1973-12-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
December 19, 1973-The Minister of Transport:
That, when the House adjourns on Friday, December 21, 1973 it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, December 26, 1973; and
That the hours of sitting on Wednesday, December 26, 1973 shall be 7.00 o'clock p.m. to 10.30 o'clock p.m.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with this motion having to do with the adjournment of the House. As hon. members may realize, certain discussions have been taking place among representatives of the parties as to an alternative method of dealing with this question. These discussions are still under way and probably will not be completed until some time this afternoon. Therefore I recommend that it would be in the interests of the House and of these discussions if we agreed to defer the calling of this motion to later today. If we fail in our efforts, we will call the motion at that time.


Mr. Bell:: We agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table a background document in both official languages on a sector strategy for Canada's footwear and tanning industries.



TABLING OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENT ON ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FOOTWEAR AND TANNING INDUSTRIES

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies of a background document in both official languages on the adjustment assistance program for the footwear and tanning industries.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I announced on November 30 in the House that the Canadian government would apply the provisions of Canada's ongoing refugee program to those people who wish to settle in Canada as a result of the situation in Chile. I would like to report on the results of the program to date.
Applications respecting approximately 1,400 persons have been received. One hundred and eighty-four visas have been issued and up to 213 additional visas could be issued once applicants respond to our request that they come forward for their medical examinations. They have had other screenings, so they have been in contact with us. Many of these have indicated that they do not wish to come to Canada until next spring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why wait for spring?


Thomas Miller Bell: They are waiting for a change in the government.


Robert Knight Andras: We will have to get the snowplows out for them. An additional 369 persons only require successful completion of background checks before being issued visas. Normally these checks would take about six months but under our accelerated program these have been reduced to one to four weeks on Chilean nationals and two months' duration for others. All applications received to date should be completed by January 31, with many being completed before the end of December. These figures will indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, the results of my statement of November 30 that accelerated immigration processing would take place but that medical and background checks would be carried out.
We are endeavouring to ascertain the number of persons who have been delayed by the lack of transportation. Contingency transportation arrangements are being planned for implementation when and if necessary.
In respect of adjustment and settlement arrangements, a number of groups have come forward with offers of assistance, and I am assured that the situation is well in hand.

December 21, 1973
Chilean Refugees


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the statement the minister made in the House on November 30 concerning Chilean refugees I stressed at that time that the Progressive Conservative Party had always shown a willingness on the basis of humanitarian grounds and compassionate reasons to accept refugees from other countries who wished to relocate in Canada. We still maintain that position. In his statement on November 30 the minister gave the impression that there were only a couple of hundred people who had expressed a desire to come to Canada. Today his statement indicates there are already 1,400 people who wish to come to Canada.
In my reply to the minister then I expressed the opinion that certain caution should be observed and maintained in respect of Chilean refugees. I raised the question of the nationality of these refugees and whether they were Chileans or in fact people from various Latin American countries who now wanted to come to Canada via Chile. We have not received an answer to that question. We also raised a question and a caution concerning whether or not sufficient security checks were being implemented. At that time we insisted that stringent security checks should be maintained in all cases. The Progressive Conservative Party is not impressed to date with the security practices of the immigration branch. The government has allowed well known criminals and international agitators to come to Canada and find a haven here. This is something the government should look squarely in the eye and take very positive action in regard to it.
The government should also make full disclosure of the specific number of Chilean refugees who have applied to come to Canada, their nationality and what security checks have been maintained. We hold to the position that we are interested in helping genuine international refugees, people who want to come to this country and contribute in a positive way to the social, economic and cultural life of Canada.
The minister also indicated in his statement that the department has accelerated the processing of these applications. I remind the minister that many people who have applied for landed immigrant status from outside Canada and have sponsoring relatives in Canada have waited for years to come to Canada without any positive response from the government. This includes people from the United Kingdom. In the first nine months of this year we had more applications than last year by people wanting to come to this country. I suggest to the government that it should take strong and positive steps in that respect.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the entire premise on which the government based its refugee program was the urgency in respect of these people who are political refugees because their well-being and their lives were in danger. Yet today in his statement the minister said that many of these people have indicated they do not wish to come to Canada until spring. Obviously the effect of winter in Canada has already extended to Chile. These people have become aware of it. Where is the urgency if these people can wait until spring? Why do they not come now? I suggest this entire question should be re-examined and a full disclosure made by the minister in charge.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister made his statement on November 30 that the people dislodged by the coup in Chile would be given refuge in Canada and treated as refugees and that their cases would be expedited, we welcomed the announcement. Since that date, and particularly in the last few days, I have been receiving, as no doubt other hon. members have, information from Santiago, from Panama, from Honduras and from Mexico of delays and in some cases destitution amongst those who have applied to come to Canada.
There are three causes mirrored in the minister's statement. The first is the delay in medical checks; second, the delay in background checks and, third, difficulties of transportation. We are told that, out of 1,400 persons who have applied, 184 visas have been issued and up to 215 additional visas can be issued when medical examinations are completed. I would like to ask the minister how many persons have actually come to Canada and how that number compares with the over 700 who have arrived in Sweden and France from Chile.
We all appreciate the necessity of background checks, but I see a striking contrast between background checks, which are said to take four weeks in the case of Chilean nationals and two months for others, and what happened at the time of the flood of Hungarian and Czechoslovakian refugees when background checks took a day or two and those people, out of humanitarian reasons, were allowed to enter this country. I suggest that the process of background checks must be speeded up or a simpler method found. I would like to ask the minister also whether the medical staff is adequate. I am informed it is not, that one of the reasons for the delay is an inadequate medical staff to check on those who have applied, at our invitation, to come to Canada.
The minister said in his statement that "we are endeavouring to ascertain the number of persons who have been delayed by lack of transportation." Why at this stage, months after this situation arose, are we still endeavouring to ascertain whether or not transportation is available? Other countries have provided airlifts. I suggested on November 30 that we could provide airlifts. I ask the minister again: Why have we not had a greater sense of urgency in dealing with the question of transportation rather than endeavouring now, months later, to ascertain the number of people who have been delayed by lack of transportation?
There is another serious problem that has arisen. I understand that, with respect to at least some of these refugees, the military junta in Chile has set a deadline, the end of this year, and while we dilly-dally around the possibility of some of these victims of the coup coming to Canada may be cut off by the junta itself. The minister shakes his head. I would be glad to hear from him at some stage whether in fact that deadline exists. It certainly did exist, but if it has been changed I am delighted to hear it.
We still require the utmost sense of urgency if the minister's good intentions are not to be frustrated and if Canada's reputation in the international field is to be maintained as we hope it will be.
December 21, 1973

[ Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been given the minister's statement. I note that he wants to keep the House informed about the activities of his department. I also note that the accelerated program is helping to speed up the decisions. Moreover-and this surprises me somewhat-the statement says about the procedures to follow:
-these have been reduced to one to four weeks on Chilean nationals and two months duration for others.
I understand that these are special circumstances and especially in the name of humanitarian feelings, we do not object to helping people in trouble. However, we must not forget that Canada has a yet unsolved unemployment problem. We should therefore take care of the many people that we shall be bringing in from foreign countries, as this will certainly not help our unemployment situation.
It is also in order to mention, since this has happened before, that we should take some precautions to prevent Canada from becoming a shelter for political refugees who could contribute in bringing trouble to the Canadian people.
Once again, we do not object to this for special cases after the background checks have been made, but we should act with a lot of prudence.



VIOLENCE IN JUNIOR HOCKEY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity of which I have notified the responsible minister.
Considering that it is the duty of each Canadian citizen to see to the constant improvement of our national sport, hockey and that among juniors brutality if not violence seems to become the main attraction according to certain recent reports, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House unanimously invite the minister responsible for amateur sports in Canada to consider the possibility of a thorough inquiry regarding violence among juniors, in order to make those involved in junior hockey in Canada understand that for young people, at that stage, hockey should be in the first place a training school in the best interests of our national sport.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker-
Shortage of Sorel Metal Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: I have not really heard those who oppose my motion. I felt the whole House had agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall inquire again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity to the negative people of James Bay. Since the Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to hear the appeal of the James Bay Indians against continued construction of the massive hydroelectric project which Mr. Justice Malouf describes as causing irreparable damage to the native population, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark):
That this House instruct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to arrange with the Quebec government for an immediate halt to construction until such time as an acceptable political settlement of the Indian claims can be negotiated.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity having regard to the critical shortages of sorel metal in this country, a commodity on which many industries are heavily dependent. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the shortages of sorel metal be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and furthermore that the government give immediate consideration to taking interim measures to ensure an adequate supply of this commodity.

December 21, 1973
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did the government, prior to the recent legal action by the Northrop Corporation of Los Angeles, undertake consultations with officials of Canadair Limited of Montreal and with the Northrop Corporation with a view to ascertaining why the licence to build the CF-5 fighter aircraft in Canada has been cancelled and, if so, what was the outcome of those consultations?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that is being handled by my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport but since he is not here I will address it to the Minister of Supply and Services or the Prime Minister. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister or-


An hon. Member:: Here he is.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister assure the House, in view of the current situation involving this controversy with the Canadian aerospace industry through Canadair and through the action of the United States Northrop Corporation and the possible lawsuit involving the Canadian aerospace industry and Canadair, that he will not proceed to have Air Canada involved through Comstock in this particular industry at this time?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is something which is now being considered, the relationship between Comstock and Air Canada. No decision has been taken yet but this is something we are actively considering now.


CF-5 AIRCRAFT-POSSIBILITY OF LAWSUITS ARISING FROM SALES TO OTHER COUNTRIES-FINANCIAL PLANS TO MEET COST OF AGREEMENT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Did the minister make the cabinet aware of the possibility of lawsuits if sales agreements were entered into with other countries in this regard, and were there any financial contingency plans for meeting the eventual cost of this CF-5 agreement?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter, although it remains of an administrative nature. A few weeks ago, I made a firm bid to the Northrup Corporation. I even invited them to join the federal government in bringing this conflict before Canadian courts, the difference in interests being so significant. This concerns the sale of aircraft to a foreign country.
As to the conversion of F-5s into CF-5s, Northrup Corporation is instituting proceedings against the federal government. Perhaps I should add that Canadair, a subsidiary of an American corporation, is also involved.
It is unfortunate that we should have to go to court, but this is the option of the Northrup Corporation.
There is a third factor in this conflict, which concerns compensation to the Canadian industry. I feel this is very important, and we shall have to defend our rights, as far as this factor is concerned.
[ English]


CF-5 AIRCRAFT-ALLEGED MISHANDLING OF FUNDS BY CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION IN SALE TO VENEZUELA
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Having regard to the 1972 report of the Auditor General that the Canadian Commercial Corporation mishandled public funds from the Venezuelan sale, what steps has the government taken to correct this flagrant misuse of the taxpayers' dollars?
[ Translation|


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premises of the hon. member, but we are now studying the report of the Auditor General and in due course I can comment on it.


CF-5 AIRCRAFT-CABINET APPROVAL OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES-EFFECT OF PRODUCTION LICENCE CANCELLATION
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Was cabinet approval obtained for the negotiations with foreign countries for the sale of the CF-5?
December 21, 1973

[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I was not responsible for the department at that time. I shall therefore consult the files and report to the hon. member.
[ English]


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the fourth, fifth or sixth supplementary to the original question. We should try to move on. The hon. member will be recognized and then the hon. member for Selkirk.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, may I direct one final supplementary to the Minister of National Defence. How will cancellation of the CF-5 production licence affect Canada's defence plans?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it will not affect them in any way.


CF-5 AIRCRAFT-EFFECT OF NORTHROP LAWSUIT ON PLANS TO CHANGE ROLE FROM FIGHTER TO TRAINER
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the present situation going to result in an alteration of Department of National Defence plans to change the role of the CF-5 from that of a fighter aircraft to that of a trainer?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration apropos the statement he made a few moments ago. What steps has he taken or does he contemplate to expedite the medical and background checks of those who have applied to come to Canada from Chile, either directly or indirectly?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with regard to medical checks the problem, quite frankly, has been that some of the applicants who have been processed in other ways and have been asked to come forward to complete the whole processing, by virtue of undergoing medical checks have chosen not to do so. We are equipped to handle these medical checks very quickly indeed and are keen to do so. With regard to background checks, in some cases these take a little longer. We are taking special measures and we have augmented our staff down there to accelerate this process as well, although we want to exercise the necessary thoroughness in that process.
Oral Questions


Francis Andrew Brewin: I referred to the fact that at one stage, at any rate, the military government of Chile said they were fixing a deadline of December 31 for some, if not all, refugees who sought to leave the country. The minister indicated that was no longer the case. Can he tell us what the situation now is?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the accurate information we are getting is that the military government of Chile had indicated to all embassies in Chile that people in the embassy itself who were there as a safe haven had to be prepared to leave by December 11, and all diplomatic posts were instructed to submit lists of people in their care to the military government of Chile with regard to applications for safe conduct. Our embassy, which now contains some 55 people, submitted its list on December 10 with applications for safe conduct, and we have not had a response from the government of Chile. We anticipate that the response will come within two weeks from that period. We have, I might say, booked 80 seats on a Canadian Pacific Airlines flight on December 31 in anticipation of a possible need to get these people out of Chile. However, we cannot take them out until the government of Chile gives us safe conducts for them.


CHILEAN REFUGEES-REQUEST FOR NATIONALITY OF APPLICANTS TO COME TO CANADA AND NUMBERS SEEKING TEMPORARY HAVEN OR PERMANENT STATUS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning the statement he made today. Can the minister break down the nationality of the approximately 1,400 applicants whose applications have been received by the department to date?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I had that information with my statement but I sent it to Hansard and I regret that I do not have the actual breakdown. I will get it for the hon. member and make sure that he has the information very quickly.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary in the same vein. While the minister is furnishing that information, would he also indicate what numbers have indicated a desire to come to Canada as a temporary haven and how many have applied to come to Canada to receive landed immigrant status and eventually Canadian citizenship?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the bulk of the applications to which I referred are applications for permanent residence, that is, for landed immigrant status. There are some people, particularly in the Canadian embassy, who do not wish to do so. For instance, of the 55 people in the embassy in Santiago only 29 have indicated a desire to come to Canada. The rest are seeking haven somewhere else, and that is the situation we are exploring. Among the rest there is a variation in numbers, particularly among those who are in camps outside Chile. Those we do not consider to carry the same degree of urgency, in the sense that they are not in Chile itself and they are, contrary to other

December 21, 1973
Oral Questions
reports, being looked after in the way of accommodation, food, shelter, pocket money and that sort of thing.

f Translation]


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Is he considering taking the necessary measures to further facilitate winter navigation on the St. Lawrence River up to Montreal and thus ensure as far as possible the transportation of oil products up to the Montreal harbour and continue to fight the price increase of oil on the Quebec market this winter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, all depends on the Ship Traffic Branch. Was the hon. member thinking about the navigation on the Lower St. Lawrence River up to Montreal or from Montreal up to the Great Lakes? There is quite a difference between those two things. I am not sure of the meaning of this question.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I meant the Lower St. Lawrence traffic up to Montreal. My supplementary question is the following: Does the minister intend to meet shortly the officials of the St. Lawrence Pilots Federation so as to discuss this possibility with them?


Jean Marchand: I must inform the House that the St. Lawrence pilots did not ask to see me. Surely I have no intention of writing them and ask for a meeting. I have no objection in case they have problems. The traffic of ships on the St. Lawrence River has considerably increased over the last few years. Ten years back only 150 ships entered the gulf. Today over 2,000 sail through it during winter. Of course this depends on the market requirements and also on the economic situation of sea transportation.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I am told that the St. Lawrence Pilots Federation has sent a cable to this effect to the Minister of Transport who says he has received no news. Could the minister check whether he has received this cable?
[ English]


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


MEASURES TO ACHIEVE MORE EFFICIENT INTERCITY TRANSPORTATION IN ORDER TO CONSERVE ENERGY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of possible fuel shortages in Canada this winter and the prospect that these shortages may extend for some time to come, has the minister given any consideration to imple-
[Mr. Andras.J
menting immediately plans for more efficient intercity transportation as a means of conserving energy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. There is no doubt this is something that we would like to do and we will do it wherever it is possible. We have been negotiating with Ontario for better service between cities. Maybe we can do it with other provinces. Of course, the only thing is that we cannot change these things overnight.


Mr. Woolliams:: Not with this government, at any rate.


Jean Marchand: Not even with yours, Sir, I regret. When we decide to build new track, new locomotives or new cars, that takes some time. I think the idea behind the question is one we must retain and work on very seriously.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Has the Minister of Transport made any proposals to cabinet for new intercity transportation facilities? If so, what response has he received from his cabinet colleagues?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am about to produce a very long memorandum to cabinet on all transportation problems in Canada, including this one.
M *	*


OIL-INDICATION BY GOVERNMENT TO SYNCRUDE REGARDING PRICING POLICY TO BE APPLIED TO PRODUCT
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask him what indications he has given to the principals of Syncrude with regard to the pricing policy to be applied to their product?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question of the hon. member for York South on this point about a week ago, indicating that our expectation with regard to pricing over the long run for Syncrude and for similar projects would be that a price would be available to make the product marketable and economic from their standpoint, very much in the terms set out by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House. One of the specific assurances we gave them was with regard to the question of shutting in capacity, namely, that given the importance of economics to a synthetic crude plant they would not be subject to be shut-in as a conventional well would be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Given the significance of any such communication to Syncrude, or its principals and the light this might shed on the government's policy with regard to the pricing of oil from the tar sands, would the minister be prepared to table the letter he has written to Syncrude or its principals on this subject?
December 21, 1973


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do so. I will see that translations are made and have the document prepared. I had been expecting that the government of Alberta, which announced the project originally, would have been making a public statement on this matter. However, I shall be glad to table the letter.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the Supreme Court of Canada, in a three-two decision has decided not to hear the appeal of the James Bay Indians against continued construction of the massive hydroelectric project now under way in Quebec, will the federal government use its clear constitutional authority in relation to Indians and lands reserved for Indians to demand that the Quebec government order a halt to construction until such time as an acceptable political settlement of native land claims can be negotiated?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I do not think the law provides that the government may substitute itself for the court. I know the Indians have rights. I have stated this and I have helped them to go to the courts. Once more, I state my view that the only way to get out of this difficulty is through a just and reasonable settlement. I am urging the Indians and the Quebec government to agree to such a settlement. I am working to this end, and I hope both parties will accept what is reasonable.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since the minister will not undertake to use his good offices to have current construction halted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -will he at least assure the House that he and his negotiators will give immediate consideration to the matter which the James Bay Indians list as their No. 1. priority, that is, the significant modification of the plans for the LG-1 dam?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct the hon. member. I have been negotiating on this matter at least three or four times a week. I have been involved. I have been in Montreal, I have been in Quebec. And I have been attending the House of Commons. I am doing my utmost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As I have already stated, I think that for the sake of a good settlement we should not try to make this a political matter. We do not need any back-seat drivers in this case.


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


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What the minister needs, Mr. Speaker, is a good front-seat driver.


Mr, Stanfield:: Arrogance!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In connection with the negotiations the minister purports to have undertaken, I wonder whether he can report any progress to the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am glad to report that proposals have been made by the Quebec government to the Indians and that the Indians are studying those proposals. Quebec has appointed a negotiator who knows about the Indian problem, my former assistant deputy minister. They are talking about the matter, and I do not want to say too much about it because I am not keen on publicity; all I want is to resolve this difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It follows a question I asked in the House yesterday concerning the takeover of the Macdonald Tobacco Company by R. J. Reynolds of North Carolina. The statement the minister made in the House yesterday did no more than indicate voluntary guidelines with respect to takeovers which occur in the interim period. Since, according to the minister, this takeover is not yet complete, would he tell us what specific steps he intends to take with regard to this takeover which will mean foreign domination of this important industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: As I believe I indicated yesterday, I have already taken a step. I asked the representatives of the firm to come to Ottawa I have met with them and have asked them a number of questions. 1 am now waiting to hear further from them.

| Translation\


VIOLENCE IN JUNIOR HOCKEY-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for amateur sport in Canada, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of recent reports of violence between junior hockey players, does the minister intend, if possible, to undertake an in-depth inquiry into this situation so that junior hockey becomes a school of leadership instead of violence, as is the case at present?

December 21, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with this situation and I intend to discuss shortly with the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association the possibility of taking measures of a special nature or, at least, in addition to those already taken in this regard.
[ English]


Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister on the same question. Has the minister considered whether there is any federally-funded money going into amateur junior hockey which could be withdrawn if the organizers of amateur junior hockey are not prepared to cut out some of the violence and cease encouraging brutality in our national sport?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is not my habit to work with threats and blackmail against people who are receiving funds from the federal government. I believe they are reasonable people and I hope that in negotiating and discussing the matter with them we can arrive at better results than by using threats to cut off public funds.


John Allen Fraser: The minister refers to blackmail. I ask him whether, in view of the obvious public concern about what is happening, the organizers of amateur junior hockey should not be informed that the public will not continue to support them with taxpayers' money unless they clean up their game?


Marc Lalonde: I said in French before the hon. member spoke that I hope to meet with representatives of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association in the next few days to discuss this very matter. I repeat, however, I do not think that when dealing with responsible citizens we should confront them with the threat of cutting off public funds at the first opportunity. I think there are better ways of dealing with people.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In light of information that in the coal mines operating in Cape Breton under the Cape Breton Development Corporation the accident rate in 1971 stood at the appalling figure of 109 per cent and that in 1972 it was 90 per cent, can the minister tell the House why he has not conducted an inquiry into this very serious situation?
Hon. John C, Munro (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I would advise him that officials of my department have been working very closely with management, union leadership and so on at Devco for some considerable time in regard to the accident rate which the hon. member has identified and which is very disturbing indeed. Various efforts have been made. I am not complaining about lack of co-operation, but the accident rate has not come

down, as is well evidenced by the figures. As a result, I have decided to appoint a commissioner of inquiry to look into the situation. We are working out the terms of reference for the commissioner with management and the union leadership, and we are getting co-operation in that regard.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his reply but may I put a supplementary question. First, how soon does he think the commissioner will be appointed and get under way with his investigation? Second, in view of the fact there were between 2,600 and 3,000 employees in 1972 and there were 2,300 accidents, 1,900 of them disabling, would the minister send officials from his department to Cape Breton immediately to ensure that safety standards are being adhered to and so the number of human beings being maimed and slaughtered will be reduced as quickly as possible?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would repeat that it was prior to the hon. member bringing this situation to my attention in the House that action was taken by my department, in co-operation with other departments, to do something about this. The negotiations and discussions have not materially reduced the accident rate and this is the reason I decided to appoint a commissioner of inquiry. As to when this will be done, all I can say is it will be done very immediately indeed. I expect the appointment to be made within the next few days; if not, within the next two weeks.


Robert Muir: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have to take the time of the House again, but this is a very important matter. I should like to ask a further supplementary question of the minister. The minister stated that he has been attempting through his officials to reduce the number of accidents by negotiating. Can he advise me what reaction he has received from the officials of Cape Breton Development Corporation, and to what have they laid the cause for such a tremendous increase in the number of accidents? Also, are they co-operating to reduce the number of accidents?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware of this situation so far as the Cape Breton Development Corporation is concerned. All I can say is that we cannot complain about lack of co-operation from Devco management, or from the union leadership for that matter. I think there is a genuine desire on the part of both to reduce this accident rate. Some of the problems may be very deeprooted indeed, and it is because of this that we hope a commissioner of inquiry will be able to get to the bottom of them.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question. Several weeks ago I raised the matter of the unauthorized invasion
December 21, 1973

by the RCMP of the apartment of Mr. Paul Desbiens, in which Mrs. Desbiens was technically assaulted in her bath. A senior RCMP official in the Ottawa area publicly stated that the Solicitor General would reply in the House. Therefore I ask the minister whether the investigation has been completed, and what action has been taken to redress this regrettable intrusion?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I had an answer here for several weeks waiting for the hon. member to follow up the matter with me, but I do not have it with me this morning.


Some hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: But let me say this. There were two Mr. Desbiens, father and son, who lived in the same building. When the police came to press a charge against the son for possession of narcotics, they were directed to the father's apartment. They went to the apartment with a warrant and went into the bathroom, but as soon as they saw the lady there they left. The police left immediately, Mr. Speaker. There was no assault.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: They apologized and then went to the neighbouring apartment and served a summons on the right Mr. Desbiens.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Solicitor General is not representative of the RCMP or of justice in this country. It is very easy to make fun of the situation, but the facts are that no warrant was presented. The police did not leave, they searched the apartment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now engaging in debate and he has been recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary. Perhaps he should ask his supplementary. I seek the co-operation of hon. members; we do not appear to be moving very quickly this morning. I hope we will have as few supplementaries as possible so that more questioners can be given an opportunity to ask a question this morning.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I personally visited that apartment shortly afterwards.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: What the minister states is not correct. That apartment was searched. All the possessions in that place were searched. There was no warrant. I am suggesting that I have this knowledge personally. Therefore I would ask the minister to reconsider this matter and have a full investigation made in a serious manner. This is a citizen of Canada whose rights were transgressed. I believe an investigation will indicate that some action should be taken against the officers who made this intrusion without a warrant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have checked this matter thoroughly. There was a warrant. The warrant was issued by a magistrate in Ottawa. When the police went to the apartment building, which is to be torn down very shortly for an urban renewal project, there were no names on the doors or below in the apartment lobby. They went upstairs and asked a lady they saw, who was Mrs. Desbiens herself, the wife of the son, where the apartment was. She directed them to the apartment that they entered. They entered that apartment and started searching around. There was no one there. They opened a door, found the elderly Mrs. Desbiens in the bathroom, apologized and left, and then were redirected to the right apartment.


William Arnold Peters: That is a lie and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Warren Allmand: They went and put the warrant before the right man and the matter is now before the courts.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member who wants to rise on a question of privilege. The minister has given a statement. The hon. member for Timiskaming on a question of privilege has also given a statement which brings out facts that are different than those reported by the minister. The minister has repeated his facts. Obviously there is a necessity for the matter to be looked into, but I really do not think that it can be settled by an exchange of questions of privilege during the question period. If the hon. member for Timiskaming seeks the floor on a question of privilege I will, of course, recognize him. But I would hope that some way can be found for the matter to be cleared up without taking up all the time in the question period on questions of privilege.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the facts the minister states are not correct. I personally was there. If the minister wants me to indicate that he is dishonest, I can be pushed into that, Mr. Speaker. I state that the names were on a number of mail boxes in the vestibule and that the numbers are clearly in very large letters on the doors of the apartments. I state this from my own knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the minister treat this matter seriously, re-inves-tigate and ascertain the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think I should recognize the minister. We have heard the same report twice from the minister and the hon. member's report. I do not think we should hear it a third time, either from the member or from the minister. The minister rises on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: Merely on the point that the member accused me of lying. He said that I was a liar. It was pretty clear on my earphone. I think he should withdraw that. I made this statement based on the report given to me. Like him. I have not investigated the matter myself. It is a pretty large country and we have many policemen. I refuse to accept his allegation that I am telling lies in the House.
8972

December 21, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly, it is against the rules of the House-this has long been established-for any member to accuse another member of lying. I did not hear the hon. member say that. I would have to rely on Hansard. I would hope we would not get into that kind of a situation. If the hon. member has, of course, made that accusation, he would have to withdraw it.


William Arnold Peters: I did not say the minister was lying. I said I could be pushed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: I said I could be pushed into that. Mr. Speaker, I think Hansard will clearly indicate that I said "that is a lie," and there seems to be some difference of opinion as to the facts. I did not say that the minister was a liar but that the report he gave was a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The distinction may be somewhat subtle. The hon. member has the right to question the accuracy of a report made to a minister. He cannot question the honesty of another member giving that report. I think it should be made clear that the hon. member states that he did not accuse the minister of lying or that the statement made by the minister is a lie. If the hon. member confirms my understanding of the situation, I do not think there is any necessity for withdrawal, but that should be made very clear. I hope this is what the hon. member will confirm to the Chair.


William Arnold Peters: That is what my intention was, and I am sure Hansard will bear out that that in fact took place.


Mr. Speaker:: There are three minutes before the end of the question period. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


URBAN AFFAIRS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Due to the transportation crisis being caused by fuel shortages, will the minister now consider increasing the 50 per cent federal government cost-sharing formula for rail line relocation in Canadian cities in an effort to promote intercity rail transit in co-operation with the municipalities and provinces?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be best answered when legislation is introduced.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have asked before about the investigation into the improper disclosure of documents. I think the House would like to know if charges have yet been laid in this matter under the Public Service Employment Act for failure to honour the terms of the oath of secrecy which public servants are obliged to take under that act before being assigned to positions of confidence?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no charges have yet been laid. The investigation is continuing.


Donald W. Munro: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member but we have just about reached the point where I have to call orders of the day.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is satisfied that the course being followed in this matter will be a positive response to the recommendations of PAFSO, the professional organization bringing together the officers of this department who are anxious, as I am, for obvious reasons, and as all Canadians are, that everything be done to ensure that proper confidentiality is maintained in diplomatic communications and that the integrity of the foreign service is preserved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I must say I was extremely gratified to see the resolution that was approved by the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers which supports the position that he and I have taken in the House, and most members, I hope.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. In light of the statement made yesterday by the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board to the effect that Canadians would have to learn to live with high and rising food prices, I ask the Minister of Finance if this reflects the policy of the government and, if not, does the government intend to ask for her resignation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see that statement in full context and refer that question to my colleague to whom she reports.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
As a result of the numerous accidents Air Gaspe has had, of which the most recent occurred Monday, and in view of the answer the minister gave the House on the 19th, does he intend to take emergency measures to ensure the security of passengers on that eastern Quebec airline?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have asked Air Gaspe to appoint an air comptroller immediately. The company has had repeated accidents and the security of its passengers is threatened. If the company does not submit to our requirements, we will doubtless have to decide whether or not to cancel its license.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there is only one working day between this weekend and the statutory holiday of Christmas day for public servants, and because at Christmas it is better to give than receive, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government will give public servants Christmas eve as a day off and not require the opening of offices in order to facilitate travel and family planning?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House that I am not the minister responsible for the public service, but I will discuss the matter with the minister to see what the facts are and to consider the suggestion of the hon. member.


COMMONWEALTH GAMES IN NEW ZEALAND-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION-ALLEGED PROMISE OF PAYMENT TO EDMONTON FOR BRITISH COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that New Zealand is having the British Commonwealth Games in February, will the minister advise the House who in his department is to represent Canada at the British Commonwealth Games in New Zealand?


Marc Lalonde: I would hope, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible, that indeed I will have the honour to represent Canada on that occasion.
Oral Questions


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Because it is better to give than receive, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare please tell the House when he expects to give that $15 million to Edmonton for the British Empire Games which the former Minister of State, Pat Mahoney, promised to Edmonton a couple of years ago?


Marc Lalonde: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to just say the minister is wrong. I was at a meeting in Edmonton at the Jubilee Auditorium when the former Minister of State said explicitly to 2,700 people in Edmonton that the federal government would soon give them $15 million for the British Commonwealth Games. That was before the last election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Scarborough East and then call orders of the day.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON LeDAIN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING MARIJUANA


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recommendations of the LeDain Commission, I wonder whether the minister would give the House the assurance that the government is not planning to seek legalization of marijuana, cannibis and such drugs?


Marc Lalonde: The government's position on marijuana was expressed last year by my predecessor, and I have stated since then that the government continues to endorse the position stated by the government last year. So there has been no change in the government's policy. I hope that in the course of the next year we will be able to produce appropriate legislation to bring into effect the proposed changes that were put forward by my predecessor.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Is the House to interpret the answer of the minister as meaning that the government will extend the legalization of these drugs?


Marc Lalonde: I would only refer the hon. member to the well-known and oft-repeated statement that has been made during the course of the last year. The policy is the same as it was. The hon. member should not attempt to distort the situation by allegations such as the ones he is making.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. He will be recognized for that purpose, after which, as I said, we will have to call orders of the day.
8974

December 21, 1973
Oral Questions


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, in my question I made no allegations. I asked for clarification but all I can say is that I received evasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, may I say in answer to the hon. member that there is no need for clarification. The position was stated categorically by the government last year and there has been no change in policy. If there is any confusion, it is only in the hon. member's mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is again debate.
During the question period there have been a number of alleged questions of privilege which were debates over alleged facts. I suggest to hon. members that this is not always helpful. I think the Chair should be allowed to call orders of the day. The hon. member for Scarborough West rises on a point of order.


Mr. Harney:: Mr. Speaker, this morning, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Exquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) stated that in so far as the matter being investigated by his department is concerned, the investigation was continuing. On November 29, as recorded on page 8250 of Hansard, the minister said, in a statement the investigation:
-I am confident that we have identified the person responsible for the leaks. That person is being informed. The long established procedures for dealing with such cases will now be followed.
My point of order is very simply this: Which of the two statements by the minister is the correct one?


Mr. Speaker:: I would have difficulty in ruling that that is a legitimate point of order. I have to suggest to the hon. member that again that is debate. Orders of the day. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), in response to questions about drugs and the LeDain Commission-whether or not he knows it, and he should if he does not-is attempting to mislead the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: I want to put on the record my reason for making that statement and why it should not be permitted. He made reference to a policy statement made last year. That policy statement was made by the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, now the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), and right alongside of him was the then Minister of Justice, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who repudiated that statement and said that it did not reflect cabinet policy. What the hell is cabinet policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 20, consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and Motion No. 12 (Mr. Barnett).
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Ccmox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the House has under consideration motion No. 12 standing in my name which would remove one word from the proposed Clause 13.2(1.1) of the Canada Elections Act. It was moved on my behalf last night by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who at that time explained to the House that I was serving at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which was considering Bill S-4.
The hon. member for Skeena laid some of the groundwork for the consideration of this amendment, but I would like to make a few remarks on it today. The amendment does have an effect upon the whole question of what I have considered to be one of the objectives of the bill we have before us, namely, to bring some reasonable limitation on the amount of the expenditures that would be incurred in the conduct of general elections in Canada. The particular subclause which we have under consideration, as I understand it, was introduced to the committee at the instigation or on behalf of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). If I understand him correctly, according to the mover, it was introduced for the purpose of clarifying to a certain extent what is involved in the actual definition of election expenses. Whether or not it does that, is in my view a debatable question.
I think one can argue fairly successfully that rather than clarify, it tends to confuse the whole matter of what are or are not legitimate election expenses and the whole question of at what maximum level those expenses should be set. The preceding subclause, which was in the original bill as it received second reading in the House, had to do with placing a limitation on the total expenses that a political party can incur in Canada, and in particular with reference to the period during which we have a general election. It purports to set the limit of those expenditures at a maximum of 30 cents multiplied by the number of names appearing on the preliminary lists of electors in the total number of constituencies in which that particular party is putting forward an official candidate. One can debate the question as to whether or not the 30 cents multiplied by the number of electors does, in fact, bring about a realistic attempt to reduce the total expenditures which have been escalating in recent years by leaps and bounds.
But leaving that question aside, this subclause which I am seeking to amend provides that the factor of 30 cents multiplied by the number of electors, does not apply to money contributed by a political party, and the phrase
December 21, 1973

used in the subclause is "for the use of Candidates". I have been looking rather carefully at that question. When I say that there may be confusion rather than clarification, I must say that when one thinks of what is meant by the expression "for the use of candidates" in the election, one is led to wonder exactly what it does mean. It does not say for expenditure by the candidates. It does not say that that money is to form part of the money put in the hands of the official agent of a candidate. It does not say if party X makes a contribution of $10,000 to a candidate that that $10,000 must be spent as part of the election campaign of that candidate in that constituency. In fact, it does not say that the candidate would have to spend all of it, or any of it.
So, Mr. Speaker, if one considers this proposed subsection in relation to existing section 62 of the Elections Act in its present form, it must be realized that certainly the latter is of long standing in that act. This section is one which is very well understood by anyone who has been involved in elections because it is the section which has to do with the appointment, by a candidate, of an official agent, and the official agent's duties. It further sets out the requirement that payments made before, during or after an election by a candidate, or on behalf of a candidate, with certain exceptions, must be channeled through the official agent.
One must also look at this proposal and its import in relation to proposed section 61(1) of the Elections Act, which would be inserted immediately before section 62 if it passes. This provision relates to the amount of money that may be spent for a candidate's campaign. Mr. Speaker, when I try to put all these things together, and try to understand what the effect of this exempting proposal, which was inserted by the committee, would be, I must say that they all do not seem to go together very well.
The ceiling which is proposed of 30 cents per elector, as has been pointed out in previous discussion, makes provision for a sum of money running into a number of millions of dollars, certainly far beyond any kind of money which my political party has had at its disposal in an election. If the reports quoted and the statements made by earlier speakers in this debate are correct, it is a sum that approximates the maximum kind of expenditures that the Liberal party and the Conservative party have been able to make in past elections. When you consider the figure of $4 million or $5 million, whatever it may be, in relation to this proposed amendment, then it really appears that this proposed subclause as it stands is an escape hatch. I think it can be argued that it completely removes the ceiling from the amounts that a political party can raise and can dish out during an election. I submit that that is not in accordance with what some people have suggested is an objective of this bill, namely, to place some reasonable limit on the kind of money that Canadian citizens, directly and indirectly, are to be called upon to put forth during the conduct of an election.
The whole rationale of the debate that developed in this parliament, and in the country, about the limitation to a reasonable size of election expenses, is a recognition of the danger that if we allow a situation to continue in which elections are simply won by money rather than by the
Election Expenses
espousal of political ideas to gain the confidence of Canadian electors, then we are really striking pretty hard at the roots of democracy. So, Mr. Speaker, it is in that light that I have looked at this proposal which would exempt moneys given to candidates for their use. It is because I feel that the idea that they should not be included in the total which a political party is allowed to spend is wrong that I have put this amendment on the order paper.
Different parties have different methods of running elections. I do not think the House should seek to pass an Elections Act which would run counter to the particular arrangements which various political parties have worked out over a period of time for the conduct of elections, such as the way in which their candidates should be supported or, for that matter, the way in which they have decided that the funds necessary for the conduct of an election are to be raised and distributed. So, I am not prepared to quarrel with the inclusion of this clause, because if a political party wants to provide certain funds from its central body to candidates in constituencies X, Y and Z, my inclination is to say that that is its business.
In my constituency, we usually get a statement saying that we are expected to raise a certain quota of funds to assist the central agency of the party to carry on the general campaign across the country, so that the flow of funds has always been the other way. But if a political party chooses to have its structure so organized, and its fund raising so set up that it wants to send money from a central pot to candidates in constituencies, then so far as I am concerned I am prepared to allow it to continue to operate in that fashion. But if we are talking about a ceiling on election expenses, for the life of me I cannot see why that kind of money, spent by a political party, should be any more exempt from the general ceiling than any other kind of expenditure by that political party. That is why the removal of the word "not" would, in my opinion, be an improvement to the bill.
I noted, Mr. Speaker, that some points of order were raised at the outset of the discussion on this amendment when it was moved on my behalf by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), to the effect that the simple way to deal with the matter, if one does not like this section, rather than remove the word "not", was to vote against it. I was quite pleased that this was not considered a valid point of order. That was not the question at all. It is not a matter of voting for o'- against the total proposition that is involved. What we have before us through my amendment is not the question of whether a party should send funds to candidates but the simple proposition that those funds should be part of a total allowable ceiling of expenditures of a political party in the country. I think this is a valid question and that the House should consider it.
The ambiguity lies in the phrase "for the use of candidates". I would not make an issue of this if the House would agree to put the amount so contributed within the total ceiling. In other words, if the party chooses a person to run as a candidate in a constituency who cannot take time off to devote himself to a campaign, I suppose there is nothing immoral in a political party sending him $10,000 so that he can devote himself to it. As the act stands now,

December 21, 1973
Election Expenses
it would be up to the candidate to decide whether he turned all or part of those funds over to his official agent or whether he used them to replace income lost during the election campaign. I think that has been done in the past in respect of some candidates in some political parties. I am not going to quarrel with the disposition of the funds by a candidate, whether he spends them or puts them into his own pocket, as long as he abides by the provisions of section 62 of the act and does not spend more than $2,000 of his own money for personal expenditures without going through the official agent. I suppose that can be considered to be the business of the candidate, and any transaction that involves funds which he does not so spend could be considered to be left as business between him and his particular central party organization.
To suggest that a political party can give $5,000, $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000 to a candidate which he does not have to spend, and which the party does not have to account for as part of their total allowable expenses in a campaign, is making a mockery of the avowed intent of putting a ceiling on expenditures of political parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He could, of course, continue if there were unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the discussion that took place last night on this particular amendment. I was particularly impressed when my colleague who was discussing this matter, and another colleague who had sat on the election expenses committee, were asked for an explanation of the term "election expenses". Up to that point, I was not very sure what the discussion was all about, so I was pleased to learn I was not the only one who was confused about the amendment. I gather that the difficulty with that particular clause is not so evident if the clause is read in total, but the difficulty is rather that it cannot be read separately, in a vacuum. It must be read with clause 2 of the bill which sets out the meaning of election expenses. If we set out those election expenses, which the clause refers to as amounts not included in election expenses directly, it in fact fits into the category of allowable election expenses. If the clause is read in its entirety, it would appear that the word "not" should be inserted, but if it is read in conjunction with the election expenses section of the bill, which is the major section of the bill, then I agree that probably the wording is incorrect.
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that there will be a number of amendments to this bill, either in this place or in the other place. I am going to be very interested in the debates in the other place to see whether they make the decision as to what our election espenses will be, and how we conduct the business of running elections, since the members in that place are really in a preferred position in that regard.

I do believe that if the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is right, and his explanation was fairly lucid, in saying that if, for the purposes of this section, the amount of the election expenses incurred by a registered party in respect of the conduct of an election there shall not be included any amount in respect of contributions made by or on behalf of the registered party for the use of candidates at the election-has a relationship to election expenses, then if you put the word "not" in it means that it will be included and it would make absolutely no sense.
The people in my area found it difficult to define election expenses. They do not quite know what should be classed as a receivable, and what should be classed as an item payable. I am sure that other members, other candidates, as well as official agents and other officials, have run into this problem. What about the contribution I make to myself as a candidate? For instance, I may provide myself with an automobile and other facilities. Most of the signs in my area are made by the silk screening process, and most of the silk screening is done on my premises. I have a large garage which can be used for that. Obviously, if someone else were to do this, it would be classed as an expense. As I do this myself, it really does not cost me much. I am providing the facilities for printing, which, in any event, I would not rent out or use for any other purpose. So, such signs might be classed as a gift. They would not be a contribution. In any event, it would be difficult to include that item under election expenses.
It is also difficult to include volunteer help under the heading of election expenses. I know that this bill does not require voluntary services to be included, but that applies to a certain limit. In my election campaigns at any rate, and this applies to many members of my party, voluntary services are more valuable than money contributions or gifts in kind. Often, without volunteer help we could not run elections. Without volunteer organizations there could be no political parties, because such organizations really are fundamental to the existence of our political parties.
Another difficulty that I have encountered, and this applies no doubt to other candidates, concerns contributions over which one has no control. I notice that there is still in the bill, under the election expenses part, a section relating to the provision of light refreshments and to the mailing of all types of promotional material and so on. The light refreshment question has caused many of my party difficulty. This applies equally to the Social Credit Party. For instance, when organizing election campaigns in New Brunswick, have they not run into the problem of seeing the other big parties passing out 26 ounce bottles on different corners of the street? It is well known that in a certain by-election, the people who came out of one polling booth were handed a bottle from a vehicle standing not far from the polling station. Those light refreshments became quite a factor in that election. Many members of my party, in contrast to voters, have not viewed with favour the consumption of alcoholic beverages. For that reason and, also because of lack of money, we have not provided beer, wine or liquor parties.
I have attended political meetings in an area where my party has no representation. Actually, political meetings there are community affairs. The people like to listen to
December 21, 1973

the candidates of all political parties. They like to go down to the town hall, where they are served sandwiches and liquor. They are given shot glasses for the liquor. Obviously, somebody buys the liquor, and somebody provides the sandwiches. When I objected to the liquor, I was told that is the way things were done in that community and, while I was there, that is how they continued to be done. So far as I know, that is the way things have been done down there ever since. To my mind, however, the light refreshment did not consist of the whisky. It consisted more of the sandwiches. Similarly, I am not in favour of bottles of whisky being handed out as people leave the polling booth. That is not light refreshment. Of course, in one part of New Brunswick, where this practice has gone on, the people are so faithful to their political party that, if they are Liberal supporters, they will go to only one vehicle handing out refreshments, and if they are Conservative supporters, they will only go to the other. Under no circumstances will these people accept a bottle from the wrong vehicle.
I am surprised to see the light refreshment provisions retained in the bill. I would have thought that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would have given some attention, when studying the bill, to a clearer definition of light refreshments. In the last election light refreshments were given out in a certain hotel. The hotel keeper was very happy, until he discovered that there was a considerable unpaid bill. Now, he is not quite as much in favour of that practice. I do not think that the serving of refreshments will be enough in future, as the electorate of Canada is too well informed now to be bought that cheaply. If the term, "light refreshments" means what I think it ought to mean, it would not be necessary to clarify the relevant section. As it now is, I think this section is wide open. It really indicates that any amount would be permissible. I suppose these amounts have been increased largely over the last few years.
The figures given by Professor Paltiel show that the amounts received by the Conservative and Liberal candidates from their central offices were between $6,000 and $6,500, though the situation appears to be different in Alberta as far as the Conservatives are concerned. They have been self-sufficient, a sign, I suppose, of an affluence in that province which is not shared by all others. One thing with which we ought all to agree is the payment of $200 to help parties establish a national image across the country during an election. I am sure the New Democratic Party would ensure that this contribution is considered as part of its election expenses and that it is recalculated on the basis of a contribution from the riding. The Liberal Party will have difficulty in getting candidates in a number of areas, I imagine. It will probably have difficulty getting candidates in Alberta, in British Columbia and in the Maritimes. I suppose the Liberal Party usually puts across a national image more easily than other parties, but I believe it will be harder for them to do this in the next election..
A lot of money could be spent if we allowed this section to be wide open. It is all very well to take out the "not" and make this section an election expense similar to those under section 2, but if we leave the words "shall not" in
Election Expenses
place, it means that it is in a separate section and a contribution can be made in a totally different way and this may not be in the interest of holding a satisfactory election. If we were to apply a limit to these contributions from one particular source I think we would be able to continue to operate on the basis of a local organization which would represent a constituency, but if we leave the section as it is, without the "not" and it is not considered to be an election expense, we shall be able to finance-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We are all in a knot.


William Arnold Peters: Well, it is a very knotty problem. It seems to me that some political parties will be operating their constituency organizations under this section from national headquarters and that there will be no need for any support at all from the riding for candidates. If this restriction is applied it may hurt the NDP. In the past, we have run candidates in areas where there was absolutely no chance of getting a major proportion of the vote. This has been done by other parties, too. Candidates who certainly did not get one per cent of the vote have run against me on a number of occasions. I certainly believe they had the right to do so.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I imagine it could be called one o'clock according to some of the clocks here. In any event, the hon. member's time has expired.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When the House adjourned at one o'clock it was considering motion No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Howard, for Mr. Barnett) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion negatived. If the House agrees, we will now proceed to motion No. 13, in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

December 21, 1973
Election Expenses


Frank Howard: No. 13.
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by adding the following as sub-section 13.2(3) of sub-clause 4(1):
"(3) Where the registered party is guilty of an offence against this Act by virtue of subsection (1) any officer, or registered agent of the registered party who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesed in or participated in the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the Canada Elections Act there are a number of sections dealing with offences against the act. Some specify the punishment; other make a general reference to a certain penalty that will follow if a person is found guilty by the courts of an offence against the act. The general section providing for penalties for offences against the act is section 78. That section provides that a person who offends against the act is liable upon summary conviction, unless otherwise spelled out specifically, to a fine of not more than $1,000, or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. By way of indictment, which I understand carries a more severe penalty, the penalty provided is $5,000 or not more than five years, or both.
The bill sets up a so-called limitation on election expenditures which we examined at great length yesterday and may examine at great length in the future. It provides that the limitation on expenditures made by a registered party shall not exceed a certain amount, which I have roughly calculated to be $4.2 million.
The bill also provides that where that limitation is offended against, or over-reached, or where the registered party makes an expenditure during an election campaign in excess of $4.2 million, the registered party is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $25,000. I cannot find in the elections act in terms of fines anything approaching the severity of this fine of $25,000. The Act speaks in terms of a $1,000 fine in one instance for tearing down a poster. It also speaks of a $5,000 fine for some other offence, and $1,000 in another area, as maximum fines, and so on. The $25,000 goes far and beyond, in terms of potential fines, anything contained in the Election Act at the moment. Therefore, I assume that the drafters of the bill felt that if a party had exceeded the limitation imposed by the act of 30 cents times the number of voters on the voters list they should establish a pretty severe punishment, a little more than the normal slap on the wrist concept that many Canadians are faced with. This is a maximum fine not exceeding $25,000 to the registered party.
I can conceive of a situation taking place where, in the course of an election campaign, the campaign intensifies during the last two weeks. Then, the moment of truth is approaching. It is a time when parties and candidates have a closer assessment of their chances. They have been involved in a month or a month and a half of campaigning. They have conducted surveys, have listened to what voters have said, have assessed the reponse at meetings and so on, and have received a pretty good assessment of their chances. Likewise, the interest of the general public
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
increases. I can quite easily conceive of a situation arising whereby in that last week a political party may assess that its chances of forming a government are 50-50. That party might conclude that if, during that last week, it could just get its leader out on another cross-country tour this might swing the tide in its favour.
For instance, during the 1968 federal election campaign the Liberal Party desperately tried to get the newly chosen Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) into every nook and cranny of Canada because he was its most valuable asset. We realize he was a little reluctant to engage in a kind of an auction of himself and his personality, but that was the intention of the Liberal Party at that time. In 1972, that situation was somewhat reversed because some people did not wish to be associated with the Prime Minister. In any event, during the last week of a campaign a party might feel that it had reached the limit or close to the limit of expenditures permitted under this legislation but might decide that perhaps it should spend another $100,000 or $200,000 on the campaign in order to get the party leader to all the uncertain spots, to all the dangerous areas that could swing the election. If that were done, it could be an offence under the act.
I can quite readily conceive'of some people sitting down and saying, "Well, if we pour this extra $100,000 or $200,000 into the campaign we are almost guaranteed to form the government and all we are faced with is a fine of not more than $25,000, so let us take the gamble because we won't be fined until after the election anyway". This offence would not be discovered until after the return were made and the books totalled, at which time it would be ascertained that the limit had been exceeded. The prospect of obtaining office would be more attractive and the party might decide to gamble. That is not an impossibility. It may be only a lone voice in a political party that would advocate this, but it is not an impossibility. I have taken the wording of my amendment basically from the foreign investment bill which contains references to officers of the corporation. What the amendment says is that if a registered party exceeds that $4.2 million limit on its expenditures, in addition to the party being liable to a fine of $25,000 there should be some responsibility fall on the shoulders of the officers of that party; there should be some deterrent factor with regard to the individual officers because a political party just does not operate without human beings.
A political party is an entity which is comprised of many people. There is a fluidity to it; there are the personnel, the employees of the political party, the officers and so on. The political party remains intact but still has within it, to make it function and keep it alive and moving, human beings. The amendment says that where the registered party has been found to exceed the limits proposed, not only it, the registered party, shall be liable to a fine, but keeping in mind that it will be the officers within that registered party who will take the steps to spend the money, any officer or registered agent of the registered party-and remember that these words I quote now are taken directly from government legislation which just passed this House-
-who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and
December 21, 1973

is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $25,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both.
I think if we are to enact legislation of this nature, which we consider to be so important, so valuable and so extraordinary that it must have attached to it a fine of an extraordinary level, namely $25,000, which is far in excess of any other fine contemplated anywhere else in the Election Act, we should also include the companion step, in recognition of the fact that a party will spend beyond the limitation in this legislation only if individual human beings, officers or agents operating within the party, take the deliberate step of seeing that money is appended above that limit. In that case, when the officer or agent of the party takes that deliberate step, and therefore either directs or authorizes the action which results in the overexpenditure in the violation of the law, or if he assented to it, acquiesced in it or participated in it, then that individual also should be faced with some kind of punishment.
In another section of the act-and this is the penalty which exists right now in terms of jail sentences-if a person is guilty of taking down, covering up, mutilating, defacing or altering any printed notice that is the official notice issued under the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer, not party campaign notices about meetings or posters but official notices, he is liable to a jail term not exceeding two years. If a person is guilty of another offence such as for argument's sake, tearing down another person's or party's election poster, then he is liable to a one-year jail sentence on summary conviction. If a person tears down an opponent's election poster or paints a moustache or eyeglasses on the picture, and I have seen that happen as have other hon. members, or if a poster of one party is placed on top of and thus covers up the poster of another party, then he can be arraigned in court and sentenced to a jail term of one year. That is what the Canada Election Act provides. We, as legislators, are saying that if you paint a moustache on somebody else's poster, then you have defaced it and you can go to jail for a year for that. It sounds stupid and ridiculous, but it can happen under the law. We, as legislators, say that we can send a person to jail for a year for simply playing around with someone else's election poster.
When it comes to the limitation of the total expenditure of a party in a national election campaign, when it comes to the over-reaching of the amount which the law says shall be the limit of permissible expenditures, to which we have already attached a fine of up to $25,000 for the party which is greatly in excess of any other fine for any other activity under the act, surely it is not asking too much to say that any officer or agent of that party who directed or agreed to that violation of the law of parliament should be liable to a jail sentence also. That is all the amendment asks. I think it goes further and recognizes also that a political party does not do anything unless an individual officer or agent, a person or a group of people, decide to do something. An aircraft cannot be chartered to take the leader of a party across the country to visit this nation's centres during an election campaign unless someone telephones to make the reservations, arrange to pay the bill, or set up the itinerary. It will not happen by itself. There can
Election Expenses
be no offence against this act unless an individual takes the step to do it.
It is true that there may be an accidental violation of the act. It may well be that the treasurer or whoever does the bookwork has knowledge-and this information will be made available to him by the Chief Electoral Officer who will publish it in the Canada Gazette-of the number of registered voters on the preliminary list so that every registered party will be able to say: "There are X number of voters. If we multiply that by 30 cents, we can predict precisely to the penny what the limitation of our expenditures is liable to be." It might well be that a commitment is made to do a certain thing, based upon the expectation that it will cost a certain amount of money, and then you find that it will cost you a little more. It is quite easy for that to occur. Unforeseen things develop, postage rates can change or freight rates can change or you can make a verbal commitment about going someplace by aircraft or by some other means and you might find that the rates have changed and you might have to pay more for the fare. It could be that a registered party will cut things so finely that in spite of its close reference to the limitation imposed upon it, it finds some unknown contingencies which will make it accidentally go over the limit, and instead of spending $4.2 million-and I think a party would have to stretch itself quite a bit to reach that level-it will spend another few hundreds dollars or few thousand dollars.
The party will then be arraigned in court and its officials will put up a defence. This is what lawyers tell me happens. The officials will say in court: "Your Honour, this was accidental. We had assessed all the circumstances but we finally discovered in the last week of the campaign that either the airline company had raised its rates or gasoline prices had gone up and we had not anticipated it. We had made a commitment and we could not get out of it. In any event, it was necessary for that campaign, so we went ahead with it and we over-reached ourselves by a small percentage of the total amount of money to which we are limited". I gather, from what lawyers tell me, that that is the reason the bill now says: "liable to a fine not exceeding $25,000". I understand that those words give the judge or the court the opportunity to assess, on the basis of evidence presented, whether it was a deliberate overspending or an accidental over-spending over which no one had any control. Then the judge could say: "Technically you are guilty of an offence under the act, but I fine you $1" or "I give you a suspended sentence". This means the court has agreed that it was accidental.
But where there is an instance of flagrant abuse of the limitation section of the act, for whatever reason, and this can be proven, and it can be also proven that an officer of the party took part in that deliberate over-reaching, then given those conditions some kind of punishment should be visited on that individual, just to make him that more careful and respectful of the will of parliament when parliament says to registered parties that there shall be a limitation. It does not matter what that limitation is determined to be because as you know, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of amendments on the order paper, the votes on which have been deferred, and it may not be 30 cents by
8980

December 21, 1973
Election Expenses
the time this bill gets through. It might be 15 cents. Quite frankly, I doubt very much whether this will be the case, but it is a possibility. But whatever limitation is determined, an officer or a registered agent of the party should not be allowed to deliberately flout the law and over-reach that limitation without having any punishment inflicted on him as an individual. I am sure that if an officer of a party, under the law as it now is, did that deliberately, he would get bad publicity.
Certainly, the fact that a charge would be laid against a registered party for violating proposed section 13.2(1) would mean that somebody representing that party would have to appear in court, probably the chief agent from the sound of this bill, and give evidence as to what took place. And if the bill remains the way it is, then despite whatever evidence that registered agent gives to the court there can be no penalty or punishment imposed upon that individual according to the terms of this bill, but only a fine not in excess of $25,000 against the party. I am quite sure that a political party would not like that kind of publicity. I would feel extremely ashamed and embarrassed of the party I belong to if it reached a position where it violated this proposed section and its chief agent, or president, had to go to court and say, "Yes, Your Honour, we are guilty." That person would probably not be the chief agent the next day, or if he were the president he would not remain so very long. I just do not think the threat of adverse publicity that would accrue to a registered party as a result of violating the limitation imposed on it is sufficient deterrent, and neither did the government think it sufficient deterrent, because it was the government which proposed the potential $25,000 fine in the first place.
The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections spent hours and hours, week on end, during the past month or so, examining this bill in great detail, in fact in so much detail that it is almost impossible to follow the full reasoning by reading the committee proceedings. The committee would consider a particular subject matter, postpone further consideration of it to another day, and in the intervening time deal with another subject matter. One could not follow the flow of its consideration of a subject without jumping back and forth through the records of the committee proceedings. But having been a member of the committee, and remembering what went on previously, I was able to follow the flow. Anyway, the committee discussed this aspect for hours on end, and unanimously felt that the prospect of adverse publicity which would accrue to a party if it violated the limitation section was not sufficient, that there needed to be something else. The committee was unanimously of the view that something else needed to be the threat of a fine, not exceeding $25,000, against a registered party. The committee did not consider the question of a jail term against the officers of the party, although I am sure a number of committee members thought about it. However, the committee did not examine that question in a formal way.
There are many other pieces of legislation to which we can look for guidance and for precedents in respect of this matter. The Foreign Investment Review Act which was passed recently by this House was the one from which I got this proposed section. Under that act, parliament said that if a corporation violated certain of its provisions, and 
if any officers or agents of the corporation acquiesced in, directed, authorized, assented to or participated in anything that led to a violation of some sections of the act, those officers were to be singled out as individual persons who would be liable to jail sentences.
There are other statutes with such provisions in them. I have not looked for them specifically, but in the committee I posed a question to Mr. Gibson, the chief of the draftsmanship section of the Department of Justice, about the Combines Investigation Act, and asked whether it did not include the possibility of both a fine against a corporation and a potential jail sentence for a corporation's officers or agents who violated the provisions of the act. My recollection is that he said this was so, and he also made reference to other acts such as the Corporations Act.
We are also entitled to wonder whether or not a jail sentence, or the threat of a jail sentence, is the proper potential form of punishment for violation of laws of this nature which, unlike sections of the Criminal Code, do not involve direct transgressions against persons or property. If you violate the Criminal Code by stealing something from somebody, you have violated his property. If you offend against the Criminal Code by assaulting somebody, you have violated or injured that person. The Criminal Code concedes that those offences of theft, murder, breaking and entering and invasion of persons and property in one way or another should carry a potential jail sentence within the discretion of the court. But in the area of violation of a law which does not directly impinge upon property or persons, we are entitled to ask whether the same concept of a potential jail sentence should apply. That would be a reasonable area to explore.
One could argue that point with respect to this amendment if it were dealt with in isolation, if that were the only area in the Canada Elections Act where a violation would result in a potential jail sentence, but it is not the only area. I do not want to go through the whole act but there are many offences, such as disorderly conduct, upsetting a public meeting, tearing down posters, carrying weapons on election day, appropriating, personation, voting in the name of another person, telegraphing I think it is called in Quebec, all these violations of the Elections Act-infringement upon the democratic right of those who are eligible to vote-all those offences carry either a fine or a jail sentence or both. Some judges put a combination of, say, a six-month sentence and a $500 fine.
Because those penalties are in the Elections Act, and because we talk in terms of imprisonment for one year or two years or five years depending on the activity, we are not breaking new ground. We are not saying that we are seeking to do something unusual or different from everything else in the Elections Act. We are simply trying to carry forward the concept of potential jail sentences which exists already and apply it to another offence against the act which the government has determined is severe enough to carry with it a potential fine of $25,000 against the party. We say that the officer or officers or agents of that party who acquiesce or take part in or who are responsible for that expenditure or violation should be punished in some way, a simple punishment of not exceeding one year. Of course, that is an arbitrary figure and it
December 21, 1973

could be for some other period of time. I am not saying that one year is inviolable and not subject to change. I simply picked one year because that is the sort of medium range penalty that exists in the act for a general violation for which no specific penalty is provided under section 78.
I suppose one could have used the words, "is guilty of an offence against this act". If that were the case, then the offender would come under the proscriptions of section 78.1. That is another way of doing it. I do not think it really matters except that the potential fine in section 78.1 is less than it is here, and less than that which was conceived by the minister in drafting the bill in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in the last few minutes I have been looking over the responsibilities being created in this bill amending the Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act. We are again faced with the problem of some person being designated by legislation as having a legal position and being then in a position, as a representative of a party, of doing something that, in effect, will be an offence against one of the amending sections of either the Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act or the Income Tax Act.
This person, Mr. Speaker, is acting on behalf of the party and is a recognized official of that party. On page 8 of the bill section 13.2(1) reads as follows:
The chief agent of any registered party that, through registered agents acting within the scope of their authority as such or other persons acting on behalf of the registered party with the actual knowledge and consent of an officer thereof, incurs election expenses on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of an election that exceed in the aggregate the amount determined by multiplying 30 cents by the number of names appearing on all preliminary lists of electors at the election for the electoral districts in which there is an official candidate who has the endorsement of the party, is guilty of an offence against this act.
To some extent, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the previous speaker because it seems to me that this is putting a great deal of responsibility on someone who may or may not-this is not very clearly defined in the bill as so many things are not and I suppose we will be relying on practice established from precedent-have the authority. It is not clear who this person may be, or the extent of the responsibility that he will have within the party. In some cases, this would be an honorary position and in other cases we will be talking about the paid political organizer or chief officer of that political party. It will depend to quite an extent on which type of agent is being considered whether they should be involved in the liability that the party may have.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was speaking about specific offences committed by an individual in his right as an agent of a candidate. His liability is totally within his own responsibility, then. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, in looking at the agent representing the national party who may be making decisions for a large number of areas, and who may think that he is providing the amount of money necessary and made possible by this law, we may in fact find that there are other factors over which he has no control. While it may be advantageous to levy a
Election Expenses
fine against the party, I am not sure that an officer of a political party who may not have too much control over what is done elsewhere should be held accountable. I am not a lawyer, but I can see that the court would have to determine questions relating to the degree of responsibility, how extensive that responsibility is and on whom the burden of responsibility is to rest.
What would happen, for example, if the officer of a political party, in anticipating a letter of recommendation to a candidate, were to make an allotment to the candidate of 30 cents times the number of constituents on the voters' list, only to find at the last minute that there is no letter of endorsement of the candidate from the party, and that the candidate, therefore, does not enjoy the support of the party? That agent, who had in good faith made available moneys in keeping with the law, would find himself in difficulties. Of course, in some cases, the allocation of moneys might be connived. These things might be done without the knowledge of the agent. It seems to me that since an officer might not be able to control what is done, he should not be held accountable for actions which might be violations under the part of the act we are considering. Even though certain actions might warrant a party being fined $25,000, I do not believe that the officer, in such circumstances as I have alluded to, ought to be considered as being guilty of an offence which warrants his incarceration.
The chief agent will be appointed by the party, and he may delegate certain powers and functions to those under him at the constituency level. In my opinion, too many people will be involved in certain kinds of decisions to warrant an individual being held responsible for a situation in which the party may be subject to a fine.
I am sure that many members of parliament do not know how much money was raised for their national organization, or how much the national organization distributed to individual ridings. Often, the official agent, or agents appointed by him, will not know quite how much money has been voluntarily donated for the campaign of the candidate in the riding. Therefore, as it is possible that certain offences may be committed on behalf of a party, the party obviously must have some type of machinery with which to protect itself. Actually, very few people in politics in this country do what is done in the United States, sell their souls for a job, or for a cause they believe in.
In my experience, most mistakes have been mistakes of oversight. They would not warrant a person's being sent to jail. Someone at the national level is to be responsible for providing 30 cents for each voter on the voters' list in 264 constituencies, or thereabouts. That calculation will be made in good faith on the basis of information which has been supplied to the officer. If a mistake is made, I suggest that it should not be considered as an offence which would warrant the incarceration of that individual. If there is to be a penalty, the party should pay. The concept of the guilt of the individual and the culpability of the party should be separated.
There are some extreme penalties in the act that I should like to see softened. Specifically, I am referring to
8982

December 21, 1973
Election Expenses
that part of the Elections Act which says that if a candidate has been charged with and convicted of an electoral offence, he shall not run as a candidate in subsequent elections. That provision should be tempered, by limiting the prohibition to three elections, or something like that.
The bill provides for the appointment of a chief agent. He and other officials at the head of the party no doubt will be enthusiastic in dreaming up actions to be taken on behalf of the party. Certain people will be appointed to carry out those actions. They will have responsibility, without much of the control. I suggest that we should consider, at a later stage, taking away the privileges of those who are guilty of infractions. That is to say, we should say that such person cannot be a candidate or participate in any official function thereafter in an election. This type of penalty is provided in other sections of the act. We have used it freely when an offence is charged and proven. I believe, though, that the amendment would be difficult to enforce.
I am sorry I did not have an opportunity to sit on the committee and take part in the discussions which took place there. I am aware that many hon. members who have sat in this chamber in the last few days do not really care how the Elections Act is amended. They are obviously not interested in it. They will probably depend on others to read it if necessary. This probably is why candidates are usually given a large number of copies of the act; hopefully, someone around them will sit down and read it and make the life of the returning officer easy. In my view there will be only a limited number of people interested enough to learn all the intricacies of the job they undertake. They are likely to take on the job with the same attitude as some of the young Americans who worked in the election campaign there and who went from A to B without giving any consideration to the philosophy behind democratic election machinery.
While I am sympathetic to the point the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is making, I am afraid that if this penalty were applied it would be easy to show that the party itself was not responsible, that someone or another had exceeded his authority and as a result the party should not have to pay the $25,000 fine. Rather, the person who actually committed the offence would likely be incarcerated. Again, we need only look south of the border to find that most of the principals involved in the unfortunate incident there are not likely to be faced with jail sentences, but a lot of "small fish" are in line for jail sentences. Out of the whole "plumber" organization, the only people who are in jail after conviction are bums and petty crooks, while the people who organized this whole Mafia-type structure are still walking around, some of them holding high government positions.
So while supporting the amendment, I fear there will be a tendency on the part of the courts to rap the people who are not fully aware of their responsibilities and that the $25,000 fine will be imposed in very few instances. We are talking here about money distributed from the general purse. It appears to me that if a political party spends an extra amount-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that the time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the report stage of a bill is an important part of our proceedings and might be regarded as an opportunity to take what used to be called a sober second look. Those of us who have worked on committees know that in dealing with complex and lengthy legislation there is often a desire to dispose of the clauses without too much delay. In most cases, the committee does a good job. Many who have taken part in this debate have referred to the good work done by the committee which dealt with this particular piece of legislation.
The fact remains that the report stage does give us an opportunity to consider once again this legislation which is, in many ways, an experiment. It is not surprising that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) should have discovered at the end of the committee's work that there are still a number of questions which require consideration. The amendment before us is a good case in point. In a word or two, it is designed to prevent buck-passing.
As we all know, political parties are somewhat amorphous aggregations of people, and on occasions certain people in the organizations do take actions for which others may suffer the consequences. In the bill before us, as I understand it, there is provision that if an offence is created by the chief agent of a registered party which involves overspending of the legal limits, the party itself becomes liable to a fine of $25,000. There are some questions here as to the extent to which parties are incorporated when a party is charged and fined. If I understand the proposal in the bill correctly, before the party can be charged and fined the chief agent would have to be found guilty of an offence.
There is a possibility that the situation with respect to the chief agent may be covered by section 78 of the act, which states that if there is no other provision in the act regarding the penalty for an offence, certain penalties will apply if a person who is charged is found guilty. The position outlined in this proposal for having registration of parties, chief agents and other agents puts a particular responsibility on that individual. As I understand it, the onus would be on the registered agent. As the bill stands without this amendment, the registered agent would have to be charged under section 78 and convicted; the registered party would then be liable to a charge and, if convicted, subject to a penalty not exceeding $25,000. It may be true that the chief agent is primarily legally accountable, but I submit this leaves open the possibility that other people associated with the party who have not assumed a particular responsibility under the Elections Act for the spending of funds might take action which indirectly would make the party and registered agent guilty of an offence under the act.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena makes it clear that officers of the party other than the registered agent will be liable for such acts if the party commits an offence. This seems to be a useful proposal to tighten up the whole operation if, in fact, any party does play fast and loose with the law relating to a ceiling on
December 21, 1973

election expenditures. Hopefully, there will never be an occasion in Canada, if this bill becomes law, for any such charges to be laid; but nevertheless it is pretty elementary that in passing laws of this kind some provision is made for penalties to be levied against those who may in fact violate the act.
Therefore, I think the House should commend and give recognition to the hon. member for Skeena for having seen this loophole, which I think will tend to make for a greater sense and degree of collective responsibility on the part of people who hold office within a political organization. In other words, it will mean that the person who happens to be selected and appointed as registered agent will not be the only fall guy if in fact a party is found guilty of violating the spending limitations set out in the act.
For this reason, I think the hon. member for Skeena has come up with something that apparently must have been overlooked by the committee in its detailed analysis of this matter. Therefore, I suggest the House acquiesce to the motion and agree it would be an improvement to the provisions of the act that we are proposing to bring into being.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Howard) negatived.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are standing in my name notices of motions Nos. 14, 15 and 16. I do not intend to proceed with those motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: If I understand correctly, the hon. member wishes to withdraw motions Nos. 14, 15 and 16. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Motions 14, 15 and 16, as requested by the hon. member for Skeena, are dropped.
Motions Nos. 14, 15 and 16 (Mr. Howard) withdrawn.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that I will not move motion No. 18. While I am on my feet, I might include motion No. 19 and motion No. 32.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Motions 18, 19 and 32, as requested by the mover, will be dropped. Is that agreed?
Election Expenses


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions 18, 19 and 32 (Mr. Brewin) withdrawn.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think the next motion is No. 20, with which I do not intend to proceed. I also do not intend to proceed with motion No. 21, largely because I think it would be out of order. I might mention, on behalf of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) because I happen to have the floor, that he does not wish to proceed with motion No. 22. I will stop there. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) wishes to assert his authority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: As hon. members have heard, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asks that motions Nos. 20, 21 and 22 be dropped. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 20 and 21 (Mr. Howard) withdrawn.
Motion No. 22 (Mr. Barnett) withdrawn.
[ Translation]


An hon. Member:: Speak French!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I think that I could speak French, but I believe that hon. members also have the right to use either official language, as they wish. [English]
The next amendment is motion No. 23 in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney).


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to rise to say I will not move the amendment standing in my name, motion No. 23, even though the virtue of the amendment is obvious. I am willing to let it go, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Scarborough West wishes to withdraw the motion now before the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Harney) withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The next motions to be considered are Nos. 24 and 27.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to get the floor through a device known as a point of order. I have had a number of discussions and consultations, and with the permission, consent and advice of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) I might say that he has decided not to proceed with notice of motion No. 24. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) has the same view in respect of notice of motion No. 25. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has the same view in respect of motion No. 26. The mover of motion No. 27, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), makes the same request and indicates the same intention. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has decided not to proceed with motion No. 28.

December 21, 1973
Election Expenses
On my own behalf, in respect of motion No. 29 I think it should not be proceeded with. Motion No. 32 is already withdrawn. I think if my suggestions are accepted, the next motion would be No. 33, which I believe should not be proceeded with. This is the subject matter on which I raised a point of order earlier on the question of the Governor General's recommendation in respect of the provision in the bill to which this proposed amendment relates. If we cannot proceed with that, this leaves me in the position of seeking to move notice of motion No. 34.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather there is agreement, consent and advice, as the hon. member suggests, to withdraw motions Nos. 24 to 29 inclusive, and motion No. 33. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 24 (Mr. Barnett) withdrawn.
Motion No. 25 (Mr. Knight) withdrawn.
Motion No. 26 (Mr. Peters) withdrawn.
Motion No. 27 (Mr. Benjamin) withdrawn.
Motion No. 28 (Mr. Barnett) withdrawn.
Motion Nos. 29 and 33 (Mr. Howard) withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The next motion is No. 34.


Frank Howard: That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by deleting the words "twenty per cent" in subsection 63.1(1) of clause 10 and substituting therefor the words:
"seventy per cent"
He said: Mr. Speaker, the argument in support of this amendment has been engaged in on many occasions in the past, and from the suggestions put forward and conversations I have had outside this chamber it would appear that everyone expresses agreement with the logic of it. Therefore I will leave my remarks at that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) rising on a point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order or to deal with the substance of the amendment. As hon. members will realize, clause 10 of the bill provides that in order to secure reimbursement of election expenses, a candidate must obtain a number of votes at least equal to 20 per cent of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral district.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) obviously has put down an ironic amendment to increase that figure to 70 per cent. A following amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) would reduce it to 10 per cent. In the proceedings of the committee on privileges and elections it was put forward by a number of hon. members that some readjustment ought to be made in respect of this figure. It was suggested that 15 per cent might be more appropriate. It was impossible to produce an amendment at that stage because the limit had been established in the royal recommendation from His Excellency. I undertook, as members of the committee will recall, to reconsider this point and, if a different decision were reached, to seek a further recommendation from His

Excellency. I have since recommended that the number "20" be changed to "15".
I believe, Your Honour, there is a recommendation in your hands to that effect, so that it would be possible to move an amendment to reduce the 20 per cent to 15 per cent. That is authorized by the recommendation from His Excellency.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, in view of the remarks we have just heard from the President of the Privy Council, that my amendment No. 35, which is by no means ironic in intent, will be withdrawn. I shall not proceed with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am advised by the President of the Privy Council that I have in my hand the amended royal recommendation. It is not apparent that it is here, but I assume that the recommendation has been obtained from His Excellency which makes it possible to move an amendment to the motion before us.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: The Chair must take the minister's word for it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has a valid point; I have to take the minister's word for this. My understanding, also, is that the amended royal recommendation was to take into account the very valid point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) a few days ago, so that eventually the House will be apprised of the terms of the amended recommendation. Is it my understanding that an amendment will be moved to the motion now before the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury):
That the figure "70 per cent" be reduced to "15 per cent."


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the amendment to the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment carried on division.
Amendment (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.
Motion No. 34 (Mr. Howard), as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding that motion No. 35 is dropped. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 35 (Mr. Brewin) withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Next is motion No. 36 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


Frank Howard: I wonder if I could go through the same procedure which I used earlier, with respect to motions Nos. 36 and 37 standing in the name of the hon. member
December 21, 1973

for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and motion No. 38 in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). Then we could go on to a couple of motions of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney). At the moment I cannot proceed beyond motion No. 38. I would request that the motions to which I have referred be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 36 and 37 (Mr. Barnett) withdrawn.
Motion No. 38 (Mr. Peters) withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: We are now on motion No. 39 in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney).


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I take it that we are now on motion no. 41.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move this motion.


Mr. O'Connor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My copy of the order paper indicates that motion No. 39 stands in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). Could you read the motion so we could clear up the confusion as to whose amendment it is?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) moves motion No. 39 as follows:
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended in clause 14 by deleting in line 37 at page 29 the period and adding the words:
".providing
(a)	none of the allocation is to be used in amounts of less than four minutes of broadcasting time where the broadcasting undertaking that he is licensed to carry on is a television station, and
(b)	in any other case, no more than one third of the allocation is to be used in amounts of less than five minutes of broadcasting time."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this amendment for a few minutes, mainly because most of the debate on the amendments to this bill has not dealt with the section of the bill which deals with the Broadcasting Act. This motion, and another one standing in my name, consists of only two amendments which have to do with an extremely important section of the bill and I think that the point of the amendments at least should be put before the House.
As the bill stands now, the Broadcasting Act would be amended to provide that 6'A hours of broadcasting time on radio and television be allocated among the parties. Of this time that is taken up by the parties, the cost as to 50 per cent shall be reimbursed by the public. I think it is important to note that this is certainly a major departure from past practice in Canada. For the firct time in our history the public will be subsidizing the propaganda activities of the political parties over the electronic media.
I think it is important to realize that a considerable amount of money will be involved. In the last election I
Election Expenses
think it is fair to say that close to $2 million was spent by the political parties on advertising on radio and television. If that pattern is followed, and even assuming no increase, we can expect the public will have to subsidize the propaganda activities of the political parties to the tune of $1 million. Political parties being what they are, and particularly given the kind of feelings that they have during elections, find themselves forced to try to counter the activities of other political parties to the utmost.
If the political parties know-and they will certainly know-that their opponents will be spending as much as they can on television and radio, and if they know that what they are spending will be subsidized to the tune of 50 per cent, we can expect there to be virtually full use of the 6 Vi hours allocated and allowed under the bill.
In the last election, the Canadian public was exposed to a rather new and disturbing phenomenon. In elections before the 1972 election it is true that political parties made use of spot ads. I refer to spot ads to distinguish them from top time on radio and television. In the last election the political parties, one in particular, vastly increased their use of spot ads. A spot ad lasts from 30 seconds to a minute and it is operated and produced in much the same way that a soap commercial or a toothpaste commercial is produced. The whole idea is to get a name across, to get a brand sold. All that can be done in 30 seconds is to try to influence the voter into some kind of preconditioned reaction.
We all know how advertising works or is supposed to work, and we all witnessed in the last election a considerable increase in the use of that technique. The justification that has been presented for the subsidy on the part of the public purse for radio and television time is that this radio and television time used by the political parties would allow the voters, first of all, to become aware of the issues in the elections and also to know what stands the various parties take with regard to these issues.
I would say that is a very laudable justification. We all agree in the House that it is good for the public to be appaised of the issues during an election; it is good and necessary for the public to know where the parties stand on these issues and to hear the parties explain why they stand where they do. On the basis of these justifications, I am sure no one would object to a subsidy given to the political parties so they can inform the public about the issues and about their stands on the issues.
However, in this bill there is no provision which would prohibit, or even lessen, the use of the spot ad, and it could be possible-I suggest that it certainly will be more than possible; it will be highly probable-that the political parties, and I include my own, will bend to the advice of those people who advise us all in matters of publicity, namely, the advertising agencies. Their advice will be simple and clear. It will be to this effect: Use whatever time you are given in spot ads because the radio or the television talk does not have that kind of impact. With spot ads you, the political party, will be able to saturate the voters' attention.
I think it is important to point out that if the political parties proceed to use this time in spot ads, toward the end of the election the voter, when it comes to watching television or listening to radio, will hear very few com-

December 21, 1973
Election Expenses
mercials except those commercials presented by the political parties. I hesitate even to sketch for you what the reaction of the voter will be when that time comes. I suspect that he will be indignant. I certainly would approve of and understand the indignation of John Q. Public. You can imagine him when the next election comes, sitting before his television set and, rather than seeing his usual beer and toothpaste commercials, seeing the utter and complete repetition of the commercials put forward by the political parties. He will have total justification for asking: Is that why I am subsidizing the political parties? Is that why my money is being given to them so they can tell me about the issues? They are not doing that at all; they are trying to brainwash me.
The point of my amendment is really very simple, Mr. Speaker. It would prohibit the use of spot ads on television for election purposes at election time within the confines of this bill and it would also limit the use of spot ads, not prohibit them, on radio. The object of the amendment is obvious and I think I have given the justification behind it.
What I would urge upon members of the House is serious consideration of the amendment which I am putting forward. If consideration is not to be given favourably, I at least wish to warn the public of what will happen to them in the next election. In effect they will be treated as if they were morons: the political parties will assume that the best way to treat and condition them is in the same way as Pavlov's dogs which slavered at the mouth when a bell was rung. I do not think the average Canadian citizen is anything like Pavlov's dogs and he certainly deserves to be treated much more humanely and as though he had some intelligence.
The point behind the subsidy is to bring the voter into full contact with the issues. Without my amendment the bill would allow the political parties to spend the money for which they will be reimbursed in the way their publicity agents tell them will be the most effective way. I would hate to have the view of humanity that PR men and advertising agencies have. You can tell that view easily, judging from the kind of drivel to which they subject people in the form of television and radio ads. At the very least, I am appealing to the members of the various political parties to say that they have a much higher appreciation of their fellow citizens. I hope my appeal does not fall on deaf ears and that this amendment will receive some support.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the effectiveness of publicity on radio and television. Some of us could well say: It should be understood that people are not convinced by 30 or 60 second advertisements on radio and television. But there are always some people who are. If they are not, they are still affected in some way by this publicity, because if they were not, the large companies which buy advertising time for soap, toothpaste, beer or gasoline, would not spend their money in this way.
It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the items which we consider as essential are rarely publicized on radio or television. There are no advertisements about houses for sale. Food products are not advertised either

because people usually know such things are valuable and necessary. Knowing people cannot be influenced by a 30-second or one minute advertisement as far as important things are concerned, producers of such things usually do not advertise on radio or television. As a rule, there is advertising of products that are not necessary, things that are, one may say, trash, things that are not very important in life. On television, we can see advertising on things usually useless, or if they are not useless, it is almost impossible to see the difference between products of one brand and those of another. That is why individuals or corporations that spend money for advertising on television advertize mainly valueless products.
Politics is what sells the idea, Mr. Speaker, because after all politics is something very important, it has to take care of the nation's welfare and future. Now we shall see politics, party leaders and parliament members reduced to the level of toothpaste and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The object of my amendment is to prevent such a thing, Mr. Speaker. That is what we should prevent, by taking seriously the object of the bill which merely says that the public want to be informed. And to enable the public to be better informed, we are going to grant subsidies to political parties. Without this amendment, such a policy would not be implemented and that is why I am asking members to consider it seriously, failing which the object of the bill would not be reached.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 39?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


John Paul Harney: I believe there are five members who stood.


Mr. Speaker:: I see, in effect, only four and a half, one member not being in his seat-and that is not quite enough. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 39 (Mr. Harney) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I might take one moment before we proceed with consideration of the item before us to refer first to the amended royal recommendation which has now arrived and is in my hand. It contains the amendments referred to by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) which meet both requirements, I am sure, to the satisfaction of hon. members. Perhaps it is not necessary to read it at this time in order that it be accepted by the House.
December 21, 1973


MR. PETERS-ALLEGED UNPARLIAMENTARY REMARK DURING TODAY'S QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to refer very briefly to an incident which took place this morning when we had a few alleged questions of privilege, one of them involving an exchange between the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). During the course of the exchange there were words spoken by the hon. member for Timiskaming from his seat and I said at the time that I would look at the record. However, pending this the Solicitor General indicated he was charging that the hon. member had said that he, the Solicitor General, lied. The hon. member explained that he meant it was not the minister who was uttering the lie but that the statement that was given to the minister was in itself a lie.
I have looked at the record, and certainly what the hon. member said is substantiated in it. His explanation, when he was called to order, was: "Mr. Speaker, I think Hansard will clearly indicate that I said that is a lie, and there seems to be some difference of opinion as to the fact. I did not say that the minister was a liar but that the report he gave was a lie."
I still have some hesitation about hon. members using such strong language even in the case of a report given to the House by a minister or another member; but certainly there is a distinction. It is important that all hon. members should realize it is incumbent upon the Chair to ensure that there is respect among members. No member, whether on one side of this House or the other, whether he be minister or not, frontbencher or backbencher, should be accused by another member of dishonesty, of intentionally misleading the House or of lying to the House. I think that is important. The hon. member has given his explanation and the Chair is willing to accept it. The minister is not here but I think he would accept it in the same way that I do. I therefore consider the incident closed.
I will now recognize the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with an order made earlier this day, I wonder if we could now revert to motions to deal with the motion in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to proceed with the motion at this time, having considered an alternative motion which has been discussed and which I think will have the support of all members of the House. Maybe I should briefly summarize the contents of the motion before reading it.
It would provide that upon the adjournment of the House today, it would stand adjourned until January 3 next. Then it provides that there be a method for dealing with three items on the order paper. The first is the export tax bill, providing that it would be dealt with in not more than three days; the oil allocation bill, providing for two more days of committee consideration, not more than three days at report stage and not more than a further day at third reading; then dealing with the election expenses bill it provides that the report stage and third reading be disposed of without further debate or amendment. Mr. Speaker, I could read the motion; or should Your Honour read it?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether it was intended to make this motion before we had completed consideration of the four motions which are still to be called on the election expenses bill, Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 1. If this motion is put and carried it will mean we should immediately thereafter put the election expenses bill motions without further debate. I should like to have this question clarified before the motion is put.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would think that because we are in the midst of these report stage amendments and one or two of them require a bit of explanation, particularly motion No. 1 with respect to a position hoped to be taken on the vote at third reading of the election expenses bill, we should either hold off the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) for a House order or dispense with private members' hour between four o'clock and five o'clock in order to provide an opportunity for the report stage amendments to be cleared up.
Then we could take a few minutes to put forward a position which some hon. members want to place on the record regarding their position with respect to third reading stage, even though when the order is passed and we return there would be no debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I sought the floor before four o'clock in view of the possibility that I might not be able to get it after four o'clock. It is quite agreeable to me, and I am sure to other hon. members, to suspend private members' hour-but with the understanding that we return to this motion before five o'clock.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we would co-operate in this suggestion, but the hon. member who was going to speak on private members' hour is standing by and we want to preserve that hour, or most of it. We would not mind cutting into it by five or ten minutes.

December 21, 1973
Motions


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether a compromise could be reached respecting the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I think that it is the will of the House that we proceed with private members' hour. We would put the hon. member's motion, but before that have an agreement that perhaps by 4.15 p.m. these proceedings be terminated. At 4.15 p.m. we would then proceed with the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If this is agreed, we will put the motion now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That when the House adjourns on December 21, 1973, it shall stand adjourned to January 3, 1974, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of this
That fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of adjournment on the third day that Bill C-245, an act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada, to impose an oil export tax under the Excise Tax Act and to allocate certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax, is taken into consideration, all questions necessary for the disposal of the said bill at all remaining stages shall be forthwith put and decided without further debate or amendment;
That the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works be instructed to report Bill C-236, Energy Supplies Emergency Act, following two further days of consideration thereof;
That, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of adjournment on the third day that Bill C-236 is considered at the report stage, every question necessary for the disposal of the said bill at the report stage shall be forthwith put and decided without further debate;
That, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of adjournment on the first day that the motion for third reading of Bill C-236 is taken into consideration every question necessary for the disposal of the third reading of the said bill shall be forthwith put and decided without further debate or amendment;
And that, when the order is next called for consideration of Bill C-203, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, every question necessary for the disposal of the report stage and of the third reading of the said bill shall be forthwith put without further debate or amendment.


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


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we took part in these negotiations and everything seems to be in order. However, as everybody in the House knows, we had serious objections to Bill C-236. There has been some agreement reached in committee on the bill, and I think it would be helpful to have on the record now the thoughts of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) on that agreement.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a little difficult to put that agreement on the record because 25 or 30 amendments were discussed in some detail. If the House really wants me to do so I will take them seriatim through the amendments. Perhaps the hon. member would clarify what he wants me to do. I can be as full or as limited as he desires.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the minister to clarify them all-we will have a few minutes in 1974-but I should like him to clarify the understanding with regard to clause 11. The others are all right. I think we should have an understanding of the position agreed to on that clause because the agreement limiting debate on Bill C-236 is founded on the understanding which the minister and I reached in this respect.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that clause 11 provides for the declaration of an emergency. If the House is sitting seven days after an emergency has been declared, or seven days after the House recommences if the House was not sitting at the time, a notice of motion to debate an order to approve the declaration of an emergency would be set down. Thereafter there would be an opportunity for the House to debate the motion for four sitting days, and at a quarter to ten on the fourth day the question would be put. If the motion is carried, then the allocation program is put into effect in accordance with the statute. If the motion is not carried, then of course the declaration and the mandatory allocation program would cease to be in force and effect. Is that a fair statement?


Gerald William Baldwin: I think that is it, basically. We have some ironing out of commas and semi-colons and dashes, but I think that is basically the arrangement. I should like to lay down one more condition in so far as it is possible to do so. On the days that will be set aside for debate on Bill C-236, will the government House leader give his undertaking that the government will not restrict the full use of those days for this debate? There are some ways in which the government can introduce other measures. We are talking about full days of debate when Bill C-236 would be considered by this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a word or two about the motion which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has moved. It represents points on which the representatives of the parties have agreed. I think hon. members generally should know that not everyone is completely happy with the motion. Everyone engaged in a give-and-take exercise and the terms of the motion represent the compromise which we reached. I think there will be general satisfaction over the result, as we will not be spending Christmas Eve here on the floor of the House of Commons.
The only other point I wish to make is that since the passing of this motion is based upon the assumption that consideration of the report stage of Bill C-203 will be completed this afternoon, and as we have provided for no debate taking place on third reading, I hope that the 4.15 p.m. order will not be pressed too severely because one or
December 21, 1973

two of my colleagues may want to say a few more things on the bill.
I think if it is understood that the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) is to have one hour, whenever it starts, everybody would be much happier about this motion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to further clarify one element which has been referred to. With regard to the declaration, if it occurs when parliament is not sitting the understanding would be that the order would be set down as soon as parliament reconvened. There would be no obligation to disrupt the recess or prorogation period for the purpose of bringing parliament back at an earlier time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there is some misunderstanding here. It is our understanding that if there is a national emergency-I do not want to debate this because now is not the time to do so-that emergency would warrant the recalling of parliament. We agree that if in the course of an election campaign a national emergency is declared, obviously the matter would be left to the mandate of the people: the people would make the decision. On the question of the recall of parliament, perhaps the minister and I can work out something to do with the timing of that recall. We are not prepared to let the matter go on the basis that parliament will only come back two or three months after the national emergency has been declared. We do not think that is right.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking from the draft supplied to me by the hon. gentleman, which is in the terms I suggested. If the hon. member has any different understanding of it, I will have to speak to him about it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we have run into a difficulty. I do not know whether it is possible for the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the minister to confer quickly. Perhaps we could hold in abeyance final approval of the motion because the question raised is crucial to our position on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, as there is a desire on the part of some hon. members, including the hon. member for Peace River, to consider the motion further and to have further discussions, perhaps the motion should not be put immediately.
Perhaps we could return to the consideration of motion No. 40, Bill C-203, which I believe was about to be called a moment ago, on the understanding that as soon as we have completed consideration of the motions on this bill the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) will bring forward his private members' business.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked that the 4.15 p.m. order not be applied strictly and that we give one hour to the hon. member for Athabasca. It should be remembered, however, that there is to be royal assent some time later this afternoon, so that the hon. member for Athabasca may not have an hour.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I would not be agreeable to delaying beyond 4.15 p.m. consideration of private mem-
Motions
bers' business. I think we should proceed with private member's hour at that time, as agreed upon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker:: The next motion is No. 40 standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney).


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to withdraw motion No. 40, standing in my name.
Motion No. 40 (Mr. Harney) withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Next comes motion No. 41.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like consent to withdraw this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 41 (Mr. Barnett) withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: We shall now proceed to consideration of motion No. 42 standing in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by deleting, in paragraph (b) of section 99.4 of clause 14 the words "between the hours of six a.m. and nine a.m., 12 p.m. and 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. and 7 p.m." and substituting the words:
"between the hours of six a.m. and eight p.m."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The reasoning behind this amendment and the point I wish to make is this: I believe the committee succumbed to what I would describe as an urban orientation with regard to prime radio time. I have brought forward this amendment to stress that in some areas of the country some of the hours which are not included in the bill as it stands may be more desirable. That is my only point. Unless other members wish to debate it, I will not pursue it further on this occasion. I felt the point should be made at this time in the House.


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

December 21, 1973
Motions


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be deferred. We shall now consider motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) which is as follows:
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by deleting the words "Election Expenses Act" in clause 1 and substituting therefor the words:
"Election Expenses and Subsidies to Political Parties Act."


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of this motion may I say that it gives us an opportunity to put some thoughts on the record. Let me say that I, for one, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and others are opposed to the concept of providing subsidies out of the public treasury to political parties and candidates. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, particularly, would like to say a few words and I am sure the House will not be seriously offended if he talks until 4.15.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected such generosity from my colleague from Skeena (Mr. Howard). As the bill is to pass third reading stage without debate, perhaps I might make one or two comments. Although I recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction in the limiting of expenses and the reporting of the sources of campaign contributions, I feel that if we carry through the idea of subsidizing political parties and candidates from the public purse, in the long run we shall be acting against the best interests of the political parties themselves. Once the people of Canada become aware of this, I think they will express their opposition to this concept with increasing vigour. For that reason, having weighed everything in the balance, we have brought forward this amendment. It deals with a basic concept which I, for one, cannot agree to support which is included in the bill.
I am agreeable to providing services for candidates, such as franking privileges which would be useful for the mailing of information to voters in one's constituency. But once we adopt the concept of providing reimbursement directly from the public treasury to candidates of parties we shall be encouraging candidates to spend more money so that they can get more money back. By so doing we should be introducing a retrograde element in our electoral system. It is an element which I think is wrong and which I intend to oppose with my vote on third reading, if I have the opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Howard) negatived.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: We shall turn now to the motion which stands in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion? The principals involved on both sides of the House are negotiating very hard. There is a good mood, so perhaps we could hold over any decision until after the private members' hour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Could we agree to put the motion at five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council will remember that there is royal assent at 4.45 p.m.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't let him in.


Mr. Roche:: I should like to know whether there is to be any opportunity for debate on the third reading of the election expenses bill. I urge the government House leader to provide for at least one day's debate on third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is a reference to that in the order. Is it the wish of the House that I read the motion? Some hon. Members suggested I should dispense with reading it. The motion has been put and will, I gather, be reconsidered at 4.45 p.m. after the private members' hour.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa 21 December, 1973
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, December 21, at 4.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
December 21, 1973

I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General


Mr. Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Paul Yewchuk: That in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to reduce or reverse the continuing depopulation of rural areas in particular through the introduction of short and long-term measures to save the family farm.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is almost a year since I placed this motion on the order paper. There have been certain changes affecting agriculture since that time, but the motion still applies today as it did a year ago. I have always felt that agriculture is one of our most important primary industries and is very vital to the Canadian economy. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is the backbone of our country's existence. It, therefore, is a direct responsibility of the federal government not only to support this industry to the maximum extent it can but to implement policies which will guarantee its continual expansion and growth.
Presently we are in the middle of a world food crisis. World food shortages and higher food prices to Canadians make it all the more important to realize that any policy other than one of expansion in agriculture is completely unacceptable. Although Canada is becoming a highly industrialized nation, we must continue to produce food because that is certainly one of the things that we can do best. Until very recently it was something we did best in a manner which provided sufficient food not only for Canadians but also for export.
The year 1969, one year after the inauguration of the present government and its policies, was the turning point in Canadian agriculture because that was the year in which for the first time in our history we actually imported more agricultural products than we exported. In other words, the policies of the present government were so filled with disincentive to produce that which we used to do best-and which we can still do best-that it became an unprofitable business to the point at which, in order to provide an adequate food supply to Canadians, we had to buy from other countries.
Family Farm
Even today we are short of commodities which we are well able to produce, but we do not see the kind of policy changes that are required in order to correct this inequity. The first example that comes to my mind is dairy production. We are not producing enough of certain dairy products; there has been a marked decline in our dairy production since the implementation of policies which are now in existence.
Over the past ten years we have seen a continuing depopulation of rural areas because of lack of incentives by way of adequate financial return to the producers. Between the years 1966-71 there was a daily loss of 44 people from the farm to urban centres in the three prairie provinces. This works out to the migration of over 16,000 people per year from the farm to the city in the three prairie provinces. It means the loss of over 4,000 farm families. The core of the problem is, without any doubt, the fact that net farm income has been continuously declining.
Because of the world food shortage in the past few months, however, gross farm income has increased significantly and for the first time in many years farmers felt that they were getting a fair return for their product. However, this feeling of satisfaction did not persist very long when immediately on the heels of increased farm income followed spiralling increased farm costs which have now surpassed the increased income.
The price of machinery continues to rise unchecked in spite of the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that he has implemented most of the recommendations of the royal commission on the price of farm machinery. This minister has given us assurances that farm machinery prices would not rise unreasonably, yet his assurances have been followed by spiralling costs. The price of fuel to power farm machinery has also gone up substantially. The price of fertilizer, another big item on the farmer's expense list, has nearly doubled in the past year or two.
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, nearly a year ago or, to be more exact, last February, we called for a freeze on prices, incomes, profits, etc. which would not apply to the price of agricultural products at the farm gate. If this suggestion had been implemented at that time, when farm product prices were quite good but inflation had not yet struck so fiercely as it now has, the farmer today would be in a much better economic condition. The Liberals and the NDP scoffed at our proposal. In addition they took action to cut the price of meat and the price of wheat, and the farmers' opportunity for a fair return quickly vanished.
While the government can argue that our farmers are doing as well as any other farmers in the world, that kind of argument carries no weight with me. The fact is, the policies of the present government have been extremely detrimental toward the farmer and his income. I would not complain too much if the policies were at least neutral; if they didn't improve things on the farm but also didn't make things worse. But, in fact, the policies of this government have caused the western Canadian farmer to lose millions of dollars in direct revenue. I am, of course, referring to the LIFT program which was introduced by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) and was

December 21, 1973
Family Farm
later followed by the grass incentives program. These programs resulted in a massive reduction in wheat production. To be more exact, in 1969 total wheat production was 652 million bushels; with the implementation of the LIFT program, 1970 production was down to 312.5 million bushels, a reduction of some 340 million bushels.
With the implementation of the grass incentives program which followed, production was further curtailed and has not recovered to 1969 levels even to this date. In 1971 we were 142 million bushels short of the 1969 figure; in 1972 we were 139 million bushels short, and in 1973 we were 43 million bushels short. This totals, Mr. Speaker, to a reduced production of wheat, which occurred as a direct result of deliberate government policy, of 664 million bushels between 1970 and 1973 inclusive.
The price of bread wheat today is approximately $5.70 a bushel; the price of Durum is approximately $8.95 a bushel. A rough calculation indicates that about 17 per cent of our production is Durum, while about 83 per cent of our production is of the bread wheat or the slightly less expensive variety; or, we can round it up by saying one-fifth is Durum and four-fifths is the other bread variety of wheat. If we calculate the loss of income to the prairie farmer in terms of dollars since the present minister became responsible for the Wheat Board, we can easily see that he has done irreparable damage and harm to the wheat producer.
A quick calculation, at today's prices, of the loss due to decreased production of Durum wheat of 133 million bushels at $8.95 a bushel amounts to approximately $1.2 billion; decreased production of other bread wheat of 531 million bushels, at approximately $5.70 a bushel, amounts to approximately $3 billion. In short, by one stroke of his pen the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, has reduced income to the western wheat farmer by $4.2 billion since he has become minister responsible for the Wheat Board. If for no other reason, that reason by itself is sufficient cause not only for having him removed from the cabinet but for having him exiled from the country as well.


Mr. Danforth:: That is a little strong.


Paul Yewchuk: It may be strong, but consider how many years it will take western agriculture to recover that kind of loss. The injury caused is no less than if the same minister had dropped an atomic bomb on each of those three provinces. Western Canadian farmers cannot forgive him for this kind of tragic blunder in policy and planning. There is no doubt that this kind of policy has resulted in many more people leaving the farm in disgust to seek a better life elsewhere.
Other policies that this government has enacted since it has come to power have been mainly to increase interest rates on loans available to farmers, and introduction of the small farm development program. The small farm development program itself has been in operation in Alberta since September, 1972, and in Manitoba and Saskatchewan since June of 1973; in other words, since last summer. This small farm development program has only had the effect of increasing the process of depopulation of rural areas.

As a direct result of this program, 251 farmers in the three prairie provinces received assistance to expand their farms in order to make them more economically viable. Also as a direct result of this program, 1,247 farms were disposed of, and the same number of farm families were displaced from their homes only to be faced with a whole set of new problems such as relocation, possibly vocational retraining, procurement of new housing, etc. But, most important of all, they have had to give up a way of life which they had chosen to follow because that way of life was no longer possible under the present regime.
Obviously, new policies are required, policies that are deliberately designed to increase financial returns to farmers in order that they may return to the land or remain on the land. They must be policies to guarantee the farmer a fair price for his product. They must be policies to encourage new farmers to start farming operations if they are interested in that vocation. They must be policies to encourage vigorous marketing of Canadian agricultural products and to cut substantially the inflated overhead costs that the farmer must now bear as a result of the uncontrolled inflation that has gripped our country in recent months.
Policies must be short-term, mid-term and long-term. Short-term policies could be based on an incentive subsidization, but they can only be short-term. Long-term policies must be based on a vigorous marketing system and the production of an abundance and variety of high-quality Canadian agricultural products. By this method, stability of a fair return to the producer can be achieved as well as reasonable prices to the consumer.
From the consumer's point of view, the only way to ensure a stable food cost is to ensure adequate domestic agricultural production. At the same time it must recognized that farmers are entitled, and indeed must be able, to receive reasonable profit from this increased agricultural production. If there is no profit in production, production will decrease, thereby increasing even more our dependency upon imports to supply our needs. That can only mean higher food costs to consumers.
To sum up, there is no doubt in my mind that the tremendous loss of income to farmers has been a direct result of government interference in the private affairs of farmers. Farm policies must be drawn up in close consultation with the producers, not by backroom bureaucrats. Policies must be designed to allow a farmer to do what he can do best, which is to produce. We had the spectacle in 1969 of the minister responsible of the Wheat Board touring his own province and other provinces and hearing the same complaints from the farmers about the amount of grain they could grow. What the farmers wanted him to do was to find markets; instead, his decision was to cut production. That is an example of direct government interference in the affairs of farmers which has resulted in severe damage to their incomes.
In my view, production can best be achieved in the agricultural sphere through following the principles of free enterprise, which incorporates the incentive of "the harder you work, the better is your financial return." I believe that the farmer should be given the opportunity to play a large role in the solution to his problems, through his own efforts and through the efforts of his farm organi-
December 21, 1973

zations. Neither today or in the future must we again allow government legislation that creates a disadvantage to farmers in any region of the country. We must never again allow a program like LIFT to contribute to the destruction of the agricultural industry. The farmer should have the inherent right to manage his farm operation as he sees fit, and he should have access to appropriate farm management training if he requires it.
If supply management and farm marketing boards are to be established, the decision to do so must be made by the commodity groups themselves. If these basic and simple principles are followed, agriculture will recover and the agricultural way of life will survive. If the present policies of the government are followed, agriculture will not survive.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) used in support of his motion, I would have expected, as my colleagues surely did, from a man like him, with as much personality and university training, that the positive would have had the upper hand on the negative. But he chose to stick to the pessimistic side of things, to the negative, and hold the government responsible for all agricultural problems.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion of the hon. member is good. I agree fully with its wording, in that sense that the government must surely study the problem of the exodus from the land, the decreasing number of farms and the resulting social and economic problems.
I feel we are unanimous in this House in deploring the rural depopulation. We deplore it for a number of reasons. First because it is a social problem at the level of the individuals and families concerned, and second because it gives rise to immediate economic hardship. It is mainly an economic problem and a long term danger. As in the past, but certainly to a greater extent in the future, governments will be called upon to share in the efforts to stop this tendency and find means to quiet down this unrest. It goes without saying that we, as members of this House, must all be behind this.
However, I cannot buy the statement made by the hon. member that this government is responsible for the rural depopulation which started ten years ago, specifically in 1963. He was very careful in choosing that year, for it was in fact in 1963 that' the Progressive Conservative Party was defeated and replaced by the Liberal Party. He claimed that this unrest did not exist before 1963. I must regretfully revive his memory and ask him, although he is still very young, to go back a little further in the past, let us say, 10, 15, or even 20 years. Let us go back to the 1940's at least, when the war broke out. At that time, of course, industries developed throughout Canada. Naturally the war caused a certain manpower shortage. Young people particularly had many career opportunities in fields other than farming. These young people left the farm. The movement of the population from the farming and rural sectors did not start ten years ago, but 30 or 40 years ago. This phenomenon is not unique to Canada. It is interna-
Family Farm
tional, American, Canadian, European, Mr. Speaker. The government cannot therefore be blamed for the situation.
On the other hand, I agree with the hon. member when he says we must press the government, the provincial-federal institutions to think of the best measures possible to keep rural people where they are and help farmers find adequate people to take over. But that, Mr. Speaker, can happen only with one policy, a policy providing farmers with a sufficient income to justify their investments and the amount of work they have to put into their farm. And that is where the basic problem lies.
If farmers are unable to get a sufficient income or one that can be compared to that of other groups of society, why should they have to keep on sacrificing themselves? Why should we, as Canadians, require that 10 or 15 per cent of the Canadian people should sacrifice themselves by working seven days a week, 10 or 12 hours a day, by investing hundreds of thousands of dollars, by taking great risks in order to provide the Canadian people, the consumers as a whole food supplies adequate as to the quantity and quality and, as everybody hopes, at very low prices?
Such an equation, Mr. Speaker, is simply impossible. We the Canadian people must decide to pay the price of the food we want to be, adequate as to quantity and quality. That is the essential condition if we want to keep farming people in rural areas. To providing the farmer with the necessary help in his work, is the essential condition to make sure that he will able to keep with him his sons, his children who will replace him later on. And that important question of the family farm, Mr. Speaker, that we uphold in a stirring way, I would like to defend it myself! What is exactly a family farm?
If it is the family farm of 25, 40 or 50 years ago, when this type of farm was handed down from grandfather to father to son, without this debt being incurred-and I emphasize this point-as has been the case now since the last generation, if this is the type of family farm that the hon. member means, then I would remind him the following: the owner of the family farm today does no longer wants that this situation be perpetuated. He is the one who decides that his farm is worth $100,000 and who requires the future owner to pay that amount. Of course, the latter must go into debt, if the required capital is not available to him. If it is, he must make this investment. And then, the family farm can no longer be maintained in the same conditions. I wish, Mr. Speaker, we could do so. I wish we did, because it really was a good formula, but is it realistic to advocate such a formula in 1973? That is impossible. Let us be realistic, we cannot contemplate to go on using this formula. Then, we should accept that fact and consider how this farm operated by a family will continue to exist. Mr. Speaker, I ask the government, and I am not the only one, as several of my colleagues do so, to develop a new policy that will enable the son, the young farmer, the young man who is talented and willing to go into that industry which is vital for our economy, to get a start because his father will not be able to give him the $20,000 or $25,000 he needs.

December 21, 1973
Family Farm
If he does not have this amount of $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 according to the size of the business he intends to buy, he will not conceivably get started in agriculture. Even with the best talents and the best will in the world he will not be able to get a start. His attempt is doomed to failure. First, our present legislation will not allow him to do it and there are no credit sources available for large farms.
So it is absolutely necessary to develop a new farming policy. Today, I appeal to all members because it is a top priority item for any government. This government should, during the next session, if possible, introduce a bill to make available the amounts necessary to get the young farmers started. The terms might vary. Of course, the applicant shall have to meet some criteria to qualify. It is quite normal.
I think we should allow young men 20 years or 25 years old who have the potential and particularly the will to go into farming, to get the credit and the money they need because if we do not, Mr. Speaker, more and more young people will quit farming. I should like to sound a note of warning to everybody and it is not a matter of political partisanship, but if we fail to do it now, it will be very expensive to bring people back to farming later.
The price we should pay today to keep young farmers and help them to carry on their trade is extremely low compared to what we will have to pay five, ten or fifteen years from now if we wait that long to bring people back to farming.
This is a real challenge to us Canadians, it is a great responsibility to discharge. If we are to provide the Canadian people of tomorrow with a production adequate in quantity and quality and sufficient to help other countries, we have very soon to establish a bank that will provide the funds required by the young people who wish to have that kind of help. Some young people want to work in agriculture, I know some who do. Some study agriculture in technical schools. They want and they say: Tomorrow I graduate. I would like to go into agriculture but I can't afford to buy my father's farm, my uncle's, that of the neighbour, or the guy who will leave it because he has no one to take over.
That is the fundamental question we have to answer, Mr. Speaker. We should not blame the minister. Yet, the hon. member blamed solely the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In closing, I would like to point this out: In 1973-and this was published in western farm news papers, amongst other by the one we received this week-western producers will have had the highest income ever in Canada. To my mind, instead of criticizing him we should pay tribute to the minister for his good work and foresight.
The blame for some of today's problems must not be laid exclusively on a minister. I think that the minister has done a tremendous job. It is inconceivable and unacceptable that he be held responsible. He has indeed been superb.
In concluding, I want to point out a glaring contradiction in the hon. member's remarks. On the one hand he said that this sad state of affairs was the result of govern-

ment interference with the freedom of farmers. And on the other, had he said that government interference should be increased.
A choice will have to be made. Farmers have been provided with the tools, and it is quite freely, Mr. Speaker, that they will choose, now and in the future, to use them. We do not intend to lay down any conditions. We merely, and surely, want to help them, and I am positive that all the parties will agree on that point.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member a question. He said that many things need to be done. Since his government has been in power for ten years, I wonder whether he could tell me why all these things have not been done as yet?


Marcel Lessard: Is the hon. member asking me what we have done in the last ten years? Is he asking me to enumerate the list of achievements, before the House today, in the few seconds left to me in accordance with the order made by the House? Let me tell him that it would take me the rest of the hour, and even then I would not finish listing the achievements of this government. Let me tell him also that we could have done much more if we had had the support of the official opposition, instead of continual opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members should deal with this matter in the spirit of Christmas. I understand the messenger from the other place may be a little late in arriving, so the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) might be given extra time to reply to the question. In any event, I think the House should be advised that we may be sitting for a few minutes longer. We will see what happens.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet completed my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to let the hon. member continue to speak, I might as well put another question to him.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Yewchuk: The other question is: What action will this government take to compensate the western farmers for the $4.2 billion loss which was created by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board through his programs?


Marcel Lessard: The best answer to this question is that the premise of the question is inaccurate. I was here three years ago when that action was taken by the government, and I am sure many members here remember all the questions that were raised by the opposition. For hours they blamed the government for the surplus in production, for the huge pile of grain on the prairies. They asked what the government would do with that.


Mr. Lang:: Record sales.
December 21, 1973


Marcel Lessard: Hon. members must remember the kind of revenue that accrued to farmers in 1973. Let us remember that we passed a bill in the House permitting western farmers to defer tax on their current year's revenue until next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Lessard: Is the member ready to accept that farmers should have their previous revenue added to the present year's revenue, and thus have to pay higher taxes? Certainly not. Never has a government done so much, so fast, to solve the situation. Perhaps the hon. member does not remember those years, but many hon. members here do. If he wants me to answer the question about what the government will do to assist the western farmers to recoup what he calls a loss, let me tell him that it was not a loss.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -I do not understand the reason for the catcalls on the other side. I think that they are looking for Santa Claus in the chimney and he is not there yet. I am not prepared, as a member of the House, to listen to a bunch of gosh-darn frivolity in reply to a sane, sensible and serious question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I believe that the hon. member for Lessard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Lac-Saint-Jean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) made a very uneloquent exposition regarding the situation in Canada. The only problem with the hon. member is that he became lost in the water and never came to shore. He is not even in tune with the Nativity message. He does not know where the manger is, and even if he did the cows would not have him-because there are other hon. members in the House who know more about agriculture than the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. One of them is the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellen-berger). I say that, instead of hearing this frivolity from the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, we should hear other members who can give a full, clear and objective discourse on the problems of agriculture in Canada. That is my point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is a question of privilege on which the Chair might be permitted to meditate during the Noel season. In the meantime I recognize the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for the conclusion of his speech.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one word about the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). There are hon. members who are highly quali-
Family Farm
fied to speak about agriculture. I hope he knows enough to disqualify himself from being one of their number. Knowing the hon. member for many years in this House, I think he should be left out of that group.
Returning to the constituency of Lac-Saint-Jean, the name does not imply that we have only a lake Jhere. There is quite a piece of land in the constituency and I have lived and worked with farmers for many years so I know enough to appreciate their work and problems. I admit that I am not an expert. I do not pretend to be one. Having listened over the years to all kinds of forecasts from supposed experts in this House, particularly those on the opposition benches, I can say that the results up until now have not been good. In fact, opposition forecasts have frequently been wrong. With respect to expertise, I say that we should rely much more heavily upon members of the government front benches.

I would like to conclude my remarks, but as agriculture is a most interesting subject and as I express myself more easily in my mother tongue, I would prefer obviously to go back to French and summarize the situation a little. I would say that the measures which have precisely enabled agriculture to get better results within the last few years were put forward by a former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who is no longer in the House. Such measures were improved by another Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), by a minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and by a government which, day after day, through positive policies and action has allowed agriculture to become more viable. In order to solve the fundamental problem, namely that farmers may stay on farms, they would have to be assured-


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly abusing the rules of the House. He has been speaking for nearly 15 minutes in response to a question. We have other members who wish to speak in this debate. I wish there were some way of shutting him up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. My understanding is that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) has the floor for 20 minutes under the Standing Order, and I am advised that there are two minutes left to him.


Marcel Lessard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; and I intend to use my full time.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out in those two minutes that one measure among others has been put forward by the government to control rural depopulation and it is the policy for the development of small farms. If we consider how the provinces have used that policy up to now, what were the first provinces to sign those agreements, we note that there were the western provinces, because they are perhaps more active in that field with the agreement of provincial governments, as they saw in that

December 21, 1973
Family Farm
formula an opportunity to control rural depopulation, while allowing the establishment of profitable units.
This policy makes it possible to keep the rural population on the farm even though not directly involved in farming production. Those people have grown up, lived and worked many years in a farming district. I think that, if they could do so and if it were profitable, they would like above all to continue to live in that environment and work as much as possible in the farming sector. I think that the hon. member's proposal deserves our support, but what he had to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
[ English]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that certain discussions have been continuing and I think it might be worth while, before we give up in despair, disagreement or futility to agree that when we return from the royal assent we suspend our sitting until the call of the bells and resume at that time to deal with the adjournment motion or motions. At least we will have an opportunity to make another effort, and even if we fail we can say that we have failed after a final effort.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we agree with that. Perhaps if we were to walk very slowly to the Senate it would give the negotiators some more time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we also agree. Perhaps on the way there and on the way back, if our colleagues from Quebec who have such good voices would sing Christmas carols, that might improve the spirit.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I call on the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) I would also suggest that on our way back from the Senate, while the singing goes on, we might like to congregate in room 16 until six o'clock-and there I might find some way to deal with dissenters. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to maintain the Christmas spirit, but I wish to make a few remarks on a subject that I consider very important not only at Christmas but at all times, namely, the mass migration that we have experienced of rural young Canadians to the cities. The hon. member who preceded me said that successive Liberal governments had done much to keep Canadians on the farms, but the statistics tell us that we have now only 350,000 farmers in Canada. This is a disastrous situation, an emergency situation. We must get more young Canadians to remain on farms.
We have heard much talk from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). We have listened to and read his speeches with interest-but he has not brought forth any policy. At the present time he is taking advantage of high prices, ignoring a number of high cost areas which will keep farmers in a low profit situation. All farmers in Canada must have a higher reward for their labours. It is necessary to bring forward policies that will give farmers adequate income and encourage them to stay on farms. In

the last few months we have heard much about the Farm Credit Corporation which was established to enable young farmers to get loans in order to start in the farm business. When I look at the statistics I see that 60 per cent of the loans went to persons over 35 years of age, and only 40 per cent to persons under that age group. In order to take care of these farmers who could not apply or be accepted for farm credit, the Small Farm Development Corporation was set up. But really all the corporation does is allow those people turned down by farm credit to make application to it. It in fact consolidates farmers. More and more young farmers and older farmers are going to the cities.
Instead of just talking about what the government is going to do, I think it is time the Progressive Conservative Party made a few more suggestions. As we see, they seem to be accepted more and more by the Liberal Party, so perhaps it is to our advantage to make some positive recommendations. We talk about the dairy problem which is becoming very urgent at the moment. We find that we have to import butter and cheese. For years this was one of our chief exports, particularly to the European countries. I think the problem there is one of overcapitalization, the high cost of getting into dairy farming and the problem of getting good farm labour. This would be an excellent program on which the government could offer something that has been presented by the government of Alberta, that is, to subsidize the wages of farm labourers. We have a problem with unemployment. Until the people who are unemployed can find jobs, they could perhaps spend a few weeks or months on the farm learning where their food comes from.
The problem is that, with their inadequate incomes, farmers cannot today afford to pay the high salaries that are necessary to attract labour. This program has had reasonable success in Alberta although it has only been tried with high school and university students. But there is no reason why it could not be accepted on a federal basis. The government could perhaps pay half the salary, and the farmer the other half and look after the room and board. I think we should experiment with this program, and perhaps it would meet with reasonable success.
Another thing that has been missing for many years, and one reason why young people have been migrating to the cities, is that there are no programs available to keep young people in a happy community, one with all the advantages of the city. The government should make loans to small communities so they can provide recreational facilities and community clubs that would keep not only the farmer happy but the most essential part of his family happy, his wife and his children, so they would not be encouraged to leave the farm and go to the city. I have spoken about this on a private member's motion before, and I hope that the government will look into this matter with great speed.
I have before me some statistics showing that capitalization costs in farming have increased tremendously. We are now faced with higher costs for fertilizer this year, higher costs for machinery, and even weed spray. This has always been a basic problem for agriculture: when young people want to get into farming, or stay in farming, there is always the problem of an adequate supply of capital. Once
December 21, 1973

they get the capital, they find they must spend 30 years or more paying off the debt. It is pretty discouraging having to look forward to working hard all your life just to pay off your debt.
The government should accept the fact that if we want to keep young farmers on the farm, we will have to subsidize their interest rates for three, four or five years so they may have a chance to pay off the principal before they are hit with high interest rates. Capitalization costs on farms today are upward of $100,000, at interest rates of 7 per cent to 10 per cent so it is very hard to pay off any principal-hence the long-term, 20 to 30-year loans.
Mr. Speaker, here are some positive suggestions in addition to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Athabasca. I think the House should immediately approve this motion and the government should get on with positive policies, rather than just talk. Some incentive should be provided for young people, not only those on the farm but also those in the cities, who wish to start farming in the future.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) outline the non-program of the Conservative Party for agriculture was most inviting and interesting. I am always somewhat amused that a party that lambastes the government, and justifiably so, on its agricultural policies should, whenever that government has enunciated a policy in the House, agree with it. May I point out to members of the Conservative Party that when the government set up its rigged and totally unfair vote on the rapeseed ballot this year, as was done by the Minister of Justice in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), it was the Conservative Party that supported that kind of balloting and the Conservative Party that openly admits its ties with the open marketing system and agrees with the kind of finagling that is going on.
The second area where the Conservative Party supported government action in the last year was in the entire area of the marketing of feed grains and the new policy which has been so disruptive. Not only were farmers in western Canada upset about the operation of the agricultural products board, but the commodity exchange in Winnipeg does not know how to handle the new pricing mechanism of the agricultural products board.
Hon. members from Quebec who supported the minister in this feed grains policy are also terribly upset with the whole marketing and pricing mechanism now being carried out. This is the greatest disaster effected by any minister since the LIFT program was introduced, in terms of the marketing of grains within Canada-and that, Mr. Speaker, is supported by other spokesmen for the Conservative Party as well as the hon. member for Athabasca.
What do they recommend, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) says he has three programs. He has one to get labour out on the farm. That may be simple where he comes from, but I say that you cannot take young men out of the unemployment lines and put them to work running machinery on a farm in Canada unless very intensive training is given to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hurry up.
Family Farm


William George Knight: There is no way any of my relatives are going to let any guy off the city streets come out there and run their $10,000 to $15,000 tractors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Get your punch line in.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, if we are to have a change, it must be when we go into a new session. We have to change and bring in some programs that will give a certain amount of security and stability to the farming population not only in the west but in all of Canada. That kind of move ought to take place on the basis of the kind of programs enunciated by the province of Saskatchewan and other western provinces when they spoke to the federal ministers at the western opportunities conference. There are suggestions of programs for agriculture in those submissions that not only can be related to the problems of the west but to problems all across the country.
I think some of my colleagues from Quebec and some from rural parts of the Maritimes had very legitimate complaints related to the whole question of agricultural policy and the fact that many of their producers-and this has been a learning process for me, Mr. Speaker-face severe economic problems which are sometimes far worse than those faced by many of the producers whom I represent. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope this debate continues in the new session so that the hon. member for Athabasca and I will have a chance to go at it again.
[DOT]	(1710)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires to immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(1720)
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill S-7, an Act respecting The National Dental Examining Board of Canada.
Bill C-191, an Act to amend the Parole Act.
Bill C-135, an Act to provide additional financing mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada.
Bill C-239, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1974.
[Stage Direction]
December 21, 1973
Adjournment
['Pursuant to the special order made earlier this day, the sitting is suspended until the ringing of the bells.\nAt 5.25 p.m. the sitting was suspended.']
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the special order made earlier this day, the sitting is suspended until the ringing of the bells.
At 5.25 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6.49 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before I come to the main point, may I first wish all members a Happy Christmas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank them for their service to the House. While the rest of you were enjoying yourselves with the Speaker, some of us were working. I am now suggesting that His Honour put the adjournment motion that was suggested earlier, with the expectation that it will be carried. The discussions that we have had among representatives of the parties lead us to recommend this motion to the House.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, as the opposition party in this parliament we are pleased to co-operate in this manner. I would not want to give any false impression that minority governments are working, but in spite of the difficulties I do wish everybody a Joyeux Noel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, despite the way in which the official opposition works, we have entered into the Christmas spirit and we have reached agreement. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has correctly stated that there is now an understanding on the basis of which we believe this motion can be passed. In doing so, we too are joining in wishing all members and their families a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. In particular, may I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and Madame Lamoureux, the very best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, long before this last beating about the bush, we were decided not to sit next week, since we have long said that dodging the issue at the end of each session is useless and bothersome and

that we should put a stop to it some day. A reform of the parliamentary system is required in order that we may be more serious and better able to deal with the situation and that we may not be forced, at the end of each session, to talk of family spirit, Holiday spirit and parliamentary politics spirit.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to wish to all my colleagues in this House a very Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and as we say in Quebec, "le paradis a la fin de vos jours."
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the first matter to be dealt with is the motion by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That when the House adjourns on December 21, 1973, it shall stand adjourned to January 3, 1974, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order;
That fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of adjournment on the third day, that Bill C-245, an act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada, to impose an oil export tax under the Excise Tax Act and to allocate certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax, is taken into consideration, all questions necessary for the disposal of the said bill at all remaining stages shall be forthwith put and decided without further debate or amendment;
That the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works be instructed to report Bill C-236, Energy Supplies Emergency Act, following two further days of consideration thereof;
That, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of adjournment on the third day that Bill C-236 is considered at the report stage, every question necessary for the disposal of the said bill at the report stage shall be forthwith put and decided without further debate;
That, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of adjournment on the first day that the motion for third reading of Bill C-236 is taken into consideration every question necessary for the disposal of the third reading of the said bill shall be forthwith put and decided without further debate or amendment;
And that, when the order is next called for consideration of Bill C-203, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, every question necessary for the disposal of the report stage and of the third reading of the said bill shall be forthwith put without further debate or amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: This House will therefore stand adjourned, in accordance with the terms of the motion which has just
December 21, 1973

been adopted, until January 3. I thank hon. members who have been kind enough to express their warm and generous thoughts to the Speaker. I would have loved to have continued my speech, but the Sergeant at Arms signals that it is time for me to leave.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Adjournment


Mr. Speaker:: If all these negotiations have not been completed, and if hon. members would like to discuss those right now before the adjournment in June, they may do so in room 16.
At 6.55 p.m. the House adjourned until 2 p.m. January 3, 1974, pursuant to special order made this day.

Thursday, January 3, 1974