultimately, in the final resort, the elimination of conflicts of interest depends upon the exercise of our own final, fundamental judgment. Nevertheless, I recognize also that in many ways a person may be the poorest possible judge of potential conflicts of interest in his own case. Therefore I have to say I am not satisfied with leaving it entirely to the public servant himself or
Conflict of Interest
herself to be the sole judge whether or not there is a potential conflict of interest, since I think such a person is not a sufficiently good judge of that situation. I should like to see the appropriate committee of the House examine this problem, which I recognize is complex and difficult, to see whether or not there is not some more satisfactory way in which it can be resolved.
I must also say that, as was the case with the guidelines laid down for ministers, there is nothing concerning the spouse or minor child of a public servant. I believe a case of conflict of interest is just as likely to arise as a result of property or investments owned by one's spouse or, indeed, one's minor child or children, as in the case of an individual. Therefore I must say that this also appears to me to be another instance of gross inadequacy in the guidelines.
I note, too, that there does not seem to be any particular reference to the staffs of ministers or even to the senior staffs in the offices of ministers, though in the statement of Prime Minister Pearson in 1964 this was a matter of special concern. It may be that staff attached to a minister are intended to be covered by the rather omnibus clause under which it is to be left to the judgment of the individual minister to decide what are the appropriate guidelines. But even if such personnel were covered by this omnibus reference, I would not regard this as adequate in view of the importance of the position of those on the personal staffs of ministers. I regard this also as another defect in the guidelines put before the House today.
Since the guidelines for Order in Council appointments are the same as those for ministers, I must repeat that one of the options, that of the frozen trust, mentioned by the Prime Minister in his previous statement does not seem to me to be appropriate unless it is also associated with disclosure. In other words, I would not regard a frozen trust as an appropriate device for overcoming possible conflicts of interest unless it is also associated with disclosure. I am distinguishing in this connection between a frozen trust and a blind trust. I repeat that, since these guidelines apply to all Order in Council appointees as well as to ministers, the failure to deal with the spouses and the minor children of these appointees is a very grave shortcoming in respect of these guidelines as it was in respect of the guidelines the Prime Minister originally laid down for ministers.
While I am pleased to hear this statement and regard it as a substantial step forward in dealing with a problem of great public concern, I believe the guidelines outlined by the Prime Minister today have the substantial shortcomings I have mentioned. I should like to see these matters considered further by the appropriate committee of the House, and I would certainly be disappointed if the guidelines are left in this state which I consider quite unsatisfactory.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the concern of the government about the problem in respect of conflict of interest which has been reflected in the fact that we now have been given three statements on the subject. We had the statement and the green paper presented to the House by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on July 17 concerning members of parliament, we had the Prime Minister's state-

December 18, 1973
Conflict of Interest
ment on July 18 concerning cabinet ministers, and now we have the Prime Minister's statement about public servants and others who are government appointees in one way or another.
We also welcome the fact that the subject, at least in general terms, is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. We feel that the discussions which will take place in that committee are extremely important.
I must say, however, that a word the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) used on July 18 certainly deserves to be used again today. He described the Prime Minister's statement of that day as "murky". I suggest that today we have about the murkiest Order in Council I have ever seen. When one listens to the Prime Minister and hears him say that in a moment or two he will be tabling an Order in Council, one assumes that the Order in Council will fill in the gaps, spell out the details, and that it will include some definitions, some clear principles and the means of enforcement. I was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition asked that the Order in Council tabled today be appended to Hansard in order that those who read these remarks will be able to read that Order in Council and discover that it is nothing more than a precis of the Prime Minister's statement.
Orders in Council usually provide some detail and some regulations with the force of law and, indeed, usually provide means of enforcement or penalties, but in this Order in Council, P.C. 1973-4065, December 18, 1973, there is not one word of definition, there is not one point spelled out in detail and there is no provision of any kind for enforcement. It is nothing more nor less than a statement of desires. Let me read one or two sentences:
No conflict should exist or appear to exist between the private interests of public servants and their official duties.
Another states:
All public servants are expected to disclose to their superiors, in a manner to be notified, all business, commercial or financial interests where such interests might conceivably be construed as being in actual or potential conflict with their official duties.
It goes on to point out that public servants should not do this and should not do that. But there is no detail, no clear definition, concerning what it is that is permitted or what it is that is prohibited. Certainly there is no suggestion of any way in which these so-called guidelines are to be enforced. I submit, therefore, that the Order in Council is of no more value than the statement the Prime Minister read to the House today.
I join with the Leader of the Opposition in expressing concern over the extent to which in the Prime Minister's statement as well as in the so-called guidelines everything seems to be left to the individual public servant. I think this is unfair to the public and also unfair to the public servant. I note this sentence in the paragraph in the Prime Minister's statement having to do with disclosure:
Only those matters which the public servant believes are in actual or potential conflict of interest will require disclosure.
I ask frankly, of what earthly use is that kind of a guideline where in the final analysis it is left to every individual public servant to decide whether the interests

he has are such that he should disclose them? As the Leader of the Opposition said, surely the poorest judge of one's own conduct is the person himself, and yet that is the way this has been drawn up. I recognize it is the Prime Minister's statement, but anyone in his position has to receive help in the drafting of such statements. I wonder what senior public servant drafted this particular statement?
It seems to me-and here I go along with the Leader of the Opposition or perhaps a little farther-that the only solution in all these areas, in respect of members of parliament, cabinet ministers or public servants, is to go for full disclosure. This so-called option of disclosure and option to register certain holdings and so on will not fill the bill. Those involved in decision-making, so far as public servants are concerned, should be required to come through with full disclosure. I hope that even yet the thinking of the government and this House on the question of conflict of interest will move in that direction.
Another criticism I offer is that this statement and the Order in Council with its guidelines draw no lines among public servants. They are all in the same basket whether they are deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers involved in the making of policy or whether they are cleaners or helpers. Public servants across the entire spectrum are covered by one set of guidelines and one Order in Council. I think this is unfair to these public servants. Certainly the public must be protected but, as the Prime Minister says, we have to think about our public servants as well. I think we should be able to draw a line so that the most severe restrictions apply to those who are involved in the decision-making process. That does not require a set of guidelines so broad that, in order not to be hard on cleaners, helpers and stenographers, it really imposes no restrictions at all on those at the top.
The next comment I wish to make is that this statement makes no reference whatsoever to the process of hopping back and forth which goes on on the part of public servants who go out into private industry and back again and so on. It seems to me that some solution must be found to that problem. It know my friends on both sides of the House like to come out with the cliche that we need to have these people in government so that they bring to government the experience of service in the private sector. But one cannot but be concerned about conflict of interest when a senior public servant at the deputy minister level or close to that goes out into private industry and later comes back. All right, we cannot deny the right of people to look for employment when they are out of one job, but surely provision can be made that the government will not deal with firms which have in their upper echelons those who within the last year or so were in the sacred precincts of the government itself. This problem has not been touched in this statement or in either of the other statements which were given to us.
There is also no reference in this statement, as there was no reference in the statements of July 17 or July 18, to what we regard as fundamental in this whole question. In our view it is not just a case of whether a person is able to make a buck or so because of his connections; what counts to the public is the philosophy, the viewpoint, of those making the decisions, whether they be at the government
December 18, 1973

level or at the public service level. I think something must be done to bring that point of view to this whole discussion of the conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, I am about to sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That kind of remark can always be counted on to draw applause, but I think it is particularly to be noted that when I complained about persons with a financial interest being in a spot to influence government policy, and then said I was about to sit down, the applause came from the Tories.
I want to associate myself with what the Leader of the Opposition said about this whole subject being considered in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I should like to go a little further, however. Instead of just saying it ought to be done, I would call upon the President of the Privy Council, when he presents his motion for the reference of the July 17 green paper to the standing committee, to amend that motion to include in it a reference to that committee of the statement made by the Prime Minister on July 17 regarding cabinet ministers and also the statement made and Order in Council tabled today. That committee should have the opportunity to go thoroughly into the whole subject before us today, the important question of conflict of interest and its relationship to public policy.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) concerning the conflicts of interest as well as that on the publication of guidelines which will help protect Canadian public servants against any suspicion.
Mr. Speaker, public servants must be protected against any suspicion in carrying out their duties, considering their importance. Hon. members and governments follow one another, but public servants remain. Some officials have been in the government service for 25 or 30 years irrespective of political parties. Those people are important and we must recognize it. They are not subjected to changes as we are whether we are Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats or Social Crediters. This is why the civil service must continue to serve the country, hence the importance of its behaviour before the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in the various departments where the public servants more or less rule the roost, I believe we should add another point to the eight set out by the Prime Minister, that is administrative control. For instance, because I received two rather important complaints, I am personally conducting an inquiry concerning some Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation employees who, I am told, receive bribes when they recommend the development of such and such a housing project, in two places in the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, when I have conclusive evidence, I shall name the persons involved on the floor of the House.
I want to draw the attention of the House to another point. The Prime Minister recommends the following, and I quote:
Local Initiatives Grants
-that standards and procedures for employees of the House of Commons be referred to the Commissioners for Internal Economy and for employees of the Senate, to the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are asking too much from the Internal Economy Committee. It is already bogged down in its work. Here is striking proof of it. For three years now I have been asking for a press attache. All the other parties have one already. The committee did not have time yet to give me one because it is overworked. Mr. Speaker, I think we should set up another committee in order to relieve the one dealing with internal economy so that I too may get justice from the federal public service.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity and I hope all hon. members will support it. In view of the fact that teachers in Ontario are forbidden to strike for better wages and working conditions, and in view of the fact that legislation now before the Ontario legislature will deny them the right to resign, which is a clear violation of their civil rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of Justice use the power of his office to urge the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill 274.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[ English]


MANPOWER
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgency arising from the fact that organizations and local government authorities were required to submit applications for local initiative project grants by October 15 of this year with the understanding that the Department of Manpower and Immigration would make its decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of these grants on or before December 3. In view of the fact that many constituencies in Canada, including the northern constituency of Meadow Lake, have not had any decision made to date

December 18, 1973
Oral Questions
regarding LIP, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration make a statement on motions tomorrow indicating, first, the reasons for the delay in announcing LIP projects in certain constituencies and, second, the date that these announcements will be made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has spoken about the government developing a coherent set of industrial policies. I should like to ask the minister whether a part of this set of coherent industrial policies is to keep the costs of all vital forms of energy at a level to give Canada a competitive edge in processing and manufacturing?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has identified an important part of the coherent set of strategies. We have talked about energy costs both as input and as material in the development of the industries of Canada.


An hon. Member:: That is incoherent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If there is a competitive edge for Canada in having lower energy costs, will not the substantially higher crude oil price in eastern Canada compared with the price of crude in the rest of Canada, possibly now different by as much as $3 a barrel, constitute a substantial disadvantage to the economy of those provinces and therefore an intensification of regional disparity? If there is a competitive edge one way, does the competitive edge not cut the other way?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question sounds rather like debate. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


Alastair William Gillespie: The government has made very clear, and the Prime Minister underlined this in his speech to the House the other evening, that future energy costs, particu-

larly those related to oil, would be so organized that one would hope there would be a major advantage in terms of input and material costs to Canadian industry. In other words, prices would be allowed to rise to such a level that self-sufficiency in supply would be maintained but not to such a level as to reach the highest international prices pertaining at the time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question following what may fairly be referred to as an irrelevant answer to my previous question.


An hon. Member:: That was a debating point, not a question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister how he regards a set of industrial policies which he says is intended to fight regional disparity-he has said that is one of the set-as being coherent with a pricing policy for oil that provides a substantially higher cost for oil in the parts of Canada that suffer most from regional disparity? Will the minister reconcile those points?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think that the long-term industrial development of Canada will be supported if we are able to obtain lower energy costs and lower oil costs for petrochemical industries and other energy intensive industries across this nation.


Mr. Hees:: Get out your violin.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Central Nova on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Selkirk.


ACTION TO OFFSET EFFECT OF HIGHER OIL COST ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has he a specific policy on regional development that would link energy commodity prices with regional development strategy? In other words, what initiatives has the minister taken to cope with the energy situation in eastern Canada in the context of DREE?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the minister will be able to reply to this question briefly. It seems to me the hon. member is inviting a rather general statement which should be made on motions.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in replying as briefly as I can may I say that one of the criteria which will be definitely taken into account in the future is the whole question of operating costs in relation to the level of incentive grants and other assistance that is provided. In that context I have no doubt that this will be one of the main considerations that we will examine in cases where new applications for incentives come forward. It is quite possible that in our consultations with the provinces with regard to general help in regional development this may be one of the central considerations that they will bring forward. I am sure the Prime Minister will be doing the
December 18, 1973

same at the first ministers' conference. We will consider these costs in order to keep eastern Canadian industry competitive.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister satisfied that the chief of the defence staff exercised good judgment in delaying for six hours informing the political authorities of the first change in alert status of a component of NORAD in 11 years, an inherently dangerous situation, and has the minister now issued new instructions to the chief of the Defence Staff and other senior officers to ensure that he will not be allowed to sleep through the next alert?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first part of the hon. member's question is hardly in order. He is asking for an opinion. Perhaps the second part of the question might be replied to by the minister.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the defence chief-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: -and I think that circumstances have proven that he made the right decision.


Douglas Charles Rowland: The minister informed us yesterday that NORAD headquarters in North Bay was notified of the American decision to go to Defcon III on October 25 about midnight and that the chief of the defence staff was not notified until about 2.18 a.m. Has the minister determined the reasons for this delay, what are those reasons, and what steps has the minister taken to ensure that such a delay does not occur in the future?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think the verbal advice that came through to our NORAD headquarters was in advance of the main decision. It was a warning advice before the actual decision was taken. The chief of staff did in fact receive the information when the decision was taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the deputy commander of NORAD is a Canadian officer and must have known almost immediately of the alert, has the minister determined why this information was not immediately transmitted to the Canadian chief of the defence staff? In effect, is our top officer in NORAD
Oral Questions
primarily accountable to the Canadian chief of the defence staff or to an American general?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the judgment made by our Canadian commander was the same one that our chief of staff made, that the information that had come to us did not relate directly to our Canadian forces.


AIR TRANSPORT
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Can he inform the House whether the negotiations with the United States concerning air transportation between Canada and the U.S. have been completed? If so, does he intend to make a statement in the House and to table the agreement that has been reached?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with the United States have been completed, the document has been initialed by the head of each delegation; however, the American government and the Canadian cabinet have yet to ratify the agreement. When this is done, the agreement will become effective.


MEASURES TO COUNTERBALANCE HIGH PRICE OF PETROLEUM
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the situation prevailing in the province of Quebec.
Since crude oil prices are now higher in Quebec than in the provinces west of the Ottawa Valley and since those are international market prices, can the government assure the House that it is considering an industrial strategy to offset these higher prices?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I got the full import of the question. Perhaps the hon. member would like to restate his question.


Claude Wagner: I will gladly do so, Mr. Speaker. My question concerns more particularly the situation existing in the province of Quebec.
Since the price of crude oil is now higher in Quebec than in the provinces west of the Ottawa Valley and that it is on par with world market prices, is the government in a position to give guarantees to the House concerning the establishment of an industrial strategy to counter the effects of this high price?
8844

December 18, 1973
Oral Questions
[ English]


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I think my previous remarks made clear the long-term thrust is to secure for Canadian industry-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Long-term? We will all be dead.


Alastair William Gillespie: -a cost of oil, and petroleum products that flow from oil, lower than the international price.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary, because the minister addressed his answer to the long term policy. How about the short term?
What has the government done to lower Quebec oil prices below world market prices?
[ English]


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is talking about last week or the discussions that will be taking place in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore on a supplementary.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for South Shore will allow me to interrupt for just a moment. The hon. member for Assiniboia rises on a point of order. I will return to the hon. member for South Shore.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. In view of the fact the Minister of Finance has tabled the Auditor General's report today, and in view of the fact it shows there has been a loss of parliamentary control over millions of dollars, I wonder whether the House would be prepared to revert to motions to allow the Treasury Board to make an explanation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for South Shore has the floor. That, of course, is not a point of order.


INQUIRY AS TO INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY TO OFFSET HIGHER OIL PRICES IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact prices for oil in the Atlantic provinces are at present higher than in the provinces west of the Ottawa Valley line, and noting also that these oil prices in Atlantic Canada are world market prices, does the government now have an industrial strategy in place aimed at offsetting these high prices and, if so, what is the general outline of this industrial strategy?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is entirely why the announcement was made some ten days ago by the government with respect to the elements of a national oil policy.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister spoke in the House on energy policy he stated:

We must in the long run allow prices to rise to a price high enough to allow development of the oil sands and other Canadian resources, but not one bit higher.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a statement of policy. We in Atlantic Canada accept the Prime Minister's word, but I should like to know what specific steps the government is now taking to bring oil price levels in the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec below world market prices, and when will these steps be implemented?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in the last ten days I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has outlined a number of measures including the extension of the pipeline to Montreal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: -to bring about self-sufficiency for the first time for Canadian users of oil.


George Harris Hees: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order. This will be the third point of order within the first ten minutes of the question period. I think it is much easier to ask a question. If the hon. member has a point of order he will be recognized for that purpose. I am sure it will be a genuine point of order, after which I will see the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it is a genuine point of order. You have cautioned the House about spending too much time on points of order during the question period, but the reason is that ministers give no answers whatsoever. We have to ask supplementary after supplementary after supplementary and we still do not get the information that we have a right to get on behalf of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: We are getting no information.


Mr. Lawrence:: You cannot get blood out of a stone.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he can indicate to the House how a pipeline that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said will carry 250,000 barrels a day will take care of the price in an area of Canada that consumes about one million barrels a day?


Some hon. Members:: Answer!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West. I appreciate that a number of hon. members are seeking supplementary questions. The Chair, of course, is quite prepared to return to this subject and allow further sup-plementaries on this matter.
December 18, 1973


REQUEST THAT EXPORT OF PROPANE BE LIMITED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SUPPLIES FOR DOMESTIC NEEDS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that propane is used widely in rural homes and communities, especially in western Canada, and is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain or to afford because of unprecedented demand from United States buyers and the sharp increase in price, is the National Energy Board taking steps to limit the export of propane to ensure that there are adequate supplies to meet our domestic needs and, if not, what action is being taken by the government to ensure adequate supplies for Canadian users?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister I will be pleased to take note of that question and refer it to him.


EXPORT CONTROLS ON REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FROM UNITED STATES
Randolph Harding: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any information from United States authorities on two questions asked yesterday, the first whether Canada was included in the export controls banning shipment of refined petroleum products which began last Friday, as announced by the United States energy czar, Mr. William Simon, and, second, as to the possible curtailment of the shipment to B.C. of oil products from the Atlantic Richfield refinery at Cherry Point which means no shipments from December 16 to January 1 and after that date shipments cut to 80 per cent of normal flow?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I can on behalf of the minister reply to the first part of the question. I think the minister answered that question in the House yesterday, or at the end of last week, when he said there had been discussions with the United States authorities on this particular point and, indeed, that representations had been made by Canada. I do not think the situation is fully clarified yet. As to the second part of the question, I will take it as notice.

[ Translation]


WELFARE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs declared before the Legislative Assembly that the Quebec government is financially helpless in the face of the day care centre problem, could the minister tell the House whether the veto of the Quebec government to prevent the federal
Oral Questions
government from subsidizing day care centres under LIP has been withdrawn?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the problem of the financial helplessness of provincial governments depends on the priorities established by them. As to the second part of the question, I think it concerns the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for local initiative projects.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I would like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he tell whether he had discussions with his Quebec counterpart during the last six months on the veto I referred to in my previous question? If so, is there any agreement on this matter?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think I remember I had an informal discussion on this subject during the last six months. The agreement was that the federal government would not approve local initiative projects for day care centres unless it had some guarantee that they would be financed by the provinces upon termination of the LIP financing. Quite a few projects were approved under LIP on the basis of that understanding, I believe.

[ English]


USE OF CANADIAN SHIPS TO MOVE WESTERN OIL TO EASTERN CANADA
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions I have previously directed to the Minister of Transport on this subject. I thank him for the detailed information he sent me today respecting the registry of ships carrying oil from the west coast to the east coast. In view of the fact that of the 12 ships being used for this purpose none is of Canadian registry, is the minister considering any program that might be introduced rapidly to stimulate Canadian activity in the movement of oil from British Columbia to the east coast?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I wrote a letter to the hon. gentleman in answer to his question yesterday about the number of ships being used to transport oil. There are only two such Canadian ships, which are not available at this time. For the future, all depends on government policy regarding a merchant marine.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the minister responsible
26695-47i

December 18, 1973
Oral Questions
for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In light of reports that the Cape Breton Development Corporation is planning a strip mining venture, can the minister advise if, first, this is correct and, second, if it is, can he assure the House that no strip mining for coal will take place by Devco unless proper and adequate plans are laid down and duly announced for a program of backfilling and reforestation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that I am technically competent to do so, I can report to the hon. member that I understand this is in contemplation but so far as I am aware it has not reached anything close to the decision-making point. I can also assure him that the matter will be pursued much more thoroughly before anything goes ahead. I have no doubt that, should it go ahead, conservation measures will be taken. If he will permit me, I will take the balance of the question as notice and send him a written answer.


Robert Muir: In view of the very bad experience some years ago in Cape Breton connected with strip mining-I thank the minister for his reply-will he assure me that he will bring back a report, as already intimated, affirming that no strip mining will take place unless proper measures are carried out so that the topography and the environment of the area will not be ruined?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To repeat my earlier comment, I do not think I am competent to talk about the technical side of it, but I will provide a written answer and I hope it will be satisfactory to the hon. member.


PROVISION OF OIL SUPPLY TO INDUSTRY IN CARLETON-CHARLOTTE TO PREVENT LAY-OFF OF WORKERS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to earlier questions by the hon. member for Central Nova and the Leader of the Opposition. Inasmuch as the international exchange of petroleum products has been interrupted by the present supply situation, and because it is estimated that some 2,500 people will be unemployed in my constituency on or about January 25 if supply cannot be renewed, does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have any plans to put these people back to work since there is no oil coming from Montreal?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the situation is as serious as the hon. member has indicated, I hope he will make every effort to see that the allocation bill is passed by the House just as fast as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As it now appears evident, according to reports from dealers across Canada, that there will be a serious shortage of all types of fertilizer, would the minister reconvene the agricultural committee of the House and request the major suppliers of fertilizer to appear before the committee, thus allowing that committee to ascertain whether a shortage faces Canadians in the coming year and what action needs to be taken?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first I differ with the premise of the question because I do not foresee any shortage of fertilizer. In some instances over 500 per cent more fertilizer has been delivered than at any time in Canada's history to Canadian farmers. I am still optimistic that supplies will be adequate to meet the demands of the producers. We are still having ongoing meetings with fertilizer companies, suppliers, etc. The problem now mainly concerns distribution and the obtaining of some of the ingredients that go into the making of the final product.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the minister whether the industry has informed him of pending shortages, especially of nitrogen fertilizer and anhydrous ammonia, and whether some 60,000 tons of raw product are still being held back because of lack of railway cars?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt there is a transportation problem, but at this time of the year there is very little fertilizer being used; it is mostly being put in store. As far as that goes, we have asked farmers to do this. I am optimistic. Last year we asked them to do so later than this year, and they were supplied with 50 per cent more fertilizer than ever before in the nation's history. We are doing everything humanly possible to make our producers the most efficient in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Looking around the House, hon. members will notice there are about 50 members rising for supplementaries or questions. Obviously most of them will be disappointed. If members have questions that could wait until tomorrow, perhaps they would wait until tomorrow. We still have supplementaries on this matter. I will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and then the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


Jack Burnett Murta: I again ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the industry has informed him of a pending shortage, especially of anhydrous ammonia and nitrogen fertilizer, and can he also tell us what magnitude of price increase the farmers can expect this coming spring?


Eugene Whelan: As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, manufacturers of fertilizer are one of the largest users of
December 18, 1973

energy. For example, one pound of fertilizer requires 60,000 Btu's, and one pound of steel requires 20,000 Btu's. I am told there may be a shortage of nitrogen, especially in British Columbia where the government of the province saw fit to raise the price of natural gas to the industrial consumer by 81 per cent. These things have to be taken into consideration. There are other forms of nitrogen. If there is a shortage of anhydrous, other forms will be available.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with the answers given by the Minister of Agriculture. They were specifically non-answers. I believe the minister does not have the information.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Jack Burnett Murta: The minister is not aware of what is going on in connection with the shortage of fertilizer for the agricultural industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would point out that that is not a point of order but a point of debate. If hon. members want the Chair to recognize the Minister of Agriculture to reply to the hon. member's point of order I will do so, but I am not sure what that will accomplish.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I challenge anyone to prove that this Minister of Agriculture has not had more conferences and deliberations with the fertilizer industry of this country in the past year than anybody in Canada and has gathered more information re the fertilizer supply situation than ever before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: It is obvious to me that the hon. member knows a lot less about the real fertilizer situation in this country than the false one.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO STABILIZE PRICE OF FERTILIZERS AND ENSURE ADEQUACY OF SUPPLY
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's familiarity with fertilizer and all aspects of the problem, will he inform the House whether he is taking any action to deal with the inflated price across the border, that is being made available to Canadian manufacturers of fertilizer, a price that is attracting more and more Canadian production; and what action is he taking to ensure adequate supplies for Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: In reply to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, I said a week ago that I hoped to present to the House a document or paper on the actual position of fertilizer manufacturing and the potential production in this country. I intend to do that. As far as I am concerned, what the hon. member has said is erroneous. We know that the manufacture and distribution of fertilizer is now greater in Canada than ever before. These plants were built in the first instance because of export demand. They could not have operated
Oral Questions
without exports. This government has taken action in the past to guarantee that when products are needed by Canadians they will be available.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough fertilizer for now. My question is for the Minister of Finance or whichever minister is responsible. In view of the recent statement of the vice-president of Redpath Sugar Limited that the rise in the wholesale price of sugar of $1.15 a hundredweight reflects a jump in world sugar prices on the London commodity market, can the minister tell the House if any negotiations are in progress for a world sugar agreement?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations with regard to a world sugar agreement. Those negotiations were not successful and efforts are being made to get negotiations under way again. That is the current situation.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I was afraid I would get that kind of answer. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What plans has the minister, in the meantime, to protect the Canadian consumer from the effects of this assault on one of the basic elements in the Canadian diet?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am sorry. I had better put it again.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the question has not been entirely asked. The hon. member will be given an extra few moments to complete the question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pending a world sugar agreement, what plans has the minister to protect the Canadian consumer from the effects of this assault on one of the basic elements in the Canadian diet?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that useful question. I have been consulting on this matter with my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS

December 18, 1973


RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-INQUIRY WHEN ARBITRATOR'S REPORT WILL BE MADE
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that three months have already elapsed since an arbitrator was appointed to arbitrate the rail dispute, and the fact that there is extreme concern among railroaders and Canadians in general about the results of that arbitration, can the minister give us a date on which the arbitrator's decision will be tabled?


Mr. Fairweather:: The papers say January 16.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will realize that Mr. Justice Emmett Hall has had a very arduous task indeed, with about 30 volumes of evidence to study prior to making his report. I understand he will have the report ready about the middle of January.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact the minister's statement of November 14 with regard to the licensing of fishing craft is causing widespread concern and a lot of uneasiness and frustration among fishermen, particularly because of the fact they were not fully consulted on this matter, is the minister prepared to defer the implementation of that program until such time as the fishermen are acquainted with its implications and possibly may have some input into the regulations?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should consult his provincial minister of fisheries who thinks that the policy and the licensing program are very good.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned about what the provincial minister of fisheries thinks. I am asking the federal Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact this announced program has caused a lot of concern, will the minister agree to defer it until the fishermen are fully aware of the implications?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, teams are going around to the fishing communities and describing the assistance available to the fishing industry as well as discussing any other matters about which the fishermen are concerned.


Walter C. Carter: Since one of the concerns expressed by the fishermen has to do with unemployment insurance benefits, and inasmuch as the minister's parliamentary secretary said a few nights ago that small boats under 35 feet in length would not have to be licensed and that these people would be allowed to fish, can the minister tell us whether

the UIC plan as it refers to fishermen will be applied to those who fish from small boats, or whether it will be restricted to professional, full-time fishermen as defined by the minister?


John (Jack) Davis: I know of no imminent change in the administration of unemployment insurance as it applies to fishermen.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Canadian airlines are still being refused fuel at United States airports, will the government cease allowing Unites States airlines to refuel in Canada, as they seem to be doing excessively, until an agreement is reached between the two countries to solve this problem?
[ Transla tion]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that in fact Canadian airlines are treated any worse in the United States than American airlines are treated here.


John Douglas Reynolds: I did not get an answer to my question, Mr. Speaker. Pacific Western Airlines are being refused fuel in Hawaii. Until they are allowed to get fuel in Hawaii, will the Canadian government stop allowing United Airlines and Western Airlines to refuel in Vancouver and Calgary?
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, doubtless such incidents have occurred and will still occur in the future. In fact, several American airlines are being refused fuel here in Canada.


OIL-POSITION OF SAUDI ARABIA RESPECTING SHIPMENT TO CANADA
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated recently that Canada was not on the list of countries penalized by Saudi Arabia, as regards our imports of oil, that the Department of External Affairs had sent Mr. Gignac as ambassador in order to clarify the problem and that importing companies state that they still face difficulties in getting oil, can the minister say whether Mr. Gignac has reached the core of the problem and knows when this question will be settled?
December 18, 1973


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As my colleague said in reply to a similar question yesterday, the information we have from the government of Saudi Arabia is that Canada is not on the boycott list.


EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-ROUTE TO BE FOLLOWED-POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources perhaps I could direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises from the statement yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that there is still a serious possibility that the oil pipeline extension to Montreal will follow a route through Sault Ste. Marie. Could the minister tell us today, in light of meetings which were, I understand, held yesterday, whether the Sault Ste. Marie line is still a serious possibility, or does Interprovincial Pipeline now say it is convinced that Sarnia is the only way for the line to go?


Alastair William Gillespie: I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated that he will be making a statement on this matter in the near future.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman inform the House whether the government of Canada has offered any financial assistance to Interprovincial to help construct the line and, if so, what is the extent of such assistance offered?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is no.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can he tell us how the provinces reacted to the suggestion which he made to them three weeks ago that the federal government would share the additional welfare costs for needy persons in order to help them pay the cost of fuel oil this winter?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, only one Atlantic province, Prince Edward Island, has replied to this date and its answer was that it would increase welfare payments by 10 per cent starting on January 1.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Oral Questions
Does he intend contacting again the provinces which have not yet replied to his first suggestion?


Marc Lalonde: I do not think it is necessary, Mr. Speaker.
I sent very explicit telegrams to my colleagues and I imagine that, as a result, they are now trying to take action especially in connection with those 175 million dollars for which the provinces will benefit through the increase in equalization payments and an increase of 115 million dollars after the taxation of family allowances.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a question asked by the hon. member for St. John's West. It is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that some of the best fishermen in the Altantic provinces are turning down the fishing industry altogether-these are men who work mainly in longliners valued up to $100,000 and carrying a crew of five or six people-can he tell us what progress has been made in connection with amendments to be brought forward to the unemployment insurance regulations as they apply to fishermen, to eliminate the disincentive which presently exists and is driving fishermen out of business?


John (Jack) Davis: I am sure that if there are any amendments to be announced they will be announced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the minister tell us what has happened in the three years he has been studying unemployment insurance for fishermen? What about the consistent responses he and his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, have given to the effect that they are consulting and planning to bring in changes? Next year he will not get thousands of fishermen to go fishing because of the disincentives which are presently causing so much concern. What changes does he intend to bring about?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, payments to fishermen under the act have increased substantially, as they have to other workers in Canada.


PROTECTION OF PRIVACY BILL
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the minister's advice to the judicial committee of the other place that he could live with the notice provision in the wiretapping bill, and in view of the fact the other place gave this bill consideration for only IV2 days whereas this House has given it consideration over a period of years, will the

December 18, 1973
Oral Questions
minister introduce a motion calling for the rejection of the Senate amendment so that the other place might be given an opportunity to reconsider its position and also to hear witnesses other than police officers?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: There may have been a few too many "in view ofs" and "whereases" in the hon. member's question, but I can assure him I hope to see this House consider further very soon the important bill on privacy.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In the event this House rejects the Senate amendment, would the Minister of Justice give an assurance that he will fight for the bill and all its amendments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is hypothetical.


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: I have a related question for the House leader. In view of the exclusion of Bill C-176 from the shopping list which the minister gave the House last night, would he say whether or not the government has decided to scrap this important legislation? Has it fallen into the dangerous trap set by persons in the other place who are really not interested in protecting the privacy of the individual?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: I was not aware I was giving a shopping list last night. I did indicate that the bills I would call today and subsequently were the election expenses and the export tax bills. I have always included the privacy bill among the legislative items I wanted to get through this session, and I still regard it as essential even though when I gave my list last Thursday I did not expect it would be back in the House again.


Ronald George Atkey: Would the government House leader indicate what priority he gives to Bill C-176 in the context of the other pieces of legislation he has mentioned? Would he undertake to consult his Liberal colleagues in the Senate to ensure that they understand the bill and that they will not blindly thwart the wishes of the majority of the members of this House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a question. The hon. member for New Westminster is rising on a question of privilege.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is in response to the question of privilege that the Minister of Justice raised on December 13, in which he asked me to apologize for an allegation I had made at that time, or which could be inferred, that he had flouted the will of the House in regard to consideration of the wiretapping bill in the other place. I did not rise immediately because I had not had an opportunity to read the evidence given in the other place. I have now had an opportunity of looking at the evidence and I do tender to the minister my apology in that there was no apparent attempt to flout the will of the House in the minister's evidence before the Senate committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member, if he will resume his seat. The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege which relates to a statement made before the House. The hon. member says he has now had an opportunity to look at evidence or at other documents. On this basis, if he had wanted to rise on a question of privilege it would have been incumbent upon him, according to the Standing Orders, to give notice to the Chair. I have received no such notice. I hope the hon. member will not pursue the matter at this time without the notice required by the Standing Orders. Orders of the day.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the proposed future government business. Today in the question period several questions were raised about unemployment insurance for fishermen. I wonder whether I could ask the House leader, on my point of order, if he would indicate whether there are any plans, in view of the fact that today many hundreds of fishermen, some of them professional fishermen who have maybe $100,000 invested in fishing equipment, are leaving the fishery-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member seeks the floor on a point of order, but he is asking a question and making a speech or representation at the same time. If the hon. member has a point of order, he should indicate immediately what it is, and of course he will be recognized for that purpose. I will then try to ascertain whether he has a point of order on which a ruling ought to be made.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the facility to put my point of order in succinct enough terms so that it will be understood, without some preliminary introduction. There are four or five very serious aspects of the unemployment insurance regulations as they pertain to fishermen. The government has promised amendments to the act. I should like to know whether the House leader can indicate if any plans have been cogitated upon by him, the manpower minister and the Minister of Fisheries to bring in changes to the UIC regulations and amendments to the act that will enable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. This is obviously not a point of order. The hon. member is asking a question, and I wonder how it qualifies as a point of order. The question may be very legitimate and perhaps the hon. member could be recognized tomorrow when I will cast an eye in his direction and give him the opportunity of asking the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was fairly customary, based on precedent, to inquire about future government business coming before the House. This is an urgent matter since the House could rise any day now. Has the government any plans to bring forward legislation or amendments to enable the fishermen of the Atlantic region in particular to stay in their fishing boats?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
December 18, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before we proceed to consider any aspects of this bill. My point of order relates to the expenditure of public funds, as provided in two places in the bill. Perhaps it is worth while to look at the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General, which I understand is the foundation for the expenditure of public funds, to be found at the front of the bill. So far as it relates to the reimbursement of candidates' expenditures, it says that the reimbursement shall be "to the extent of 16 cents for each of the first 25,000 names appearing on the preliminary lists of electors for their electoral districts, and 14 cents for each additional name". Then there are other reimbursement provisions, but these are the ones to which I refer.
At page 25 of the bill we have the clause where an assessment is made of what the reimbursements shall be. Paragraph (b) (i), commencing at line 13, provides that the reimbursements shall be-
-the postage costs of mailing one item, not exceeding one ounce in weight, by first-class mail to each person whose name appears on the preliminary lists of electors for the candidate's electoral district,
(ii)	Eight cents for each of the first twenty-five thousand names appearing on the preliminary lists of electors for the candidate's electoral district, and
(iii)	Six cents for each name in excess of twenty-five thousand appearing on the preliminary lists of electors for the candidate's electoral district-
The complaint I have about the recommendation of His Excellency not having been followed related to subparagraph (i). True, at the moment the postage cost of mailing a piece of first-class mail not exceeding one ounce is eight cents, but there is no guarantee anywhere that it will be eight cents forever. In fact, with the escalation of various cost items, and in view of the avowed intention of the Department of the Post Office, it will not be eight cents but will increase in the future to something else.
To the extent that the charge does increase, it will then be in violation of His Excellency's recommendation concerning 16 cents for each of the first 25,000 names of the voters' list. The combination of the postage cost of mailing one item for everybody on the voters' list and the eight cents additional for the first 25,000 names on the list may well exceed, and probably will exceed, the 16 cents confinement contained in the recommendation of His Excellency. I would appreciate it if this aspect could be looked
Election Expenses
at and some determination made, not necessarily now but when we get to the appropriate stage.
The other point of order I want to raise regarding the expenditure of public funds not authorized by His Excellency relates to page 23 of the bill, where in subsection (3) of clause 9, halfway down the page, there are some words added by the committee, and it is this part that offends against the recommendation of His Excellency. The proposed subsection (7) reads as follows:
Each auditor's report received by a returning officer from an official agent along with the summary of the return respecting election expenses to which it relates shall be published-
Now comes the part which the committee added.
-at the expense of Chief Electoral Officer on behalf of the Crown in right of Canada in one newspaper published or circulated in the electoral district wherein the election was held.
When the bill was given first reading the words "at the expense of the Chief Electoral Officer," and so on, were not included; they were added by the committee. I think this provision has to be read in conjunction with the Canada Elections Act. The provision therein that is to remain, which is subsection (6) of section 63 at page 154 of the act, talks about the candidate's return of election expenses and provides:
A returning officer, within ten days after he receives from an official agent any return or supplementary return respecting election expenses, shall publish at the expense of the candidate a summary thereof, in the form prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer-
And so on. The key words there are "shall publish at the expense of the candidate a summary thereof". On first reading Bill C-203 contained a provision in respect of the auditor's report to the effect that each auditor's report received by the returning officer, from an official agent, will be published, with a summary of the return in respect of election expenses to which the return relates. I submit that there is no provision in respect of who should pay for the publication of the auditor's report and we cannot now say that this shall be made a burden on the taxpayer or on the public treasury, which are one and the same.
I suggest this partly because no reference was contained in the original bill in respect of who should pay the cost of publication, and partly because the words in the original bill suggest that the cost or the expense attached to the publication of the auditor's report shall be the candidate's. I suggest that the auditor's report is to be published along with the expense return. This argument is supported by the fact that in the recommendation of His Excellency at the front of the bill there is no reference to the payment from public funds of the cost of publishing the auditor's report in respect of a candidate's expenses.
Inasmuch as there is no reference to the payment of these expenses, I do not think it would be appropriate for us to amend the bill in order to reimburse a candidate in respect of publication expenses. I think we must consider this bill in accordance with the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General, and it is very specific in its terms and contains no reference at all to reimbursement for publication of an auditor's report.
8852

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point made by the hon. member is of interest and it will be considered by the Chair later today. I will look at the "blues" later this afternoon and perhaps I will look at Hansard tomorrow to determine whether the points made by the hon. member are in order. It may well be that the report received by the committee, if it is found by the Chair that there is an irregularity of such importance that would indicate the committee has gone beyond the powers granted it by the House in amending the bill as returned to the House, in that it does not conform with the recommendation, should be returned to the committee for further consideration. I should point out that it might be embarrassing if the House spent some days considering a bill in the event the Chair should rule that the bill be returned to the committee. I think it might be wise to have an early look at the points raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and I can assure the hon. member that the Chair will do so later this afternoon.
For the moment the House will proceed to the consideration of motion No. 1 which stands in the name of the hon. member for Skeena and is as follows:
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by deleting the words "Election Expenses Act" in Clause 1 and substituting therefor the words:
"Election Expenses and Subsidies to Political Parties Act."
This is a motion which seeks to amend the title of the bill. The precedent for this was set, to some extent at least, when the House was considering the wiretapping bill and a similar motion to amend the title of that bill. That motion was postponed, in the same way as similar motions are postponed in the committee of the whole, for consideration at a later date. I would therefore suggest that motion No. 1 be allowed to stand in the same way as followed normally in committee.
I suggest that motions Nos. 2 and 30 could be grouped for the purpose of debate; motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena and the motion No. 30 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), both of which substitute the words "Her Majesty in right of Canada".
The next item for consideration would be motion No. 3, and I would suggest that motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 should be considered together. This is the only grouping the Chair has attempted to make, with the assistance of the gentlemen at the table, because there are so many that it is practically impossible to present a group which would be satisfactory to all hon. members, particularly those who have proposed the motions.
In view of the fact that there are 42 motions for consideration, I would invite hon. members to be as relevant as possible, keeping in mind the Standing Orders and the procedures of this House in respect of several motions. If we had a general third reading debate on each of the 42 motions, we might still be here for Christmas of 1974. Therefore, I would seek the co-operation of hon. members in respect of the relevancy of their remarks to the motions being considered by the House. I would propose, therefore, that we start with the consideration of motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Skeena, and motion No. 30, in

the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, as follows:
No. 2.
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by deleting the words "a government, Crown corporation, or any other public agency" in paragraph (h) of the definition of "election expenses" in clause 2 and substituting the words:
"Her Majesty in right of Canada."
No. 30.
That Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended in subclause 9(2) by deleting the word "governments" in paragraph 63(1) (e) and substituting the words:
"Her Majesty in right of Canada" and by deleting the word "government" in paragraph 63(l)(f) and substituting therefor the words:
"Her Majesty in right of Canada".


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should raise this point of order now in respect of motion No. 13 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), but I would suggest that it is procedurally out of order in that it is contrary to Standing Order 22 of our rules and procedures which recognizes the constitutional right of members of the other place to amend provisions in a bill approved by the House of Commons. For that reason I suggest that the proposed motion by the hon. member is contrary to our Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my hope that we will not take up time considering procedural matters. We have several other motions to consider in addition to the one put in question by the hon. member. While I am in sympathy with the point of order he has raised, the Chair will take the point into consideration when we reach motion No. 13. I would suggest that is the time to raise this point of order. The Chair will hear the remarks of the hon. member at that time. In the meantime, I will consider the hon. member's remarks as a caution and I will keep his objection in the back of my mind for further consideration. Is the hon. member for Skeena rising on a point of order?


Frank Howard: Not really, Mr. Speaker. I would be prepared to go ahead with the consideration of motion No. 1, if that is the wish of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion of the Chair is that we proceed to consideration of motions 2 and 30.


Frank Howard: No. 2.
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by deleting the words "a government, Crown corporation, or any other public agency" in paragraph (h) of the definition of "election expenses" in clause 2 and substituting the words:
"Her Majesty in right of Canada".


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved:: No. 30.
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election
December 18, 1973

expenses, be amended in subclause 9(2) by deleting the word "governments" in paragraph 63(1)(e) and substituting the words:
"Her Majesty in right of Canada" and by deleting the word "government" in paragraph 63(l)(f) and substituting therefor the words:
"Her Majesty in right of Canada".


Frank Howard: As a preliminary, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor), through you, that when he comes back to his point of order he get the accurate numerical designation of the motion in question.
Dealing very briefly with motion No. 2, it arises from an amendment the committee made to clause 2 which appears first in the bill as a definition of "election expenses." Clause 2 is a very complex definition, as members of the standing committee realized because of the great deal of time spent in an effort to ascertain what exactly was meant by "election expenses" as proposed by the government. In this regard we should express our appreciation to several gentlemen of the justice department, Mr. Blue, Mr. Gibson, the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean Marc Hamel, and others for the excellent analysis they gave the committee of the meaning of the meaning of the words "election expenses" as contained in this bill.
I think the difficulty arose-and it has yet to arise for members who were not on the committee or who have not yet met that difficulty in respect of election expenses-in persons' minds as to what in any specific case is meant by or sought to be included in the question of election expenses. It is not what we normally think; it is not necessarily an election expense if one makes an expenditure of money because under this definition some moneys expended, put out, transferred or paid out of the treasury of the particular registered political party would not be classified as an election expense. It also included things to which it is difficult to attach a monetary value, such as services donated or provided.
There was a great deal of concern in the committee about what value you attach to a service that has been donated or provided to a registered party or candidate. How would one make the computation in respect of whether the services or goods provided the candidate or the political party were charged for at a rate less than what the rate would be for those particular goods or services normally or in the normal conduct of a person's business? There is the question of how one determines what the normal cost would be of goods and services that might be provided if they are provided at less than whatever the commercial value might be.
All these concepts and ideas are included in the first part of the definition of election expenses and are classified therefore as a cost. The draftsmen of the bill-and I really cannot understand why this was done-then proceeded to use this phrase of generality in legal draftsmanship, namely, "without limiting the generality of the foregoing" as meaning certain things; then they proceed to spell them out as if they were not spelled out in the first definition. They seem, then, to say that election expenses, if one did not understand it from the first part of the definition, means the cost of acquiring the right to the use of broadcasting facilities or any broadcasting undertaking
Election Expenses
and the right to run an advertisement in a publication. These are considered to be election expenses and a cost either to the party or to the candidate.
Then there is the cost of acquiring meeting space, providing light refreshment, material of a promotional nature and the normal things that take place during an election campaign in which a party or a candidate becomes involved, such as running advertising in newspapers or on radio and television, holding meetings and distributing literature in an attempt to get a point of view across to the general public. These are the normal, natural and traditional approaches which result in expenditures and I thought they were included in the earlier definition, but apparently the people who drafted the bill felt this was not the case and wanted to spell it out with more particularity and make it more clear. However, in the process I think they made it a bit more confusing. As a result, we have confusion in respect of what election expenses include, because they obviously do not include every cent of money expended and obviously do not include things which cannot be identified. This is where we get to what I would call the addition. It is paragraph (h) on page 2 of the bill as revised by the committee.
Then we come to those items which are difficult to assess in terms of value. This includes, and this is where the first amendment comes in, " 'election expenses' means" certain things. In paragraph (h) this includes the cost of goods or services provided by a government, Crown corporation or any other public agency when such costs are incurred for a purpose set out in this definition. At this stage 1 shall not bother reading all the parts which were added, but they were all companion to an attempt to understand what was meant by "election expenses" in the first instance.
Apart from the examination made by the special committee of this House, the only person I know of in recent time who has examined this subject matter is Professor Khayyam Z. Paltiel, of Carleton University, who delivered a paper to the Specialist Panel on Political Finance of the Ninth World Congress of the International Political Science Association in Montreal, August 19 to 25 of this year. Professor Paltiel did a tremendous amount of work in an effort to discover what election expenses registered parties have incurred, because the law up until now has not required such disclosure by political parties. I am now speaking in terms of what are referred to as registered political parties.
With the authentication of the Chief Electoral Officer, the name of a party can be listed. There is provision in the act on how one goes about this so that the name may be placed on the registry. However, up until now these groups or parties have not been required to make any report to anybody about election expenditures. In fact, in one instance a particular political party did not even make this kind of disclosure to its own membership. It did not disclose what it expended on an election campaign. We have the notable distinction of having had in office for too long in British Columbia a party under the designated label of Social Credit. I do not say that with any sense of offending any gentlemen who belong to the Social Credit party because there are two distinct types or elements involved in social credit.
8854

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
This party in the province of British Columbia consistently refused to report to its own membership at its annual conventions what moneys it took in for the purpose of an election campaign and what moneys it dispensed in the pursuit of the election campaign. So political parties have not been required to disclose to their supporters, or to anybody, their election expenses and I have pointed out one instance in which a party would not even disclose what was going on to its own members. There were two sets of books involved and only the leader of their party knew where the other set of books was. Nobody else in the organization knew anything at all about it. However, Professor Paltiel, insofar as the federal parties are concerned-in fact he mentions it in his paper-wishes to express thanks and appreciation to various executive officers of the particular parties for the information with which they provided him. This is in reference No. 5 on page 34 of that paper. It is important that I quote him so that we understand what we are trying to do in terms of election expenses. He writes:
The author wishes to thank numerous Liberal, Progressive Conservative, and New Democratic Party officials for their generous help in the preparation of this paper and accompanying studies. In particular he is grateful to John M. Godfrey, QC., chairman of the treasury committee and Blair Williams, national director of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I am told by my colleagues who know that area of Canada fairly well that the name of John M. Godfrey is preceded by the title "Senator." He is in the other place, a former bagman of the Liberal Party. The Liberal collection agent is now in the Senate-being paid, incidentally, from public funds to carry on the program for a registered political party. The professor goes on to express his appreciation and thanks to Finlay MacDonald, national campaign chairman, Malcolm Wickson and Mr. Curley of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, as well as Mr. Clifford Scotton, federal secretary of the NDP for his unstinting help over the years. Professor Paltiel was able to obtain from those persons, and probably from others because he says he wishes to thank "numerous Liberal, PC and NDP officials" and bring together in one paper information about expenditures and incomes of political parties that has not until now been available to anyone.
I know that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on a number of occasions in committee, in speaking about another aspect of the bill said that nobody knew of the financial involvement of political parties at the national level, that no one had this information and that it has never been brought together. For instance, he did not know what it was with respect to his own party. I assume that the people to whom Professor Paltiel spoke, the people to whom he gave special accolades for their help with respect to this paper, told him precisely what the truth was. They had nothing to hide. He documented it in here. His opinion-and this is the only one of which I know-is based upon a very careful analysis of the value and the impact of a federal election campaign.
It is his opinion that the value that accrues to a political party at the national level during an election campaign, the value that comes to the political party from the fact that that party forms the government, is in the neighbour-

hood of a quarter of a million dollars. In other words, the mere fact of being in office, with the facilities that are available-and Professor Paltiel spells them out; he talks in terms of facilities such as government aircraft and cabinet ministers travelling on government aircraft from one place to another-has a value attached to it. The government employs propagandists, loosely called speech-writers, to write speeches, to prepare press releases, to engage in assessments and in conducting polls of opinion in the country about how the party is doing.
Officials who do that sort of work are paid out of the public treasury, and Professor Paltiel puts the costs all together and concludes that they amount to something in the neighbourhood of $250,000. Perhaps it would be worth while to read what he says. The following appears on page 9:
At the very least part of the substantial differences in the cost of the leader's tour and administrative costs of the party as compared with parallel Progressive Conservative expenses may be accounted for in this manner. In all, these unrequited services probably benefited the Liberal party by a sum not far short of $250,000 which should be added to the total in the aforementioned table.
On the previous page he sets out a table of the expenditures of the Liberal Party for such things as the leader's tour and expenses for television, the printed media and the like.
This amendment which the committee made includes an amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party, specifically the amendment of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). The amendment, which the committee accepted, said that the costs of goods and services provided by a government Crown corporation or any other public agency have to be included in what are election expenses. The amendment that I seek to make here, in so far as the first part is concerned, is to remove the words "a government Crown corporation or any other public agency" and replace them with the words "Her Majesty in right of Canada".
My reason for doing that is as follows. The word "government" has extremely broad application and includes a provincial government. It is true that some provincial governments have in the past exerted some of their energies at the federal level toward the party to which they belong. I am quite sure that that has occurred. Governments also include municipal governments and regional districts. In my estimation they include school boards, school districts and hospital districts organized under provincial law. The amendment that I propose, and the other one that is proposed which is a companion to this for a later part of the bill, seeks to narrow the interpretation of what is government from the extreme and broad down to the federal government, because it is a federal elections act, there are federal candidates involved and it is members of the House of Commons who are being elected.
It is the federal government that is being formed out of the particular election which is the one, I think properly and only, that should be accountable in making returns about what it does or what facilities it provides-to the extent that you can assess them-what facilities and services it provides toward the conduct of an election when
December 18, 1973

these costs are for the purpose set out in the definition and for the purpose to which you can attach some commercial value.
I know the argument on the other side may be that provincial governments are political entities as well, and that provincial governments have engaged in federal election campaigns. Provincial governments undoubtedly have in the past, and will in the future, try to say that whatever effort they can extend will be to the benefit of the particular party running in the federal election to which they belong. I just cannot see that we would be able to make some kind of assessment. If one does make an assessment of the value of that effort, and if that assessment is considered to be inaccurate-we have to look at this matter because there is a provision later in the bill, and an excellent one, moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and accepted by the committee in so far as concerns overseeing these activities or policing them-the Chief Electoral Officer is authorized to appoint a commissioner whose duty it shall be to ensure that the provisions of this act in regard to election expenses are complied with and enforced.
As I say, that is an excellent and necessary amendment. But I am very much afraid that if we extend as federal law the application of what are election expenses to a government structured under the British North America Act, a provincial government which is equal to the federal government in the area of its activities, the commissioner will oversee these matters and examine them, but if he comes upon a return of election expenses in which a party or a candidate lists an assessment of the value accruing to that party from the activities of a provincial government, upon what does he determine whether it is an accurate assessment? If he determines that it is not accurate, how does he find out what is correct? Can he bring the provincial government into his office and ask to see its books? I think he would not have the authority or power to search out these matters. Can a provincial government be arraigned in court to produce that information and make accurate what the commissioner concludes is not accurate? I doubt it very much.
A few years ago there was a case in British Columbia where the provincial government seized logs owned by a logging and sawmilling company and became the owner of them. The provincial government drove the logs from one place to another through a salmon-spawning river. No private entrepreneur or corporation could have done that because they would have been in violation of the Fisheries Act of Canada. The matter was raised right in this House. The then minister of fisheries said on a number of occasions in this House, on the advice that he got from the legal people in his department, that the federal government could not challenge the provincial government on this, even though it was de facto violation of the Fisheries Act, because the two governments were equal one with the other in their respective jurisdictions: one could not override the other. That could very easily be the case here, Mr. Speaker. We would have either a matter of great tension or a confrontation which would not satisfy the intent of the act.
I am sure, on the other hand, that if we were to accept the amendment and say that only the costs of goods and
Election Expenses
services provided by a government apply to those provided by the federal government, Her Majesty in right of Canada, which includes Crown corporations and all other public agencies, it is an all-inclusive term and that is the only one that we can, and should, tax. Naturally, the only political party at an election that would be making a return of that nature or a return on election expenses that included items referred to in the relevant section would be the party that happened to form the government. None of the other parties would be involved. I do not think any of the other parties could claim that the service provided by a federal government agency, a federal government aircraft or the speechwriter for a cabinet minister, was really an asset in the election of a candidate for some other party. It may well be, and some of them are. But that is something that is not foreseen; it is an indirect benefit to the candidate in the opposition party. I cannot see a candidate listing an assessment of value for the speech-writer of a cabinet minister whom he considered he could use to his advantage in his riding. It was not conceived to be so. There would be only one party making returns under this provision, and that would be the party in power. That is so far as the definition of election expenses is concerned.
There are other references to this question of "government" in the bill. One of them is the return which the registered party is supposed to keep, indicating how much money it obtained and the commercial value of goods and services, of individuals, corporations, governments, etc. Governments are included. Some of them were left because, as I understand the rules of procedure, if an amendment occurs to one clause of the bill, it necessitates consequential amendments to other clauses; those consequential amendments can be made without 24 hours' notice, right on the spur of the moment, and necessarily flow in order to have some continuity and some sense in the bill. They were left out of other clauses for that reason.
I understand that when the committee reported on Friday it reported amendments to the bill and the 48-hour period commenced then, as in fact it did under the rules. At that time I was unaware that some other arrangement had been made and so there was an urgency, I thought, to get amendments in by Friday at five o'clock because if the bill had been called for report stage proceedings yesterday there would have been insufficient time and the 48-hour period would have lapsed. On Friday the bill had not been reprinted, so we then did not have copies of the reprinted bill; we had only copies of the bill which had been given first reading. We had notes concerning amendments moved by members in committee and it was somewhat difficult to fit these in with copies of the bill in our possession. That is another reason we did not go exhaustively through the bill and determine to which sections the suggestions concerning "government" or "governments" would apply. We did look, however, at those parts concerning candidates' returns. We looked at the definition of "election expenses" and at what the returns should show so far as the candidate is concerned. Both these matters may be considered together. Once these matters have been considered, I think we will be able to find other references to "government" fairly easily and make the necessary consequential amendments.

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
Motion No. 30 seeks to remove from page 21 of the bill, line 34, the word "government" and substitute therefor the words "Her Majesty in right of Canada". Part of section 63(1) of the act is to be repealed. Section 63 deals with candidates' returns on election expenses. The legislation has always required, as everyone in this House knows, a candidate to file at least one return on election expenses. Candidates are required to work closely with an official agent in attempting to assess what expenses have been incurred. Those expenses must be compiled, and receipts and records must be kept and filed with the returning officer. We all know what that involves. The bill will impose an additional burden on candidates and official agents. That additional burden will involve greater accuracy, greater detail and greater efficiency.
I am quite sure that quite a number of candidates' election expense returns have not been completely accurate. I do not mean to say that the candidates are not honest; I merely mean that the information contained in the returns is not accurate. In some cases the candidate and official agent is not able to discover in detail exactly how much has been spent on the election campaign, especially in areas where there may be a number of subsidiary groups of the political organization. For example, in some areas inhabited communities may be 100 miles or so apart. Naturally, there will be a separate political organization in each community. The organization may use volunteers. That is where the difficulty comes in. Being volunteers, those people do not always keep track of expenditures.
I know of instances where a devout party worker will say something like, "Don't worry about the rental of the hall. If you want a public meeting, I will pay for the hall and consider that my contribution." He pays for the hall but does not keep receipts. He does not make any contribution directly, yet that is his traditional way of contributing to the campaign. That may be an expenditure of which the official agent may not be aware. Therefore the official agent, not knowing about it, cannot include it in the return.
The provisions of the bill mean that in the constituencies there will need to be a highly centralized, authoritarian bookkeeping operation to keep track of every cent of income spent. Candidates will be required to supply receipts, to keep track of all expenditures, to keep copies of bills and vouchers, and so on, and keep all these intact in one place. In some areas this will impede the traditional way of running campaigns.
We were shocked, to put it mildly, in committee on hearing the testimony of representatives of the Canadian association of chartered accountants. I think that is the correct name of the organization. They tried to assess for the committee what would be entailed if a candidate were to meet the requirements of the bill and employ an auditor to go over all expenses. They said something like this, "Suppose, for argument's sake, we see in the committee room a billboard, a sign or a poster advertising a candidate. We would want to know where that sign came from. We would want to see the receipt for the sign and know who paid for it."
We conceived that the chartered accountants might attach themselves to the candidate at the beginning of the

campaign trail. They might sit in every committee room, count every sheet of paper and keep close watch over all election expenses. On being asked how much this would cost, the representatives said, having been asked in a number of different ways, that they thought the cost of an auditor would run in the neighbourhood of $5,000 for a campaign. One can see the concept involved. The accountant would be running around the country making sure the candidate had receipts for everything. If the candidate stayed overnight in a hotel, receipts covering that stay must be obtained. The provisions of this bill mean that constituency organizations must become centralized agencies and the bookkeeping requirements are more stringent than ever before. I can conceive that some requirements of the bill with regard to candidates will hinder the full and proper conduct of an election campaign.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the 40 minutes allotted to him under the Standing Order have expired.


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, after some 50 committee meetings which closely scrutinized nearly 150 amendments, Bill C-203 has finally been returned to the House. It has perhaps received more informed, practical, experienced deliberation than any piece of legislation considered this session. We are all experts. We are all so wise on the subject of winning elections. We all have some contribution to make based upon our actual involvement in the subject matter of the bill. Thus, the quality and quantity of inspection has been significant.
The official opposition, Mr. Speaker, is now satisfied that the bill, reprinted as amended and reported by the committee, moves a long way toward achieving the goals so long sought by the several parliaments which have considered electoral reform. During the debate on second reading I stated that I did not share the optimism of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that the bill in its then form would achieve all of the admirable purposes h.e said it would. I pointed out that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections appeared to have its work cut out for it. This turned out to be a prophetic understatement. I congratulate all members of the committee who, I believe, worked long and sincerely in a co-operative effort at achieving workable and responsible electoral reform.
The bill now encompasses procedures for the disclosure of the names and amounts of all donors to political parties and candidates. I emphasize the word "all" because the original bill omitted any reference to the role in an election of governments, through their publications, their facilities such as aircraft, automobiles, advertising and their public service personnel. As we are all well aware, the use, usually surreptitiously and indirectly, by the party in power of such readily available weaponry can provide a significant and unfair advantage during an election campaign. Amendments introduced by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) and accepted by the committee will require the filing by the parties of details of names and amounts of money and the commercial value of goods and services provided from all sources, including governments.
December 18, 1973

Further, the prohibition against advertising during the first four weeks after the issuance of a writ now specifically includes a prohibition against the use of government publications. For reasons that escape me, Mr. Speaker, the committee turned down a reasonably restrictive definition covering a "government publication". I suspect that government members may regret that decision when they find during the next election that the undefined term may be considerably broader than that encompassed in the definition offered by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.
Further, the bill now sets out specific procedures permitting one party to institute negotiations which must be responded to by the other registered parties to determine the allocation of broadcast time among them. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) worked out a formula acceptable to a majority of the committee members. Similarly, amendments were introduced and passed to require a fairer, more even-handed adjudication by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission when deciding contentious issues between parties and broadcasters. Perhaps the most significant committee improvement was that establishing a commissioner, and I quote- -whose duties, under supervision of the Chief Electoral Officer, shall be to insure that the provisions of the act in regard to election expenses, are complied with and enforced.
Although the commissioner does not take exactly the form envisaged by us, we are delighted that the important principle of his necessity was recognized by the committee and adopted. We feel the tenacious undertaking by the commissioner of his function as defined by the amendment is fundamental to the beneficial operation of many of the other sections of the act. To have left to candidates and parties a self-auditing role would have been folly. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) deserves commendation for the introduction of this worth-while concept.
I do not wish to denigrate the work of government members who also contributed substantially to the final result by proposing nearly one-third of the amendments passed by the committee. As much as anything, this fact establishes that even the usually intransigent thinkers opposite saw the need for improvement to the original bill.
Having sat for so long and considered so many divergent aspects of the bill, one would have thought that we would have perhaps exhausted the subject beyond resuscitation. However, one need only glance at the order paper for today and yesterday to see that in the minds of some at least the debate is far from over. One wonders whether the New Democratic Party is serious about electoral reform in this country at this time. Their lack of influence over the amended bill as it emerged from committee must indeed chagrin them in light of their all-persuasive influence over the government on most other matters.
However, the fact is-virtually all the matters raised by their 42 amendments were thoroughly discussed, debated and dealt with by the committee. They, of course, have every right to reintroduce these matters at this stage. But the real world of practical politics must surely point out to them, or they are more obtuse than is generally recognized, that the only purpose that could be served by such tactics is to delay the passage of the bill. Given the lead
Election Expenses
time necessary for effective application of the provisions of the bill, if it is delayed beyond Christmas they know there is little chance that it will be in effect for the next election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is in difficulty. I think hon. members heard Mr. Speaker a few minutes before four o'clock dealing with allocation and relevance of the particular motions or proposed motions that would be debated. Most of the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was relevant in the sense that he dealt squarely with the deletion of certain words and substituting therefore "Her Majesty in right of Canada." The hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor) has also in part dealt with that issue squarely. However, I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that he is covering a much larger area and is really making what the Chair would have to regard as a third reading speech.
We are caught squarely within the particular motions that are being proposed. Our arguments must be directed to them. I know this will be a disappointment to hon. members. It will probably be a most frustrating exercise for the occupants of the chair if the debate is limited in this way. However, Mr. Speaker-and I certainly agree with him-suggested that we keep within the rules of relevancy because we have adopted a specific course of dealing with these particular proposals. I must ask the hon. member to consider the motion moved by the hon. member for Skeena as follows:
That Bill C-203 ... be amended by deleting the words "a government, Crown corporation, or any other public agency." in paragraph (h) of the definition of "election expenses" in clause 2 and substituting the words-
"Her Majesty in right of Canada."
The hon. member must also consider the subsequent motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) which is practically to the same effect:
-deleting the word "governments" in paragraph 63(1) <e) and substituting the words: "Her Majesty in right of Canada"
That is the issue that has to be considered now. When we dispose of that we will go to other issues. There may be somewhat broader issues; however, it seems that this issue is rather precise. I hope hon. members who contribute to this debate will address themselves to whether this change should be made.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No point of order can arise from a ruling by the Chair.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, possibly my point of order could be heard before a ruling is made as to whether it is acceptable. It may well be out of order. Members of my party have discussed this matter. They want to keep the debate short and succinct, not taking 40 minutes on each amendment. It was recommended that our first speaker, the member who guided us through committee, make one general speech and the rest of us, when any other matter or any other amendment comes up, would make very short speeches, if any, because we would like to see this matter hurried through. I would ask the indulgence of the Chair so that we could co-operate in this way by having one general speech of perhaps some length, and any replies

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
would be much shorter than would otherwise be the case. In looking after this matter for our party, this is the proposal on which a number of us decided.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. I say God bless the hon. member for bringing in a sensible suggestion such as that. The only difficulty is that apparently it does not receive the approval of all the parties whose members will be taking part in the debate. If it were agreed that the opening speech from each of the four corners of the House would not be longer than 40 minutes, and that thereafter the rule of relevancy would be very strictly applied, the Chair would be most happy to put it to the House for acceptance. But if it is not agreed, we must follow the suggestion Mr. Speaker made. On the point of order raised by the hon. member, I will recognize the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Your Honour, with respect to the proposal which has been made, that the first speaker for each group on this particular amendment might be given general latitude, I would certainly agree. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor) might make a general statement on this amendment. I would, however, agree to this on the understanding that once we move from amendment No. 2 we should observe strictly the rule of relevancy as suggested by Your Honour earlier. When the third reading is before us, wider latitude will again be possible.


Mr. Brewin:: As far as this party is concerned, we would agree. Our first speaker was the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). He dealt with a precise motion; he did not make a general statement. So in a sense, by agreeing to this proposal we are depriving ourselves of an opportunity. Nevertheless, we shall agree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, we too agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member on the condition that speeches on the amendments be really limited to the motion before us.


Frank Howard: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how we can make deals with respect to the rules. The rules are to be enforced, that is all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), that the opening speakers from the four corners of the House be allotted 40 minutes, that thereafter the speeches to motions Nos. 2 and 30 be of 20 minutes' duration, and that on subsequent items at the report stage the rule of relevancy be strictly enforced.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) made the point that the hon. member for Skeena's contribution had been within the rules. I think that as an element of justice some latitude might be allowed as far as time is concerned when the next member from that party speaks. Perhaps he might be allowed to go somewhat beyond 20 minutes. Apart from that is there agreement on the 40 minutes and then the 20 minutes?
(Mr. Dick.]


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. O'Connor:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton for his suggestion and I thank the rest of the House for accepting it. May I apologize to Your Honour for rising to make a speech of this kind, but any problem which may have arisen seems now to have been resolved.
When I was interrupted I was speaking of the attitude of the New Democratic Party toward the passage of this bill. I was about to suggest that here we see the self-proclaimed, unctuous champions of reform stonewalling for reasons of their own. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the bill is delayed, the Canadian people will know where the responsibility lies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: One need only peruse some of their amendments to obtain an accurate appraisal of what is being attempted. Amendment No. 34 would raise the vote qualification enabling a candidate to obtain reimbursement of a part of his election expenses from 20 per cent to 70 per cent. The amendment stands in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who attempted unsuccessfully in committee to reduce-not increase-the qualification standard to 10 per cent. He is saying, apparently, that if he cannot have his way, no one else shall have theirs. If we do not play the game his way, he will take his marbles and go home. Ironically, under the hon. member's formula, in the unlikely event of its successful passage, it would seem the only candidate he wishes to receive any reimbursement is the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) whom I am sure will be delighted with his new-found admirer. The hon. member for Crowfoot, I understand, is one of the only members who received more than 70 per cent of the votes in the last election. Politics does make the strangest bedfellows.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 deal with the same section of the bill. They would all reduce the ceiling for party election expenses to three or four varying amounts. Are the great, self-proclaimed reformers of our electoral system, so long the lonely carriers of the light of revelation, now so confused that they are stumbling over each other in the darkness, a darkness which no doubt results from the ill-conceived energy policy they forced upon the government? Can the self-proclaimed reformers of our electoral system not get together among themselves and decide on an amount, thus reducing the problems of their making which now face the House? Or perhaps they do not wish to facilitate the passage of this legislation. I expect the latter is the case.
Mr. Speaker, the measure before us gives hon. members an opportunity to substantially improve the quality of the image of politicians and political parties in Canada. The bill takes large strides toward alleviating the long and deeply-held public suspicion-in some cases it is an actuality-that politicians are crooked, that the system operates on the basis of patronage, of favours, of jobs and other amenities offered and granted in return for candidate and party funding.
The bill will open up the books and records of parties and individuals through tough auditing requirements and
December 18, 1973

through the requirement that details of sources of donations must be revealed. It will allow every Canadian the opportunity to look over the shoulders of the backroom boys as they go about their often misunderstood task of raising the money necessary to convey the message of a party and its candidates. It will compel disclosure of exactly who gives what to whom. Long-held suspicions will then either be confirmed or put to rest.
Further, the bill takes steps long overdue to reduce the rapidly escalating cost of elections. Strict limitation of the amounts which may be spent by parties and candidates will ensure less waste, a more carefully budgeted and planned campaign, less inundation of the average Canadian with repetitious messages and material. Above all, these limitations will reduce the discriminatory effect of wealth on the system. The wealthy man or woman will not be permitted to spend his or her way into office, nor will he or she enjoy the substantial advantage that money formerly held over the less well-to-do candidate. This end is further advanced by a system of partial reimbursement to parties and candidates from the public treasury of the costs of a campaign. Both the expenditure limits and the reimbursement amounts are geared to the number of voters that the candidate or party is attempting to reach. Allowances are made for the additional travel costs involved in schedule III and other geographically large ridings in our far northern areas.
A calculated attempt is made, through the disclosure of donations requirements and through amendments to the Income Tax Act, to broaden the base of financial support for our system. Donors to parties and candidates will enjoy the generous tax credit provisions proposed as changes to the Income Tax Act. We believe that, in principle, the best way to finance the system is by means of a freely given private donation. That is, it is preferable to fund candidates for public office voluntarily, rather than to require all of us to support all candidates through our tax dollars. We do, however, recognize the necessity to give everyone, regardless of wealth and financial ability, an opportunity to convey his or her message to the people of Canada.
Thus we have the combination of incentives to give voluntarily, combined with some degree of public reimbursement of expenses of candidates and parties. We suggest the discriminatory effect of tax credits, as opposed to tax deductions, on the other usual recipients of voluntary donations such as churches, charitable organizations, and so forth, which permit only a tax deduction, not a credit, can be remedied by a thorough study and possible amendment of the tax laws which affect them.
The bill is not perfect, Mr. Speaker. The government recognizes this fact by the inclusion of a provision that would refer certain sections back to a parliamentary committee, presumably the privileges and elections committee, for review after the first election held following the bill's coming into effect. But it is the result of nearly ten years of study, first by a royal commission, the Barbeau commission, then by three parliamentary committees, including one special committee and a plethora of academic and public studies. Reform is vitally necessary at this time even if not given additional impetus by the odious activi-
Election Expenses
ties of many of those involved in the American political system. I urge all members of the House to accept the work of the committee so that the bill become law as soon as possible.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will not try to achieve the feat that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has managed this afternoon, that is to speak on a motion for 40 minutes.
I would simply summarize the position that our group has taken during the debate on Bill C-203.
If you consider the number of amendments on the order paper, you realize that the bill now before us, although representing a necessary stage in the revision of the Canada Elections Act, is far from being perfect.
Unfortunately, through consideration in committee, not only could we make the government aware of the various problems but we also managed to improve the bill. Unfortunately, we have realized that the object of the bill is to guarantee to the individual the best opportunity to be well informed and to vote freely.
Reference has been made to broadcasting and to the media while the expenses of parties are allowed or restricted and some refund can be obtained from the government, all this to let the individual know what to think, how to judge such or such a proposal during an election campaign.
We also realize that Bill C-203 does not directly protect the individual by providing, for example, a fair control over information. Expenses are restricted and refunds to the various political parties are limited, but in no case is the individual allowed to obtain adequate information on the political choices which can be offered during an election campaign.
Unfortunately, in Bill C-203 one is not told how choices are made as regards television broadcasting. They are willing to say "subject to an agreement between parties", but one realizes that it has always been the same thing, that those agreements do not really represent the current election, but elections held two, three or four years ago.
We come to the discussion of the allocation of time between political parties. Nowadays, according to the new election legislation, the organization of an election campaign involves registration of parties, which respect the provisions of the law and get together in a committee meeting for the allocation of broadcasting time or of other media. Such an allocation is always done according to the number of members in each party before dissolution of Parliament.
In Bill C-203 there is no corrective measure to such irregularity as concerns the people because during an election it is not the number of elected members in the House that counts, but the number of candidates in each party.
One realizes also that expenses allowed under Bill C-203 are the result of a computation to complicate a procedure that could be quite simple. It was simply suggested, at the beginning of discussions on Bill C-203, that the government should pay the representatives of each registered party in the polls as well as the scrutineers.

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
That would mean amounts of money paid directly to help the voting procedure instead of money spent as one sees fit, by whoever seems to be appointed to spend them.
Many things are lacking in Bill C-203. Amendments could have been adopted, or still included much more specific clauses in the bill to give people the maximum of security and information concerning political options. But we have not been able to guarantee this to the individual except through election funds which, as we all know, always favour the strong recognized parties at the expense of the smaller ones, especially in the field of information.
On the whole, Bill C-203 is a definite improvement from an electoral standpoint. But, once again, I am waiting for the reports which will be made after the next elections concerning the application of Bill C-203 and the amended Elections Act. I await impatiently these reports to prove that Bill C-203 will not really solve the problem of dividing equitably information among all political parties, which would benefit the population during an electoral campaign.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, when the point of order was discussed it was suggested that the next speaker from our party should be given the opportunity to enter into something of a general discussion as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who opened for us, was speaking to his own motion No. 2. I do not intend to take advantage of that suggestion, but I want to make this contribution and all other interventions during this debate as brief and as close to the point as possible.
Speaking for the majority of my colleagues, if not all of them, I think that even though this bill has defects it is one that should be passed as soon as is reasonably possible. I do not mean that there are not reasonable amendments which could be made even following this stage: in spite of the over-all desire to get this bill passed, there may be some amendments required because in this free country and free parliament there are differences of opinion. I suggest that the majority of the members of our party will restrict their contributions to the debate in order to facilitate the early passage of this bill, and I intend to do so. Having said that, I now propose to turn to the amendment introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena.
I, personally, do not accept or agree with this particular amendment, the effect of which is, as I understand it, to limit the words in the original bill as amended by the committee regarding the definition of "election expenses" to include the cost of goods or services provided by a government, Crown corporation or any other public agency. It is true, as the hon. member for Skeena has said, that the purpose of his amendment is to change the words in respect of the source of campaign expenditures by striking out the words "a government, Crown corporation, or any other public agency" and substituting therefor the words "Her Majesty in right of Canada". In my opinion that is a limiting amendment and I, personally, do not think it is good. It has the result of enabling-the hon. member for Skeena referred to this possibility-provincial governments and agencies to contribute directly or in-

directly to campaign funds. If they do, I would ask why their contributions should not be considered as part of the over-all election expenses.
I do not remember which member introduced this amendment but I think it was a useful one. It purports to suggest that if governments choose to make contributions to an election campaign, they should be subject to the regulations, limitations and accountability provided for by the act. Because this is a limiting amendment which is proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Skeena, I do not propose to vote for it and I suggest to other members that they should not vote for it.


An hon. Member:: Dissension in the ranks.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I do not intend to take advantage of this opportunity to make a general speech on this particular amendment. I do, however, wish to express my agreement that one of the amendments proposed to this particular clause is limiting in its effect, and therefore it would be better for us to accept the amendment adopted by the committee which expanded the definition of "election expenses" to include the cost of goods and services, I believe the expression is "provided by a government, Crown corporation or any other public agency".
We took the view originally that the general definition included this particular elaboration or clarification. However, we are pleased to accept this new clarification as part of the definition and we believe it ought to be accepted in order that the bill can be maintained as proposed by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) and as accepted by the committee as a whole.
I stated I did not intend to make a general speech, but I do wish to express my appreciation to hon. members of the committee for the very long and tough sessions they endured in discussing, analysing and dissecting this bill. As the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor) has said, probably no other bill has received greater scrutiny in any committee than this bill which was considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The spirit which prevailed in the committee was almost totally non-partisan. There were occasional flashes of partisanship, but they were quickly eliminated and the discussion continued on a very objective and non-partisan basis.
I took the view when the bill was brought before the House that it was of interest to every hon. member of the House of Commons in that it affected each one of us and, therefore, it was of a type that would probably receive very careful study in the committee and would benefit from the scrutiny of hon. members. I believe that to be the case and that the general framework of the bill has been maintained. The hon. member for Halton has outlined, probably better than I could at this stage, the general framework of the bill now before the House. Undoubtedly there have been some amendments which will improve the operation of this measure and probably will improve the definition of "commercial value," and so on. This matter occupied a good deal of the time of the committee.
December 18, 1973

I may also say there were several amendments with which I did not agree, and my efforts to persuade the committee were not acceptable on a number of occasions. However, I am quite content to accept the over-all judgment of the committee and it is for that reason I did not put down any amendments to change in any way the conclusions of the committee. In all cases in respect of amendments, they were carried in the usual way by the committee. I note also that the hon. member for Halton, whose party lost some amendments, did not propose any amendment at the report stage to recover ground that might have been gained in the committee. That makes it easier for us to move ahead in dealing with this bill. It is my firm expectation that the bill can be passed and can receive royal assent before we rise, whether by adjournment or prorogation, and that this very important area of electoral reform will have been dealt with by this twenty-ninth Parliament of Canada-probably a good parliament in which to deal with it because it is a minority parliament in which no party could succeed in imposing its views on a minority. This could be the result of the deliberations in the committee and the result of the bill, hopefully accepted by all the House, having been proposed by a government which has a minority of members in the House.
I wish to say, before concluding, that I really did get an eye-opener in respect of the operation of the committee system in the House of Commons. I attended, it seemed, an endless number of meetings. I noticed that most members of the committee were very faithful in attending to their duties. It did involve an enormous amount of time and a great deal of industry on the part of members. It took them away from the House and their offices. My eye-opener leads me to conclude that in the future we ought to do two things: we ought to do something to even further systematize and reform our committee system in order to reduce the burden of members of parliament which is very great at the present time, and certainly we ought to consider in the future what additional assistance should be made available to members of parliament to allow them to operate even more effectively as members of standing committees of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by thanking those who were on the committee. I entrust the bill to the chamber in the expectation that we can make good progress quickly and give the bill third reading later.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my contribution at this stage will be brief. I was very pleased to hear the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) speak with such pleasure of his experiences before the committee. I know all of us in every corner of the House hope to be able to arrange in the not too distant future an opportunity for the minister and several of his colleagues on the front bench to spend a great deal more time in our committees.
I want to say, also, I was very much heartened, as I believe all of us were in this House, to hear the words of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). We can only express the hope that those words will be matched by
Election Expenses
the actions of his party as this bill proceeds through the House. I think it is worth noting that the great number of amendments which appear on the order paper in two waves are sponsored by a great variety of members from his party. The name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is associated with a number of these amendments. Other amendments stand in the names of people who hold official positions in that party, including the whip. I do not think that should be lost sight of in proceeding with the debate. We would hope that no party would direct its attention to stonewalling this highly desirable legislation.
With regard to this particular amendment, I believe it would be a very serious limitation to exclude from the ambit of the legislation reference to contributions of goods and services of provincial governments. I think that while there may be concern, as the hon. member suggested, about the means of enforcing that particular provision relative to the provinces, it should be pointed out that there are other reasons for having penalties and prohibitions in this legislation that are not easily enforceable. While it might be difficult to prosecute a province, it certainly is a fact that this object could be achieved through the substantial weapon of publicity by publicizing that a particular government controlled by a particular party was abusing its trust in a partisan issue. I think this is a highly important addition to the bill and I say with suitable modesty that I shall vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, amendment No. 30 which stands in my name is really consequential on amendment No. 2 introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Therefore I feel they quite properly can be discussed together. I think the nub of the matter has been mentioned by one or two people who spoke in disagreement of the amendment. The really important issue was raised by the hon. member for Skeena in his remarks. It seems to me that this amendment to the clause of the bill which for the first time will insert in the Elections Act a definition of what are election expenses is indicative of the fact that the thrust of this bill will result in very major changes in the whole approach to the conduct of elections in Canada.
It may surprise some people, if this discussion comes to their attention, that over these years we have managed to function successfully, more or less, in the conduct of elections and in an orderly manner without any definition of "election expenses." Our official agents have been able to file summaries, keep accounts, and so on, to the reasonable satisfaction of the general public, at least in many areas of the country. I know that over the years my returning officers have said that no one came to their door asking to see the documents filed and offering to pay the 25 cents they must pay in order to have a look at those returns.
The point which I should like to stress is that if one looks at the proposed amendment to subclause (h) which is in the definition section, it will be seen that it refers to the cost of goods or services provided by a government, and that it refers back to sub-clause (c) which says that "election expenses" means, among other things, the commercial value of goods and services donated or provided.

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
One could very well argue that despite the strenuous effort made by the committee, to which reference has been made-and I along with other members certainly appreciate those efforts-the introduction of this particular clause which refers to goods or services provided by a government in many ways is completely redundant. I think the hon. member for Skeena really zeroed in on the point of concern, particularly when he quoted a study made on this subject.
In practical terms, the question of government expenses in the context of a federal election is a matter of an incidental service provided to the party from which the current government has been drawn prior to the dissolution of parliament, because of the fact that even though parliament is dissolved ministers of the Crown remain in office. That, to me, is the nub of the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Skeena and by myself in the consequential amendment. Otherwise, we are dealing with a very loose term when we talk about services provided by government. I am glad to know the committee did not go along with the suggestion that would have resulted in a chartered accountant, as an official agent, having to follow a candidate every step of the way during an election, but that rather the bill would provide relatively simple and relatively inexpensive auditing procedures.
That brings me back to the fact that I have already mentioned, namely, that for the first time we are seeking to put a definition of election expenses into the Canada Elections Act, an act which many people at first blush have often considered to be a rather extensive and complicated document, and which is in reality in many respects one of the most clearly stated pieces of law that we have in this country. I say this because countless thousands of people over the years have been able to work on the basis of the Canada Elections Act and the information material that comes from the Chief Electoral Officer, and to conduct elections in most respects in accordance with the law.
I think one of our concerns at any time should be to keep the Elections Act understandable to lay people and not to have a law that can be understood only by those who are learned in the law or who sit on the bench. As I listened to the discussion this afternoon I tried to imagine the average person who is called upon to act as a candidate's official agent and who reads in this piece of legislation "the cost of goods or services provided by a government". Perhaps if one went to the absurd, one might say that every time you turn around you find goods or services being provided by a government. Every time we drive on the highway we take advantage of services provided by a government, either provincial or municipal.
So just what does the bill, as it stands, mean? What are the services provided by a government? I would suggest, with all deference to the efforts of the standing committee, that perhaps they had not sufficiently thought through what they were putting into this act from the point of view of its being readily understood when they used the general term "government". If one considers that with the fact of what is stated in subclause (c), "the commercial value of goods and services donated", one finds that if one purchases goods from a municipal government or rents a schoolroom from a school board, it is 
readily understandable that one pays for that service the way one would if one were renting a hall from a private organization. The rental would be based on normal commercial value. That is the way the total cost of an election is to be calculated under the Election Act if this law is put into effect.
It seems to me that the amendment which the hon. member for Skeena and I have proposed zeroes in on a specific situation which all members of the House know exists, and that is the fact that there are incidental services which are available to the political party to which the ministers of the Crown belong after a dissolution that are not available to any other political party or any other candidates. Those kinds of expenses and services, whether they be for transportation or for other reasons during an election period, should properly be included in the kinds of expenses that are calculated as being expenses of a party or expenses of candidates who happen to be ministers of the Crown or in aid of whom ministers of the Crown are working.
That is the point of the amendments which stand in the name of the hon. member for Skeena and myself. Therefore, I ask the House at this point to give serious consideration to the idea that this will provide an improvement to the act, that it will make it more clear, more readily understandable and that it will certainly not mean that services or goods which may be provided by other agencies of the government at other levels will not be within the ambit of normal election expenses. Without in any way attempting to prolong this discussion, let me say that these are the points which I would ask hon. members to consider and which I think make the amendments worthy of support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Howard) and motion No. 30 (Mr. Barnett) negatived.
December 18, 1973



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 40, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint John Lancaster (Mr. Bell)-Energy-Consideration of construction of pipeline from Saint John to Montreal; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-National Defence-Position of armed forces members attached to NORAD following special alert ordered by President Nixon on October 25; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Pension-Request for extension of program to increase annuities to ex-servicemen.

[ English]


ELECTION EXPENSES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: As agreed to previously, we will now proceed to amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Motions Nos. 3 and 4 stand in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), Motion No. 5 stands in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), Motion No. 6 stands in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and they read as follows:
No. 3.
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by adding the following definition immediately following the definition of "election expenses" in clause 2:
"electoral district agent" in relation to a registered party, means a person whose name is recorded in the registry of agents of registered parties maintained by the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to subsection 13.1(1) and who is designated as such by the chief agent of the party.
No. 4.
That Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by adding, at the end of the definition of "registered agent" in Clause 2, the following:
"and an electoral district agent".
No. 5.
That Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by changing Sub-sections 13.1(2) of Subclause 4(1) to paragraph 13.1(a) and by adding the following as paragraph 13.1(2)(b):
Election Expenses
(b) An association or organization of the members of a registered party within an electoral district may choose a person or persons to be electoral district agents for the purposes of that registered party in that electoral district and may so notify the registered party who may forthwith notify the Chief Electoral Officer setting out the name and address of such persons and such information shall be recorded by the Chief Electoral Officer in the registry referred to in subsection (1).
No. 6.
That Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by adding, immediately following Section 13.1(3) of Sub-clause 4(1) the following:
"(4) Forthwith after his appointment the chief agent of each registered party shall notify the Chief Electoral Officer of the name and address of any electoral district agents of the party and such information shall be recorded by the Chief Electoral Officer in the registry referred to in Sub-section (1).
(5) Where
(a)	any person whose name is recorded in the registry referred to in Sub-section (1) ceases to be an electoral district agent of the registered party in relation to which his name is recorded, or
(b)	any additional electoral district agent or agents of the registered party are appointed, the chief agent of the registered party shall notify the Chief Electoral Officer by notice in writing and, on receipt of any such notice, the Chief Electoral Officer shall vary the register accordingly."
and by re-numbering the remaining Sub-sections accordingly.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions? I remind all hon. members that all the motions I called are to be debated together, that is Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight).


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, the whip of the New Democratic Party has had honourable mention in the House already, and I appreciate that, from the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). I wish to begin my remarks by saying that the hon. member may be the whip, but he is also the member for Assiniboia. As such he represents the people in that constituency, so is intent upon expressing his view of the election expenses bill which is going to affect the people in that constituency as well as the general taxpayers across the Dominion of Canada.
I moved a number of amendments, three in particular, related to this bill, which I believe would improve this legislation when it is put on the statute books. One of my chief concerns is that in the area of election expenses the bill designates a chief agent for the party to handle the amounts of money, the expenditures by that party. What concerns me is the role of the individual constituency in the collection of funds for the use of that particular party. What I am attempting to do in the two amendments now before the House is to establish the principle, in the best way I could, of there being an official collecting agent within the constituency who is on record with the Chief Electoral Officer. I believe if the national headquarters of any political party is to be responsible for an agent to look after the funds coming to that party from contributions, it is obligatory that the local constituency organizations have the right, clearly spelled out, of an agent as well who can be listed with the Chief Electoral Officer. That is the purpose of the two amendments I have placed before this House.

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
There are a number of reasons for that, Mr. Speaker. The reason that strikes me is that I view the centralizing of power in the hands of either a national office of a country as regionally diverse as ours or any other country, as suspect. I think, regardless of party, that the local riding association should have a tremendous amount of influence on the collection of funds in that area. I have no quarrel, for example, with the regulations related to disclosure. In my view, there will be avenues for working around them if political parties in this country so wish but I do not believe that is true of the local level. For example, in the Assiniboia constituency I have always had an agent of some renown, who has put in considerable time and effort, in charge of the books and the funds that are contributed, and in charge of the payment of bills. He should be able to act as the official agent of the party in the collection of funds in that area and it should be clearly spelled out.
One of the things that concerns me is the centralizing that has occurred in connection with that other parliamentary system of government, that of Great Britain, where a considerable amount of power is given to the national headquarters of the party. This power is used to bring about a situation in which often the wishes of the local organization, in respect of candidates are overruled. The headquarters of the party may have an exclusive program of what I call parachuting candidates and controlling expenditures in a given riding. I believe that would be a move in the wrong direction, regardless of party. The local organization must continue to have autonomy over the collection of its funds, expenditure of its funds and indeed, as has always been the case in our party, have complete say about the candidate involved and some of the local issues involved as well. So the amendments I have proposed, Mr. Speaker, are to strengthen that provision within the act.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has moved an amendment that complements the kind of change I am trying to bring about. I think the major amendment is the one that reads:
"electoral district agent" in relation to a registered party, means a person whose name is recorded in the registry of agents of registered parties maintained by the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to subsection 13.1(1) and who is designated as such by the chief agent of the party.
That at least moves in the direction of maintaining local autonomy. It still gives the national party some say about a local agent. If they have an objection, at least the local constituency organization has some influence.
Questions have already arisen in the discussion of the first amendment we have dealt with today, on the workability of many aspects of this legislation in terms of the kind of bureaucracy and kind of public expenditures it entails. Anyone who has been involved in a campaign for public office would certainly be aware of the difficulties of an agent of a party sitting in Ottawa, Toronto or maybe even Regina, trying to ascertain the moneys raised in a given local electoral district. In my view it is an almost impossible job. This legislation, if it passes, provides that the only agent of a party may well be a representative of the national party. This provision will create an incredible bureaucracy, in my view, within those given parties. How it will ever be administered by the parties is beyond my understanding, and it does not matter which party.

In the last general election we ran into immense problems trying to keep track of funds, in the way the Elections Act would require. Agents in the riding ran into immense difficulties. I have the privilege of representing a riding which covers 20,000 square miles and includes two urban populated areas, Weyburn and Assiniboia. Ontario members might not consider these as large urban areas; however, in Saskatchewan, they are considered as urban areas of significant size. In the election, the opposition parties held at least one meeting in Assiniboia, as did the party I represent. They held two or more meetings in Weyburn, undoubtedly because of its population. During the campaign, which lasted between 40 and 60 days, I held public meetings in 30 or more smaller communities ranging in population from 50 to over 500.
These public meetings were attended by people of different political persuasions and, as was traditional, the hat was passed and contributions ranging from $1 to $100 were made. Sometimes people will give you $5; at other times they will give you $50, $75 or more. Some people write a cheque; others give you cash. A national agent who must keep track of funds contributed to party members will be faced with a nightmare. How can he possibly keep track of contributions made across the length and breadth of such a wide and diverse rural community as mine. I can tell you that any agent trying to keep track of donations will be faced, literally, with hundreds of hours of frustration and headache.
Even at the local constituency level it is difficult for people to keep track of donors of funds. For instance, at any one meeting 20 or 30 people might contribute money. If you hold a meeting in Weyburn, out of a crowd of 700 or 800 people you might get 400 or more contributors. Imagine trying to trace their names and give receipts for income tax purposes. The bill requires that where certain contributions are made, receipts are to be given. There is a provision with regard to the number of contributors who contribute over $100. You must find out who has given what at such meetings and provide receipts, so that people may use them for income purposes, as is their right. That being so, I suggest that an agent at the national level will have an impossible task. That is why I am bringing forward a suggestion with regard to the local electoral district agent.
There is something else with which hon. members are undoubtedly familiar. It quite often happens that people may contribute to the campaign of a candidate representing a party which they do not support. In my riding, for instance, and I am sure in the ridings of Conservatives, Liberal and Social Credit members, this kind of thing happens quite often. People who support another political party will give funds to your party, merely because you are running for parliament.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Sometimes these people support two political parties.


William George Knight: As my colleague for Meadow Lake suggests, sometimes people support two political parties. He is well versed in Saskatchewan politics.
December 18, 1973


An hon. Member:: Or, they may have supported the progressives and the conservatives.


William George Knight: Quite so. These people may not want to disclose their donation to another political party. The provisions of the bill in this regard may inhibit their so doing. People go to public meetings to listen to candidates; they do not always agree with the candidates, but they listen. If they give money, they do not always want it to be known. Of course, sometimes people give you $10, $20 or $30; that is how much they throw into the campaign. Some of these people want a receipt for tax purposes. If receipts must be provided, it is possible that some people will be reluctant to contribute. In any event, I suggest that a local, electoral district agent will be in a better position to make sure that people get what they are entitled to under this legislation.
A local electoral district agent undoubtedly will be able to follow more closely the views of the local riding association. He will know what priorities the association has established. Unquestionably, the local electoral district agent will be someone with whom the local candidate, party workers and members of the party executive are familiar. In a country as big as ours, an official party agent working out of the national capital will not be in a position to know the idiosyncrasies of local riding associations and local candidates. For that reason, I am strongly in favour of electoral district agents.
The local riding association, of course, knows much more about the events in a riding than any officer at the national level. For example, in my constituency there are over 200 polls, divided among at least 50 zones. Each zone has a different method of operating. Also, workers in ridings like to stick by their traditional ways of working. In the last election, for example, the official agent for my party ran into immense difficulties. For 20 years or more some of the local committees across the riding had been prepared to pay for the rental of halls out of their own funds, and not bill those rentals to the agent. They were so used to doing things this way that on being challenged to send the bill to the official agent they said, "No. We have not done this for 20 years and we are not interested in doing it now." As a result, the official agent had to make many telephone calls and many trips by car in an effort to persuade such committee members that the Elections Act required them to furnish receipts. That is what will take place in the constituencies with regard to funding. That is the essence of my suggestion. I do not believe it to be a traumatic change in the bill.
In the manner in which I worded the amendment, the agent will be in a position to recognize that he is listed with the Chief Electoral Officer through his party, that he has a commitment to follow the outline of this enormously complicated bill and that he will be obliged to a certain extent to be in touch with national headquarters as to what is taking place in his constituency.
Many of the expenses related to the operation of this provision will fall on the political parties; it will increase election expenses rather than limit them. The electoral district agent, the man who will be in charge of the collection of funds in the local area, keeping track of them
Election Expenses
and writing the official receipts for tax purposes, will become one of the most senior officials of the party in the local district. He will undoubtedly have a considerable amount of power and influence. Perhaps it is much better to have that situation at the local area than at the national level.
If we look at the urban centres, we will see there is room for a local electoral agent. In the past couple of years, we have seen the growth of a tremendous amount of community involvement in the large urban areas. That kind of involvement should also take place in the political realm. I believe the electoral district agent can be of substantial use to an urban constituency with regard to the collection of funds and ensuring that people get their receipts for income tax purposes. The great difference in the manner of gaining funds between an urban constituency and a rural constituency in the province of Saskatchewan goes without saying.
For example, I have colleagues who run in urban-rural constituencies in the cities of Saskatoon and Regina. No national agent of a party will ever be able to involve himself in the collection of funds in a constituency that is a combination of small communities, strictly farm areas and a large urban area. In that type of constituency, there are a number of factors to be considered. The first factor in the urban setting is that the collection of funds will be through direct contribution which a national agent may well be able to handle. There will also be collections at public meetings in the urban area where a considerable number of rural people, urban people and people from both urban ridings in those cities will be contributing. In the small communities in the constituency there will be the same kind of public meeting contributions, as well as in the rural area surrounding them, involving individual collections made by a local representative of the party.
All of this will complicate the role of the national party's agent. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon the House to seriously consider the complications and administrative nightmares which can be created by the manner in which this bill is written. I have suggested these amendments which I hope will clear the air, at least in terms of the local constituencies versus the national office.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to interrupt proceedings for just one moment to refer to a point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
When Bill C-203 was called on orders of the day, the hon. member for Skeena suggested that the report received from the committee was irregular in that the bill before us included amendments passed in the committee and parts of a bill which were not covered by the royal recommendation.
Since the point was raised by the hon. member for Skeena, I have taken some time, with the assistance of the Chair's colleagues at the table and in the Chair, to look at the matter very seriously. I am prepared to admit there is an interesting point which has been raised by the hon. member.
If I understand his argument, the first point clearly relates to an amendment adopted by the committee and

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
included at page 23 of the amended bill. This is subclause (3) (7) where it is suggested that the auditor's report received by a returning officer from an official agent will be published at the expense of the Chief Electoral Officer. The amendment obviously intends to make it clear that the expenditure for the publication of these reports will be on the shoulders or the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer rather than the candidate.
My impression was that this amendment was intended to make clear the intent of the bill now before the House. Even if that is the case, the point of the hon. member might still be well taken in that additional expense, either provided by the amendment or the bill itself, does not appear to be covered by the recommendation. In this instance, it would not be the report of the committee or the bill as reported by the committee which would be at fault, but the recommendation which formed the basis of the original bill.
it may well be that some consideration should be given to a closer study of the recommendation to see whether it is large enough in scope to include this expense and, if not, whether with the consent of the House, I assume, an amendment might be obtained from His Excellency. I am not suggesting that is necessary, but it is a point which ought to be considered.
The second point raised by the hon. member is not quite as clear. He referred to a part of the bill at page 25 of the legislative proposal. Subclause (l)(b)(i) refers to the postal cost of mailing one item which is assumed to be eight cents under present regulations and (ii) eight cents for each of the first 25,000 names. That is a total of 16 cents under the present rules and regulations. The royal recommendation does refer to the fact there is 16 cents which is approved for payment by His Excellency.
The hon. member for Skeena suggests there may be a change in the postal rates. Perhaps next year it will be 10 cents and 20 years from now it will be 20 cents. At the same time, the hon. member will appreciate there is always the hope that instead of being eight cents next year, it will be six cents. I wonder whether it is not incumbent on the Chair, on the House, or on whoever drafts the recommendations in consultation with His Excellency to proceed on the basis of the law as it currently stands on the statute books.
At the same time, I repeat that in my view the point is interesting and well taken, though perhaps not as clear as the first one. If it were possible to change the recommendation to make sure that it covers not only the present situation but the situation as it might arise in the future, then such an amendment should be made. But I doubt that hon. members would wish to impose this very difficult task on His Excellency. I would think we should be content to look a little more closely at the first point to which I referred and consider whether it might not be possible to include a few words in the recommendation which would ease the hon. gentleman's procedural conscience so that we might go on to debate this bill and the amendments and motions related thereto in full knowledge that all the procedural niceties have been observed.

I thank the hon. member for having brought these points to the attention of the Chair. Perhaps they will be helpful not only in this present instance but in future instances when hon. members such as the hon. member for Skeena propose amendments which do not conform with His Excellency's recommendation.
It being five minutes past six o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When the House adjourned at six it was considering at the report stage motions Nos. 3 and 4 in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this matter before us. If I may make a few introductory remarks, I should like to say that the reason I became a member of the committee was that this bill was referred to it. I, personally, requested that I become a member of the committee because I thought that this bill was not appropriate for Canadians or in their best interest. I felt that the principle of the bill went against the human nature of the people of this country, their traditions and a number of the institutions that we have.
However, I became involved in the debates in the committee and I can indicate, as my colleague did, that there were 51 meetings in all. This committee sat three times a day every Tuesday and Thursday, with some additional meetings added, from November 15 until last Thursday. The committee sat from eleven o'clock in the morning virtually through until eight o'clock at night. It is correct to say that there were 19 experts on the committee for whom politics was the very essence of their existence. Since they had all been successfully elected, they felt that they knew best how to frame a bill dealing with electoral expenses.
I think it would be fair to say that anyone who has worked on the committee, or anyone who was interested in the committee and expressed a belief in the various possibilities of the measures included in this bill, could advance the argument that the bill, as originally presented, was dramatically altered. Suffice it to say that the original bill had 38 pages and some 150 amendments which, worked out mathematically, amount to some 101 amendments to the original bill. I think it would be appropriate to say that this bill was changed or it was suggested that it should be changed drastically by the committee.
During the committee stage, members of the NDP party introduced a number of amendments to the bill. During the meetings of the committee we had long and serious discussions about proposed amendments put forward by members of the NDP. We now have some 42 amendments
December 18, 1973

put forward by that party for consideration. These amendments were put forward by six or seven members of that party. Some of the amendments suggested were discussed during committee proceedings, and some of them were of such a nature that I would support them. I did support some of them during the committee proceedings, particularly the amendments in relation to the appointment of an electoral district agent. I supported that amendment because I felt it would increase the independence of individuals in the electoral district in this country.
It is common knowledge that the NDP is the party which has the most scandalous reputation of all parties in this country, but even that party has suggested amendments which are acceptable to many members of this Chamber. There are a number of other amendments that could be made to this government proposal and which might be acceptable to most members. In view of the fact there are now 42 amendments before the House for consideration, I hesitate to suggest additional changes, but as a member of the committee which considered this bill at some length I would suggest that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I would remind him of the directive of Mr. Speaker earlier today in respect of the number of amendments that have been proposed to this bill. Perhaps the hon. member has not had a chance to express the view he has in mind but, in accordance with the suggestion by Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he refer in his remarks to the general principles of the bill as embodied in the amendment before us at this time.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I should draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) has moved an amendment in respect of electoral district agents, to which I feel I have the right to refer. I do not wish to become involved in an argument with the hon. member who has spoken for the NDP, but I must point out that his suggested amendment would cause a dramatic change in the operation of this proposed measure. I would perhaps support his amendment, and I did so at the committee stage, but I should point out that members of the committee dealt with this matter on a very non-partisan basis.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated that he intended to introduce a number of amendments to the bill, but decided not to do so in view of the amendments proposed by other hon. members. He indicated he was taking this attitude because of the recommendations made by the committee. For this same reason, amendments have not been proposed by several members of my party. We felt we should not spend too much time discussing this bill, but should pass it quickly. I hope the House will support the recommendations proposed by the committee, and, speaking for the party to which I belong, I suggest that we are in favour of this measure.


Frank Howard: It was refreshing, Mr. Speaker, to hear the comments of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Dick), but unfortunately when you work with an hon. member in a committee you get to know him quite well; there is an informality and you
Election Expenses
become familiar with the hon. member to the extent that you know his first name. Perhaps that is an improper attitude to take, but the fact is that this is the basis upon which one works in committee.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Lanark, Renfrew, Carleton.


Frank Howard: In any event, it is refreshing to hear the comments from the hon. gentleman because, earlier this afternoon I listened to the official spokesman for the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor). I received the impression from his comments that, even though the bill was defective, was incomplete, was unsatisfactory, he and the Conservative Party were going to wrap their arms around it, embrace it and say it was the best possible measure that could be obtained so they would expedite its passage. I knew, of course, that there were members of the Conservative Party who did not hold that view because they had expressed their views earlier. I thought it would be passing strange if this group which classifies itself as the official opposition, the only party with an official leader, suddenly found itself engaged in a marriage of convenience with the Liberals and received nothing in return.
My friend from Hamilton West is again assisting me tremendously in the development of my thoughts. The hon. member for Halton earlier made what I thought were some unkind comments about myself and my position in respect of this bill. He made reference to the 20 per cent feature in the bill. Twenty per cent is the percentage of votes a candidate must receive before he is entitled to get any payment from the public purse for expenses. The hon. member for Halton tried to draw some conclusion from the fact that in the committee I had moved a motion, the effect of which would reduce that to 10 per cent, which is what I did. The motion was ruled out of order because it transgressed the recommendation of the Governor General in respect of expenditures. I now have an amendment which we will consider a little later to increase that to 70 per cent. The hon. member made some comments to the effect that I should pick up my marbles and go home and inferred "if you can't play it my way don't play at all".
I cannot follow the strange approach of the hon. member for Halton in respect of this situation. He does not seem to be able to draw the distinction between a member operating in committee, moving a motion in an attempt to present the position of his party, and a member acting in his capacity as a representative of his constituency in this House, which I am attempting to do. In case there is any doubt, I am against any payments out of the federal treasury to candidates.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: Your first amendment would have increased the payment.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Halton, who made that comment, will have an opportunity, if he follows the rules to take part in this debate in a formal way instead of nattering away while remaining seated. I wanted to point out that we have a situation in which the official spokesman for the official opposition said in the House that his party is in love with this bill, in love with the Liberals, and will do everything they can to expedite the passage of

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
this bill. Therefore, anybody who disagrees with that position is somehow suspect.
I thought I would put on the record my view about these matters for the benefit of the hon. member for Halton. This is the first time in this parliament I have seen a member of the official opposition formally become an executive assistant to the President of the Privy Council and try to put a bill through the House.


An hon. Member:: He is practising to take over.


Frank Howard: If he does not have any more integrity about other matters than he has about this bill he should not take over.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has been trading jibes with me and I with him during the course of the debate this evening. Now, he has allowed me to get under his skin and accuses me of a lack of integrity. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. I have been consistent in my view and attitude in respect of this bill. I think he should be asked by you, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw such a charge or substantiate the statement he has made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising to speak on the point of order?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He should.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. So far as I am concerned it is my impression, although the feelings of the hon. member might be hurt, that this is more a question of debate than anything else. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to remind hon. members, and the hon. member who has the floor, of the view expressed by Mr. Speaker this afternoon and the direction given by him at the time of the decision to suspend the first motion and go on to the other motions. He invited hon. members to be more specific. I think the House has an opportunity on these four amendments which are before us at this time to engage in enough general discussion of the principle of this bill, so I think we should refrain as much as possible from making third reading speeches at the second reading stage. I would ask hon. members for their co-operation, and I would ask the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to come as quickly as possible to the subject matter of the motion at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was sure you would not find a question of privilege in that statement. In any event, may I say that I did not mean to cast any asperions against the hon. member for Halton. Perhaps the words "question his integrity" were beyond what should be the decorum for debate in this House. I apologize to him for having let those words escape my lips. He is certainly guilty, however, of an indignity. He and his party certainly are guilty of an indignity, and that is their subservience to the government in legislative matters of this kind without obtaining anything in return. Perhaps they might even lose the title "official opposition" which the House Leader of the Official Opposition took solely to himself the other day.

The amendments before us, which I have been leading up to in my preliminary remarks, to me at least touch upon the very core and substance of parliamentary democracy in Canada. They relate to the structure of parliamentary democracy as it pertains to a constituency and to a community. These are the amendments which would set the pattern in respect of whether or not we are to have a politically organized element in this nation, and whether or not the people in the constituencies and communities will have a say in what takes place in their political organizations.
That is the fundamental question involved in the set of amendments before us now. Some years ago this Parliament embarked upon the question of organizing more tightly the position of parties at the federal level, and the placing of the political party in a more prominent position in relation to that of the individual candidate. The very question of deciding to place the name of the political party on the ballot, which was done some years ago, was a move in that direction. It was a move in the direction of saying that a political party shall have a larger say in what happens in a constituency.
I think it was in 1970 that we made amendments to the Canada Elections Act to set up the mechanism in section 13 for the registration and authentication of political parties. This provision enabled political parties to organize themselves at the national level in such a way that they could make an application to the Chief Electoral Officer to become registered and put on his list of registered parties. If a party is not on that list maintained by the Chief Electoral Officer, then it has no position within the political spectrum in Canada in an organized way.
We are now moving from those provisions that were enacted in 1970 about registered parties in the direction of saying, in effect, that only registered political parties can run candidates and can spend money, and that an amalgam of people who may want to get together to form a new political party will not be able to run candidates and to spend any money in the conduct of the election unless they meet certain criteria, one of which is to have a certain number of members in this House. That would not apply to a new party becoming established. For that party to become an established registered party and to move against the force of the state-which is what is involved in the bill-it would have to nominate 50 candidates by the thirtieth day before election day.
This is what we are talking about in these amendments, and there are four of them in number. They seek to establish a position within the registered parties' structure for an electoral district agent, specifically named as such with a specific orientation to the home town structure, because under the bill a registered party must have a chief agent and he and others can be called registered agents. It is only through registered agents that contributions can be made to a registered political party. The only channel for campaign fund contributions or administration contributions for the party is through a chief agent who is also a registered agent.
Under the bill it becomes the prerogative of the registered party at its national headquarters, of the chief agent
December 18, 1973

of that party or the leader of that party, in other words the top level portion of the registered party, to decide who will be the registered agents. What could occur in such an instance? For argument sake, let us consider that the Progressive Conservative party which is well organized in Ontario decides, if the bill passes, that it is in the best interests of that party to appoint, say, three people in Ontario as registered agents. Those three people would be the only three people in that province who would be able to collect funds for that party, organized and directed toward the top.
The party to which I belong may find it advantageous to choose one person in the province of British Columbia and, say, that person will be the registered agent of that party in B.C. for the purposes of collecting funds and for the purpose of being a registered official or designated agent of the party in the province.
The Liberals may do something else in the province of Quebec, and the constituency organizations of a particular political party will have no say whatever in the choosing of registered agents, except when there is a candidate, either declared or nominated in the official way. Then, the candidate can appoint an official agent, which he does now, and the official agent becomes the person in that constituency through whom all money is channeled for the conduct of the election in that constituency. Only during that very short period of time, not exceeding 58 days or something of that sort, can this take place.
There is a compressed minimum of time between dissolution of parliament, the issuance of the writ, and election day. Only in that period of time does the candidate of a party have the opportunity to become involved in the machinery of the party itself in terms of campaign fund contributions. Apart from that period this can only be done at the level of the national headquarters, the level of the chief agent, the level of the national leader, the level of the national president, or at whatever level is determined by the political party.
I think this is wrong in substance in relation to our sense of political values. What the amendments seek to do in one case is to say that members of a particular party in an electoral district can choose one or more people who will be called electoral district agents who are designated that way because they have only the authority to work within the electoral district which chooses them. Also, pursuant to the provisions of the bill, they will be called registered agents. There is an amendment to change the definition of registered agents to say that it shall also include, for more precision, a person who is called an electoral district agent.
It seems to me that this has nothing to do whatever with political philosophies or with the ideologies of parties. It has to do with the totality of what we want to see happen in our political institutions. If we want to see the consolidation of authority at the top and the centralization of authority in the national headquarters office, then we should go along with the concepts in the bill. If we want to see some countervailing force to that, some opportunity for people in communities and constituencies to have some involvement in a formal and direct way rather than having to rest their case upon the generosity or lack of generosity of the leader of a party or of the officers at the
Election Expenses
national level of parties or of the chief agent of the party or on the very tenuous relationship that exists sometimes between a constituency and the national office, we should accept the amendment. In other words, this responsibility should rest in the fundamental area at home, in the community consisting of members of the party who actually do the work at election time, who knock on doors, distribute literature, drive the cars and do the scrutineering.
A moment ago the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) said that the NDP was the most centralized of parties. Immediately, I asked some of my colleagues whether they belonged to that party because I do not belong to that kind of party. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said to me as an aside that if he had relied upon a political party, the CCF at that time, to get him elected, he would only have been elected once. The number of times he was elected following that were the result of his own activity and the activities of the members of that party in Winnipeg North Centre.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, without endorsing the comments of my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party with regard to this bill, namely, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor) and the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), I am at a loss to try to follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who intends to repeat the motions that were tabled at the committee stage.
[Transla tion]
It is absolutely beyond me to understand this desire to propose new amendments which have been debated at the committee stage, for very obvious reasons at the time, and among others precisely because each party was seeking control over those allowed to submit their candidacy.
Since this legislation is aimed first at limiting expenditures of the parties and candidates and second at refunding parts of those expenses, surely each duly registered party represented by an official agent will want that the expenditures incurred by its representatives and the funds collected be spent in an acceptable manner.
The parties are entitled, at least mine is, to control the candidates which will represent it at a general election, mainly for the reasons just expressed by the hon. member and namely because of the tax deductions some adventurers might be interested in thrusting themselves forward and declaring their candidacy not for a marginal party but for a well-established party such as mine. If you consider History, you will find that in Quebec candidates have run at the provincial level under the Liberal banner and were elected by a strong majority. But a few years later they ran under another banner or as independents and were totally defeated.
Those are good reasons why the party must absolutely keep on choosing its own candidates, and controlling those

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
it mandates to collect the money, spend it, and make commitments on its behalf.
[ English]


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the desire of this House to move this bill along in view of the fact that there are 40-odd amendments on the order paper. Having been a member of the committee at the time this particular clause dealing with electoral agents was discussed and related amendments in the name of Mr. Knight, Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and particularly No. 5 in the name of Mr. Rodriguez.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is the way it is on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not give you the right to break the rule.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am just reading the order paper, Mr. Speaker. If the man from Winnipeg North Centre wants to give some spiritual guidance to anything I have to say tonight I would be glad to sit down and let him help elucidate my very, very offhand reading of the order paper amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 that are under discussion in the names of the members I cited.
In spite of that distraction from that distracting individual, I should like to go back to the merits of the amendments and deal with the merits rather than procedure, something that is fundamental rather than the rule book. I should like to deal with something that affects the rights of every member of this House rather than the dust of the parliamentary library where some members like to hibernate in season and out, and do not care about a vacation, be it Christmas or not. Let us hear some more from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to learn what he can add to these amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 which go to the very heart of the constituency organization which puts all the members here in this House.
There are many things I could say about this bill. All members considered it with diligence in the committee. I am going to disagree with the hon. member for Halton this time, but he and other members of my party on that committee, frankly did help the government to bring some order out of chaos to Bill C-203. I think finally the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who has laboured long and with some hope of fulfilled expectation that this bill might move further down the sessional trail and perhaps to from conception into birth-I guess it has been conceived and it is partly in pregnancy now-perhaps wants to make sure it is not going to be stillborn or a complete abortion. This bill would have been an abortion if it were not for the members of the Conservative Party and the NDP. I guess, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could say a ho-hum to that because we are not supposed to refer to party names in this House but to the opposition and the government, but the member for Winnipeg North Centre has to refer to party names because he and members of the government are sort of tied up in an unholy alliance!
Be that as it may, all members worked on these amendments and the government brought forth many remedial amendments. What gives me most concern, and I echo

many of the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena, is that this bill is founded on the assumption that all candidates are potential frauds and that the citizens are going to be seduced by politicians. I do not like the atmosphere in which this bill is conceived. I am all for reform, I am all for disclosure and I am for the state helping to pay back the candidate after a good election. Let us go further. The Liberals will have their next leadership contest within three or four months. If they are going to be consistent, let us have public funding not just for candidates at election time but let us make sure that wealth is not a necessary ingredient to be a candidate for the leadership of any party as we tunnel along the parliamentary road in this democracy of ours.
Coming back to amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton stressed what to me is fundamental, and what I do not think members fully appreciate is the significance of these amendments dealing with the electoral district agent. There are many things I could say if we were speaking in general terms, but since we are dealing with these motions I have to restrict myself. However, it could be said that these particular amendments start at the wrong end of the totem pole. The authority by law which has some say in the appointment of the electoral district agent, is at the top. I am against that, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to fight it and differ with my party if my party cannot be persuaded and other members of this House cannot be encouraged to amend this clause along the lines of the amendments we are dealing with right now.
I hope members of the Social Credit Party participate in this debate because, without the amendments, the bill allows the leader of the party to pick the electoral district agent in each of the electoral district ridings. As the hon. member for Skeena said, he may pick one or five but it is the leader who picks. This is a centralizing instrument in the hands of a leader in a national party context. I do not believe national leaders should have that authority. What would the position have been with the Social Credit Party during their schism when there was a Social Credit Party and a Creditiste Party if Bill C-203 had been in operation? Just what leader and what faction would have been appointing the electoral district agent to help give the income tax returns and collect the funds between elections?
The hon. member for Skeena correctly cites the bill now in its present form in conjunction with the Elections Act when all candidates, after nomination, appoint their electoral agent. This provision opens up new territory. We had a wiretapping bill which went to the other place, was amended and perhaps it is going to be ironed out. All the members on the committee, and certainly some in the House, stressed that since the wiretapping measure was entering into the field of privacy, safeguards had to be introduced. Certain members of this House said that the name of the bill was a misnomer; it ought to have been called the invasion of privacy act under certain conditions. They said that we must make sure there are safeguards, so that the privacy of individual persons is protected. That brought on much debate.
December 18, 1973

In some ways we are doing much the same with this bill. Some members say we are moving in the direction of reform. I say that all the election reform bills you can think of will not be worth the paper they are printed on unless real reform takes place at the constituency level. I come from the Nova Scotia, as does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). No member in this House knows more about abuses of the electoral process, and reforms which have been made without election reform bills, than the President of the Privy Council, in whose name this bill stands. He, and I, and certain other members, are aware of electoral abuses. Certainly, abuses occurred in many constituencies, but they were corrected because the people at the local level decided it was time to fight elections on a different basis. Yet there is a proposal before the House for parties to be officially registered. We are to create an agent who is to give out income tax receipts for money that is given to a registered party between elections. We are breaking new ground. Are we asking the public to pay registered parties and candidates who fight elections? As I say, we are breaking new ground but forgetting the people at the constituency level, the people who nominate and elect the candidate. Instead of working from the bottom, we are working from the top. I say that is the wrong way to begin.
How many members have looked closely at the implications of this bill, and of this part we are discussing? The Creditistes did not have a member in the committee while this part was being discussed. Do they know how the clause we are discussing would affect their problems with regard to leadership, since the leader of the party is supposed to appoint electoral agents? We have heard of individual members crossing the floor of the House. Even during the holding of conventions, some members crossed the floor. Yet, under this proposal, the national leader is given power to designate electoral district agents. I think that is wrong. I think all members want reform, but I do not see how, by changing the end of the totem pole, you will bring about reform. You will not bring about reform by ignoring people at the riding level, at the poll level. You will not bring about reform by creating a new structure which ignores them. If you call that reform, I say it is a deformed form of reform; there are many more things which could be said about it.
I hope other hon. members will address themselves to this clause. I do not think too many members are aware of the implications of these amendments, when taken together. Some members, I think, have suggested that instead of the leader designating the electoral agent, the constituency association should pick the electoral district agent who is to be appointed and send his name up to the leader for confirmation. That is the question to which we ought to address ourselves. I could say more on this point, but I had better not digress too far.
This bill will create basic deformities in our system and open up possibilities for fundamental abuse, unless we reverse the method of the appointment of electoral district agents. I hope we can do that in the spirit of Commons debate. Certainly, the bill is not perfect. One only has to see the number of amendments which were made in committee to realize that. Honestly, I do not know how many
Election Expenses
amendments were moved in committee. This is not a case of the Medes and the Persians. Amendments were proposed in committee because some clauses were impractical of application, some were plainly stupid and others incomprehensible. The bill was well amended in committee. I hope, in the spirit of Commons debates, searching attention will be given to the clauses referred to, so that the appointment of the electoral district agent can come from the people at the riding level rather than from the leader above.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I regret not having had the opportunity to attend the committee discussions on this bill. I take it that many changes were made and many worthwhile suggestions were brought forward. I should like to know exactly why it is proposed that an agent shall be appointed by a political party. Why were members interested in choosing the chief electoral officer in the manner set out in the bill? I can only surmise that much of the discussion was on a party basis, rather than on the basis on which each individually elected member could put forward his views.
It has always been fundamental in a democracy, I believe, that anyone who thinks he has a role to play in the political process of his country has the right to attempt to do so. Provincial governments, on many occasions, have dealt with this question in different ways, as have other countries. Normally, if a person in a democracy wants to become a political candidate, it is not difficult for him to do so. For example, when I was last involved in Ontario provincial politics, a man had to have only 100 signatures on a nomination form. No deposit was required, merely the signatures of 100 people who were willing to see you elected. Candidates in federal elections sometimes do not collect 100 votes. So, clearly, we have not made it too difficult for a person to participate in the political process.
I have been interested to learn that in the United States much attention has been paid to the pre-election period. I am looking at an article which deals with dollar politics, or the issue of campaign spending.


An hon. Member:: Is it by Richard Nixon?


William Arnold Peters: It is about Richard Nixon; I do not think he wrote it. It indicates that in the United States much of the spending begins prior to the election. The article also says that because of "Richard M. Nixon's extensive travel in 1966 on behalf of Republican Congressional candidates," he became a major presidential contender. The article goes on to say:
The 30,000-mile tour, including the salary and expenses of one assistant, cost $90,000. The money was raised independently of the campaigns.
Mr. Nixon's first campaign planning session for his 1968 presidential race was held in early January 1967. "Nineteen months and more than $10-million later, Richard Nixon was the Republican nominee for President," wrote Alexander in his book Financing the 1968 Election.
Ronald Reagan's 1967-68 nationwide speaking tours contributed to his later candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, Alexander wrote, yet at the time they were also legitimate activities of the incumbent Governor of California.

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
The article goes on to say he spent a very large sum of money prior to being declared a candidate. One member earlier referred to the New Democratic Party as being centrally oriented. If we are, this could be an indication of our socialist background. However, the fact is we are less centrally oriented than any other political party.
It is interesting to note a paper that was presented on politics and the last federal election by Khayyam Z. Palti-el, Professor of Political Science at Carleton. In it he refers to the Liberal party, the one which my friend across the way recently said he agreed with whatever they did and was a candidate for that party. The Liberal party of Canada collected approximately $6.5 million, some 60 per cent more than had been amassed in the 1968 election. Of this sum, $600,000 was used to discharge the accumulated overdraft incurred by national headquarters and the provincial associations; $1,322,000 was used by the national office and $3,978,000 was distributed by provincial campaign committees. The remittance to the candidates ranged from $4,000 to $7,000, averaging $6,000 in Ontario and $600,000 remained in the hands of the members of the treasury committee. No doubt this is one of the reasons members of the Liberal party have no objection to the central control of moneys being raised prior to an election and prior to the official agent taking over in the constituencies.
Those in the Conservative party who support this provision are well aware of the fact their situation is no different. The same writer goes on to say it should be noted that while constituency allocations appear to average $6,600, some provinces like Alberta and their constituencies were entirely self sustained. Where a member in a constituency, particularly a sitting member, is given a high priority, with the Liberals averaging $6,000 from the central treasury and the Conservatives $6,600, it is obvious they would be satisfied with having one chief agent to handle the collections prior to an election.
I wish to say that in my experience, that is not true. I suggest it will not be true for new developing political parties in the future. They will raise money for their election campaigns from the people in the constituencies. For this reason, it is going to be necessary for the constituency organization to appoint a constituency agent who will be responsible for collections that are made prior to the taking over of that responsibility by the official agent. I can state quite frankly that, as a member of parliament, I have never been impressed with the idea that has developed in this parliament of the individual becoming less and less important and the political party becoming more important. One does not have to go back many years to find very little consideration given in the rules of this House to the political parties, and certainly to the official function of those parties.
I suggest that the right, obligation and functions of an individual member to represent his constituency is more important to maintaining democracy than the creation of political parties and the central control they now have. I was amused when we last changed the Elections Act and eliminated the designation of a candidate's occupation, whether he be a farmer, miner, or school teacher, and whether he lived on a rural concession road, in a particular town or a particular section of the city. The name of

the political party was substituted for that local identification.
The political party name can only be provided to a candidate if the party wishes to endorse him. They send the candidate a letter stating he is entitled to carry the name of that political party. This has tended to create an atmosphere of domination by political parties rather than the right of people to choose their candidate and demand that he represent them, even if it may be against the interest of some other members of his party or other members of the House. The constituents want their candidate to know their wishes and aspirations. They want to know that other members from other parts of the country are also aware of the wishes and desires of their constituents. They want their candidate to be as respectful of their wishes as he would like them to be of his.
In appointing an agent to represent a constituency, we are only extending the collective will of a group of people in a constituency to provide an agent who will obviously have to be registered with the chief agent. He will be responsible for collecting moneys prior to an election and prior to the appointment of the official agent. If it is the desire of constituents to choose their own representative, they should have the right to do so.
It is interesting to note that in Ontario 50 collectors were involved on behalf of the Liberal party as compared to 12 in 1968. The 90 largest corporations in Ontario were canvassed personally by the national chairman, the majority in the late winter and early spring of 1972, some six months prior to the election. It may be that the chief agent, where he is nominated from national headquarters, will operate fairly close to the national chairman and he can probably represent the party reasonably well.
It may well be that the national leader, the national secretary and the national financial chairman who may make collections prior to an election would be quite satisfied to make their contributions known only to an official chief agent. It may well be, as is more likely the case, that the provinces will be doing much of the collection and therefore there will be ten agents appointed. I suppose most of us can only speak for our own ridings, but in my riding I have always depended upon a committee to make a decision as to the cost of the election. I have always allowed them, with some advice, to set the budget and I am very happy to allow them to make all the collections but I believe that because those collections are made locally, we should be entitled to a constituency agent who would be responsible for reporting the contributions which are made in that area. He could make his report to the chief agent who will of course be responsible for appointing him. I think this should be true of the other political parties in my riding. It may well be they receive contributions from the national headquarters or from provincial headquarters, but I come from northern Ontario, an area where people take their politics very seriously and I am sure all political parties secure contributions locally.
I am sure other members from northern Ontario would agree that a constituency agent would be advantageous in making a report to the national agent. It may depend on how your political party is organized. It may depend in
December 18, 1973

some instances on your relationship with your party. I have run in a number of elections, but I can remember only one election in which I ran where I got the total contribution from the provincial party, and that was in an election where I was a token candidate. They gave me 2,000 posters which I was asked to put up. They had my name on them. They did a very nice job of it. The art work was very good. I have been using the same type of poster ever since. That was the only time, in my experience, when the contribution came from the top.
In all other cases we raised 25 per cent of our total budget and we paid that to our provincial office. We have always made that contribution during the eight elections in which I have run. I therefore believe the series of motions which I anticipate you will be putting as one, Mr. Speaker, are motions which deserve the support of all hon. members who really do not believe that as sitting members of parliament or as members of a major party we have the God-given right always to be elected. It should be possible for a small group formed in any of the constituencies to participate in the democratic process and raise money before an election so as to run candidates who will one day, perhaps, be elected to seats in this chamber. I am opposed to any type of system which will lock in the status quo by providing a sitting member with an unreasonable advantage.
There may be one simple thing which members of this House have forgotten. Many of them have gone a long distance away from the people. If there is one thing which separates Canadians from people of other nationalities, it is the support they are willing to give to the underdog. This could have quite an effect in an election if the kind of motion we are proposing is not accepted.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the series of motions which are under debate. I think it is important to look upon these amendments as typical of the purposes behind the bill and typical of the trend the bill is taking. It is a dangerous trend. It is a trend away from participatory democracy. Before the bill passes, I hope many of these amendments will be given careful scrutiny because when we move away from participatory democracy we move toward a more bureaucratized, a more computerized and a less personal kind of society. In the long run we shall find we have left the voters out entirely. We shall be able to let machines do the job, we shall be able to let the public purse run the campaign and perhaps the Gallup poll will tell us the result.
This may be stretching the argument to some extent, nevertheless the trend is evident within the bill and the amendment is a valid attempt by some members to reverse this trend and continue to seek a meaningful participatory democracy which involves local control and local contributions. I hope all members will support this approach, an approach which would allow a local constituency association to get off the ground regardless of political views, and pick one of their own-not someone superimposed on them from above-to participate actively in the political process. Too often we find we look at the picture from Ottawa, but do not see the picture from the viewpoint of local constituents.
Election Expenses
This bill-and this amendment is an attempt to reverse what I think is a trend in the bill-seeks to avoid that kind of depersonalization. It seeks to avoid locking us into the status quo. The thrust of the bill, in effect, will be an attempt to confirm the existing political parties in this country and will make it extremely difficult for anyone with a new idea or a new approach to fund that idea or approach and bring it forward. What we are really saying is that the political parties we have now are sufficient in terms of their political range and that we do not need any more.
The views of the public change from time to time and we in this House can very easily become out of touch with those views. I think in some areas we are already out of touch, particularly in the area of women's rights and abortion. It may be that if we continue to be out of touch, other political parties will emerge. It is most unfair that this House should see fit to try to protect existing political parties and to injure those who may try to form new political parties. In effect, we would be denying them the kind of democracy that is traditional in this country.
I have no hesitation in rising to support this amendment, which is only one of many that have been presented by this party to try to protect the principle of participatory democracy, the principle of using local citizens and having them actively involved, not merely in making contributions, but in working, knocking on doors, raising funds locally and being responsible for those funds. I would very much commend this particular amendment to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The question is on motion No. 3, moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), motion No. 4, moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia, motion No. 5, moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and motion No. 6, moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, earlier when we were discussing how the amendments were to be taken, Mr. Speaker only indicated the combinations of the first two. I wonder whether it might be appropriate at this time to suggest to the House that motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31 be taken as a group since they deal with Canadian funds and the sources of those funds as donations to campaigns. Then, following that we might take motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 as a group since they deal with limits on party expenditures. Then, motion No. 12 deals with party gifts to candidates and should probably be dealt with separately, though I should like to reserve my right to argue a point of order on its procedural acceptability.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask what we are voting on, motion No. 3, or motion No. 3 plus some other motions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: We have deferred the vote on motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would point out the absolute absurdity of that, because motion No. 3 is not in any way consistent with motion No. 5 as I read it, and I do not know how we could vote in that way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I understood the arrangement or suggestion was made that motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 be voted on, but if the hon. member wants to change that the Chair is ready to listen to him.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that motion No. 3 provides for electoral district agents and refers to designation by the chief agents of the parties. That is one thing. Motion No. 5 provides for an association or organization of the members of a registered party within an electoral district choosing a person to be an electoral district agent, and so forth. It seems to me these are two quite separate proposals, and I do not understand how we can vote for or against two inconsistent motions simultaneously.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, if one checks one will find that motion No. 3 is a definition amendment. Motion No. 4 adds the words "electoral district agent" to a clause in the bill. Motion No. 5 sets out the way in which an electoral district agent is to be chosen, which is by a group in a particular riding calling itself whatever it happens to be; and motion No. 6 sets out how the agent is to be registered. As I understood Mr. Speaker's suggestion, it was to put all the items that dealt with the same subject, in this case an electoral district agent, into one package for discussion, and then have a separate vote, as it is called, at a later moment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the way the report stage amendments were to operate, as I understood Mr. Speaker's remarks at the commencement of the debate this afternoon, was that motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be lumped together for discussion purposes only, and that when the vote took place-and the vote has now been deferred-a vote will take place on each of motions Nos. 3,
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
4, 5 and 6. In other words, there will be four opportunities to record a vote on those motions.
I disagree with the contention of my colleague from Greenwood in regard to the inconsistency or contrariness of one to another, but assuming that is the case for the sake of argument, whether or not there is an inconsistency is not material to the vote. If there is an inconsistency, a member can vote one way on one and another way on the other. He can do that if he finds them inconsistent. However, I believe, they are companion pieces to one another. One deals with a definition; the second ensures that the definition of "registered agent" includes an electoral district agent; the third is the mechanism by which an electoral district agent may be chosen; and the fourth is a mechanism for advising the Chief Electoral Officer of any changes in the registry of electoral district agents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Do I understand the House is unanimous that the motions will be voted on separately? If so I will put the question again.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The division on motion No. 3 is deferred. The question is now in respect of Motion No. 4. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The division on Motion No. 4 is deferred.
The question is now in respect of Motion No. 5. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
December 18, 1973


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The division on Motion No. 5 is deferred.
The question now before the House is in respect of Motion No. 6. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The division on Motion No. 6 is deferred.
I understand it is agreed that we will now move to the consideration of Motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Motion No. 7 stands in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and reads as follows:
No. 7.
December 14, 1973-That Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by inserting, between the words "otherwise" and "shall" in Section 13.1 (5)(a) of Subclause 4(1) the following: "shall be in Canadian funds and directly from Canadian sources and"-
(b) An association or organization of the members of a registered party within an electoral district may choose a person or persons to be electoral district agents for the purposes of that registered party in that electoral district and may so notify the registered party who may forthwith notify the Chief Electoral Officer setting out the name and address of such persons and such information shall be recorded by the Chief Electoral Officer in the registry referred to in subsection (1)."
We are also considering Motions Nos. 17 and 31. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and Motion No. 31 standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) read as follows:
Election Expenses
No. 17.
That Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by removing the comma at the end of line 4 at page 12 and adding the following:
"provided, however, that all such money shall be in Canadian funds and directly from Canadian sources."
No. 31.
That Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended in Sub-clause 9(2) by inserting between the words "class" and the word "and" in line 39 at page 21 the following:
"provided, however, that all such money shall be in Canadian
funds and directly from Canadian sources".


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this motion-


An hon. Member:: Are we dealing with Motion No. 7?


Frank Howard: We are dealing with Motion No. 7 in a formal way, and we are also dealing with Motions Nos. 17 and 31, the latter being in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would like me to call all three motions so there will be no mistake. The House is now dealing with Motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is not much to be said about Motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31, except that they express the desire of various individuals and organizations in this country in respect of the source of moneys used to finance political parties during election campaigns. I do not think anyone in this House will disagree with the suggestion that we should have a law that campaign funds should not come from outside Canada.
There is also a reference to a Canadian source. I might suggest that I have a good friend who spends the winter in Florida. He cannot get back to Canada during the wintertime but he sends a contribution to the campaign fund of the hon. member from Regina, and I should like him to continue to do so. I do not think that such a contribution should be considered as a contribution from a foreign source. In this regard, I think everyone knows what we mean, namely, that candidates should not in the normal course finance an election campaign directly or indirectly from a source outside Canada or through funds, the source of which, is other than Canadian. Surely, no one can disagree with that suggestion.
Amendments Nos. 7, 17 and 31 could be inserted in this bill without any damage to the political reputation of anyone in this country. In fact, I should think that the inclusion of these proposed amendments would enhance the reputation of any candidate taking part in a political campaign. I think I can safely assume that these three amendments will receive the unanimous support of all hon. members in this House, and that they will be accepted by hon. members of this Chamber and incorporated in our electoral laws.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member could explain to me in some detail what he means by the words in
8876

December 18, 1973
Election Expenses
Motion No. 7 "Canadian funds", and what he means by "Canadian sources"? Perhaps there was not sufficient research in respect of this matter. I know what the principle is behind the proposed motions, but I hesitate to vote in favour of something in respect of which there has been no interpretation. While I understand the intent of the words "Canadian funds" and "Canadian sources", my point is that if we accept this amendment we will be giving our approval to a principle which suggests something which is obvious to some but not obvious to me. This principle may be obvious to many hon. members, but it is not obvious to me in respect of the reference to the phrases "Canadian funds" and "Canadian sources".


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of my hon. friend-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am serious, Frank.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is serious as he is not subject to facetious observations. I know the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) always displays a consistent degree of seriousness in respect of everything that takes place in this House. I should like to thank him, through you, for the fact that this matter was raised in the committee. Let me suggest that I have always found that when a person is confronted with a good idea but does not want to spell it out, he can always reverse the acceptability by pleading an ignorance for-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, I rise on a question of privilege, and I refer specifically to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). All I asked for was some explanation in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member. He has taken the attitude that I am not serious in proposing questions in respect of this serious matter. I would hope that the motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member has made out a question of privilege. Certainly he is objecting to the remarks of the hon. member, but if that is the extent of his question of privilege I do not think the Chair should entertain it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West and I have some difficulty in understanding each other, and I know that he is laughing.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am laughing.


Frank Howard: What I was putting forward was that in the committee these amendments were proposed in these words. In the committee objection was taken to them. In the committee there was advanced the thought by some hon. members, who I shall not identify, that this was a good idea but they did not understand it and therefore would vote against it. That is what I was trying to get across to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alex-

ander)-that some of his own colleagues found a refuge in ignorance. I was not trying to say to him that he was trying to find refuge in a question of misunderstanding. I was merely trying to relate what took place in the committee.
When drafting this motion I spoke to a gentleman in the Department of Justice. Perhaps I did the wrong thing. Perhaps I had too much faith in the ability of the Department of Justice to draft things to mean what they are supposed to mean. However, I called someone I knew there in respect of a lot of these amendments. I told him what our intent was. We had a conversation. This is how one goes about drafting legislation if one does not know legal phraseology. I told him what we wanted to impart in the bill. These are the words he gave me. He said that if we referred to Canadian funds that would be a designation that no one could misunderstand. Canadian funds are Canadian funds; they are not anything else. They are not United States funds, British funds or foreign currency or any other currency. I told this gentleman that we wanted to prohibit head offices of multinational corporations from making contributions to political parties, that we wanted to prohibit international unions headquartered in another country from making contributions to a political party and that we wanted to prohibit the bagman like Senator Hayes travelling to the United States, as apparently he did, seeking out contributions from headquarters offices of corporations which have subsidiaries in Canada. I told him that we wanted to knock out that possibility. These are the phrases and the words he gave me. The words "Canadian sources", "Canadian funds" and "directly from Canadian Funds" should not lend themselves to any misunderstanding unless the individual who seeks to find a misunderstanding wants to develop one for some other purpose. That is always possible in terms of statute law.
When laws have been passed, and when they have been presented before a judge for interpretation, we know how often the judge has said that surely Parliament did not mean this or something else because these words say thus and so. Sometimes when one is faced with what the court decides in a particular case and what was said in Parliament during the development of that law, one finds he is faced with two separate things. However, this is as close as it is possible to get to defining what we are talking about. I think it is completely understandable.
Another thing I was told about legislative drafting is that words are confining, restricting, and that the more words you use the more you restrict and confine what you are talking about; the more you attempt to spell out in precise detail, the more confusing and confounding you can become. This was the suggestion and advice we received in respect of our phrasing. I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton West has no difficulty in respect of understanding what we are trying to say. This is the advice I received. Even though members of the committee said this was a good idea but they do not understand it and would vote against it, I have not yet heard anyone suggest that it be phrased in some other way.
I do not think those members who said it was a good idea could phrase it in any more precise or clear way. We are trying to establish the principal point that Canadians should control Canadian policy in its domestic and indus-
December 18, 1973

trial sense, and in its political sense as well. We know certainly that there is an attachment between money and politics. We know that if there is a political party contribution which comes from a particular source there is a tendency for the recipient thereof to lean in that direction. Perhaps he did so beforehand, but there is that tendency. There is the tendency to say that he who pays the bills will receive the prime consideration, and that he who pays the accounts will get the attention or that he who does not pay the accounts will not. We are trying to prevent the extraterritorial aspect of corporations, trade unions, individuals, associations and groups in other countries having influence, especially an undue influence, on the politics of this nation.
I know that during the course of the election campaign the party to which I belong was accused by spokesmen from other parties of being in receipt of Yankee money coming from the headquarters of international unions in the United States. Frankly, I do not know of this occurring, but that is the accusation. This statement has been denied a number of times but the accusation continues. Here is an opportunity for those in this House who want to stop this taking place, even though it never took place in the past, to put their vote where their mouth is and be counted in favour of this principle so that this source of funds will be denied this or any other party. There is an opportunity also to those in this House who want to get rid of the corporate influence in politics, the international corporation influence, to say we will deny that source of funds. ITT has caused enough difficulty and trouble in the political system of the United States of America and we sure as hell do not want it here. ITT can involve itself in the politics of this nation under this legislation unless we plug that loophole and say it cannot do it.
That is what this amendment is all about. It is an effort to ensure that Canadians will control their own politics, both in fact and in money as well, and to deny this potential intrusion of other nations in what is likely to happen in this country. When we speak in terms of financing of political parties on a year-around basis we speak in terms of quite a few million dollars. An estimate of the total expenditure by political parties and candidates who ran in the 1972 federal election is in the neighbourhood of $31 million. This includes national parties and candidates, expenditures of provincial sections of the party, and the like. That is a fair amount of money.
Let us say for argument's sake that the treasury committee of the Liberal party is the one that collects the money. Senator John Godfrey was the collector at that time and he collected something in the neighbourhood of $6.5 million in the last election. Out of that sum, $600,000 went to pay debts and accumulated overdrafts, $1,322,000 of that was used by the national office of the Liberal party, and $3,978,000 was disbursed by provincial campaign committees. There is a loophole here and let us deal with it for a moment. Although the bill speaks in terms of disclosing the source of funds, which is a companion measure to one of the amendments before us here, there is a loophole big enough to let through a fleet of trucks. The loophole was in the portion which I read which says that
Election Expenses
$3,978,000 was disbursed by provincial campaign committees.
I can see that in the next election-if it is not taking place already-the collection agents for the two old line parties will be the provincial sections of those parties. The money will be contributed for the use of the provincial sections of the parties and kept in a vault or bank account. Then, when the election is called and campaign funds are required, the provincial section of the party will drag out the $1 million or $2 million, or whatever amount of money it has accumulated, donate it to the registered party, which under this bill is the national headquarters of the party. Then, watch the source of funds that is disclosed under this bill. The source of funds as disclosed properly, legally and directly under the bill by the registered party at that time will be the provincial association of Liberals, Conservatives, or whatever the case may be, in a certain province, and the disclosure will not go beyond that.
What is the purpose of disclosure if you can hide the source in that fashion so easily? Surely, if it is possible to distribute $4 million out of $6 million during a federal election through the provincial campaign committees, then you can collect that money in the same way in periods up to and before elections. Certainly, the loophole is there. In Ontario, so far as the Liberal party was concerned, 50 collectors were involved and 90 of the largest of corporations in Ontario were canvassed personally by the national chairman, the majority of them in the late winter of 1971 and early spring of 1972, six months before the election. That is what the Liberal party did, canvass 90 of the largest corporations in Ontario to find the money. This was done personally by the national chairman who, I think, is Senator Godfrey, although I am not certain of that because he is called elsewhere chairman of the treasury committee, but all money was raised by the treasury committee and I am assuming that the national chairman is the same individual. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.
In Quebec, the situation was entirely different. It was more heinous because in Quebec the national campaign fund collector was none other than the then Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, I do not believe it!


Frank Howard: On the one hand, he was giving out $6 million to IBM and the next day he went knocking on their door saying "I am collecting funds for the Liberal party". This bill will not stop that.
The Conservative party also collected money. They collected something like $3,900,000 for the national campaign.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get your money?


Frank Howard: Wait, I am speaking about the two important parties first-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Let me tell the House that IBM and ITT
consider the Liberal party to be important, as do Imperial Oil, Gulf Oil, Texaco, and every one of these oil companies. They consider the Conservative party to be no less important.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
26695-49J

December 18, 1973
Adjournment Motion



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

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members can relax. I just have one brief comment which I wish to make. My contribution towards solving the problems of energy in the country goes back to December 5 when I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) if his department had under consideration the construction of a pipeline from Montreal to Saint John. Some other problems have come up since then, and I realize that the minister is busy tonight. I do not quarrel with the fact that he is not here- he has many problems in committee-but I thought it would be a good idea to raise it with him because he has a fond remembrance of Saint John and his relatives there.
In any event, the matter of a pipeline from Montreal to Saint John is current because today, according to a news report, Governor Kenneth Curtis of Maine is reported to have taken exception to the cutting off of energy to pulp mills in that state of the United States by Canada through the National Energy Board. Of course, this raises the matter of the dependency of Canada on the Portland, Maine, pipeline. Although Governor Curtis is good natured about it, and talks about problems which he knows the Maritimes have with the federal authorities, he does suggest that his state might have to get tough. This would be an interesting question of international law, whether the United States could cut off the supplies that come from Portland, Maine to Montreal. I suppose they would have the final authority to do so if they wished to exercise it.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of the House the unique geographical position of New Brunswick with regard to all sorts of energy development. It lies between Quebec, the New England States, Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces. It has a tremendous hydro potential, although I think it is under development now. We all know that a nuclear plant has been offered to the province, under a very niggardly scheme, I might say. There is, as far as I know, good potential for a heavy water plant on the Bay of Fundy and two or three of the rivers that flow in there. The development of tidal power from the Bay of Fundy is well known and has been promoted by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) and others.
New Brunswick has, in my humble opinion, a very good opportunity to share in this search for self-sufficiency in energy on which Canada is embarked but it seems we are not being considered in the making of some of these decisions. The site of the deep sea port that has been talked about is now Montreal. We did not get the plant for heavy water that was announced when we thought we

were being considered for it. The tidal development has been shut off because there is no interest by this government. Geography seems to be working against us and we would like to get into the picture.
The other day Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick, in assessing the problems of energy in a session of the legislature, pointed out the great need to connect Saint John with the development that has been planned. It has been suggested that a reversible pipeline to Montreal or the St. Lawrence would transport foreign crude through Saint John to Montreal or western crude could come from Montreal to the Maritimes, depending upon which price was the lowest at the time. The Board of Trade of Saint John wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointing out that in view of this extra burden that has now been thrust upon eastern Canada by the price of oil, the availability of a pipeline would be very important in this price differential. In other words, if you are going to build a pipeline from western Canada to Montreal or from Sarnia to Montreal, why not at the same time consider a pipeline to the Maritimes?
We have a great future in our city. On the one side we have the Irving interests which have under construction and nearly completed, the largest refinery in Canada, 166,000 barrels per day. It was the largest initial phase refinery and now, of course, it will expand greatly. They have Canaport which was the first deep sea tanker port in the western hemisphere and which will take the largest tankers afloat. On the other side of Saint John is the Lorneville development which now has a thermal plant. If this project went forward, it would tie in with the development of the Maritimes. We could twin the line and it would fit into the whole picture.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I say that some consideration should be given in these grandiose energy plans of the government, even though we know they are not going to do anything for a while, to including New Brunswick in some way.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his understanding remarks concerning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). As he knows, the minister is at a meeting of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works tonight. I might also say, with regard to the remarks which have been quoted concerning the Governor of Maine, that I have been informed that his actual speech indicates that the press has misrepresented his views. Whether or not if that is so remains to be seen after further investigation. At the present time the government has under study the technical and economic feasibility of constructing a large diameter pipeline from a deep water port site in either the St. Lawrence estuary or on the eastern seaboard, to the Montreal refining centre. The crude oil throughput volumes would include supply of the St. Romuald refinery near Quebec City. Such a facility could significantly lower the cost of delivered foreign crude since it would give the new supertankers, VLCC's, access to a Canadian deepwater port. VLCC's have significantly lower unit transportation costs than do the tankers currently delivering foreign crude to Canadian ports.
December 18, 1973

Staff from several government departments are involved in the current feasibility study. A consulting firm has been retained. One consultant's report has been received with a second expected shortly. The interaction of the proposed new eastern pipeline and the existing Portland-Montreal pipeline system, as well as the proposed extension of the western crude oil supply pipeline to Montreal, is one of the important aspects of this study. There is a good possibility that at very little additional capital investment, any of these pipelines could be made reversible. In this manner, in times of emergency, the flow of oil could be reversed to supply east coast refiners with western Canadian crude oil.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-POSITION OF ARMED FORCES MEMBERS ATTACHED TO NORAD FOLLOWING SPECIAL ALERT ORDERED BY PRESIDENT NIXON ON OCTOBER 25
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, the questions asked of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) by myself and several other members yesterday and today in respect of Canadian involvement in the placing of American forces on Defence Condition III on or about midnight, October 24, and the answers given by the minister raise three important issues which are worthy of discussion. They are, first, was proper judgment exercised by senior Canadian military personnel in delaying notifying, for up to eight hours, the appropriate political authorities of the change in readiness of American forces; second, were Canadian troops actually involved in the alert without prior Canadian authorization; and, third, is NORAD an asset or a liability for Canada.
Let me deal with each of these questions in turn. First, was proper judgment exercised by the military in failing to inform the minister immediately of the change in alert status? My answer to this question is an unequivocal no. The minister, in answer to my question today, indicated that he, on the contrary, had absolute confidence in the judgment of the chief of defence staff and that events had proven that gentleman to have been right in deciding to avoid disturbing the minister's slumbers. After all, only American forces were involved.
The minister's statement was, with all due deference, patent nonsense. First of all, the general competence of the chief of defence staff has not been called into question. What has been called into question is his judgment in this particular instance.
Second, whether or not the general was proved right by events that Canadian security was not substantially affected is totally beside the point. That is a question for the democratically elected representatives of the people to decide, and not the military. I remind the House that our European allies in NATO were extremely bitter about their lack of notification regarding the American action. We received some notification, but our political leaders were not apprised of the situation until hours later and our Minister of National Defence wishes to defend the situation. Well, Mr. Speaker, either our European allies in NATO are hysterical and compulsive worriers, or our Minister of National Defence is entirely too soporific and complacent. I incline to the latter view.
Adjournment Motion
Remember the situation. There was a shooting war in the Middle East. The United States and the Soviet Union were confronting each other in the area, although hidden behind their client states. Then, by executive action, American forces were placed on DEFCON III. What was the reason? Was it for fun? Was it because of a military threat? Was it to make the people of the United States forget the president's domestic political difficulties?
Should Canada be involved? Would Canada be involved, whether or not she wished to be? There is no question in my mind that the answers to those questions must be provided by the duly elected government of the country and that the answers should have been sought by the government immediately. Thus, the chief of defence staff was absolutely wrong in not advising the minister immediately he had news of the situation, which seems to have been about midnight, on October 24, and not 7.30 a.m. of October 25, when he eventually did tell the minister. The situation is this: either the general made that judgment, or the minister's instructions to the chief of defence staff about when his sleep should be disturbed are totally devoid of reality. I simply cannot believe, despite his assertions to the contrary, that the minister is happy with what happened on October 25. I would, therefore, like to know what instructions he has issued in an effort to avoid such blunders in the future.
The second major question raised by the events of October 25 is whether or not Canadian Armed Forces personnel were involved in a military alert without the knowledge or prior approval of this government. When I asked that question of the minister on October 25, his reply was, in effect, no. That answer was extremely misleading.
NORAD has a totally integrated command structure, communications network, radio network and aircraft guidance system. Canadians and Americans work together in all of the eight NORAD regions, a Canadian doing one job, an American another. Thus, the Continental Air Defence Command of the United States could not possibly have been moved to Defcon III without Canadians having been involved. It is nonsense to say otherwise and the minister as much as admitted the fact when he said yesterday at page 8793 of Hansard:
There were some individuals in integrated staff positions who in the early stages would have been involved in the normal course of their duties, but they were not formally on alert and the country was not on alert.
That answer raises more questions than it answers. Does it mean that Canadians were relieved of their duties by Americans and that for the duration of the alert, which lasted several days, seven of the NORAD districts were manned entirely by Americans? If so, were the integrated command and direction structures of NORAD abandoned for the period of the alert and is the government happy with such a situation? If such was not the case, how much stock can we place in the minister's assertion that Canadians were not involved? Not much. Neither of the alternatives is acceptable.
The third major question raised by the events of October 25 is that of whether NORAD on balance is an advantage or a disadvantage to Canadians. I ask hon. members

December 18, 1973
Adjournment Motion
to remember that because of our involvement in NORAD, Canadian troops were involved in a decision which, for however brief a period, increased world tensions without our political leaders having any say in the matter. There was no consultation before the fact, only notification after and that notification did not come from the senior Canadian officer in NORAD who must have been aware of the situation almost immediately. He is a subordinate to an American general.
I think I can do no better in this regard than to cite some passages from the "Minority Report of New Democratic Party Members of Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on NORAD". In that document we said in part, and I quote:
We do not accept the recommendation of the Committee that Canada should renew the NORAD Agreement even for a limited period of two years. In our view Canada should take advantage of the termination of the NORAD Agreement to let it die a natural death. In our opinion, for all useful purposes the NORAD Agreement is indeed dead, and it would be more fitting to bury it than to attempt to keep it alive-
Obviously, if we withdrew from NORAD on the basis that we wanted "no truck nor trade with the Yankees" this would cause difficulties, but if we demonstrate, as we think can clearly be done, that a new framework is necessary for Canadian-American cooperation in the air defence of North America and that NORAD is outdated, we think it is insulting to Americans to assume that they would resent this and try to coerce us by denying reasonable economic cooperation with Canada on this basis.
As we said before, we think such timidity on the part of Canada is out of place and it is a threat to the independence of Canada.


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


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), I wish to respond quickly to the three points he has made. The judgment of the Chief of the Defence Staff was excellent. Second, the Canadian troops were not involved in any formal way in the events we are speaking about. And, third, as I have stated here and in committee, and in conversation with the hon. member, the NORAD Agreement is an asset to Canada and the free world, not a liability. However, I agree with the hon. member that accurate, complete and timely communication between the chief of staff of the Canadian Armed Forces and me, as the Minister of National Defence, is of vital importance. I would also like to say that we are human beings, and that we are not always able to perceive all the contingencies. Each of us within his own area of responsibility must make judgments about what should be done and what should not be done. If I may philosophize for a moment, I might say it is my belief that no number of rules or regulations can ever provide a complete substitute, in advance, for personal judgment.
As the hon. member has pointed out, and as the House knows, events have clearly demonstrated that in the particular circumstances we are discussing the personal judgment of the chief of staff was excellent. I wish again to confirm my confidence in the present Chief of the Defence Staff. That confidence is undiminished. But to the extent that future events might not be so accurately assessed I have today established procedures which will in future require the chief of staff to advise me automatically and immediately whenever he receives information that the United States has changed the alert status of its armed

forces, even if this does not involve any change in the alert status of the Canadian Armed Forces.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: Further, in reply to the hon. member, I also wish to confirm that the information which was received on October 24 just before midnight at the 22nd NORAD Region, North Bay, was also received simultaneously in National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa and was from there relayed to the Air Specialist Officer who immediately reported to the Operations Centre in National Defence Headquarters. This information was that the United States Continental Aerospace Defence Command Forces had been directed to move toward a state of increased alert, known as Defence Condition III.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I know this is very interesting but the hon. minister's time has expired. All I can do is ask the members-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Continue!


James Armstrong Richardson: Thirty seconds?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: This is a departure from the rules.


James Armstrong Richardson: Since our own Canadian defence units were not involved, it is my belief that in this United States alert all appropriate Canadian action was taken.


PENSION-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROGRAM TO INCREASE ANNUITIES TO EX-SERVICEMEN
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether I still have seven minutes in which to speak?
The reason I am appearing in this debate tonight goes back to a couple of questions I placed on the order paper subsequent to the passing of Bill C-220. The first question is No. 3206, as shown on pages 8663 and 8664 of Hansard. I asked the Minister of National Defence the following question:
1.	To how many retired servicemen are annuity payments being made as of November 15, 1973?
2.	How many would be entitled to an adjustment pension after January 1, 1973, as a result of the amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act and particularly to that portion known as the 85 rule?
The answer was that there are at present 40,687 ex-servicemen'drawing pensions and that 1,487 of them will get the increase. It is a rather alarming piece of news, considering the publicity given to Bill C-220 and what it was going to do to combat the cost of living, to find out that it only applies to 3.6 per cent of the people for whom it purported to make life easier.
This caused me to ask another question, which is reflected at page 8798 of Hansard, in which I repeated the answer given to me by the Minister of National Defence describing this miniscule proportion of retired servicemen who
December 18, 1973

would be drawing the increase. I asked the President of the Treasury Board:
Would the President of the Treasury Board now consider sponsoring further amendments to the act so that it will apply to more than a small fraction of ex-servicemen and women?
The answer was:
Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look at that representation.
I regret that the President of the Treasury Board is not present to participate in this debate, but that was really no answer at all and that is why I am here tonight. He is living up to his tradition of non-communication with questioners. I am not at all surprised he is not here, but I am sorry that he is not here.
With the pension cheques that have gone out information was provided to the recipients on how they could qualify for the increase on January 1, and this occasioned several letters to me. I should like to go, for a moment, to Bill C-220, not the copy given general distribution but the bill presented to the House at first reading. I should like to indicate what the attitude of the government was at that time, as reflected in the explanation and in the recommendation to be found on the second page of the bill. The purpose of the bill was:
-to provide for the assumption by the government of the full cost of the escalation of pensions of persons retired before 1970 and under the conditions prescribed, the assumption of a portion of the cost of the escalation of pensions of persons retired since 1969; and to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. .. the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act-
Having read that, and read the press releases at the time, one would assume that retired servicemen, seeing their service pensions connected in some way with the increase in the cost of living, would receive an increase. This seemed fair and so the bill was passed. I am glad to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the House, since he was, I suppose, one of those conned by the government, like the rest of us, into thinking that the government was going to do something for servicemen, and he, too, did not spot the fine print which excluded 9614 per cent of retired servicemen from receiving any benefit whatsoever.
On September 7, 1973 the President of the Treasury Board presented the bill for second reading, and as reported at page 6336 of Hansard he had this to say:
The principal reason for introducing this bill is to provide that increases in the consumer price index will be fully reflected in the escalation of benefits payable under this act.
So much for the dreams of retired servicemen! I should like to point out that I have received a considerable number of letters, as I stated earlier, all of the same type. A serviceman finds out, when retired and on pension, that there will be no increase for him because the famous 85 rule comes into play, which is age plus service must equal 85 before you are pensionable. Then, there is another fine print rule which says you must be 55 years of age, and this is what has excluded 96 Vi per cent of retired servicemen.
I hate to point this out, but this falls hardest on the service for which this government has had so little time for too long, namely the Royal Canadian Navy and its retirees. Their petty officers were not permitted to serve for more than 25 years, so there is no way that a retired petty officer can get that increase before the age of 60. I
Adjournment Motion
would point out that one other thing equally distasteful is that compulsory retirement age for corporals in the armed forces if 45. A corporal of that age will presumably have about 25 years of service, but he too will have to wait until the age of 60 to get the increment. However, if you are a lieutenant or captain the age rises to 47; if you are a major it is 49; a lieutenant-colonel, 51; and a colonel 55. If you have served to the age of 55 you have a very good chance of having 30 years service, and you can immediately qualify for pension. This bill as passed is unfair to the people who should be treated most fairly. I ask the President of the Treasury Board to consider bringing in amendments to make this the meaningful bill that parliament thought it would be when it was presented in the first instance.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by amplifying the answer which the Minister of National Defence gave on December 12 to the hon. member's question No. 3206, as reported in Hansard on page 8664.
As the minister stated, there were 40,787 retired members of the Canadian forces in receipt of pensions and of these 1,487 became eligible for increases in their benefits under the amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act as a result of the passing of Bill C-220 on September 14, 1973. In addition, some 10,000 other retired members will receive further increases in their pensions in January, 1974 as a result of this amending legislation. In view of the hon. member's remarks this fact should be emphasized.
The original statute, in addition to providing benefits to all widows and children provided increases in the pensions of retired members of the forces, who were disabled or who were over age. Similar provisions covered members of the RCMP, members of parliament and members of the Public Service.
However, when the age at which public service employees could retire was lowered from 60 to 55 if the employees had 30 or more years of pensionable service, an anomaly was created between Public Service employees and these other groups. The recent amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act provided for a lowering of the age at which escalation could commence for these groups and to correct this anomaly, the amendment was given retroactive effect to January 1, 1973, and provided new benefits immediately to these 1,487 former members of the Canadian forces, among others.
As was explained at the time Bill C-220 was introduced in the House, the formula for determining the age at which escalation of pensions commences for former members of the armed forces and the RCMP was determined after consultations with representatives of the Canadian forces and the RCMP and reflected the over-all cost considerations. However, as stated when the bill was being discussed in committee we will continue to review the experience in relation to the so-called "85" formula.
As members of the House are aware, the principal effect of the amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act will be felt in January when the amount of the increases are directly related to the rises in the consumer

December 18, 1973
Adjournment Motion
price index. In fact, increases will be payable next month at 6.7 per cent if the retirement year was 1973, 9.3 per cent if it was 1972, and 9.8 per cent if it was 1971, and 11.9 per cent if it was 1970 or earlier, such percentages, applied to the basic pension, plus any increases previously received.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
PC. 1973-4065 18 December, 1973
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, is pleased hereby to approve the issue of the annexed guidelines to be observed by public servants concerning conflict of interest situations.
Certified to be a true copy R. G. Robertson Clerk of the Privy Council

[Stage Direction]
1.	These guidelines may be cited as the Public Servants Conflict of Interest Guidelines.

[Stage Direction]
2.	It is by no means sufficient for a person in a position of responsibility in the public service to act within the law. There is an obligation not simply to obey the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny. In order that honesty and impartiality may be beyond doubt, public servants should not place themselves in a position where they are under obligation to any person who might benefit from special consideration or favour on their part or seek in any way to gain special
treatment from them. Equally, a public servant should not have a pecuniary interest that could conflict in any manner with the discharge of his official duties.
3.	No conflict should exist or appear to exist between the private interests of public servants and their official duties. Upon appointment to office, public servants are expected to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest from arising.
4.	Public servants should exercise care in the management of their private affairs so as not to benefit, or appear to benefit, from the use of information acquired during the course of their official duties, which information is not generally available to the public.
5.	Public servants should not place themselves in a position where they could derive any direct or indirect benefit or interest from any government contracts over which they can influence decisions.
6.	All public servants are expected to disclose to their superiors, in a manner to be notified, all business, commercial or financial interests where such interests might conceivably be construed as being in actual or potential conflict with their official duties.
7.	Public servants should hold no outside office or employment that could place on them demands inconsistent with their official duties or call into question their capacity to perform those duties in an objective manner.
8.	Public servants should not accord, in the performance of their official duties, preferential treatment to relatives or friends or to organizations in which they or their relatives or friends have an interest, financial or otherwise.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 19, 1973