1973-07-11

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Prior to the recent visit to Canada of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, I contacted the office of the Prime Minister to inquire in what way Alberta members of parliament could pay their respects to the Queen while she was in Alberta. I was told that the only event in Alberta that the federal government was directing was the Prime Minister's dinner for the Queen. Further, I was told that in order for a variety of guests to be invited, invitations to members of parliament were being restricted to the four Calgary seats.
I responded that this was an acceptable policy and though I was disappointed not to be able to convey to Her Majesty the respects of the people of Edmonton-Strathcona while she was visiting Alberta, I understood the exigencies of the matter. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, my shock when I learned that the defeated Liberal candidates in Alberta were invited to the dinner for the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Douglas Roche: Specifically, I am aghast that the government would invite Mr. Hu Harries, the former Liberal member of parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona who was defeated by myself last October 30. On what possible grounds can Mr. Harries be regarded as representative of anything but the Liberal Association of Edmonton-Strathcona? The very idea of turning this dinner into a reward or a sop to defeated Liberal candidates in the west is repulsive to all those who have a genuine regard for the dignity of the monarchy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: It is the supreme putdown of the west by the Prime Minister that he considers defeated Liberal candidates more representative than elected Conservative members of parliament.
I commend the New Democratic government of Saskatchewan for their decency in selecting invitees to the Queen's dinner in Regina by a random method that ensured ordinary citizens the opportunity to meet the Queen-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: -and included all members of parliament in that province. But I deplore the federal Liberal government's partisan abuse of their responsibilities as host, and the invidious position into which they placed the Queen.
The rights of Alberta members of parliament were violated by this unscrupulous action and that is why I rise on this question of privilege. But more is at stake than our rights. What this whole country should be concerned about is the political manoeuvring of the monarchy in which the Liberal government has engaged. The Liberal hypocrisy in downgrading the monarchy one year, and upgrading it the next, to suit their political whim is the final proof of why western Canada refuses to trust the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: God save the Queen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's statement is a matter of a grievance rather than a question of privilege. The Chair should not be required to rule on that point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce important measures to further encourage and assist the establishment and growth of Canadian small business. As hon. members are well aware, Canada's smaller enterprises and entrepreneurs are fundamental to a future where we, as Canadians, gain greater domestic control over our own economic well-being. We can rely less on others only by relying more on ourselves.


Mr. Fairweather:: Wow! Who wrote that?


Alastair William Gillespie: The strength of our economy in the years ahead will depend to a large extent on the progress and growth of small business in Canada. We want to assist that growth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: It is obvious to me that hon. members opposite are less interested in small business than we are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 11, 1973
Small Business


An hon. Member:: What a statement.


An hon. Member:: Not possible.


Alastair William Gillespie: If they will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete this statement about the government's position in respect of small business. There are no simple or sweeping solutions to the needs of small business; certainly there is no single remedy. Ask the owner-manager of a small business what sort of help he would like from his government.


An hon. Member:: Less government.


Alastair William Gillespie: And the chances are he will single out one of three things. He may say he wants to talk to someone about a technical or management problem, someone who knows what he is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: Second, how can he get financing for needed expansion or development of a good idea?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How to win the west.


Alastair William Gillespie: I can hardly hear myself speak, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: How lucky can you get.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to make his statement.


Alastair William Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate the good will of the House.
Third, it seems to me he may ask how he can get information on government programs of assistance without having to go to Ottawa-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: -or without having to contact a lot of different departments of government. It is with these needs and objectives in mind that the government will introduce enabling legislation in the fall session to establish an independent Crown corporation to be called the Industrial Bank and Development Agency for Small Business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The new agency will incorporate the operations of the Industrial Development Bank. To its financing activities it will add additional services, in particular management services, technical services, training services, and program information services-all at the local or regional level. Rather than create an additional and parallel institution, the government intends to build upon the existing strengths and organizational network of the IDB. But it also intends to extend the lending services currently offered by the IDB. However, I should like to make clear that the new agency will continue to provide financing

only when it is not available from private lenders on reasonable terms and conditions.


An hon. Member:: What else is new?


Alastair William Gillespie: The IDB has operated as a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada with the same board of directors as the central bank. The independence of the new agency will be secured in law and by its own board of directors who, with the president, will be appointed for fixed terms by the governor in council. Its board will be chosen to reflect the regional interests of Canada, and the board will be assisted by regional advisory committees. The new agency will report to parliament through the minister of industry, trade and commerce.


An hon. Member:: God help us.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is intended that the new agency would make greater use of its authority to provide equity financing, especially where such financing could contribute to a sounder financial structure of an enterprise or where it would facilitate financing from commercial sources. This emphasizes the fact that the financing function of the new agency would be to complement the private sector financing facilities available in Canada.
In addition to small businesses financial needs, there are those of management. Most often, Mr. Speaker, it is not lack of dollars that holds back business but, rather, lack of experienced management. The Industrial Bank and Development Agency will have services available to assist small businessmen in both management counselling and management training by taking over and expanding several existing programs in this area, specifically the CASE program-that is to say, the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises program operated by my department-the owner-manager training program now operated by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the management counselling service now offered by the National Research Council, and the advisory services now provided by the IDB.
These services of management counselling and training, and of access to financing will be available to the small businessman in his home area. The Industrial Bank and Development Agency will maintain and expand the 54 branches of the IDB now located throughout Canada. The object will be to provide small businessmen with an integrated service in his own locality, within which will be available the financing he cannot get elsewhere or the management assistance he needs.
There are many other forms of government assistance and incentive for small business, ranging from their preferred tax treatment to programs such as plant modernization and export market development offered by my department. I think that the creation of the Industrial Bank and Development Agency will prove to be a very significant assistance to the entrepreneurs of Canada, the group who start, struggle with and will expand small businesses and their number of employees over the years to come.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to table a more detailed statement on the Industrial Bank and Development Agency. In summary, let me say that we look to the

initiative and entrepreneurship of Canadians to build their own businesses and, in the process, to build a stronger Canada. We stand ready to help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have two copies of a background statement, which I would like to table, in both English and French.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's suggestion that we should rely on others only by relying more on ourselves is certainly the best advice, and probably the most practical advice ever given Canadian small business by the government. We are pleased that the government has finally recognized the existence of small business in Canada. The extent of the recognition and of the existence, however, is about as small as it is belated. It is like a small relief plane en route to a parched Sahara.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The proposal itself is a step forward. The fact that the agency will report to parliament through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I believe is a step in the right direction. The minister has a direct responsibility for the welfare of Canadian small business and this agency should assist him in fulfilling his responsibility.
This agency is very similar in approach to the small business administration unit proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election. It will only meet the needs of Canadian small business, however, if it is capable of fulfilling the following functions: First, to give financial assistance in the form of loans or equity, directly or in co-operation with other lending and investment institutions, to enable small business enterprises to expand their production capacity, such financial aid to be offered only on reasonable terms. Second, to facilitate the procurement of government contracts for the supply of goods and services by small business concerns so that the latter will receive a fair proportion of such government contracts. Third, to provide managerial and technical services in co-operation with other government and private agencies, and to disseminate information concerning the management and financing of small business and other material relevant and useful to small business. Fourth, to subsidize and encourage study and research concerning the managing, financing and operation of small business. Fifth, to identify and analyse small business problems and make recommendations that would widen the opportunities of small businesses to get started and enhance their ability to compete. Sixth, to advise the government on the effect on small business of government laws, regulations and policies and to suggest adjustments that would harmonize government policies with the needs of small business.
This latter criterion is included because our concern that the agency will be able to meet these criteria is not assuaged by the statement that "the backbone and heart of the IBDA will be the Industrial Development Bank". Our experience with the Industrial Development Bank, as
Small Business
many businessmen will attest, has been less than satisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The theme of the minister's announcement, Mr. Speaker, also emphasized the increase in federal bureaucracy that would take place. At the same time, there was no mention of the capitalization of the agency, no indication that it would have more money available for small business than it had previously. How much capital, in fact, will be available to small business? Surely this is the cardinal question that must be asked. In addition, I think a proper objective assessment of this announcement today would indicate that it will not do 10 per cent as much good as the damage that has been done to small business in the last five years by the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: Even Joe Tucker could not help that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: First of all, there was the tight money policy of 1969 and 1970 and the consequent unavailability of credit for Canadian small business. Mr. Speaker, the tight money policy of 1969 and 1970 put thousands of Canadian small businesses into bankruptcy unnecessarily.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Why didn't you say so in 1970?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You would think that a good government would learn from its mistakes. The fact that the present government has not learned is an indication that it is not a good government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The obstinacy of the government and its failure and refusal to put into effect now an incomes policy for Canada means that the process is repeating itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The availability of credit is drying up and the cost of money is rising. Once again, high interest rates are contributing to the costs of small business already pressed by low profit margins. So, Mr. Speaker, the government has learned nothing and continues with policies which are far more detrimental to Canadian small business than can be offset by anything like this agency, welcome as it may be in the circumstances. In addition, there are the high costs due to the high cost of money; there are the increases in taxes which the government has levied on a large proportion of small business in this country. It is a long list, and the government should not be surprised if small business is less than joyously enthusiastic about this crumb from the king's table. It will not be enough. The government must control inflation, it must get interest rates down and it must reduce taxes to reasonable levels.
Finally, in view of the demonstrated flexibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to incorporate and adopt as his own excellent suggestions put forward by the

July 11, 1973
Small Business
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) should convince the Minister of Finance to include in his next budget the Canadian investment credit incentive plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, which would entitle a Canadian to deduct from his or her income tax otherwise payable one half of any new amount, up to $5,000, invested in eligible, Canadian-owned small business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think at this point I should interrupt the hon. member and remind him of the terms of Standing Order 15. I do this from time to time because I think it is the duty of the Chair to remind hon. members that the Standing Order provides that a minister of the Crown may make an announcement or statement to the House, and it goes on to provide:
Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the House and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.
I have often found it difficult to determine what the adverb "briefly" means. Members, in my experience, do not always use a like guide. I would hope the hon. member would judge that perhaps he has now reached the point where the Standing Order becomes applicable.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have one more sentence, with your indulgence. The Canadian investment credit incentive plan, if implemented,* will do more to promote and develop small business in Canada than all the government's programs put together.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I will not take any more time than the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). I observe that the hon. member for Trinity began his remarks by condemning the minister's announcement as a small step forward and then promptly took credit for it as an idea of the Conservative Party. He said it was similar to the platform put forward by his party in this House and on the election trail.
I welcome the announcement the minister made this afternoon to establish in the fall a Crown corporation that is to provide some assistance to small business in terms of financing and other services. I only hope that when the Crown corporation is established it will be as positive as the rhetoric and prose of the minister's statement this afternoon. Often an announcement is misleading. I hope that the workings of this corporation will be as positive as the announcement the minister made in the House.
There are one or two matters of concern connected with the announcement. First, I should like to know how much money will be provided for the corporation. Second, I am concerned about the corporation being attached to the Industrial Development Bank. In the past, as members of the House know, the IDB has been tougher in its granting of loans than the chartered banks and other financial institutions. It has been more stringent in terms of to whom it will lend money for purposes of establishing industry in this country. If the IDB is to have anything to do with this, the House must lay down some explicit directives as to what money is to be lent. Money ought to

be lent at reasonable rates of interest to small businessmen of this country. I think that is an important part of legislation of this kind if it is to be positive and constructive.
I remind you, Sir, of the interest that my party has taken in this matter. We encourage the minister to implement a positive policy. I wish to refer to what the leader of my party said in the throne speech debate, as recorded at page 65 of Hansard for January 8:
-to the extent that investment needs to be stimulated, it should be encouraged in small and Canadian-owned business through a redesigned Canada Development Corporation. I point out that these smaller, Canadian-owned firms are labour-rather than capital-intensive and would indeed open new job opportunities.
The marketing and management services referred to in the throne speech would also help.
He went on to say:
What we do not need, what we in the New Democratic Party will continue to oppose, is a continuation of the corporate rip-off at the expense of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer.
One of the interesting aspects of today's announcement is that it is a shift in policy by the government toward helping free enterprise. For too long the huge, multinational corporation has been assisted by both the Liberal and Conservative parties in this country to the detriment of not only the ordinary citizen but small business itself which found itself squeezed out of the free enterprise society by huge multinational corporations. I find that shift in policy very interesting.
To be effective and meaningful, this new corporation will have to provide funds to small businessmen at low interest rates-rates they can afford. It must be a place where they can go to borrow money to expand their industry or enterprise. It should be mandatory that the banks and financial institutions, as well as this institution, lend money to small businessmen at a rate not higher than the prime interest rate. I suggest this should apply to farmers, fishermen and people purchasing homes. If this is done, perhaps we will have some meaningful activity in terms of Canadian-owned small business development that tends to be more labour-intensive than the foreign, huge, multinational corporations.
The announcement today also indicates the need for an over-all industrial and economic policy in this country that is all-inclusive. In order to help small business in the west, Quebec, the Maritimes and the north we need equitable freight rates; the anomalies in the freight rate system should be cleared up. Many businessmen would like to expand or initiate businesses in the north or some other region but cannot do so because the freight rate structure discriminates against them. I urge the government to bring into fruition an agency that is meaningful, not one that is couched with all kinds of positive rhetoric to fool the Canadian people, because I do not think it will fool them.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has just pompously announced the creation of a new ivory
July 11, 1973

tower, an organization of civil servants who will, supposedly, help small business.
The minister has created a new office, a new organization, in short, as we say in our part of the country, a new "rigging" of civil servants to come to the aid of owners of small businesses, to tell them what to do to go on keeping body and soul together in Canada. This new organization does not provide any more money nor any more assistance for enterprise, nor does it solve the problem of the consumption of products faced by small enterprise. These civil servants are going to try to teach the owners of small businesses the methods they should choose and apply in order for their businesses to operate efficiently.
However, Mr. Speaker, small businesses are capable of operating on their own. We have faith in small business, for that is the back-bone of our economy, despite what our friends in the New Democratic Party may think. Small business is the basis of our society, of our economy, and it needs financial assistance. Instead of appointing more civil servants, technicians, inspectors and bureaucrats, the government should instead be increasing the amount of guaranteed loans, granting favourable interest rates, and above all ensuring that the Canadian consumer has an adequate income and purchasing power to buy the products made by small business.
Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. The government would have us believe that we are living in a period of inflation; prices are rising, and no controls are being implemented. We have seen this once more in the statistics published yesterday; the great majority of consumers, in general, are stuck with fixed incomes and are unable to buy the goods that are sitting on the shelves. But while people are busy laughing at the Social Credit Party of Canada, the fact remains that private businesses in Canada keep on going bankrupt, having a hard time of it and barely eking out a living.
Mr. Speaker, I was amazed by the remarks of our friends of the Progressive Conservative Party. When they were in power, they had no more ideas than our friends of the Liberal Party to help out small businesses. Strange, when they are in the opposition they have all kinds of ideas but I know they would do no better than the Liberals if they were in their place.
Mr. opeaker, I would like to conclude by dealing with a topic that bothers me. When small businessmen from back home, as elsewhere, come to Ottawa to meet civil servants and deputy ministers to get financial help in order to expand their plants-I am speaking of small businesses generally-what do the civil servants tell them? As the act on economic expansion tends to favour large enterprises who invest at least $50,000, they say: We are terribly sorry, but we cannot help you; your business is too small. The industrialists reply: We came here to get help to expand our plants. To which the civil servants retort: We are sorry but yours is too small a business; we cannot help you.
That is the problem of small business. It needs to be helped, encouraged, and not bothered by civil servants, inspectors and forms to fill out. It needs the help and encouragement of the government, and not the creation of another ivory tower which will add to the bureaucracy in Canada and continue to lead to the bankruptcy of small businesses.
Canada Elections Act
Mr. Speaker, like its predecessors, the government appears to be more interested in dropping the small business and favouring multinational business.
Mr. Speaker, we shall continue to fight fiercely to save the small business, and it is not because of election funds, for our party is free, as free indeed as small business itself can be.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The motion arises because of the coal dust that is blowing from trains travelling from the interior of British Columbia to the Roberts Bank superport in my riding. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately enact legislation to provide that all railway cars carrying coal dust shall be constructed in such a manner that no coal dust escapes from the car while in transit and that severe penalties are provided for any person or persons disobeying this law.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms under Standing Order 43. It requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-210, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act to provide that candidates during a general election may receive a list of the names and addresses of those Canadian Forces electors and public service electors as defined in the special voting rules who normally reside in their electoral district. At the present time the act provides only for the returning officer to receive this list, and it has not always been possible for candidates to get a copy of it.
5496

July 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
BREAKDOWN OF VOTE 35a OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Marshall: What is the breakdown by province of the following items under Vote 35a of the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the Department of the Secretary of State (a) Travel and Exchange, $1,180,000 (b) Citizenship Participation $120,000?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Under Vote 35a of the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the Department of the Secretary of State under the fiscal year 1972-73, (a) $1,180,000 for the Travel and Exchange program was allocated to Jeunesse Canada Monde/Canada World Youth, a private voluntary organization which operates an international youth exchange program, for administration and operations costs in Canada and abroad. As this is an international program it is not feasible to provide a breakdown of funds by province. However, the 240 Canadians participating in this project came from the following provinces: Newfoundland 7, Prince Edward Island 2, Nova Scotia 8, New Brunswick 8, Quebec 83, Ontario 77, Manitoba 11, Saskatchewan 11, Alberta 17, British Columbia 15, Yukon and North West Territories 1; (b) In the Citizenship Participation Program, of $120,000, $60,000 was allocated to the Canada Committee, a National Voluntary Organization, for a series of National Celebrations held from coast to coast. The federal aid represented about one third of the Organization's budget. There is no breakdown of expenditures by province. $60,000 was allocated to the sub-program "Information and Referral Centres". This amount was added to the original $50,000, 1972-73 budget, for a total of $110,000. The following is a regional breakdown reflecting how these funds were expended: British Columbia, $15,000; Prairies, $6,240; Ontario, $55,442; Quebec, $24,760; Maritimes, $8,300.


Mr. Matte: 1.	What is the total number of English-speaking employees of all categories (permanent, casual and under contract) in each department of the government?
2.	What is the total number of English-speaking employees of all categories (permanent, casual and under contract) in each Crown corportion?
3.	What is the total number of English-speaking employees of all categories (permanent, casual and under contract) in each government agency and commission responsible to one department or another?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Statistics on English-speaking employees in each department of the government are presently being consolidated by the Official Languages Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the final analysis should be available for official release in the spring of 1974.


Mr. Matte: 1.	What is the total number of French-speaking employees of all categories (permanent, casual and under contract) in each department of the government?
2.	What is the total number of French-speaking employees of all categories (permanent, casual and under contract) in each Crown corporation?
3.	What is the total number of French-speaking employees of all categories (permanent, casual and under contract) in each government agency and commission responsible to one department or another?


John Mercer Reid: Statistics on French-speaking employees in each department of the Government are presently being consolidated by the Official Languages Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the final analysis should be available for official release in the spring of 1974.


Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What public, classified or secret Regulations, Orders in Council, Cabinet Directives or other documents of any kind whatsoever deal with the matter of personnel security clearance in the Public Service of Canada?
2.	(a) What criteria are applied in determining whether a group, a member of a group or an individual constitutes a security risk (b) are decisions designating as a security risk a group, a member of a group or an individual usually made by individual departmental security officers, usually junior officials, on delegation by the deputy minister?
3.	(a) What appeal procedure is available to a group, a member of a group or an individual designated a security risk (b) is such group, member of a group or the individual so designated fully informed of the decision that he, she, they or it constitute a security risk (c) is an opportunity afforded to refute any charges, assertions or accusations made against such group, member of a group or individual (d) what variations exist in standards and procedures as between departments and/or agencies of the government?
4.	(a) Are suspected or alleged homosexuality, sexual abnormality or emotional instability considered sufficient grounds to categorize an individual as a security risk (b) is suspected or alleged financial difficulties considered sufficient grounds to categorize an individual as a security risk (c) who makes such decisions in the case of each department and agency of government (d) at or in what forum, if any, are such decisions made (e) on what and whose evidence are such decisions made (f) who or what agency gathers, compiles, investigates, controls and/or releases information that a group, member of a group or an individual is designated a security risk and, in each case, on whose authority (g) does the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group through its role on the security advisory committee maintain a system or a policy of "blackballing" public servants and, if so, on what grounds (h) does the Police and Security Planning
July 11, 1973

and Analysis Group maintain dossiers or files of information on public servants?
5.	(a) What is Cabinet Directive 35 and when was it passed and/or authorized and by whom (b) is Cabinet Directive 35 still in force in its original form and, if not, in what manner and to what extent has it been altered, revised or extended?
6.	(a) What are the names of the members of the Interdepartmental Security and Intelligence Committee and what is the name of the immediate superior of each (b) what are the names of the members of the Security Advisory Committee and what is the name of the immediate superior of each (c) what are the names of the members of the Intelligence Advisory Committee and what is the name of the immediate superior of each (d) are each of the Committees described in (a), (b) and (c) composed exclusively of public servants and, if not, which of the members of each such committee are not public servants and, in each case, what are their names, occupations and principal place of residence (e) do the committees described in (a), (b) and (c) or any of them make recommendations or decisions as to the political loyalties of a group, member of a group or an individual or as to whether such group, member of a group or individual is a security risk and, if so, on what authority and at whose request, if any, in each instance (f) what are the names of the members of the staff, their respective salaries and duties of each of the committees described in (a), (b) and (c) and what funds are available to each such committee?
7.	(a) What is, or was, the "Group Vidal" in the Federal-Provincial relations branch of the Privy Council office and what is, or was its role in informing the government of the Province of Quebec with respect to federal matters (b) were or are investigations, reports, memoranda or other documents of the RCMP or the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group or the former Security Planning and Research Group forwarded or otherwise conveyed to Premier Bourassa and /or the Quebec Liberal Party and, if so, by what person or agency and to what person (c) what role does or did the Groupe Vidal, the Prime Minister's Office, candidates for the Liberal Party or any of them play in determining which group or groups, member or members of group(s) would or shall be investigated by an agent or agents of the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group or the former Security Planning and Research Group or any other security agency of government?
8.	(a) Is or was Mr. Walter Luyendyk employed or serving as Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet Security and Intelligence Committee (b) if (a) is answered in the affirmative, why is it at all necessary to have a Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, formerly Security Planning and Research Group in the Department of the Solicitor-General (c) was the subord;nation of the Security Planning and Research Group, now the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, to the Privy Council office recommended by the recent crisis management study of Lt. General Michael Dare?
9.	(a) Since January, 1970, which organizations or groups, suspected or categorized as subversive are being or have been studied, investigated, observed, inquired into by the RCMP, the Armed Forces or the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, formerly the Security Planning and Research Group, of the Department of the Solicitor-General (b) do such organizations or groups include Labour Unions (c) has the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group formerly the Security Planning and Research Group ever issued a precis, analysis or other documented report with respect to the labour situation in the Province of Quebec or with respect to individual Labour Unions (d) how and why and by whom are such organizations and/or groups selected for study, investigation, observation or inquiry?
10.	(a) What is the full name, age highest educational level achieved, salary and job analysis of each person employed by, seconded to or in any manner working for or with the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group of the Department of the Solicitor-General (b) which of such persons are or have been members of the RCMP or the Armed Forces?
11.	Does the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group of the Department of the Solicitor-General have or maintain a file
Order Paper Questions
of information, data or material of any nature whatsoever on the Auditor General of Canada or on any New Democratic Party, Social Credit Party or Progressive Conservative Party member of Parliament or on any member of their respective staffs?
12.	(a) Was the previous Deputy Solicitor-General, Mr. Ernest Cote, replaced by Mr. Roger Tasse in the fall of 1972 (b) was the reason for such replacement the refusal of Mr. Cote to subvert the RCMP, the Parole Board or the Penitentiary Service to "Security" and Liberal Party ends (c) is Mr. Cote still employed by the government and, if so, in what position and at what location?
13.	What steps have been taken to ensure that the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group cannot be penetrated by an agent of a subversive group or organization or by agencies of a foreign country such as the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States?
14.	(a) Were the drug raids of October 12, 1972 originally planned to take place in early 1973 (b) did the then Deputy Solicitor-General exert pressure on the RCMP to change the planned date for the execution of such drug raids to early October in order to gain favourable press and other media coverage for the then Solicitor-General, Mr. Goyer?
15.	What are the names of the "people from police forces; people from the armed forces; people from External Affairs; Sociologists; Lawyers; MBA's Business Administration people;" stated by the Solicitor-General on the CBC television program "Encounter" on January 18, 1973, to be members of the Security Planning and Research Group, now the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group?
16.	(a) Is Colonel Robin Bourne the Director General of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group and, if so, when was he appointed as such and at what salary (b) at the time of his appointment, did Col. Bourne have any previous experience or other qualifications in the field of security (c) upon what dates was Col. Bourne promoted from (i) Major to Lieutenant Colonel and (ii) from Lieutenant Colonel to Colonel (d) did the then Solicitor General, Mr. Goyer, make any recommendations, observations or comment of any nature with respect to the promotions of Col. Bourne and, if so, what was the nature thereof and to whom were they made (e) is Col. Bourne still a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, what are the arrangements by which he is employed full time with the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group?
17.	(a) Has Lieutenant Colonel Walter Dabros of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group undergone psycho-analysis for personality problems or for any other reason while employed with the Canadian Armed Forces and, if not, has it been recommended that he undergo such treatment (b) did the Directorate of Security of the Canadian Armed Forces ever report adversely on aggressive behavior on the part of Col. Dabros (c) upon what dates was Col. Dabros promoted from (i) Captain to Major and (ii) Major to Lieutenant Colonel (d) upon what date did Col. Dabros join the Security Planning and Research Group, now the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group and under what arrangements with the Canadian Armed Forces (e) did the then Solicitor-General, Mr. Goyer or Col. Bourne or either of them make any recommendations, observations or comment of any nature with respect to the promotions of Col. Dabros and, if so, what was the nature thereof and to whom were they made (f) is or was Col. Dabros in charge of or supervising or in any manner involved in surveillance activities on any university campus in Canada and, if so, were such surveillance activities being conducted by or with personnel normally employed by (i) the Department of National Defence (ii) the RCMP (iii) the Department of the Solicitor-General or any of them (g) what is the ethnic background of each member of the RCMP Security Service (i) by province (ii) by age (iii) by sex?
18.	(a) Who is Commander Arthur Butroid of the Department of Manpower and Immigration (b) what are the duties and/or responsibilities of Commander Butroid with respect to security matters (c) does Commander Butroid receive, directly or indirectly, any compensation or remuneration from (i) the RCMP (ii) the Canadian Armed Forces (iii) the Department of the Solicitor-Gen-
26446-57|

July 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
eral or from any other government source in return for his acting as agent for the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group with respect to LIP grants (d) does Commander Butroid or the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group or any member thereof or person employed thereby or person acting therefor perform any duty, responsibility, or work howsoever in connection with on-the-job training, unemployment insurance, manpower mobility, or any other grant available through the Department of Manpower and Immigration or through the Unemployment Insurance Commission (e) does Commander Butroid have any duties and/or responsibilities in connection with the clearance of immigrants for security reasons and, if so, what are those duties and/or responsibilities (f) is or has the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, formerly the Security Planning and Research Group involved or been involved in any manner howsoever in the screening of LIP grants for security reasons and, if so, what is the nature and extent of such involvement (g) is any communication had in any manner howsoever with unsuccessful Liberal candidates or with Liberal Members of Parliament with respect to the approval of LIP grants and, if so, what is the nature and extent of such communication and by whom is it initiated and for what purpose?
19.	(a) Who is Colonel R. Diguer of the Department of Supply and Services and does he perform any duties, responsibilities or work of any nature relating to security matters and, if so, what is the nature and extent thereof (b) is Col. Diguer a member of the Security Advisory Committee (c) does Col. Diguer perform any duties, responsibilities or work of any nature whatsoever with respect to the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, formerly the Security Planning and Research Group and, if so, what is the nature and extent thereof (d) does the Minister of Supply and Services still play any part whatsoever in determining the political loyalty or degree of security risk of individuals, groups or members of a group through Col. Diguer's security branch or through the membership of Col. Diguer on the Security Advisory Committee or in any manner howsoever?
20.	What security clearance procedures are involved in clearing Opportunities for Youth grants?
21.	How many agents or undercover operatives of the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces and/or the Department of the Solicitor-General are working in the Department of the Secretary of State?
22.	(a) Does the Interdepartmental Committee on Security and Intelligence have regular meetings and, if so, with what frequency (b) what is the name and designation of the head of the Interdepartmental Committee on Security and Intelligence (c) has the said Committee the over-all responsibility for Government Security (domestic) and intelligence (foreign) policy (d) has the said Committee any statutory authority or any authority by Order in Council defining the role, function, duties and responsibilities of the said Committee and, if so, what is that role, function and those duties and responsibilities (e) if the said Committee has no statutory authority or authority by Order in Council, where does the Committee derive authority and who or what agency is responsible for the operation, function and activities of the said Committee and to whom or what agency or body does the said Committee report (f) what government departments and agencies are represented on the Interdepartmental Committee on Security and Intelligence (g) is the CRTC represented on the Interdepartmental Committee on Security and Intelligence and, if so, was the CRTC actively involved in suppressing news of labour problems during the recent Quebec general strike?
23.	(a) What government departments and agencies are represented on the Intelligence Advisory Committee (b) is Mr. A. F. Hart, Director General, Security and Intelligence Liaison of the Department of External Affairs the secretary of the Intelligence Advisory Committee (c) is Col. Bourne of the Police and Security Planning Analysis Group a member of the Intelligence Advisory Committee?
24.	(a) What government departments and agencies are represented on the Security Advisory Committee (b) in addition to or included in those comprising the Security Advisory Committee are the following persons members thereof (i) Robin Bourne as

Chairman (ii) Lt. Gen. Dare of the RCMP as Vice-Chairman (iii) Arthur Butroid of the Department of Manpower and Immigration (iv) R. Diguer of the Department of Supply and Services (v) M. Bateman of the Department of National Defence (vi) P. Boisvert of the Post Office Department (vii) D. N. Cassidy of the Department of Transport (viii) R. G. Warren of the Department of Communications (ix) J. L. L'Heureux of the Defence Research Board (x) John Carson of the Public Service Commission (c) is the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group used as a full time secretariat for the Security Advisory Committee?
25.	Are any of the following duties and/or responsibilities performed by the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group (i) the preparation of policy papers (ii) the preparation of recommendations on security policy and security clearances of government employees (iii) the preparation and analysis of RCMP and Defence field security work?
26.	(a) Has the Security Advisory Committee developed a skyjacking policy and, if so, what is that policy (b) has the Security Advisory Committee developed contingency plans to meet an insurrection in Quebec (c) has the Security Advisory Committee developed any plans to break the Quebec Labour Unions (d) has the Security Advisory Committee considered or developed a scheme (under Defence Research Board Shirley's Bay) to utilize the central telephone system in Ottawa to keep under surveillance all telephones in Ottawa and, if so, was this done at the suggestion of Col. Dabros of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, formerly the Security Planning and Research Group?
27.	(a) Is a Mr. Don Cobb executive assistant to the Deputy Solicitor General and, if so, does he work with Col. Dabros of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group (b) was Mr. Cobb seconded from the RCMP (c) does Mr. Cobb co-ordinate security investigations of LIP, OFY and New Horizons programs (d) has Mr. Cobb the authority to initiate investigations into any LIP, OFY or New Horizons project (e) are any questions relating to LIP, OFY or New Horizons projects referred to Mr. Cobb for his decision as to whether an investigation into a particular project should be conducted (f) are any investigations into such projects brought to the attention of local Liberal candidates or Liberal Members of Parliament and, if so, are they or any of them consulted and/or their opinions sought as to whether funding for such a project should be continued, approved or stopped (g) was Mr. Cobb in charge of the Security Service investigating the FLQ in Quebec?
28.	Do both the RCMP and the penitentiary security services report to the Solicitor-General and, if so, do they each so report to the Solicitor-General through the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group?
29.	(a) Is the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group divided into sections and, if so, is one of such sections responsible for police and security information analysis and development headed by Lt. Col. Walter Dabros and is another such section responsible for physical and personnel security headed by RCMP Sub-Inspector Patrick Banning (b) does the section headed by Lt. Col. Dabros, if any, include four "regional analysts", by that or any other name, including Paul Wallace (west), Roch Gaudet (Quebec) and/or Capt. Leo Cloutier (Quebec) and, if not, what are the names of the regional analysts and the job analysis of each (c) has any attempt been made to recruit experts in the key sectors of labour, the mass media and educational system and, if so, what are the results of such attempts (d) what part, if any, does (i) John Roberts of the Prime Minister's Office (ii) Pierre Gravelle of the Prime Minister's Office (iii) the Liberal Federation play in approving LIP grants and what part, if any, does Arthur Butroid of the Department of Manpower and Immigration play in this process?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Preamble
In replying to this question, the Government has tried to provide as much information as possible. However, in doing so, it has had to take into account that disclosure of information requested in some parts of the question could have an adverse effect on the efforts being made by the
July 11, 1973

Government to ensure the security of Canada and our system of Parliamentary democracy.
To disclose certain details of the ongoing work and structure of Government security authorities and the cooperative interdepartmental security mechanism which has been in existence in various forms for many years and throughout the tenure of office of numerous governments would serve to give valuable information to those who seek to undermine our national security and our political system.
The government deeply regrets that the question raises doubts about the competence and integrity of certain officials and reaffirms its confidence in their competence and loyalty.
1.	(i) Financial Administration Act, Section, sub-sections 7 and 8; (ii) The Regulations of the Public Service Employment Act, Section 26; (iii) The Public Service Staff Relations Act, Section 112, sub-sections 1 and 2; (iv) Some collective agreements, Article 4; (v) Cabinet Directive No. 35.
2.	(a) With respect to prospective or current employees of the public service security screening procedures are based on the principle laid down in October 1963 by the then Prime Minister, the Right Honourable L. B. Pearson, when he tabled a statement on security policy in the House that "the government also has an obligation to provide itself with every reasonable assurance that those of its employees who require access to the government's, the nation's secrets are loyal and trustworthy and not vulnerable to persuasion, coercion or blackmail". With respect to other individuals, groups or members of groups the following criteria are applied: Those engaged in or planning to engage in espionage; sabotage; foreign intelligence activities directed towards gathering intelligence information about Canada; activities directed towards creating civil disorder or accomplishing governmental change within Canada or elsewhere by force or violence or any criminal actions; or activities directed towards actual or potential attack or other hostile acts against Canada; (b) Such decisions with respect to prospective or current employees are normally made by deputy heads. They may delegate authority to senior officers but remain responsible for decisions taken. With respect to other individuals, groups or members of groups, such decisions are made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) There is no "appeal" procedure as such but rather a review procedure which applies only to employees and which was described in Mr. Pearson's statement to the House on October 25, 1963. The procedure is unchanged. V/hen an employee's loyalty or reliability is in doubt and dismissal may be involved, the employee must be informed. He is told everything that is possible of the reasons for the doubt and he is given an opportunity to resolve the doubt. The department may accept the employee's case and resolve the doubt and accept the employee as reliable. On the other hand, the doubt may be confirmed and a decision may be made to deny the employee access to classified information or to transfer him to less sensitive employment where access to classified information would not be required. If, however, disorder Paper Questions
missal is recommended, he is given a second hearing, this time by the deputy head. If that interview does not resolve the doubt, and the deputy head agrees that dismissal is necessary, the whole case and relevant information including anything that the employee may have submitted is considered by a panel of three members of the Interdepartmental Committee on Security and Intelligence, who are not in any way related to the case. The panel then provides its views with respect to the case following which, and using all relevant information, the responsible Minister decides whether or not to recommend dismissal to the Governor in Council; (d) There are no variations in standsrds and procedures as between departments and/or agencies of the government.
4.	(a) Suspected or alleged homosexuality, sexual abnormality, and (b) emotional instability and financial difficulties are all factors which are taken into account in determining whether employees requiring access to classified information are vulnerable to persuasion, coercion or blackmail, (c) (See answer to 2(b)); (d) (See answer to 2(b)); (e) Such decisions are made as a result of information provided by the employee and the results of RCMP records and/or field inquiries; (f) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, except that the designation of a government employee as a security risk is made by the employing department or agency; (g) No; (h) No.
5.	(a) Cabinet Directive No. 35 was the instrument which gave effect to the Cabinet decision on security policy announced in the House by the then Prime Minister on October 25, 1963; (b) Yes.
6.	(a), (b) and (c) The information requested is not returnable by the government. The membership of interdepartmental committees is normally not made public. In the instances referred to there could also be questions of security; (d) Yes; (e) No, except as described in 3(a) as part of the review procedure; (f) The information requested is not returnable by the government for reasons of national security.
7.	(a) There was no "Groupe Vidal" as such, but there was a working group on federalism attached to the Federal-Provincial Relations Secretariat of the Privy Council Office of which Claude Vidal was a member. The group existed to consider problems relating to federalism some of which related to Quebec as others did to other parts of Canada. The group did not have a role "in informing the government of the Province of Quebec with respect to federal matters"; (b) No. In the case of the RCMP, however, as with all provinces, there are normally direct communications between police forces. Whether information so exchanged is given any further circulation would be a matter within the competence of the provincial authorities concerned; (c) None.
8.	(a) He is Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet for Security and Intelligence; (b) The Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet for Security and Intelligence heads a committee secretariat in the Privy Council Office and the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group provides a security advisory staff to the Solicitor General as Minister responsible for internal security; (c) No.
9.	(a), (b), (c) and (d) It is not considered in the public interest for reasons of national security to disclose the details of security and intelligence activities.

July 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
10.	(a) Information concerning age, and highest educational level achieved is considered private and the remaining information requested is returnable as follows: Robert Porter Bourne, Head-Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group-Salary Range $22,000-$28,000-advises the Minister and the Deputy Minister on internal security and police policy and planning, provides general direction to the branch and contributes as chairman or member on a number of interdepartmental committees; Walter Joseph Dabros, Chief, Analysis and Information Development Section-Salary Range $18,960-$21,840-under the direction of the Head, Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, the Chief, Analysis and Information Development Section is responsible for the analysis of basic security problems caused by social unrest and subversion; Patrick Edward Joseph Banning, Chief-Security Policy Section-Salary Range $15,900-$18,400-under the direction of the Head, Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, the Chief, Security Policy Section is responsible for the review and development of policy proposals concerning personnel and physical security; James Roger Armit, Security Officer-Physical Security Policy Section-Salary Range $15,737-$17,883-under the direction of the Chief, Security Policy Section, the Security Officer, Physical Security Policy, is responsible for the review and development of policy proposals concerning physical security of federal and other specially designated property; George Wilkinson, Security Officer Personnel Policy- Salary Range $15,737-$17,883-under the direction of the Chief, Security Policy Section, the Security Officer, Personnel Policy, is responsible for the review and development of policy proposals concerning personnel security; Joseph Albert Lionel Cloutier-Salary Range $15,737-$17,-883; Roch Gaudet-Salary Range $15,236-$20,557; Ronald Watson Harris-Salary Range $15,737-$17,883; Paul Wallace-Salary Range $15,737-$17,883. The above four persons are Regional Analysts-under the direction of the Chief Analysis and Information Development, the Regional Analyst is responsible for the analysis of basic security problems caused by social unrest and subversion; George Lawrence McCully, Criminal/Law Enforcement Analyst- Salary Range $15,990-$18,400-under the direction of the Chief, Security Policy Section, the Criminal/Law Enforcement Analyst is responsible for the analysis of criminal and law enforcement trends, as well as societal trends in relation to police; Marie Emma Laurette Howard-Salary Range $8,569-$9,415; Lysette Marie Diane Lagace-Salary Range $6,676-$7,338; Maria Concetta Valenti-Salary Range $6,676-$7,338. Secretaries who provide the full range of secretarial support to the immediate superior and to section personnel as required, including taking and transcribing dictation, typing, reception of visitors, scheduling appointments, relaying messages and, in general, performing the sundry duties normally associated with this type of secretarial position; Ernest William Tack-Administrative Officer-Salary Range $9,348-$ll,133-under the direction of the Head, Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, administers the support services of the Group which is a self-contained component within the Secretariat of the Ministry of the Solicitor General; Nor-bert Villeneuve, Security Records Clerk-Salary Range $6,707-$7,372-operates the Group's filing system; (b) R.C.M.P.: Banning, Patrick Edward Joseph; McCully,

George Lawrence. Canadian Armed Forces:	Dabros,
Walter Joseph; Bourne, Robert Porter (Retired 1972); Cloutier, Joseph Albert Lionel (Retired 1971); Tack, Ernest William (Retired 1972); Wilkinson, George (Retired 1967).
11.	No.
12.	(a) Mr. Roger Tasse was appointed Deputy Solicitor General effective August 1, 1972; (b) No; (c) Mr. Ernest Cote is the Canadian Ambassador to Finland.
13.	Prior to joining the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group prospective candidates are screened by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in accordance with normal practice for security clearance.
14.	(a) No. The drug raids which took place on October 12, 1972, were originally planned to be executed over a period of three or four weeks immediately before and after October 12, 1972; (b) No. The coordination of all raids on October 12 was instituted and carried out completely by members of the RCMP. The then Solicitor General was advised of the program a few hours before the raids were conducted.
15.	(i) P. Banning, RCMP; (ii) G. McCully, RCMP; (iii) W. Dabros, Canadian Armed Forces; (iv) R. Gaudet, Sociologist; (v) R. Harris, Business and Economics; (vi) G. Wilkinson, External Affairs; (vii) By public service competition an officer with legal qualifications is being sought.
16.	(a) Mr. Robin Bourne is Head of the Group. He was appointed on June 1, 1971 in salary range of $21,000-$26,-500; (b) Yes; (c) (i) May 27, 1968; (ii) June 1, 1971; (d) No; (e) No.
17.	(a) No to both questions; (b) No; (c) (i) May 1, 1966; (ii) July 7, 1969; (d) He was seconded to the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group on August 3, 1971, from the Canadian Armed Forces; (e) No; (f) Since 1963 it has been government policy that there be "no general surveillance of university campuses". In 1969 and 70 the Department of National Defence on its own initiative arranged to receive reports on student unrest and one such report was received in November 1970. Otherwise the policy has been followed since 1963 and is adhered to today. Before his secondment to the Department of the Solicitor General, Col. Dabros had responsibilities in relation to the temporary National Defence activity for a short period; (g) Information as to the ethnic background of government employees is not asked of them and such information is not available.
18.	(a) Mr. Arthur Butroid is the Special Assistant to the Assistant Deputy Minister (Immigration); (b) He is responsible to the Deputy Minister and other senior officers in the department as Technical Adviser on security and intelligence matters. Mr. Butroid is also designated as Departmental Security Officer; (c) No, not directly or indirectly and he is not an agent for the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group or for any other group or agency; (d) (i) Mr. Butroid does not perform any duty, responsibility or work in connection with on-the-job training, unemployment insurance, manpower mobility or other grant available through the Department of Manpow-

er and Immigration or through the Unemployment Insurance Commission except for the Local Initiative Program. Mr. Butroid's duties in connection with the Local Initiative Program are confined to monitoring of those applications for grants under the Local Initiative Program which are brought to his attention by the department, or police authorities, in order to ensure that subversive or criminal organization groups, a member of a group or an individual does not receive government funds to further the objectives or aims of such organizations or groups; (ii) On the advice of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, the Solicitor General makes available to the Department of Manpower and Immigration information reported to him about abuse or potential abuse of government grants in the Local Initiative Program which would constitute a threat to national security. The group has no executive responsibility with regard to the approval of applications for grants under the Local Initiative Program; (e) Mr. Butroid acts as Technical Adviser to the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Immigration Division and other officials of the department on security matters involving the screening of immigrants, the immigration offices in Canada and abroad, the immigration personnel in Canada and abroad or any other aspect of security in which the Immigration Division may be involved; (f) (See answer to 18(d)); (g) The Minister's Office exchanged a number of oral and written communications with Liberal Members of Parliament and also with Members of other political parties with respect to LIP applications. Some of these communications were initiated by Members of Parliament to make representation on behalf of certain applicants for grants, or for the purpose of inquiring on the status of applications; others were initiated by the Minister's office to advise Members of Parliament of projects approved for their constituencies.
19.	(a) Mr. R. Diguer is the Director, Security Services Branch, Department of Supply and Services (formerly Industrial Security Branch). The Security Services Branch is the instrument of government in the Industrial Security field ensuring that Canadian Defence Industry is competitive by observing internationally agreed security rules and procedures and provides protection for government sensitive information contracted to industry. Within the Department of Supply and Services, the Branch is responsible for the security of classified documents, restricted areas and blank cheques; ensuring that departmental employees are security cleared in accordance with established practice and procedures and that industrial contract provisions concerning security are followed. The Branch has no investigative role; (b) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the membership of the interdepartmental structure for the co-ordination of security and intelligence activities; (c) No.
19. (d) No. The minister carries out those security responsibilities appropriate to his present portfolio.
20.	Applicants for Opportunities for Youth grants are not subject to security clearance procedures.
21.	None.
22.	(a) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the working procedures of the interdepartmental
Order Paper Questions
structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities; (b) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the membership of the interdepartmental structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities; (c) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the details concerning the interdepartmental structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities; (d) and (e) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the working procedures of the interdepartmental structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities; (f) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the details of the interdepartmental structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities; (g) No.
23.	(a) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose which departments and agencies are represented; (b) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the membership of the interdepartmental structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities; (c) it is not considered in the public interest to disclose the membership of the interdepartmental structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities.
24.	(a) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose which departments and agencies are represented; (b) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the membership of the interdepartmental structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities; (c) It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the working procedures of the interdepartmental structure for the coordination of security and intelligence activities.
25.	(i) Yes; (ii) Yes. Policy recommendations only with respect to procedures concerning security clearance of government employees. Individual cases are not dealt with by the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group; (iii) No.
26.	(a), (b), (c) and (d) It is not considered in the public interest for reasons of national security to disclose the details of security and intelligence activities.
27.	(a) Superintendent D. G. Cobb, RCMP, was appointed Executive Assistant to the Deputy Solicitor General in December 1972. He does not work with Col. Dabros of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group; (b) Yes; (c) No; (d) No; (e) No; (f) The Minister's Office exchanged a number of oral and written communications with Liberal Members of Parliament and also with Members of other political parties with respect to LIP applications. Some of these communications were initiated by Members of Parliament to make representation on behalf of certain applicants for grants, or for the purpose of inquiring on the status of applications; others were initiated by the Minister's office to advise Members of Parliament of projects approved for their constituencies; (g) No. Supt. D. G. Cobb was assistant to the Officer-incharge RCMP Security Service in Quebec from August 1966 to June 1970 and from June 1971 to December 1972. His responsibilities included the investigation of FLQ activities from August 1966 to June 1970 and from June 1971 to August 1972.
28.	The Commissioners of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Penitentiary Service report directly to the Solicitor General for all components of their agencies.

July 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
29.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Public service competitions have been held to obtain candidates for the Group. No specific recruiting attempts have been made in the sectors of labour, the mass media and the educational system; (d) (i) none; (ii) none; (iii) none, nor has Mr. Arthur Butroid any responsibility for approving LIP grants.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was an application for an Opportunities for Youth grant received bearing file number 3108 1834 and in the name of Thousand Island Pollution Control?
2.	Was this application rejected and, if so, for what reason was rejection made?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. Opportunities for Youth application, "Thousand Island Pollution Control", No. 3108 1834, was received March 3, 1973.
2. The project was rejected because of duplication of services. Federal and provincial park and water clean-up crews already service this area. In addition, much of the land and beach area proposed for the clean-up is privately owned and is the responsibility of these property owners.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was an application for an Opportunities for Youth grant received bearing file number 3108 0189 and in the name of Community New Life?
2.	Was this application rejected and, if so, for what reason was rejection made?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. Opportunities for Youth application, "Community New Life", No. 3108 0189, was received February 28, 1973.
2. The application was rejected for the following reasons: The number of participants, fifteen, did not seem justified for the project's proposed activities (a recreation program in a small community). In 1972, the average number of paid participants per project was 8.3. In addition, the project's proposed administrative expenses were well over the 10 per cent of the total salaries budget normally allowed.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the Department of Manpower and Immigration make a LIP grant to a Montreal project "Invention Quebec" and, if so (a) what was the amount of the grant (b) what was the name of the person responsible for the project (c) what were the amounts and dates of the cheques issued (d) how many jobs were created (e) was this project extended or will it be (f) what was or will be the amount allocated for such extension (g) what is the type of product or service covered by this project?


Mr. Mark McGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes. (a)

$149,058. (b) Originally it was Mr. J. J. Lupien, the President, who later on was replaced in that post by Mr. M. Bourret. (c) $51,444 on January 21, 1973; $20,148 on January 25, 1973; $18,720 on February 28, 1973; $13,994 on April 3, 1973; $44,044 on April 26,1973; (d) 294 man-months; (e) Yes, from May 31, 1973 to June 15, 1973; (f) $11,466; (g) To give assistance to Quebec's small inventors by supplying them with free professional plans and prototypes of their ideas, to liaise between the inventors and existing enterprises and to present new products to manufacturers.


Mr. Stevens;: What company supplied the automobile bearing licence number CAN-001, now used by the Prime Minister (a) what was the cost (b) were public tenders requested and, if so, who tendered (c) were tenders opened in public?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The automobile to be used by the Prime Minister, by the Queen and by visiting Heads of State and Heads of Government, was purchased from General Motors of Canada Limited and modifications were made to it by The Hess & Eisenhardt Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, (a) The cost of the vehicle including the supply of the security and technical equipment was $76,408; (b) Public tenders were not invited for the supply of this automobile; (c) See (b) above.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	On (a) July 2, 1973 (b) July 2, 1978 (c) July 2, 1983, how many places will be available for campers in (i) Banff National Park (ii) Jasper National Park (iii) Waterton Lakes National Park?
2.	On (a) July 2, 1968 (b) July 2, 1963 (c) July 2, 1953, how many places were available for compers in (i) Banff National Park (ii) Jasper National Park (iii) Waterton Lakes National Park?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	(a) July 2, 1973	(b) July 2, 1978	(c) July 2, 1983Banff	2741	2891	Our planning is basedJasper	1600	1785	on 5 year program.Waterton	389	389	Projections to 1983 are unavailable.(a)	(b)	(c)July 2,	July 2,	July 2,2.	1968	1963	1953Banff	2354	Records not available	Jasper	1323	730	370Waterton Lakes	476	674	450
**In the late 1960's a large part of the Waterton Townsite campground was, after years of use as an area of undesig-
July 11, 1973

nated campsites, finally divided into individual sites by using bumper or divider logs. This was to provide for better control of campers, to reduce congestion and give campers and opportunity for a better camping experience. However, this resulted in an over-all reduction of 87 sites from the previously estimated total.
'While we have no record of the number of sites in 1963 and 1953, in each year there were 10 campgrounds.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of March 31, 1973, how many persons eligible for the Old Age Pension in Canada were receiving a reduced pension because they were married and living with their spouse?
2.	In the year ending march 31, 1973, what would the total cost have been of paying the number of persons specified in answer to Part 1 the amount each would have received as a single pensioner living alone?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The amount of the basic Old Age Security pension is the same for all pensioners regardless of marital status. There is, however, a different rate of Guaranteed Income Supplement payable to married pensioners where both husband and wife are pensioners from that payable to other pensioners. As of march 31, 1973, there were 354,634 pensioners receiving a Guaranteed Income Supplement at the married rate.
2. In the case of married couples their combined income determines the amount of the Guaranteed Income Supplement that is paid separately to each such pensioner. The amount of the Guaranteed Income Supplement paid to each pensioner does not therefore reflect the individual income of each spouse on which his or her entitlement would be based if he or she were not married. It would be possible to answer this question only by a manual examination of 354,634 records.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Of the 1,000 highest-paid members of the Public Service of Canada, as of May 31, 1973 (a) how many were born in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland (xi) Great Britain (xii) France (xiii) the United States (xiv) elsewhere (b) how many received their post-secondary education in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland (xi) Great Britain (xii) France (xiii) the United States (xiv) elsewhere (c) how many worked for longer than three consecutive years (i) in the private sector (ii) in a university or universities (iii) in the Public Service of any province (iv) in the Public Service of any other country (v) elsewhere outside the Public Service of Canada?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: Records in the Public Service Commission are not kept in such a way as to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gatheP the necessary information.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Rowland: 1.	What action, if any, has the government taken to ensure that the wages paid African employees of Canadian companies in South Africa are not below officially recognized subsistence levels?
2.	Is the government satisfied that the wages currently paid African employees of Canadian companies in South Africa are not below the officially recognized subsistence levels?
3.	If the government is not so satisfied, what further action is the government prepared to take in order to ensure that the wages paid such African employees are not below the minimum subsistence standard?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The government neither encourages nor discourages investment in South Africa. The government has informally contacted those Canadian companies with holdings in South Africa and encouraged them to act, within the bounds of South African laws, as good corporate citizens in the Canadian sense in regard to payment of salaries to their Black workers.
2.	The government has no very specific information on this matter. Specific questions regarding wages should be more appropriately addressed to the companies themselves.
3.	See answer to number 2.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, what is the recognized subsistence wage level in South Africa?
2.	What Canadian companies operate in South Africa?
3.	For each such company what is (a) the minimum wage paid its African employees (b) the maximum paid its African employees (c) the mean wage its African employees are paid?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Various bodies, including the South African Institute of Race Relations and the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, have done studies on this matter, but there is no definite agreement on an officially-recognized subsistence wage level for South Africa.
2.	The government does not have a complete list of companies with investments in South Africa. Individual firms are not obligated to reveal the location of such holdings. However it is public knowledge that such companies as Alcan Aluminum Limited, Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited, Massey-Ferguson Limited, Consolidated Bathurst Limited, International Nickel Mines Limited, De Leuw Cather and Associates and the Sun Life Insurance Company among others have investments in South Africa.
3.	The government has no specific information on this matter. Specific questions regarding wages should more appropriately be directed to the companies themselves.
2644S-58

July 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions AUTO CONSUMER PROTECTION


Mr. MacKay: What monitoring does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs do in the following areas of auto consumer protection (a) auto prices (b) auto pact (c) auto combines?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: (a) and (b) The monitoring of auto prices and the auto pact do not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. However, these are under continuous review by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, (c) Monitoring of actual or potential violations of the Combines Investigation Act is carried out as required by this Act, by the staff of the Director of Investigation and Research.


Mr. Marshall: With regard to claims under the jurisdiction of the Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Unemployment Insurance Office, how many fishermen had their seasonal benefit claims terminated as of May 15, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: As of May 15, 1973, there were 329 active fishing seasonal benefit claims in the Corner Brook office and all of those terminated on May 19, 1973.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many claims for benefit were received by the Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Unemployment Insurance Office between January 1 and May 15, 1973 inclusive?
2.	How many of the above claims were rejected after (a) initial decision (b) appeal?
3.	(a) How many of those cases rejected after the initial decisions were appealed in the above period (b) how many of those had their appeals upheld (i) as an absolute number (ii) as a percentage of the number of appeals (c) how many of those had their appeals rejected (i) as an absolute number (ii) as a percentage of those appealed?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Five thousand seven hundred twenty-eight (Initial and Renewal Claims).
2. (a) 992; (b) 27.
*3. (a) 33; (b)(i), 6; (ii), 18.1 per cent; (c)(i), 27; (ii), 81.8 per cent.
*Note: The number of appeals in the period does not relate exactly to the number of claims in the same period as appeals early in the period may relate to claims filed late in the previous period.


Mr. Jelinek: 1. To the knowledge of the government, did Thompson-Lund-mark Gold Mines Limited, a Canadian company owned by Americans, have a proxy solicited by management of the said Company, which does not comply with Section 108.6(l)(e) of the Corporations Act?
2. Will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs apply, pursuant to Section 108.9(1) of the Act, for an order declaring the 1972 annual meeting of the said Company void and require management to call another shareholders meeting and compelling them, with respect to any proxy solicited by them, to comply with the Act and that the information circular also comply with the Act?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. In anticipation of the annual meeting of its shareholders held on October 30, 1972, Thompson-Lund-mark Gold Mines Limited sent its shareholders a proxy form and an information circular. These documents were not entirely in conformity with the requirements of the Canada Corporations Act. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has since pointed out the inadequacies in the document to the company and asked that these not be repeated in the future.
2. No. The Minister does not intend to apply for an order that the annual meeting of 1972 be declared void under section 108.9(1) of the Canada Corporations Act because the inadequacies found in the circular were of a minor nature and because at the annual meeting the vote was 90.2 per cent in favour of the management of the company in spite of the efforts of a shareholder to get a new board of directors elected.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much money for capital projects has been made available to each province and territory under the Canada Pension Plan for each year since the plan began?
2.	What are the terms for repayment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1. Collection of contributions to the Canada Pension Plan commenced in January, 1966. Funds collected from contributions less the estimated amount required to pay benefits and administrative costs over a three-month period are made available to the provinces. These funds are offered to each province on the basis of the relationship between the contributions made to the plan by and on behalf of residents of that province and the total contributions made to the plan. Funds not borrowed by the provinces are invested in securities of the federal government. The following table sets out the fund's investments by province.
July 11, 1973

Order Paper Questions
CPP Investment Fund ($ millions) Fiscal Year
Securities of or Guaranted by	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73p
			Investments Made in Period					
Newfoundland	0.7	11.0	12.0	14. z	15.6	16.8	17.6	19.3Prince Edward Island	0.1	1.9	2.3	2.9	3.2	3.5	3.6	3.8Nova Scotia	1.2	21.4	25.2	29.2	31.6	34.0	35.7	39.2New Brunswick	1.0	16.7	19.3	21.8	24.2	25.8	26.8	29.3Quebec	-	0.4	1.9	2.4	3.1	5.1	6.6	8.1Ontario	20.1	332.6	375.9	412.0	445.8	476.0	498.3	544.6Manitoba	2.1	34.9	39.4	42.3	47.7	51.5	53.7	58.2Saskatchewan	1.4	24.5	29.7	35.9	40.4	42.9	42.7	43.7Alberta	3.1	51.1	59.2	68.4	77.1	82.3	87.1	96.1British Columbia	5.0	84.4	96.6	107.5	117.2	125.1	131.2	143.8Canada	0.1	1.8	3.8	5.6	4.1	5.4	6.5	7.2All Jurisdictions	34.9	580.7	665.3	742.2	809.8	868.5	910.0	993.4Balance in Fund at End of Period	All Jurisdictions	34.9	615.5	1280.8	2022.9	2832.7	3701.3	4611.3	5604.7
p=preliminary
2. Funds are advanced to the provinces each month in exchange for securities having a term to maturity of 20 years. The applicable interest rate is the weighted average of market yields of government of Canada bonds having terms to maturity of 20 years or more.
AVAILABILITY OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE FORM No. Y38 at JOHNSTOWN, ONTARIO


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	For what reason was Customs and Excise form No. Y38 not available to the travelling public in the English language at the Port of Johnstown, Ontario on or about June 8, 1973?
2.	Since what date has this form not been available in the English language at the Port of Johnstown, Ontario and for what reason?
3.	On what date will the form be available to the travelling public at this Port in the English language?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. A supply of Forms Y38 (both English and French) was requisitioned by staff at the port of Prescott, Ontario (which has responsibility for the Customs facilities at the Prescott bridge, Johnstown, Ontario) on May 25, 1973, at which time it was estimated a month's supply was on hand. Unfortunately, their reserve of the English language forms was exhausted sooner than expected. The relevant requisition was filled and the forms shipped from Ottawa on June 11, and received in Prescott on June 15, 1973.
2.	Forms Y38 (English) were not available at Johnstown for a one week period, June 8 to June 15, 1973, for the reason stated in (1) above.
3.	Forms Y38 (English) were available prior to June 8, 1973, and have been available since June 15, 1973.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1. Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received a petition from Indians of Red Pheasant Reserve in Saskatchewan requesting that the administration now carried on
by the Band Administration and the Band Council be restored to the District Office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in North Battleford and, if so, do the large number of signatories contend that there has been gross injustice done to many of the Indians on the Reserve?
2.	For what reason do the officials in the said Office of North Battleford refuse to provide Band Members on request Minutes and Resolutions passed at Council Meetings?
3.	What is the reaction of the Department to the petition?
4.	Will the government appoint a Commissioner to examine and look into affairs of the Band Administrator and Band Council to the end that, on the basis of his findings, justice will be done?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of the question is yes. In answer to part 2, minutes of Band Council meetings are the property of the Band. The answer to part 3 is, departmental officials discussed the matter with Band Council and investigation of the administration on the reserve is being carried out. In answer to part 4, a decision will be made following the investigation.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What funds have been allocated for the Western Canada Conference to be held in July, 1973?
2.	How many federal Ministers will be attending and what are their names?
3.	How many federal officials will be attending, from what departments and what are their names?
4.	How many supporting staff, ministerial and others, will be attending and what are their names?
5.	What accommodation will be provided and at what cost?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. A specific allotment of funds was not made for the Western Economic Opportunities Conference; the major costs involved will be for travel and conference expenses. Travel expenses will be paid from funds available in departmental budgets on behalf of Ministers, officials and
5506

July 11, 1973
Orders for Returns
support staff representing particular departments. General conference expenses will be paid by the Privy Council office.
2, 3 and 4. Approximately 10 to 12 ministers will attend plus six to eight officials and/or support staff from each of the departments involved. Definite numbers and names have not yet been decided upon.
5. The government is grateful to Mount Royal College Calgary for making the college available as the conference site without charge. Hotel accommodation will be booked in Calgary for federal participants in the conference.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What public relations firms or economic or social research organizations commissioned by government departments, agencies, or Crown corporations, have been hired or given contracts to produce pamphlets, brochures, economic surveys, etc., for educating or explaining government policies to the public?
2.	(a) By what department or agency were they hired (b) what specific task were they assigned (c) how much money were they paid (d) was the choice of the firm co'hcerned arrived at by asking for tenders and, if not, how was the choice made?
Return tabled.



CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE

Mr. Howard: What is (a) the name (b) the country of registry (c) the country of ownership of each of the ships of the Canadian Merchant Marine as mentioned in the answer to Question No. 688 of the current Session as given at page 1501 of Hansard?
Return tabled.



GRANTS FOR SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION SERVICES, 1972

Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain): 1.	How many grants were awarded for simultaneous interpretation services in 1972?
2.	What was the total cost of these grants?
3.	How many grants were awarded for such services from January 1, 1973 to May 31, 1973?
4.	What groups were awarded grants for such services in 1972?
5.	In what cities were these groups based?
Return tabled.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On February 13, I put five questions on the order paper concerning the overtime pay and travel expenses of public servants in the upper echelons. These questions on the order paper concern various departments including the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of External Affairs, and it has been said that research is necessary in order to provide answers. I do not want research, I wish the facts relating to these matters. My point of order is that these questions have been on the order paper since February 13, and the four remaining

questions are related to overtime in respect of federal departments. I suggest the facts and figures relating to the overtime of senior civil servants are normally provided for the public accounts, and I suggest they were provided in that form a decade ago. These expenses have been extremely high in the last few years and the public has the right to know about them.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   HOUSING STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-ADMINISTRATION OF LOAN POLICY BY CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move, under Standing Order 26, that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent attention. I refer to the matter of the controversy ranging inside and outside the House over the administration of the student co-operative housing loan policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) has forwarded the notice required under Standing Order 26. This has provided me with an opportunity to consider the hon. member's proposal that a motion to discuss the matter to which he has just alluded be considered at this time.
As I interpret the hon. member's proposed motion under Standing Order 26 he suggests, to use his words "the controversy ranging inside and outside the House over the administration of the student co-operative housing loan policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation" be discussed now. My interpretation of those words is that he would like to discuss government policy or CMHC policy relating to certain colleges.
Obviously this is not a new question. Indeed, inquiries on the subject have been made of the minister over an extended period of time. In these circumstances it would be difficult for the Chair to rule that the requirement set out in Section 16(A) of Standing Order 26 has been met, to the effect that the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency. Some hon. members may suggest that the acceptance by the Chair of the hon. member's motion would not affect the question of government business for consideration today, since the matter would presumably be put down for debate this evening. Even with this in mind, I cannot find that the hon. member's proposal meets the strict conditions set out in Section 16 of Standing Order 26.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 77, 206, 208 and 211?
July 11, 1973



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO AUDITING SERVICES FOR AIR CANADA AND CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 77-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the Minister of Finance and/or other responsible Ministers, and the auditing firms of Touche, Ross and Co., Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, in connection with auditing services for Air Canada and Canadian National Railways.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), is concerned, the material requested is confidential and we would therefore ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, this is totally unacceptable. I think parliament and the people of Canada have the right to know what kind of political manoeuvering has been going on with two of Canada's major Crown corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BY CMHC RELATING TO CERTAIN HOUSES AT PLACE DE LA PROMENADE, NEUFCHATEL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 206-Mr. Godin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents or reports prepared by representatives of CMHC following an enquiry made January 22, in relation to certain houses located at Place de la Promenade at Neufchatel.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the documents and reports referred to arise from mortgage transactions between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as lender, and a number of borrowers. As such, they are considered to be internal working papers of a confidential nature and it is not considered appropriate to table them. In these circumstances I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CRTC-CITIZENSHIP BRANCH MONTREAL-PILOT STUDY ON BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 208-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the joint CRTC-Citizenship Branch Montreal pilot study of broadcasting with reference to non-official language groups.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested are of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Oral Questions



NATIONAL FILM BOARD THIRD LANGUAGE FILM PRODUCTION RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 211-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the research project evaluating the need for third language and ethnically-oriented film production by the National Film Board.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, since the research report requested by the hon. member does not, in fact, exist, he may wish to withdraw his motion.


Paul Yewchuk: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister relating to the accelerating inflation of prices of virtually all essential items ranging from energy to shelter and nutritious foods, as indicated by the cost of living figures announced yesterday. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, who yesterday indicated he could not say whether he would be making a statement in the near future with regard to any changes in the government's "wait and see policy", now that he has had a chance to reflect for some 24 hours upon these very alarming figures and the effect of them upon ordinary Canadians has he reached any decision now to adopt any new policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not correct in assuming that we have been looking at this for 24 hours. I think it perhaps is the fact that once a month when the figures are released the opposition becomes aware of them, but I would want to assure him that the government is in a constant state of concern about inflation, and that is why through budgetary measures and many others we have taken a position to alleviate it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, touched by the Prime Minister's state of continuing concern, but we would be more impressed by some action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to recognize now the failure of the budgetary measures and other measures adopted so far to provide any relief for those on fixed incomes by restraining increases in prices, and I would ask him whether he will be making any statement or announcement of any new measures in this House either this week or next?

July 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot at this time say whether or not I will be making a statement this week or next week on that subject.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the great concern he expressed here today, whether he is not prepared to take some emergency action to help at least those on fixed incomes, bearing in mind that old age pensioners have to wait about a year for any adjustment in their pensions now and that the rate of escalation in the Canada Pension Plan is still limited to 2 per cent, despite the fact that the rate of inflation during the past 12 months has been some 8 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that a very few months ago there was an increase of 17 per cent in the old age pension. The Leader of the Opposition seems to indicate that this is not much, but I assure him that many old age pensioners are very grateful that the Liberal government introduced this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert on a supplementary question.


SUGGESTED IMPOSITION OF PRICE AND WAGE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Prime Minister was asked questions with regard to bringing in some form of price and wage controls he said that certain legislatures or certain governments in the provinces had expressed their opposition. Could he say, now that he has designated these governments, what the attitude was of the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia when they were asked about the imposition of controls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the governments to which I alluded yesterday are governments which are all on public record in this regard. I was not divulging anything that had been said at the federal-provincial conference which had not been said publicly on the outside. So far as the position of the other governments the right hon. gentleman mentioned is concerned, I must confess no memory of what they might have said outside but obviously the members of the opposition do and I would be very happy to quote any statement that had been made publicly on this subject.


SUGGESTED IMPOSITION OF PRICE AND WAGE CONTROLS-NEED FOR DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY BY PARLIAMENT-REASON FOR LACK OF ACTION
John George Diefenbaker: The
Prime Minister apparently suffers from selective amnesia. Is it not a fact that under the law and under the cases decided in the Supreme Court of Canada the responsibility in this connection, while shared by the provinces, can be taken by the Dominion Government exclusively provided there is a declaration by parliament that there is an

emergency. Does he not feel, under the circumstances, having regard to the tremendous increase in costs, that we are now today in a position of emergency and does he not feel that this House would be prepared to so declare if the government would give it an opportunity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot speak on behalf of other parties in this House. So far as our own party is concerned, we have stated what our policy is. The opposition may not be happy with it, but it is not a position of making our views unknown on that particular subject. I must confess that the views of the other parties will have to be expressed on behalf of those parties by their leaders or ex-leaders, as the case may be. So far as the other part of the question is concerned, it would really depend on what particular type of measure the government were to introduce. The question of constitutionality, of course, would have to be examined, but it could be examined only if the right hon. gentleman asked a complete question about a particular type of measure, and then I would try to get a legal opinion for him on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister does not have a legal opinion on that now he has not read any of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. I am amazed that a constitutional authority, as he himself has confessed he is, has not read those judgments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognized the right hon. gentleman for the purpose of asking a supplementary question and perhaps it might be asked now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was forced to mention that because of the extraneous alibi produced by the Prime Minister. According to press reports, the NDP governments are in favour of action along this line. Is the reason there is no action that the NDP opposition in this House upon whom he depends is against it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, at some other time I may be tempted to answer the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Be brave.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister the following question along the lines of some questions I asked him yesterday. In view of the unsatisfactory replies given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with regard to the work that is done or is not being done by the Food Prices Review Board, has the Prime Minister discussed the work of this board with the chairman or other

members of the board or with the minister and is he prepared to request that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs come in this House in a day or two with a report as to precisely what the board is doing and how it is organizing its work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question the answer is no. I have not discussed this matter with the chairman or any members of the board. As to the other part of the question, I have not, following yesterday's question period, had any discussion on this matter with the minister. He indeed had to leave for the west where he is speaking to the Canadian Automobile Association's annual meeting. I certainly will, on his return, convey the suggestion of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and see what the minister plans to do.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister another question in relation to the board. In view of the government's emasculation of the idea of a food prices review board that would have some power to do something about the increase in prices and in view of the fact that the board does not now have the power to do anything effective in this area, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is now considering ways in which the powers of the board might be strengthened so that it can really serve the interests of the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is the attitude of the government that the board should be given an opportunity to proceed with its work. Surely, as an ongoing process we will want to judge the effectiveness of that work and if necessary we will take further measures.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has today expressed concern about this matter and in view of the obvious fact that the matter is one of urgency, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is ready to permit the board to drag its feet, to take weeks to organize itself and weeks longer before it starts to do its work or will the government carry out its responsibility to see to it that the board functions on the basis of the urgent requirements of the Canadian consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I have not talked to the members of the board, but the board is composed of very responsible men and women of the Canadian public. I would not want to subscribe to the type of accusation that has just been levelled against it by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Compton and then may call on hon. members for supplementaries afterwards.
Oral Questions


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-MEASURES TO STABILIZE PRICE AND STORAGE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the present situation in connection with oil products and the concern it has caused, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he considers that the prices of oil products, both imported and domestic, will increase again in the near future. If so, does he deem it essential to act now to find the technical and economic means likely to ensure the stability of storage, prices, interest and transportation rates, in the best interests of the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. member who asked this question, but I must confess that I am not more than he is in a position to predict, with a certain measure of certainty, what will happen on the oil markets within the next few months. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is indeed very much concerned about this problem and, as already reflected in the steps it took a few weeks ago to limit the exports of oil, gas and fuel oil to the United States, the government is certainly ready to take the necessary measures, if the hypothetical situation which the hon. member fears effectively materializes.


MEASURE TO CONTROL DISTRIBUTION AND PRICE OF GAS AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
When the Prime Minister says that he is prepared to take steps, if needed, does he mean to say that the government is prepared to take measures similar to those taken in Florida concerning the distribution and price control of gas and oil and to take court actions against Canadian or American firms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first question referred to a problematic situation. I cannot predict the future any more than the hon. member for Shefford, but I can assure him that if Canadian companies violate the law of the country, the government will indeed see to it that they are taken before the courts.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the change of heart of the NDP in that they now agree that the Food Prices Review Board as it is presently constituted is ineffective, will the Prime Minister now agree to review the terms of reference of the Food

July 11, 1973
Oral Questions
Prices Review Board so that it can become a truly effective instrument and bring some relief to the Canadian people?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot comment on the preamble to the question. It is one upon which I am sure members of the NDP would be perfectly able to comment. But so far as the question itself is concerned, I would like to indicate to the House that having set up this board, and having asked various responsible citizens to act on this board, the position of the government is that we want to give it a chance to operate before trying to destroy its credibility in people's minds, as obviously members of the opposition are trying to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices is now drafting its second report, and in view of the fact that five of the six recommendations in the first report have been ignored by the government to date, may I ask the Prime Minister if the government is prepared to inform the House, and consequently the committee, as to what its policy decision is with respect to the five recommendations contained in the first report so that the committee can get on with the second report?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that he is inviting the Prime Minister or someone on behalf of the government to make a general policy statement. I doubt whether this can be done at this time. It should be done normally on motions. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


James Aloysius McGrath: By way of a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might return to the hon. member in a moment. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby for a supplementary question.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government seems unwilling to put teeth in the Prices Review Board-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -given the continuing increase in the cost of living, would the Prime Minister at least give consideration to putting a cost of living clause on the $40,000 a year salary of the chairman of the board so that she can continue to cope?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this question is in order. The hon. member for St. John's East is rising on a supplementary question. He will be recognized for that purpose, and will be followed by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who also has a supplementary question.


ALLEGED OPPOSITION OF CHAIRMAN TO PRICE CONTROLS-POSSIBLE MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER
James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that the present chairman of the Food Prices Review Board has gone on record as stating that she is opposed to controls in any form, and in view of the possibility that controls may ultimately be necessary to control rising inflation in Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to meet the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board to discuss the terms of reference of the board and perhaps ask her if she is prepared to reappear before the Trends in Food Prices Committee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Having set up the board, the government does not intend, I repeat, to interfere in the operation of that board. I hope that it will be the will of parliament to give the board a chance to operate before prejudging its action, as it appears to be doing now.


POSITION OF BOARD ON FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which again relates to the Food Prices Review Board. In view of the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated yesterday that the board has begun its work and expected to have its first quarterly report available in the fall, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he or anyone in his government had any indication from members of the board as to whether they are going to comment on the failure of the government to implement five of the six recommendations of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, or will they merely attempt to continue to hide the government's inaction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF DRUGS-CONTROL MEASURES PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the recently reported increase in the cost of drugs, has the minister been informed that more than 35 per cent of low income Canadians are unable to have their prescriptions filled and what immediate action can we expect from the government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member sent us the information that he seems to have.

[ English]


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a portion of the first question asked today in this series by the Leader of the Opposition, and I direct it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the necessity of getting all pensions to escalate by the full increase in the cost of living and in view of the fact that removing the 2 per cent ceiling with respect to the annual escalation under the Canada Pension Plan is the key to this whole program, will the minister revise his timetable with respect to taking this action and bring in a bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan, even if that is all it does, just to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which, as the hon. member knows, requires the agreement of two thirds of the provinces and of the population. A meeting with my colleagues is scheduled for early fall, and I hope to be able to introduce legislation to this effect at the opening of the next session this fall, provided I have the agreement of the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of this one aspect of the matter, will the minister make immediate contact with the provinces to see if it is not possible to act on it now without waiting for agreement on the other issues that are under discussion?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him whether, in view of the fact that since 1967 there has been a galloping increase in tropical diseases resulting from the open visitors policy- in one tropical disease alone an increase from 19 to 848 cases in a five year period-and in view of the great shortage of doctors capable of treating tropical diseases, would the minister consider establishing a school of tropical medicine for medical graduates to further their training in this subject?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this question to my attention. There is no definite plan right now regarding the establishment of such a school.
Oral Questions
However, discussions are taking place between my department, the Ontario government and the institute specializing in that matter in Toronto, which institute is affiliated with Toronto University. I hope that we will be able to come to conclusions in that connection within the next few months. Discussions are now in progress.


HOUSING
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is he now prepared to table the terms of reference of his inquiry into alleged irregularities in respect of student co-operative housing?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have already made it clear to the House that on February 22, I requested a complete report from CMHC as to the activities of Co-operative College Residences Limited and Tampold and Wells, in reference to the five student co-operative residences that were the subject of discussion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister tell the House when he was first advised of the allegations of impropriety involving the student co-operative residence program, including the evidence given in examination for discovery in case No. 5275-71 Ontario, and by whom he was advised?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I made clear to the House with regard to that evidence and that affidavit, I had not heard of it until it was raised in the House. Yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North referred to an affidavit, and I take it that it is the same evidence to which the hon. member for Trinity refers. The hon. member for Calgary North has undertaken to supply me with a copy of that affidavit which he is obtaining from Toronto.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How can the minister explain the fact that he was unaware until it was raised in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is purely argumentative. The hon. member starts his question by asking, how can the minister explain a situation. Again I say I am sure that the hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is out of order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question? Will the minister advise the House why, in his opinion, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and specifically the legal department of that corporation, did not advise him sooner of these serious allegations, or for that matter the president of CMHC, particularly when it has been public knowledge available to them for some two years?

July 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the corporation in this specific instance. I presume it would be-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are the responsible minister.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I presume it related to matters that were related to work long before I was the minister, and that the corporation assumed that action appropriate to the circumstances had been taken at the time the knowledge was made available to CMHC.


STUDENT CO-OPERATIVE PROJECTS-REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPRIETY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In light of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, refused a request for a judicial inquiry, and in light of the fact that there might be some conflict of interest because a man by the name of Wright, in the law firm of Lang, Michener, etc. in Toronto formed all these companies, and of course is closely associated with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the President of the Privy Council-I believe he is an adviser-would he now, in light of the conflict that there appears to be, and in light of the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in light of the scandal that seems to be raised day by day without getting at the facts, agree to have a judicial inquiry, subpoenaing witnesses so that this whole thing can be aired?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member that if he feels a scandal does exist involving this minister he should make his allegations in the proper way before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, through you I wish to say I never mentioned a scandal involving the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What I did suggest was that there is certainly a racketeer tax scandal in this college residence enterprise. I am asking the Prime Minister if he will now agree to have a judicial inquiry, and we will find out where the scandal lies and who is involved in it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very grateful to have the admission of the hon. member that there is no scandal involving any member on this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. The hon. member has already asked a number of supplementaries. Perhaps I might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I can see why you take that attitude, Sir, and I say this with the greatest respect to you, but you have listened to the Prime Minister's answers and he has refused to answer the questions I put to him. If he wants to remain silent, then let him keep silent because he is hiding something.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows what the rules are. The hon. member can ask questions, but either a minister or the Prime Minister can refuse to answer, or can give answers with which the hon. member asking questions is not satisfied. As a matter of fact, that happens very often.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. Prime Minister rising on the same question of privilege?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I just want to explain to the House that the hon. member was asking a question in terms that it was put to the Acting Prime Minister on the day I was returning from having seen Her Majesty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have to proceed with some order in the House. The hon. member for Calgary North asked a number of questions. Then, the Chair recognized the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, after which the hon. member for Calgary North rose on a question of privilege, and I suggest there was no privilege. I am not sure what can be done at this point to pursue this matter. Unless the right hon. Prime Minister has his own question of privilege, I think we should go on to the next question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. It arises from the apparent misunderstanding by the hon. member of what the Acting Prime Minister said in the House last Monday in answer to his question. It was not an answer which had the effect of refusing an inquiry. On the contrary, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as reported at page 5402 of Hansard said:
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister himself would continue with these inquiries. If he is satisfied that the matter does not require further investigation I would be happy to accept his advice. On the other hand, if he decides that it is necessary to proceed further I am sure he would if that were in the public interest.
Therefore, there was not a refusal of an inquiry. There is a request of the minister to pursue this matter further.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again that is debate as to what was said or what was not said. Because of the obvious interest of hon. members, if the hon. member for Calgary North wishes to ask a further supplementary he will be recognized for this purpose in a moment, but again I suggest to hon. members that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, having been recognized, might be allowed to ask his question. After that I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond. There are some rights in that part of the House also, and then I will return to the hon. member for Calgary North.
Order, please. I apologize for the third or fourth time to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, but the hon.
July 11, 1973

member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege parallels the question of privilege which was allowed the Prime Minister, in that he referred to last week when he came back from his visit with Her Majesty, the Queen. He made reference to what the Acting Prime Minister had said in this House in answer to a question, and on the same question of privilege I want to take up an answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will see where this kind of exchange leads. We have 40 minutes for our question period. There are now eight minutes left. If we spend all our time arguing about what was said and what was not said, what will be achieved is again beyond my understanding. If hon. members think we should debate during the question period what was said by a minister during a previous question period, I have to listen but I suspect that this is really not a question at all.


Donald MacInnis: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It only emphasizes the fact that the Prime Minister should never have been allowed to get away with that privilege which is now being denied me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that I certainly do not want to get involved in a debate. The hon. member for Calgary North raised a question of privilege. It is traditional that when a member takes the time of the House for what he considers to be a legitimate question of privilege which involves the actions or statements of another member, that member ought to be given the opportunity to reply briefly. It seems to me that in this House even the Prime Minister must have the same right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe hon. members should hold it against the Chair that the Chair allowed the right hon. Prime Minister to say a word in response to a question of privilege in which he was personally implicated. He was given this right. I suggest there is no question of privilege and that this is debate between members. I would hope that we could try to continue the question period in the few minutes that are left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEED GRAINS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PRINCIPLE OF ORDERLY MARKETING WILL BE MAINTAINED- DISCUSSION AT WESTERN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES CONFERENCE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the telegram from the Premier of Saskatchewan
Oral Questions
requesting clarification of the government's position in regard to the marketing of feed grains, which results from repeated statements by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that the method of pricing of feed grains would be changed, has the Prime Minister been able to reply to the Premier of Saskatchewan assuring him that the principle of orderly marketing and the effectiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board as a marketing agency would be maintained? Has he been able to give this assurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I read the telegram of the Premier of Saskatchewan, he was expressing fears based not so much on what the Minister of Justice had said, but more on the basis of rumours that had appeared in some daily newspaper. I can assure the hon. member that I will assure the Premier of Saskatchewan that the consultations on this whole subject which have been going on between the federal government and various organizations and the provincial ministers of agriculture will continue. We do hope that at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference later this month this will be an important subject to be discussed under the item of agriculture. The premier's telegram indicates that he hoped the discussion would still be open then. I can give him the assurance that it will. The federal government will be prepared to hear arguments at that time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Order, please!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -from the premier on this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


FEED GRAINS-REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reply of the Prime Minister on his intention to hold this open could I then ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether he will lay to rest these rumours to which the Prime Minister has referred? After all, as minister in charge of wheat, who raised the rumours, will he take an early opportunity to rise in this House and state what the policy of the government is and what it is their intention to put before that conference?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No lawyer's talk now.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the only effective way of laying that rumour to rest would be the actual policy statement itself which will, as the Prime Minister said, come after the premiers' Western Economic Opportunities Conference. However, I am preparing a reply to the Premier of Saskatchewan to the telegram which he sent to me indicating that the press reports about our policy do not fairly nor adequately reflect that policy, so that their excessive concern might stop.

July 11, 1973
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FEED GRAINS WILL NOT BE REMOVED FROM WHEAT BOARD
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the reply given by the minister still further encourages the stream of remour that is all over western Canada. Has the minister received telegrams from the three wheat pools of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta strongly objecting to any attempt to put domestic feed grains on the open market? That includes wheat. Surely, the minister can give an answer in this regard. I tell him as well, having received the telegrams, that there is tremendous uncertainty in western Canada and feed lots are being closed down by producers of cattle who fear the increase in prices. Can he give an assurance to the western people now, not two weeks hence, that there is no foundation for the suggestion that feed grains are going to be taken from the Wheat Board and placed on the open market?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of telegrams, but I am not sure that I have the ones to which the hon. member has referred.


An hon. Member:: Read them.


Otto Emil Lang: However, certainly there is a great deal of concern about the continuing role of the Canadian Wheat Board in our marketing system. I am certainly reassuring everyone who contacts me that I attach a great deal of importance to the orderly marketing of grain in Canada and to the role of the Canadian Wheat Board in that connection and, to the extent that I can in advance of announcing the whole policy, I am trying to give that reassurance. I do say, of course, that everyone should appreciate the very earnest purpose which we have in developing a proper domestic grains policy in Canada, which is to be perfectly fair to all regions of the country and to the animal as well as the grain sector of our economy. I am confident that we will, in fact, be able to do so in the new policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert and others want to ask supplementaries. There are two minutes left before the end of the question period and perhaps the time could be used for that purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the minister adds to the uncertainty. Could I suggest to him that he make what I might call an "Ottopact" with the western farmer that this policy would be adopted?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the western farmer realizes that this government has been taking constant action to improve the grain situation in this country, such as we have never seen before, and that kind of "Ottopact" is going to continue.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As studies have proven that asbestos mines, especially in the Eastern Townships, are not creating any more employment, even if they have developed prodigiously within these last 20 years, and this, according to the same statistics, because those mining companies are exporting most of their production in the raw state, can the minister tell us whether the government or the department intends to encourage these companies to make more investments here for the manufacture of finished products?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we are very interested in doing just that, encouraging the developers of raw materials in Canada and natural resources in Canada to process those resources in Canada.
[Transla tion]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond may ask a supplementary question, following which I will give the floor to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Does he propose to place restrictions on exports of crude asbestos to force mining companies which are tapping asbestos deposits in our country to manufacture finished products, with a view to reducing the proportion of unprocessed minerals exported?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to impose those kinds of restraints; rather our policy has been to encourage through incentives.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour regarding the dispute between the railways and the nonoperating unions. Has the minister received word of the failure of the mediation and conciliation process to produce agreement which may open up the way to a strike? If so, what action does the minister and the government propose to take?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, before I comment on any specifics, I should advise the Leader of the Opposition that the chairman, I understand,
July 11, 1973

Oral Questions HEALTH
has put the report in the mail and I expect it at any time. The other parties in the dispute are also letting me have their reports, and as soon as I receive them I will advise the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is hiding behind the mail.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can the minister tell us today, on the day following the official declaration of independence of the Bahama Islands, whether provision has been made for closer relations with this Commonwealth country, and if necessary, what form the exchanges would take, and whether the government intends to support a possible application by the Bahamas for membership in the United Nations?
[ English]


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all members of the House in welcoming the independence of the Bahamas and the accession of that area in its own independent capacity as a member of the Commonwealth. We expect that the head of government of the Bahamas will be here when the Queen joins in welcoming all the heads of government in Ottawa, and at that time we will be having consultations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Since the Department of Justice legal counsel has withdrawn from the hearings into the Indian land claims before Mr. Justice Morrow, will the minister say whether legal officers of his department will provide all possible assistance to Mr. Dietrich Brand who has been appointed a friend of the court by Mr. Justice Morrow, so that the hearings can proceed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not see any role for us in that regard.


DISPOSITION OF ALLEGEDLY CONTAMINATED MEDICAL SUPPLIES-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising from the fact that his department in the past few days has been disposing of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical supplies maintained for civil emergency purposes at approximately 13 depots across Canada on the grounds that these supplies may be contaminated. My question is this. Can the minister tell the House why 35,000 cases of such equipment were disposed of from his departmental depot in Brockville, Ontario, in the last few days in such a manner that children in the area have been able to obtain needles, tubing and other equipment which his department suggests is contaminated, and what steps is his department taking to deal immediately with this obviously and potentially dangerous situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and investigate the matter.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-APPROVAL OF PROJECT, &quot;SERVING THE POLISH COMMUNITY IN PARKDALE&quot;-RELATIONSHIP OF M. HAIDASZ TO MINISTER
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Opportunities for Youth project. Would the minister inform the House whether his department has approved a $15,400 grant to three young people, namely, Mr. Worowski, Mr. Yuskoski and M. Haidasz for a project called "Serving the Polish Community in Park-dale". If the answer is yes, can he confirm that the M. Haidasz in question is the daughter of or related to the minister responsible for multiculturalism who is the sitting member for Parkdale?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the project has been approved. I can also confirm that Miss Haidasz is not a member of the project.


Terrence Wyly Grier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the minister whether the name M. Haidasz appeared on the application for that amount?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I believe so, but I should like to check into that.


Terrence Wyly Grier: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for his supplementary, after which the hon.

July 11, 1973
Oral Questions
member for Fundy-Royal will be recognized for a supplementary to a previous question.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he will consult with his colleague, the minister responsible for multiculturalism, with a view to advising the House if the M. Haidasz in question is now being employed either by the recently formed advertising firm Outreach, or by the company Bomac Batten, which has received a subcontract from Outreach.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can put that question on the order paper and, if it is important or there is urgency in the opinion of the hon. member in asking the question, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue the question originally asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Did the minister say that Mr. Dietrich Brand would not get help as the court appointed official to support the interests of the Department of Justice? What is the explanation for the precipitant withdrawal of the Department of Justice lawyers from this case?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think my exact answer was that I did not see our role in that connection. I think they were my words when answering the hon. member.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: But will you help?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am not aware of any request for any assistance, and as I say, I am not sure I see the exact perspective in which such a request would be made. As far as the so-called precipitate withdrawal, I indicated in the House, in answer to a question the other day that it is not a matter of our having withdrawn from the case, but simply of our having nothing more to say in the matter until the matter is ready for judgment. Accordingly, we do not see any need or point in having an agent present in court in the interim period.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse, then the hon. member for Lethbridge and call orders of the day.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the constant rise in milk production costs, due to the rising cost of feed grain and other high-protein feeds, which is further tightening the cost-price squeeze, will the minister soon be authorizing any appreciable increase in grants for industrial milk production, as well as a reduction of export reserves, so that industrial milk producers can take advantage of increased revenues which might make it possible for them to continue in business?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member some time ago, we are studying this situation. We have received further representations from the dairy farmers of Canada as late as today and I am not prepared to say what I am going to recommend, or if I am going to recommend anything at this time.


ROYAL VISIT
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, and I have given the right hon. gentleman notice of this question, why the member of parliament representing the first home of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Alberta, and I refer respectfully to myself and Fort McLeod, was not invited to attend the events in connection with the important RCMP centenary last week. I ask this, Mr. Speaker, because I think the royal visit should be above partisan politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did send a copy of his question across the floor today during the question period, but I was not able to ascertain from my office whether we were involved in several of these events. There were many events in Alberta. Just to name a few, there was the Stampede, the Flare Square event, the dinner or lunch, and the parade. I would say that I was not personally invited to some of these events, and I did not make a great issue of it. I do know, and the hon. member recognizes this, that he was at the Flare Square ceremony because we had occasion to speak to each other there. Why he was not invited to the luncheon, to the civic luncheon or to the Stampede is something over which I have no control. I will see from whom these invitations were issued. I would suspect that the civic luncheon invitations were sent by the civic authorities. The only event over which I had control, Mr. Speaker, was the Queen's dinner. I did try to
July 11, 1973

have a good cross section of Albertans there, both from various parties, political parties in Alberta-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: That is a downright lie.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know from experience and the rulings of the Chair that certain words ought not to be spoken in the House in respect of any member, and if any member makes statements or uses words, whether standing in the House or from his seat, that get on Hansard and that are unparliamentary, an intervention from the Chair is called for, and a request for withdrawal by the hon. member who has used such language.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard the hon. member for Crowfoot say that I had made an outright lie. I would want him to withdraw those words.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it appears that my constituency was mentioned. I heard the Prime Minister say he had made an attempt to have a good cross-section of the representatives of the people at the dinner for which his government was responsible to entertain Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Phillip. I believe the Prime Minister made no such attempt, even to have all the representatives of the people of Calgary at that dinner. If he overlooked the representatives of the people from Calgary at that dinner which was held in the city of Calgary, it is hard to believe he made a sincere effort to have all the representatives there.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister says he heard an hon. member utter words which, if they were said, will appear in Hansard and if an hon. member accepts or admits having said those words, an explanation is certainly not sufficient. The words should be withdrawn. As far as the Chair is concerned, there was no member standing at that point and no one had the right to make any kind of statement or comment. I certainly heard the words coming from the general direction of my left. If the hon. member said the words and is prepared to recognize that he used the words, he has not alternative but to withdraw them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I believe Your Honour is directing those remarks to me. I listened closely to the words of the Prime Minister. He made no attempt to substantiate the fact that he had attempted to have the representatives of the people of Calgary at that dinner, let alone a good cross-section-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The difficulty of the Chair is that if the words are recorded and they appear in the name of the hon. member, he should withdraw. I know he
Election Expenses
is a conscientious member. He has been a member of this House for a long time and knows the rules. He knows in his mind and heart whether he has spoken the words. If so, he has no alternative but to withdraw them. That is a responsibility he has to face.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is generally recognized that it is only a member who has the floor whose statements are on the official record, unless they are recognized by the member concerned as having been said by him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary might keep until tomorrow. For the moment we have this problem. The point made by the hon. member for Malpeque represents my difficulty. If a member makes a remark from his seat which is unparliamentary, the Chair has no way of knowing whether the member has made the remark or whether he accepts the responsibility. It is the responsibility of members in conscience not to make remarks which are unparliamentary. If they make such remarks, they should withdraw them. I am not going to stand here as a father confessor and go into hon. members' minds and consciences. On that basis, I am quite satisfied to let the matter stand. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, so as to complete my remarks of yesterday on the present legislation, I would like first of all to make a comment. It is evident that if we carefully read the clauses of this bill, we realize that such a legislation would simply confirm the existence of election funds. Now, I wanted to prove in my comments that should we wish to make our elections more democratic we would have to aim at constantly reducing the importance of electoral funds, so that the people's voice in election time be truly free and democratic.
Then, this legislation rather seems to confirm the legitimacy of electoral funds. This is why I hesitate to support it.
However, this bill as a whole gives rise to many questions, since it deals at the same time with the possibility of collecting moneys to carry out an election and with a reimbursement. The minister should have given a clear explanation of how he can talk about collecting and reimbursing money in the same breath.

July 11, 1973
Election Expenses
Mr. Speaker, as I see it, those who already contribute to electoral funds of old line parties will continue to do so, and they will do it in a more legal way, as a result of this legislation. Why then should we ask all Canadian taxpayers to pay for these expenses paid out of electoral funds?
Therefore, there is an ambiguous point in the spirit of this law and this point should absolutely be cleared up; otherwise, the reimbursement of election expenses will happen to be considered as a kind of reward. After financing the whole thing thanks to donations or contributions of various associations and private persons, we will be entitled to a reimbursement which will not represent something designed to pay out a debt but simply a kind of reward, a kind of premium. And we cannot favour such a system, Mr. Speaker, since it runs counter to basic principles of a healthy democracy.
Moreover, this bill does not seem to deal with some points, which could help every citizen to better exercise his right to vote. One of these points is the following; electors must be given all possible means to go to the polls. Someone did consider amending the Elections Act in order to set up temporary polls bit if we check the number of people who exercise this right, this privilege, we must admit that there are not many, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, we should consider the introduction of another legislation which, in addition to being very efficient, might further facilitate democracy in the election process. All that would have to be dope would be to make election day a holiday so that no one would have any excuse for not voting, and since that day generally comes around- and I say "generally" advisedly, Mr. Speaker-once every four years, it seems to me that it would be quite simple to make it a holiday. There could be no greater boost to massive participation in the elections by citizens and, in my opinion, this is a goal that should be aimed for in a true democracy.
In the light of these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that not only am I not enthralled with the bill, but I also believe that it should be completely changed. It by no means expresses the wishes of horn, members and, once more, a bill of this nature should have been drafted in collaboration with those who are most up-to-date on what is going on and who have the greatest interest in such legislation, namely the members of parliament.
I still wonder why hon. members' opinion was not more taken into account when drafting this bill. Of course, it may be amended but when one considers the objectivity which should have governed the drafting of this legislation one must conclude that it does not contain any provision fully able to solve the problem of election expenses.
This being the case, we must confess that we will not be able to support this bill and we urge the minister to think it over and give the government the time necessary to draft another legislation which would take into account the basic facts which I mentioned in my speech yesterday so that the bill would guarantee to the Canadian people a true, concrete and free democratic process. Thus, the election expenses would be limited fairly and justly and if my proposals were accepted we would have no reimbursement of expenses since all expenses would be paid objectively and the political parties and the candidates would have to pay only for their petty expenses.

I think we should consider drafting another piece of legislation which would take into account those basic factors.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill because I particularly welcome it. Like so many members of this House and those who have been active on the political scene for many years, we have been urging a requirement similar to this for quite some time. It is not everything we would wish, it is not perfection itself, it is not everything I would personally wish, and it is not likely that we will be able to provide legislation that will suit everybody in every particular case because the problems we face in our constituencies are different in various parts of the country. However, I do not think anyone would deny that what is presented in this bill is a vast improvement over the system which has existed heretofore.
This bill can create a completely new atmosphere in our electoral system, not that there was anything evil about what has been going on, although we could perhaps isolate instances. There has been a cloud over this question; everything never has been quite in the open. There is a certain amount of secrecy, and we do not talk about it very much. I think there is a great deal more misunderstanding than anything else. Some people have tried to imply that there is devious influence, but I have never really seen that influence exerted externally. I would not deny that we sometimes exert influence on ourselves, and I would not deny that when certain legislation came up members on both sides of the House did consider that perhaps funds would dry up if we opposed or supported the legislation.
Some candidates did not even know who was giving and would openly say so. I know that my opponent during the last campaign said he did not know who gave, and did not want to know. I make a point of knowing and wanting to know. I am not faulting my opponent for that, but I want to make sure that these funds come from sources which I am prepared to declare if that is necessary, and I want to be sure that nothing can be implied that might compromise me in any way.
What I really get upset about during election campaigns is the immense and incredible waste of money that we would not tolerate in normal life. Election campaigns cannot be run as efficiently as business, not even as efficiently as government. They are run almost by the seat of the pants and in a highly competitive atmosphere. What upsets me is this competition to spend more. We have all been through the pressures of a campaign when everybody is giving advice. They tell us that if we would just send out one more mailing, or put up 500 more signs, we would "have it made." People tell us that our opponents have torn down all our signs, and their workers are saying we have torn down all theirs. I have never known an election campaign when one side has not accused the other of tearing down signs, yet I know of no candidate who would sanction such action,
People do not realize how costly all this can be. Just one extra mailing can cost several thousand dollars in the average constituency. One must also face the cost of com-
July 11, 1973

petitive committee rooms which are sometimes unnecessary. This competitive factor should be relieved to a large extent, but we do not want to see the competitive factor removed from politics. Rather, we want to remove the pressures to spend. All parties are more or less on an equal footing. I think all candidates are more or less on an equal footing, although we could quibble about that. There are limits but I think the limits are too high. In my constituency it could run to something in the neighbourhood of $31,000. I think that is more than you should have to raise; but by the time of the next election, with the current rate of inflation that amount may not be too bad.
The reimbursement feature, about which I have mixed feelings, is rather modest but still leaves a gap so that the wealthier candidate can lay out $10,000 or $20,000 of his own money as long as he stays within the limits. However, while it is necessary for a candidate to go around raising money I think this provision will reduce the immense disparity which existed before. There was a danger of becoming involved in another competitive race in respect of the media, television, and our friends to the south. We were beginning to campaign using American tactics. I am sure this is interesting to many people, but in trying to do so we attempt to put on the greatest spectacle or activity that will look good on television.
We have not dealt with leadership conventions. This is another matter which the committee might want to consider. We now begin to see the escalation which can take place in this sort of operation of an election campaign. Regrettably, we see the almost inescapable consequences of that escalation. We do not want to take away any of the spontaneity, colour or fun aspect of an election campaign. It is important; it gives a campaign verve and vibrancy which most politicians enjoy as well as the people working with them.
In the last campaign in which I was involved, my opponent reported the largest sum ever reported in history in respect of a federal election. That was fair ball. He was playing within the rules and could well afford it. Initially I budgeted half the amount I eventually spent. I spent the budgeted amount early in the campaign. It had become obvious that I was being deluged with first-rate advertising and that there were committee rooms all over the place. I, my workers and those who wished to see me elected felt I was running into a very tough situation with that sort of competition. They were more than generous and we ran the campaign at double the initial amount that had been budgeted. I know that much was wasted. Much of the money was spent unnecessarily.
In the heat of an election campaign, when days are going by and the pressure builds, one finds it hard to resist the temptation to spend a large amount of money. I think that is unfortunate. When this occurs, a person is placed at a disadvantage or under a tremendous obligation to people who either have or have access to a great deal of money. It is interesting that with that high an expenditure all my workers were volunteers. Because I was interested in seeing who had spent more money than me in the election campaign, I placed a question on the order paper. I found that of the four highest spenders in the last election, three were defeated and the fourth had spent less than his
Election Expenses
opponent whom he defeated. So it is not always the big money that wins.
Sometimes, however, the successful candidate is forced to spend money unnecessarily. I think in all our parties there are examples of very wealthy men who run for public office. I do not think that the fact they happen to be wealthy is a strike against them, but certainly their expenditures are not a factor in the sense that many notable people of wealth have run for office and lost. Nevertheless, the impression is around that it is a position for the wealthy. This impression, of course, must be eliminated.
This factor becomes more serious in present times when we hope to encourage more women to run for public office. In this parliament we are fortunate in having a number of attractive and extremely able women. I wish we had at least five times as many. It is sometimes easier for a man to raise money at the bank or by mortgaging his house. I suggest to hon. members that if their wives suggested that they mortgage the house to run for parliament, they might not go along with that. So this will give women a greater opportunity to compete in the political field.
As we look around this House we see there are very few wealthy men here. They are very able men, but they are not men of wealth. If they were wealthy when they came here, they usually are not after being here for a few years. Most members have given up a great deal more than they can obtain here or will end up with ultimately. Many, I believe, spend their first few years paying off the debts of their election campaign. This bill will relieve that pressure although it will not take it away completely.
I would have preferred to have run for parliament at least five years before I did, but I was aware of the experiences of many of my friends who had come to this House and had suffered terrible financial losses. I wanted to wait until I was sure I was in fairly good economic shape. I also wanted to wait until my children were grown up, because the cost of an election campaign is horrendous. Although you may or may not raise all the money yourself, you are responsible for all the expenditures. I know there are many men in this House of Commons who are still paying off the expenses of the most recent election.
A few weeks ago I wrote a column for the newspapers in my constituency, outlining therein seven points in which I was interested relating to election expenses. The first was a limit on the expenditure in respect of each voter in the riding. I placed it at 25 cents a voter. I thought that would be adequate. I am not arguing, however, at this time about the amount stipulated in the bill because I would like to give it more thought. One free mailing was the second point of the seven-point program. I hope it will be limited to one mailing, the same as radio and television time is being limited.
I appreciate the argument that so long as total expenditure is limited, the candidate is free to spend it in any way he wishes. One type of campaign works well in one part of the country or in one city, and works differently elsewhere. The third point is a matter which I hope the committee will think about seriously. It involves what is called the "you vote at" card. I do not think all candidates use it. This is a card that candidates frequently send out just before an election. It arrives at the voter's home one


Mr. Benjamin:: Watch it.
July 11, 1973


Barnett Jerome Danson: I mean they have minor appeal. Until they have national appeal they will not become major parties. I would not be too concerned about that. If they can outperform us in elections, that is what elections are all about and may the best man win. We will be on a much better footing now and we will have to adjust to it. It will be a tough and realistic adjustment and one which is long overdue, but we will be better off under a much better system.
I find this very much like a breath of fresh air in the whole electoral system. We should look at this legislation as an opportunity rather than a restriction that is being imposed upon us. I hope it will take a great deal of the circus out of election campaigns-not the fun, but the circus aspect can be overdone. I hope, also, that it will create a much more serious involvement, because this bill is not just for members of the House; it is for the people of Canada. It may be a cliche to say so, but the people of Canada are sometimes inclined to get the governments they deserve.


An hon. Member:: They have been very lucky for the last ten years.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Now we need their support to a greater extent than ever before; we need the people's active and personal involvement in the political process. Some people feel it is something from which one should stay away, but those who become involved in election campaigns are generally interested in the way the government is run, the way taxes are paid and where the money is spent. We can focus our attention now on the policies that are put forward by the various parties, on the parties themselves, their character, their leaders, the way they communicate and, of course, on the candidates themselves.
Elections are everybody's business and I think everybody should get involved. I think all of us feel that the person who does all the crying but never becomes involved in the election process deserves less sympathy than one who complains and is involved in it. We know people involved in campaigns are hard workers, but campaigns can also be a lot of fun. It is an involvement in the very best and most important sense; it is also a source of fulfilment for all who have worked in election campaigns, and for the candidates themselves. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, among them the hon. member from the New Democratic Party who spoke yesterday, it is the highest form of service in which we can be involved. I am not sure we always do it for that purpose. When asked what is the motivation of a politician, I think the answer is varied. There must be a high respect for service. There is a certain amount of ego involved and also a certain amount of excitement.
I think more people in our country should be involved in supporting the political system financially and with personal effort. If as a result of this bill we can create this new atmosphere, there will be more open elections, involving many more people and attracting many more fine candidates of both sexes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the hon. gentleman mind my asking him a question?
Election Expenses


Barnett Jerome Danson: I would be delighted, if it is a question I can answer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I just want to be clear on what he was saying about the "you vote at" cards. Was he regretting that there was not a provision in the bill for this, or did he want it to be left to the political parties to do it?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I was regretting that there is no provision in the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the hon. member will look at proposed new section 27.1 on page 14, he will see it provides for the returning officer to do just this.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I appreciate that clarification. I understood it was not included, and I am delighted that it is.


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) when moving second reading of this bill. I listened to his dispassionate recital of the thrust of the bill, of what the various clauses say or, more properly, what they are intended to say. Unfortunately, I do not share his optimism that they will achieve all the purposes he says they will achieve. I feel there is a considerable amount of work to be done in the privileges and elections committee to achieve the admirable purposes outlined by him, purposes with which I and my party agree.
I also listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) arguing what has become the somewhat tiresome line of the NDP, that they thought of all these improvements quite some time ago and they are happy the old-line parties are finally adopting their viewpoint. We have heard this ad nauseam. I often wonder why, if they are so right in all their viewpoints, they are not anything more than a minority party in this House. The hon. member then went on to undermine his credibility in this respect by arguing points of view that were distinctly favourable to his party and not to other parties, such as seeking a reduction of the vote requirement to 8 per cent or 10 per cent before a candidate could receive reimbursement from the federal treasury, and also his argument that there should be equal media time available to all the parties in this House.
It is encouraging to me, as someone who has been involved in the study of the funding of parties and candidates for a number of years, finally to see some action on this subject by the government. Not that the action proposed by the government in the present bill is the total answer. I harbour some serious reservations about some clauses of the legislation. However, I think most hon. members will agree that it does constitute a significant step in the right direction and a significant improvement over the hastily and ill-conceived bill introduced at the end of the last parliament.
The need for extensive revamping of the system of political party and candidate financing has been obvious for many years to those involved in the political process. Living on a shoestring from day to day is a painful and difficult, but familiar existence to those involved. But, more importantly, it is frankly democratically unhealthy to permit our political institutions to fall into the vulner-

July 11, 1973
Election Expenses
able position of not knowing with certainty from where, or even if next month's rent will be forthcoming. The need for revamping the system has been known to the public for a considerably longer time, in fact ever since there has existed the suspicion-and in some cases the actuality-of a political system operating on patronage, favours, jobs and other amenities offered and granted in return for party and candidate funding.
However, any attempt to improve the financing of political parties and candidates and free elections must not, on the other hand, jeopardize the fundamental democratic principle that the individual ought to be free to influence the choosing of the form of his government and those in government, that is, the individuals who exercise direction and control over so much of his existence. The individual should be free to choose to support a particular person, a particular party or a particular political philosophy and, just as important, to choose not to support any particular one.
Further, his method of support or non-support, provided of course it is peaceful, should also be his choice. He may wish merely to vote for a party or man, do volunteer work, actively campaign, write or speak in favour of or against a candidate, offer himself as a candidate, or contribute money in lieu of personal effort or time. The individual freedom to make a choice is best guaranteed only if the choice is actually his and is free from the scrutiny, comment and possibly the derision of others.
The secret ballot principle is an example of democracy's attempt to protect the individual's freedom of choice. By guaranteeing the voter's privacy during and after the casting of his vote, the possibility of others unduly influencing the vote is eliminated. Of course, some of these methods of supporting a party, an individual or philosophy are public and are intended to be public. Perhaps in conflict with this necessity of protecting the individual's freedom of choice is the necessity of maintaining a financially sound political party system and, further, one that engenders public confidence in it. Acts done and decisions taken secretly create suspicion as to motive in the minds of those hot party to the secret.
Canadian political parties and candidates have traditionally relied upon donations from individuals, corporations and associations, and indirectly from governments, to finance their activities. The practice in some countries of political parties operating businesses, publishing newspapers and magazines, owning land and other income-producing enterprises has never been used to a great extent in Canada. The private donation has been the single, most dependable way of financing political activities. However, it has also become the source of some controversy and the cause of considerable mistrust of our system among large segments of society.
The high cost of carrying on an effective election campa-gin is not appreciated by the general public, which of course is not closely associated with a political party or candidate and does not realize the costs involved. The distrust stems from the suspicion that political parties maintain close liaison with corporations, associations and pressure groups that make large donations in return for favourable legislation, jobs, contracts and other amenities. The public tends to feel that either the parties do not need

further financial assistance or that politics is a crooked business anyway, and they do not want any part of it.
As I mentioned earlier, those involved in the process know that it is an obvious and painful fact of everyday life that parties and candidates are poor. Party and candidate financing has always been a precarious undertaking at best. When one realizes the tremendous responsibility the system places upon candidates and parties, especially opposition parties, to communicate to the people the meaning and effect of the myriad decisions and acts taken daily which directly affect their lives, the low priority our political institutions are given in terms of financing is incredible. It has been noted that Canadians spend more on chewing gum each year than on support of their political party.
The task, then, of this House and of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections is a delicate and difficult one indeed. We must formulate legislation which will achieve three important and sometimes conflicting goals. The first goal is to improve the financial plight of political parties, the second is to improve public confidence in our party system, and the third is to ensure that while achieving the first two, the freedom of each Canadian to choose not only the man and the party or philosophy which appeal to him but also the manner in which he may wish to support them, is totally safeguarded.
To assist in this task the government has had available to it a plethora of studies, reports and practical experiences in at least three Canadian provinces which have enacted legislation similar in intent to this bill. The time for studies, reports and analyses is past. The time for legislative action is now, prior to the next election.
Without dealing in specifics, which will be done by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, I should like to make some general comments about several areas of the bill which I feel fail to satisfactorily achieve what should be the three aims which I just mentioned. In the area of candidate and party subsidies, once, we have accepted the proposition that it is proper to use public funds to assist in the financing of a political system then the formula, and ultimately the amount to be involved, must be very carefully thought through. I feel that the emphasis should be on keeping public financing to a minimum, the absolute minimum necessary to ensure that serious parties and candidates may present their ideas and positions to the public. Further, public subsidies should not be related to any specific method of expenditure of the subsidy; that is, the grant of public funds should have as few strings attached as possible. I think the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) made reference to the argument in this respect, but I do not recall that he endorsed that position. He simply stated it was a position to consider, and it certainly is.
The legislation should not attempt to dictate how and when such funds should be used. It should leave to the candidate or party the greatest possible degree of freedom to decide in their own minds how to expend the funds. Each candidate and each party knows best how to run the election. The candidate knows what his electorate will listen to and how to communicate with them, and he

should not be so directed by legislation which dictates that he will receive reimbursement only if he spends it on a mailing or travel costs, on newspaper advertising or some other method of campaigning. The decision should be left to the candidate and the party to make up their own minds. Be the decision good or bad, it should be left to them.
Further, the maximum amount allowed to each candidate should be stated not only in terms of so many cents per registered voter, providing of course he achieves 20 per cent of the vote, but I feel there should also be included a maximum amount allowed related to the total that he actually spends. The bill is totally silent on this subject. I suggest that the formula be that the candidate be reimbursed the lesser of the formula set out in the bill, or one-third or the amount spent by him in the election. Such a requirement would ensure a sincere effort on behalf of all candidates and parties to raise funds on their own behalf and thus reduce the reliance on the state.
For instance, if a candidate received 20 per cent of the vote in the riding and he were to receive $7,000, he would receive that $7,000 only if he had expended a total of $21,000; that is, there is a requirement on him to raise the balance of $14,000. If for some reason he did not raise the additional amount, he could receive from the public treasury no more than one-third of his total expenses. There would be a real onus on him to get out and demonstrate that there is public support for him and his party by raising the funds on his own behalf.
I do not think we should get away from the principle that freely given private donations should still be the rock upon which we finance our candidate and our party. I feel that the temptation to rely on the funds provided by the government will be great and that there is merit in requiring candidates and parties to show that they have public support by raising for themselves at least two-thirds of the funds they will be spending during the election. The expenditure limitations are the other side of the coin of assistance to candidates and parties. On the one hand, we have a proposal for public financing at the bottom, and on the other we have the sqeeze of limitations from the top, both designed to eliminate or at least to reduce the traditional advantages of wealthy candidates over less wealthy opponents.
In the area of disclosure of private donors, I feel we must not move away from the concept that private financing of parties and candidates is still the most desirable method of funding our system. The emphasis of this legislation should be directed toward more voluntary individual financial involvement in our system. The object should be to create a system which would encourage more individuals and groups of individuals to support a man or party while at the same time eliminating public suspicion by means of a system of disclosure sufficient to achieve this end. That is, the system should encourage each person to exercise his choice, by means of a private donation, and it should not tend to relieve him of this choice, by means of overemphasis on public funding, which of course involves all the people of Canada supporting all politicial parties. Such a system, that is, a system of public funding, takes the freedom of choice of support away from the individual and requires him to support all parties includ-
Election Expenses
ing those with whose philosophy he may strongly disagree.
The requirement for the disclosure of donors and their amounts is long overdue. The disclosure requirements, together with tax incentives to small donors, should achieve the fundamental objective of broadening the base of political support. Disclosure will engender confidence in the public that parties and candidates are not controlled or bought by a few large donors but are in fact supported by many thousands of small and medium sized donors.
However, I would point out that clause 4 in the present bill, dealing with section 13.4(2) (b) of the act, is so poorly worded that it will not achieve the purpose of disclosure which I am sure was intended by the President of the Privy Council. It contains wording similar to section 63(1) (e) of the Canada Elections Act which similarly, and surprising to most of the general public I think, requires disclosure of the names of persons making disclosure. These disclosure provisions were easily circumvented by virtually every candidate in the last election, and virtually every member in this House, by the use of a third party fund collector who, after completing his collections, made one gift of the total amount to the official agent who in turn reported the full sum as originating from one source. It seems to me that the equivalent section of the bill before us permits the same practice. As a member of the committee before which this bill will be considered, let me say that I think considerable tightening of this section will be in order.
These are a few of the areas which cause me considerable concern and which will require close attention and redrafting, if necessary, by the committee on privileges and elections. Other members have mentioned other areas of concern. I agree with much of what they have said, particularly with those parts having to do with the allocation of television and radio time. The bill before us is devoid of any formula for guiding the CRTC in the allocation of such time. I think it is unfair and unnecessary to expect the CRTC to make such politically sensitive decisions. I submit that the bill itself should contain some kind of formula or direction which the CRTC could follow in allocating time to candidates and parties.
This bill covers an area that is of vital concern to all Canadians. We as politicians in this House, and our parties, have suffered vicariously from the tremendous lack of confidence and distrust inspired by the Watergate case in the American system. Let me say a word about recently revealed efforts on the part of government supporters to collect funds from the head offices of American parents which have subsidiaries operating in Canada. Without trying to characterize that type of activity, which I personally think is odious, as illegal or wrong, let me say that regardless of whether it is right or wrong that is the kind of activity which instils lack of confidence and distrust in the public. That is the kind of action we must get away from in our system if we are to create the confidence and trust that we are attempting to create with this bill. It is incumbent upon us to take strong steps immediately to prevent any further erosion of such confidence in Canada.

July 11, 1973
Election Expenses


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have had to speak on a bill of this nature. The bill before us is C-203; on May 25, 1972 I spoke on Bill C-211. When I learned that I was to speak on this bill today, I looked back at the remarks I had made on that earlier occasion and found that the portion of the legislation I criticized last year has not been changed. My attitude to some of the provisions of this bill also has not changed. Last year I stated that there should be a subtitle to the bill-"a bill to authorize political candidates to dip into the public purse". The provisions I objected to are still in clause 11 of this new bill.
In my previous remarks I said that I was opposed to the government's proposal to add the political affiliation of candidates to the ballot in a general election. I felt at the time that that provision was designed to influence voters to vote for the government candidate on the ballot. I drew attention to the practice whereby members are addressed in this House by riding and only their name appear on their desk. As it turned out, the gimmick for adding a candidate's party affiliation to the ballot appears to have backfired, because the government nearly went down to defeat; its majority was certainly cut down. I am convinced that some of the provisions of this bill will have the same effect if the bill is passed as now written.
Possibly some people will think from my remarks so far that I am against reforming the Canada Elections Act. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, some provisions of this bill I do not place in the category of reform. In fact, if this bill is accepted in its present form we may well be considering election reforms again in the very near future. I say that on the basis of what this bill will do in connection with the elections act.
We could sit in this House, Mr. Speaker, and put new laws on the books concerning election procedures for the next three or four months: however, unless the laws are adhered to by candidates that would be just a hollow gesture. My experience in the last election leads me to believe that the present laws are intended to control only the conduct of Conservative candidates in general elections. That is the conclusion I have come to from the experience in my riding of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
All members of this House know that the present law requires that candidates file an accounting of collections and disbursements of campaign funds within two months after the filing of the official returns. I file my accounting within that time with my riding returning officer, Mr. L. J. McCann, in Eganville. Since then I have been watching for a notice in the press showing that the other candidates have filed their returns. Today, more than six months after the deadline, I know from checking with the returning officer that I was the only candidate who met the requirements of the law. I ask the leader of the Liberal Party, why did their candidate fail to file an accounting with the returning officer? If he had won, he would be sitting in this House. In that case, I wonder if he would have taken the trouble to comply with the law. I ask the leader of the New Democratic Party, why did the NDP candidate in my riding not comply with the election law? Does this mean that the law does not apply to those

candidates? To this day they have not filed an accounting, they have not filed any disclosure and they have not even bothered to publish an explanation.
I ask the government House leader, what is so special about the disclosure provision in this bill that candidates shall file an accounting with the returning officer after an election, if those Liberal and NDP candidates did not take the trouble to comply with the existing law? I am not opposed to the new proposals with respect to disclosure, Mr. Speaker. I welcome them. If they become law, I will comply with them. However, I do not believe they will make any difference in the conduct of my election campaign. I know this provision will not make any difference. Also, it will make interesting reading to learn where the other parties get their campaign expenses.
Most of the provisions of this bill have my support, although I know very well that these new provisions will not have any real effect on the conduct of elections unless all candidates comply with the law. Again, in the case of my two opponents in the last election, and others who did not file, I cannot help wondering what they are trying to hide. I wonder why they failed to state publicly how much money they raised, how they raised it and how it was spent. It is obvious from my remarks, Sir, that I am in favour of tighter election laws and I am in favour of disclosure. But along with this I want an assurance that the election laws will be strictly enforced.
Now I should like to address myself to the part of this bill that I find totally unacceptable. I refer specifically to clause 11, under which a candidate will be able to apply to the Receiver General of Canada for reimbursement from the taxpayers of part of the expenses he incurred in an election campaign. I am surprised to see this provision back in the bill. I thought my opposition to it last year perhaps laid it to rest or helped lay it to rest. I would like to read the explanatory notes which explain what clause 11 is designed to do;
This amendment would authorize the Receiver General to partially reimburse candidates at an election who have complied with section 63 of the act and filed with the Chief Electoral Officer an auditor's report, return respecting election expenses and declaration respecting election expenses.
Candidates who are elected or who obtain a number of votes equal to 20% of the number of votes cast in the appropriate electoral district would be reimbursed to the extent of sixteen cents for each of the first twenty-five thousand names appearing on the preliminary lists of electors for their electoral districts and fourteen cents for each additional name, in the case of certain electoral districts an amount in respect of travelling expenses, and two hundred and fifty dollars.
All other such candidates would be reimbursed to the extent of two hundred and fifty dollars.
The last sentence indicates that any candidate who can get 25 names on a nomination paper would earn, whether he deserved it or not, at least $250. The explanatory notes indicate to me that the following would happen in a sample constituency of 40,000 eligible voters. Sixteen cents each for the first 25,000 voters would give any candidate who received 20 per cent of the eligible vote $4,000. Fourteen cents for each additional voter in a 40,000-vote riding would give him an additional $2,100. Those two amounts,

plus the $250, would give a total of $6,350 of taxpayers' subsidy to one candidate.
I have tried to estimate the cost for candidates receiving 20 per cent of the vote in the constituencies across Canada.
I	made a conservative estimate that there would be an estimated equivalent of 2.5 candidates per constituency. I estimate that would cost the Canadian taxpayers, already burdened with more taxes than they can afford to pay, $15,875 for the average constituency. Multiplied by 265, it amounts to more than $4,200,000 that must be raised to subsidize the campaign expenses of the candidates. That is at least what it would cost the Canadian people if clause
II	became law. That is why I oppose it.
I said last year that this smacks of Marxist socialism. I have not changed my opinion since that time. It plays right into the hands of the New Democratic Party. If it had not been proposed at a time when the Liberals had a majority in this House, it would look like a concession to the NDP for their support over the past few months. While it may not be NDP socialism, it is certainly Liberal socialism. One is as bad as the other and ought not to be adopted.
I cannot go along with a law that would require my constituents in Frontenac-Lennox and Addington to subsidize the election campaign of NDP or Liberal candidates in British Columbia or Manitoba. I remind the House that the money will be collected from all across Canada. That is not fair to the electors. I do not want my constituents to pay higher taxes in order to support my election campaigns, either. I cannot support this bill as long as it contains that provision. This provision, along with the limitations that would be placed on the amount any candidate can spend on an election campaign, plays right into the hands of the NDP. For years they have complained about their difficulties in raising as much money for campaigns as their opponents. I have listened to that sympathetically. I know personally how difficult it is to raise even part of the money needed to fight an election campaign. This is understandable.
The main source of election expenses of the NDP appears to be the mandatory check-off against the salaries of unionized workers in industry. They take this money and at the same time condemn the employers of these workers as the enemies of the people. They say industries are villains, exploiters of the people and do not contribute anything worth while to society. The leader of the NDP refers to them as corporate bums. In a way, this is amusing. Without industry there would not be any workers paying money into the election coffers of the NDP.
Clause 11 of this bill further enhances the NDP income by a mandatory check-off of the taxpayers of Canada. The former check-off of the labour unions, money which flows to the NDP, plus the latter mandatory check-off of the taxpayers puts the NDP in a good financial position. It assures them of two major sources of ready cash, something which no other party in this House enjoys.
I am opposed to putting socialism in the polling booths. I am afraid this is what we will be doing if we go along with the proposal of using tax money to help candidates win seats in parliament. I know this is the way it is done in eastern European countries where governments are controlled by a small group of strongmen and where candi-
Election Expenses
dates for office are hand-picked and subsidized by the government. I do not believe we have anything to gain by importing such methods and using them in our election campaigns.
I said last year that this provision will encourage frivolous candidates who feel they do not have anything to lose by running for office. They will not have to build reputations in their constituencies or communities which would encourage people to support them for office. By polling 20 per cent of the votes cast, it would be possible for a candidate to make money in a campaign. As I stated, he could draw possibly $6,350. He need not spend all that money; he could appropriate it. Even though he did not win a seat in the election, he could make a profit. I am sure all hon. members will agree that is an example of a frivolous candidate. It would actually be possible for a candidate to gain thereby. A candidate would be able in some cases to encourage a certain segment of the voters in a riding to vote for him or her and whether or not he or she was a serious candidate would be beside the point.
There is no need for this tax rip-off in order to ensure that this House does not become the private preserve of the wealthy. I am sure that is erroneous, a myth. This House is not the private preserve of the wealthy. It has been a very long time since most members of parliament were of independent means. That used to be the fact in the old days. But today we find that every trade, profession and occupation is represented in this House. That is a good thing; it reflects the sincere desires and in most cases the good judgment of Canadian people. Almost every sphere of human endeavour is represented here, and in our system of government that is the way it should be.
Unless government has some scheme for ensuring that only hand-picked candidates can be sure of winning an election campaign, then I cannot see any reason for trying to get the House to approve this measure. I am suspicious of this proposal in clause 11 because I cannot think of any reason it should be included in a bill that seeks to reform our election laws. The spending of more and more of the taxpayers' money, another $4 million to $5 million in this case, certainly is not reform but, rather, just the opposite. This is a gimmick of some sort and I am afraid we may not know what it really means until the bill is passed, and that might be too late.
It has been said that a person can get used to anything after a long enough time has passed, but I think it will take the Canadian taxpayers a very long time to get used to underwriting the expenses of future aspirants to public office. It goes too much against the grain and too much against the tradition which has existed so long in respect of running for office. I think it would be difficult in many cases for the voter to decide which of the five or six candidates are serious candidates. Under our present system it can be assumed that anyone who meets the requirements of the election laws and can acquire a sufficient following in a riding is a serious candidate. A candidate for office under our present system should be a person who can stand good for any unpaid bills as a result of a campaign. In many cases a deficit can be great enough to require that a person has a sound reputation and a sound credit rating in his or her community.

July 11, 1973
Election Expenses
I recall an occasion during a recent election campaign when a candidate in Toronto went deeply into debt in an unsuccessful bid for office. He was forced to declare bankruptcy in order to clear his campaign debts and he hurt a lot of people, including himself, in the process. That was a personal tragedy. I am convinced that a great many people will be encouraged to take such a long chance in the future if we encourage them with handouts from the public purse. To some people, running for office is a tremendous challenge but one that is beyond their capability and beyond their means. As our system works today, these people in most cases are discouraged from getting in over their heads, and in my view this constraint is a healthy and wise one.
A worthy candidate for public office is rarely prevented from reaching that goal because he or she lacks personal wealth. If such a limitation existed in our country I might be inclined to support clause 11, particularly if it would remove such a restriction. However, I do not believe anyone is restricted from standing for public office or that this in any way will be corrected by this provision. Therefore, I cannot accept this as a legitimate part of a bill on election reform.
The hard-fought political campaign in which two or more serious candidates are often locked in a battle for public office, whether it be for the House of Commons or any other level of government in this country, is part of the tradition of Canadian politics. This system has not only endured for the past 106 years and more; it has become an integral part of Canadian life. I would not want to see such an institution sacrificed for something that is less desirable and less likely to ensure that the right candidate wins office. I am not convinced that the subsidization of candidates by the federal government is a better system and I urge all my colleagues in this House to insist that this clause be amended or deleted from the bill.
Again I am reminded of the monstrous bill this government called tax reform over a year ago. That bill was change, but it was not reform. The same can be said of this bill. Let us have reform, but let us not have change for the sake of change. Let us not allow this government to change our political system in such a way that it resembles something which is not Canadian.
I have worked most of my political life to preserve and build in the Canadian way, both in municipal and in federal office, and I cannot stand by and watch this government tear down everything I and others have worked to build up. The Canadian taxpayers are carrying enough on their backs already. I urge my colleagues once again not to burden them further with the election expenses of every candidate who aspires to public office. Let us preserve the Canadian ideal to the greatest extent possible.


REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the parliamentary secretary perhaps the House would allow me to interrupt the proceedings.

It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Cochrane, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Timmins, Kenora-Rainy River, York West, Nipissing, Renfrew North-Nipissing East, Thunder Bay, Algoma and Grenville-Carleton, has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC, 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.
If the House agrees, I would suggest that the text of the objection be printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings of this day.
Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ELECTION EXPENSES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. MacEachen) that Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-203 addresses itself to the two principal problems of election financing, the problem of assistance and the problem of control. By the problem of assistance I mean assisting the various political parties in financing elections and, of course, by the problem of control I refer to the controlling of the collecting and spending of funds by political parties. The fundamental political issues here are not theoretically separable from the democratic functioning of political parties in our system, which in turn is not separable from the successful functioning of representative democracy, if we believe, as I do, and I am sure all of us here do, that political parties and their well-functioning are essential to the kind of democracy we know.
All of us who have been active in political party associations before coming to this House will be especially conscious of this fact. Personally, I have been preoccupied with this problem for a good many years. In 1966, as chairman of the policy committee of the Liberal Party of Ontario, immediately following party reform in respect of policy accountability and leadership review, in which I played some part, I moved to establish election financing as the next priority within the party. The bill before us today is the end result of a process which began with the appointment of the Barbeau commission by the Pearson government in 1964, and was encouraged along the way by pressures from within all the political parties by people devoted to democratization.
Some would go further than this bill before us proposes. I recall at least one witness who appeared before the Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada who suggested
July 11, 1973

that the democratic process within parties should be guaranteed by the Canadian constitution. Even the United States constitution does not go this far, though in the American system internal political questions have sometimes found their way to the courts. Perhaps the best example of that was the matter concerning delegates at the last Democratic presidential convention that was referred to the courts last year. In any event, the constitution committee decided not to make this kind of recommendation if only on the ground that not all political problems can be dealt with by a constitutional document.
This bill deals only with the periphery of the whole area of party functioning. It nevertheless represents an important government initiative and innovation. Traditional election laws looked at individual candidates and not at parties. I have no doubt this results from the fact that parties developed in their present form only in the course of the nineteenth century, and in Canada only really since confederation, even though in Canada it is true that control of election spending came after the parties themselves had developed.
Perhaps because of the legislative control, abuses have been almost non-existent at the riding or candidate level. At least, I feel this is an assertion I can make which will be supported by most members of this House. Those abuses which have found their way into our system have been primarily at the national party level. It may be indeed that even at the national level there have been very few abuses apart from those already well publicized, such as the Pacific scandal and the Beauharnois scandal, which are an important part of Canada's political history.
The important point, however, is that we do not know; even those of us who spend our lives within political parties have no way of knowing, and do not know, the ways in which parties are financed at the national level. We do not know where the money comes from. We have some knowledge of what it is used for because we can see the results of that, but no accounting is made to us of party funds. Secrecy breeds suspicion and only the light of knowledge can enable the Canadian people to have confidence in the workings of our political system. That is why I strongly support the principal change between this bill and that proposed last year, the full disclosure of all contributions of $100 or more.
I think the fact that there is a threshold at which the provision of full disclosure comes into effect, and which means perhaps a theoretical interference with the principles operative, is justifiable in terms of convenience. I do not think anyone would seriously contend that, even if there were any fear that a candidate could be corrupted or that a party could be corrupted, he or it could be corrupted by donations of less than $100.
Turning to the other problem, that of assistance to parties, I must admit I have some reservations about the direct financing of political parties. Other members have expressed similar reservations. Of course, it is only partial financing of political parties and yet I think this still creates a problem.
Let me emphasize first that assistance to political parties has been too little understood as one of the necessities
Election Expenses
of our political system. Inadequate party financing is just as dangerous to democracy as is an excess of party financing. The party system demands adequacy of funds, and while it is not necessarily the duty of the state to see that those funds are obtained, it is also true that if we are to have anything like equality between the political parties which contend in our society, the kind of restraint, which in this instance is proposed to contributions is very relevant to the whole problem.
In my view, the best form of assistance would be the tax credit, which this bill of course also proposes. This to my mind is an innovation which is entirely to the good; I shall express one reservation in respect of it concerning the internal structure of the party, but I believe generally speaking this type of assistance to parties is entirely to the good. It will enable parties to make the broadest possible appeal. The man who contributes as little as $2 or $5 to his party will be able to have a credit for that, and this will provide an incentive to parties to go to people in great numbers, in the thousands or maybe in the tens or hundreds of thousands, to make contributions to the political party of their choice.
The Americans have tried a slightly different system using the income tax form. I understand it has not been very successful in their system, at least in their first year or two of experience with it. I think they have a kind of check-off system through the tax returns. I believe the proposal the government has put forward here is the best possible.
With respect to direct payments, I think the advantages, or the balance between the advantages and disadvantages, have not quite been clear. I recently sent a questionnaire to my constituents in which I asked the following question:
It has been proposed that the federal government should pay a portion of the election costs of political candidates in federal elections. Do you think this would be a good idea if it were accompanied by a limitation on what candidates could spend and a requirement of disclosure of contributions by parties and candidates?
Of those who replied, totalling 2,200 people, 50.9 per cent answered yes, that they would support such a contribution; 37.6 per cent said no, while the other 11.5 per cent were undecided. There was therefore a majority in favour of providing contributions. But the comments that many constituents wrote with their answers, especially on negative replies on this point, revealed that a great many of them had a lack of understanding concerning the type of thing which might be done. Their tendency was to regard this as a gigantic boondoggle on the part of political candidates, and primarily on the part of members of parliament. If we are to have such a provision it must be explained much better to the public than it was understood by the people at that time. However, my reservations about it are not really on that score. They are in respect of the extent to which it interferes with the true operation of the principle of democracy.
What I think is important is that all parties should have equal access to contributions. I believe that is ensured by the tax credit proposal. But, would it not be more desirable to have a situation in which the number and amount of contributions presumably reflects a party's appeal? With the guarantees proposed in this bill, which we hope will be
5528

July 11, 1973
Election Expenses
enforcible, it should certainly be true that the number and amount of donations a candidate or a party receives would be a reflection of the appeal of that candidate or party. Is not this the type of thing we would want to see reflected in a democratic political system?
The proposal we have before us would provide a limited amount of money to all candidates. It guarantees that these candidates will have an opportunity to have the putting forward of their views paid for by the public even though they may not be able to gain sufficient funds for themselves. I realize that it may be argued that any candidate who gets 20 per cent of the popular vote should be placed in that advantageous position, but I think it can also be argued that a person who is not able to attract enough paying supporters to enable him to put his case effectively before the public does not merit subsidization from the public purse.
I also have a small reservation which I telegraphed in advance in respect of the tax credit system. This is really an internal party matter and perhaps is one that cannot be controlled by legislation. What concerns me is that it may lead to greatly increased centralization within the parties. As I understand the proposal, during an election campaign a contribution could be made to the official agent of a candidate, and a tax receipt which would be valid to enable the donor to obtain a tax credit could be issued, but that in the interval between the elections the only body which could give such a tax receipt would be the national party. There could be authorizations at the provincial level, as my hon. friend suggests, but even this provides a considerable amount of centralization. Within the Liberal Party we are actually a federation of regional provincial associations.
I am somewhat concerned that along with the other provision which we enacted in the last year or so in the new Canada Elections Act, which allows the national parties to designate the candidates in various areas, this imposes another and perhaps undesirable force toward centralization within the parties. As I say, it may be that this cannot be dealt with by legislation, that it is a matter with which each party has to deal in its own internal constitution, but it is worth observing that this could be one of the possible results of this legislation.
There are also a number of small matters that undoubtedly my colleagues will want to clear up in the committee. I think that candidates would generally agree that they should be allowed to distribute small identification cards, for instance when they are calling on voters at their homes or on street corners during the first period of the election. Of course, there is no problem during the last four-week period of the election campaign because many forms of advertising are permitted, but it should be made clear that in the first stage of the campaign candidates can distribute identification cards. This is especially important for new candidates who are not known to the public. They should be assured that the identification card used as a kind of handout to the voters will not be an infringement of the act. Any other rule would be a very onerous burden on those who wish the public to become acquainted with them and the positions that they take.

In general, this bill represents a marked advance in legislated political democracy in Canada, and I believe will provide an incentive to further voluntary democratization within the Canadian political parties.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in a debate in which one of the speakers is the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson), who unfortunately has left the chamber. I was going to comment on the fact that I had looked forward to hearing him explain how he spent so much money during the last election campaign. I understand it amounted to around $60,000, which is about the total amount spent by the four successful candidates in Vancouver Island. This would indicate to me that, to add to its other advantages, Vancouver Island got a better bargain politically as well.
The fact is that in Canada we have had to date in our history relatively clean politics. I think the last scandal was back in 1930 or around that time. There was an investigation afterward, and I always thought that one of the best quotes on political morality in Canada was made when John Aird Junion, president of the Beauharnois Corporation, was giving evidence and said:
Gratefulness is always regarded as an important factor in dealing with democratic governments.
We are here for the second time this week considering a bill relating to our electoral processes. So that we do not underestimate the importance of these bills, let us recall that it is this very electoral process which is the defining characteristic of our democratic form of government. Either in examining whether the vote of each Canadian should carry equal weight through representation by population, or in looking at accountability and choice by examining electioneering methods, we must remember that we are dealing with basic democratic values, for democracy at its simplest is, as has often been said, giving the people a chance to throw the rascals out.
An integral part of elections, and the part with which this bill is concerned, is the campaign. To begin, then, what purpose does the campaign serve? For the candidate, the answer is simple: his objective is to get elected, and campaigning is the way in which he hopes to gain votes. Let us, however, ask this question for the country at large and for the individual voter. The purpose of the campaign for them is, surely, to afford them the opportunity to decide which representatives and which party can best serve the interests of the country and of the various constituencies. In order for this to occur, the voters must be able to obtain enough information to make a rational choice based on the current platform and the past performance of parties and individuals. Particularly the voters should be enabled to gather this information on any serious candidate or party, and by serious I mean a candidate who offers a viable political alternative and who can gain significant support in his riding.
The electorate should also have another right with respect to the campaign process, that is, the process itself should not bar anyone from running as a prospective candidate whom the electorate wishes to support. In other words, the campaign process should not preclude capable men because of the expenses involved. This I count among the rights of the voters, as it is they who are deprived of the representation they may wish.
July 11, 1973

July 11, 1973
Election Expenses
and I see nothing in this bill which indicates that a donor has to reveal the source of his contributions.
There is a somewhat similar problem in the form of political advertising by people other than parties, candidates and their agents. This type of election campaigning is becoming more prevalent. In the last British Columbia provincial election, the BC Teachers Federation conducted a campaign directed, at least by implication, against the Social Credit party. Similarly, some insurance companies conducted advertising which was clearly directed against the NDP. Yet this bill makes no mention of this style of electioneering. If it is ignored, then yet another loophole is created whereby parties or individuals could subvert what is the wish of our party and of the Canadian people-fair and open election practices.
There are a few definitions in the bill that I would like to see clarified. On page 2 of the bill there is mention of volunteers, but what a volunteer is remains unclarified. It says that election expenses do not include volunteer labour. If a business or union wishes to send one of its employees on annual leave with pay, particularly because it is time for an election campaign, how are you going to prove that that person is or is not a volunteer? It is not clear from the bill.
There is another matter I would like to speak about in this respect, and that is government spending on advertisements. There are certain advantages to being in government. One of them seems to be that cabinet ministers can put out great advertisements advertising future programs. Invariably, these carry the name of the minister in large print and all too frequently a picture of him taken several years ago. The present government has shown the great advantage it enjoys in this respect, with cabinet ministers having their pictures in glossy brochures and with 17 defeated Grits invited to share a platform with Her Majesty the Queen. These are things that happen when you do not mention all the aspects of politics.
I believe it was said in the Watergate scandal that this is using the mechanics of government, the machinery of government to do in your opponents. I suggest that this is bad for the taxpayers. They are making unwitting contributions to the party in power. I should like to see an amendment to the bill that would prevent government advertisements from carrying cabinet ministers' names or pictures. If it is a welfare program that is going to look after little children, I do not see why the advertisement should be graced by a picture of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Or his children.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I don't know if he has any or not. Nor do I see why it needs to have anybody's name on it. It can be explained that the program comes from the Department of National Health and Welfare, and if the people are curious enough they will soon find out the minister's identity.
In the last election ministers started out with a tremendous advantage. It was a Liberal cabinet that brought the country to the brink of ruin, but it was the people in the back rows who did not get their pictures into the papers every day who lost out. My favourite advertisement showed a little cottage with an elderly couple in it and the

rain falling on the roof. It indicated that they would be safe and warm with our new program of old age pensions and said pensions would be raised by something more than the 2 per cent by which they were raised the previous year.
Unfortunately, this bill is typical of the government in that it has a fine principle almost totally spoiled by a very bad drafting job. If you look through it, loophole after loophole is clearly evident. I do not see how it can work unless we have a serious look at it in committee. That committee now has two major pieces of legislation to deal with, and I do not see how it can give hasty attention to this bill if the bill is to serve the purposes that we all agree it should serve. I would hope that we will have sufficient time in committee to consider many amendments to the bill, and I would hope it will eventually come out of committee and be made the law of the land.
I expect that political parties will have a considerable amount of work to do in order to make this bill work. It will bring about a major change in the structure of Canadian political parties. As mentioned by one of my colleagues, the question of what will be done with the reimbursement of election funds is a very interesting one. I can see this creating quite a difference to the political strategy in a constituency. It says that the funds will be returned to the candidate. Whether the candidate will consider this as his personal property or not, I do not know. The amount involved in the constituency I have the honour to represent, Victoria, I think came to $9,900. If the bill had been in effect, this would have been returned to me.
I would think it might well be put into a revolving fund to be available in the next election. Some parties may think it is up to the candidate to provide the money, and if he gets the critical 20 per cent he will get back the money he has invested in himself. I believe there is some merit in the involvement of people. Perhaps some Conservatives would feel left out of the action if they were not allowed to contribute. I do not come from a constituency that has big contributors but, rather, a great multitude of small contributors and I think their involvement gives them a lot of enjoyment.
I do not know if there are going to be limits to this. There is the concession in the way of the 75 per cent deductible from income tax. That is what it says in the bill. When I first read that, I thought they must mean taxable income. There is a great deal of difference between taxable income and income tax. If the bill goes through reading "income tax", I can see an astute political candidate-I might even do it myself-setting up an office beside H. & R. Block, the tax consultants, and possibly doing the smaller tax returns free of charge if they will agree to accept my advice on certain tax concessions that the new elections act gives them.


An hon. Member:: Tremendous idea.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: After all, if they gave me $25 last time, I would not hesitate to point out that they could give $100 this time and be out the same net amount. I thought it should be "taxable income" instead of "income tax". That
July 11, 1973

would not place political parties in a more advantageous position than churches, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and other charitable organizations. Deserving as we are, I do not think we are that deserving. I thank hon. members very much for their attention. I hope this bill will receive serious consideration in committee, come back here and become the law of the land before the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid).
Election Expenses


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through the usual channels and I believe because of a celebration which is to take place later this day there might be a disposition to call it six o'clock now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.45 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, duly 12, 1973