1973-12-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
December 13, 1973-Mr. Howard:
That the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Thursday, December 13, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Skeena seeks at this point to move concurrence in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Thursday, December 13, 1973.
I have already indicated to the hon. member that the Chair has reservations, not about the report itself but about the motion to concur in the report. My suggestion to the hon. member, and, of course, I will be pleased to hear him or any hon. member who would like to enlighten the Chair on the procedural aspect, is that the report itself goes beyond the committee's terms of reference in the sense that a bill was referred to the committee and what we have received from the committee is a report making a recommendation of a substantive nature. A study of the precedents indicates that although there have been a number of similar reports, which I am sure are very useful and which appear in the Journals of the House, there is no precedent to substantiate the proposition that concurrence in such a report can be moved so that it can be the subject of a debate in the House. That, basically, is the objection taken by the Chair, but I would be pleased to hear the views of hon. members and have the benefit of their guidance.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I gather from what you have just said that the substance of the report and of the recommendation, which is a very simple one, that the government consider the advisability of refusing to ratify the purchase by Air Canada of 30 per cent of the capital stock of Wardair Canada Limited, does not in itself transgress the rules in relation to the expenditure of funds or giving direction to the government. It simply adopts the usual phraseology that the government consider the advisability of doing, or not doing, a certain thing in accordance with the standard form for recommendations of this nature. I gather your concern is whether or not the subject matter of the report, namely, the agreement between Air Canada and Wardair, lends itself to being reported on
because it arises out of the consideration of a particular bill which was referred to the committee, Bill C-164, to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by Canadian National Railways and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada.
In the course of the committee's deliberations in considering the extent to which the bill was acceptable. Mr. Pratte and a number of other witnesses from Air Canada went extensively, both voluntarily and in answer to questions, into aspects of the relationship between Air Canada and Wardair. Since this agreement has not yet been formally consummated, basically what was being sought in the bill was a guarantee of certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, part of the proceeds of which could go toward the purchase of a 30 per cent equity in Wardair at a cost to Air Canada of something less than $3 million. Provision for this $3 million was made in part within the bill itself.
I do not want to go into detail about the proceedings before the committee or to make any quotations therefrom. Succinctly put, there was extensive debate, examination and elaboration on the relationship between Air Canada and Wardair. Reference was made to an amount of something less than $3 million to buy an equity in Wardair, with part of the money to come from the financial authority contained in the bill in so far as Air Canada was concerned.
It seems to me quite appropriate that if the committee saw fit to make a particular report about one aspect of the bill without in itself defeating the bill, if it did not want to refuse to report the bill because it did not agree with this particular provision, the committee had no other course to take but to make a specific recommendation concerning one aspect of the provisions of the bill. As I interpret the proceedings before the committee, especially the motion moved in the committee, it was the hope and intention of the committee to ask the House to express an opinion about the agreement between Air Canada and Wardair, an agreement that was initially authorized by the Canadian Transport Commission. The decision of that commission was subsequently appealed to the cabinet. Evidence was given during the proceedings that the cabinet was, as of December 13 when the report was made, seized of the appeal of the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to endorse the agreement between Wardair and Air Canada.
All that the motion seeks to do is to have the House express an opinion in regard to recommending to the government the advisability of not ratifying that particular agreement. If the agreement is not ratified the $3 million contemplated to be guaranteed in part by Her Majesty as set out in the bill need not be provided. To my way of thinking, it is perfectly within the ambit of the financial structure of the bill because it relates to the

Transport and Communications financing of Air Canada, and part of those moneys is to be used to buy an equity share in Wardair.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order and the question Your Honour raised as to whether or not you are convinced that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was a proper report for the committee to make in view of its terms of reference, I should like to say that I am sure Your Honour acknowledges the difficult position in which I, as chairman of that committee, was put.
Normally committees run rather smoothly. But in a minority House committees are nearly equally balanced, and on this occasion the vote on whether or not that amendment should carry was a tie vote and I as chairman was then called upon to make the final decision. I referred to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, section 75, which suggests that the chairman must always protect his impartiality and that, whenever possible, he should refer such decision to another body so that that body can make the final decision.
Having well understood that the Canadian Transport Commission had made a particular ruling in regard to the purchase of 30 per cent of Wardair by Air Canada and that Canadian Pacific Airlines had appealed that decision to the Governor in Council, I thought that according to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition I, as chairman of that committee, could best maintain my impartiality by continuing to refer the final decision to the cabinet, which was already called upon to review the CTC decision.
May I refer to Votes and Proceedings for February 16, 1971. At that time the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs was studying Bill C-203, introduced in that session, which had to do with the Pensions Act. The sixth report of the committee recommended that the government consider the feasibility of taking certain actions. On that occasion in 1971 the committee took it upon itself to go outside the scope of Bill C-203. It recommended something that might not have been encompassed in the bill but nevertheless was within the financial aspects of the bill. The committee recommended that the House should consider the advisability of including merchant navy personnel and auxiliary service personnel who were prisoners of war of the Japanese in world war II under the provisions of Section 57 of the Pension Act as amended by Bill C-203. That was only one of the committee's recommendations.
May I refer Your Honour as well to Votes and Proceedings of June 22, 1971. On that occasion Mr. Gervais, for Mr. Tolmie, from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented the ninth report of the said committee. That committee made a recommendation to the House with regard to Bill C-243, then being considered. The committee recommended, in view of the financial implications involved, that the government should propose a series of amendments that were outlined at that stage. There are extensive precedents and I am sure Your Honour is aware of them.
On this particular occasion the committee was considering a financing bill authorizing the expenditure of $140 million in connection with capital and operating expenditures of Air Canada. I thought that the Wardair agreement

December 20, 1973
fell within the area that the bill was designed to cover with regard to Air Canada. The money had actually left Air Canada and was being held in escrow until the cabinet had made a final decision. The money had actually been spent by Air Canada and was being held in escrow until the cabinet could make a final decision on the appeal by CP Air.
When the motion came before the committee I questioned it and examined it thoroughly and felt I had to rule the motion in order. I felt I had to vote to refer the matter to cabinet which was already studying the question. The motion only asks the government to consider the advisability of refusing to grant permission for Air Canada to engage in this transaction. The government can consider it. My recommendation to the government would be that it should accept the motion for concurrence and consider the advisability of doing what is proposed. Of course, the final decision is solely for the cabinet to make. I am reassured that the cabinet will consider it. That is the prerogative of the cabinet. We in this House should not trouble ourselves with that sixth report because I am certain the government is considering a lot of things at this very moment.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, in considering the question whether this motion is in order, I think one has to refer to clause 7 of Bill C-164. I think that you, in ruling, should understand it was clearly contemplated that, of the $140 million being advanced to Air Canada by debenture, $2.7 million would be for the financing of this particular transaction involving Wardair. In addition, evidence given before the committee by Air Canada officials clearly indicates that the $2.7 million to finance the Wardair transaction was part of the budget requirements in clause 7 of the bill. On that basis, Sir, the motion is clearly in order.
What we are really saying to the government is that the amount of financing required depends on whether or not the Wardair transaction is approved by the government. In the event the government should refuse to ratify this transaction, then clearly the decision as to the amount of funding Air Canada requires under the terms of this bill is altered. It is on the basis that this particular advance of funds by the government to Air Canada is affected by the exact matter now before the government that this sixth report of the standing committee is in order and I, Sir, would ask you to accept it and rule on it in that way.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the standing committee responsible for this motion I should like to submit that the argument supporting those who say that the committee did have the right to make this recommendation to the government stems from the fact that what was under consideration was not the annual report of Canadian National Railways or Air Canada but rather a financing bill to provide authority for specific capital expenditures by Air Canada so it could undertake certain projects. Among the propositions put forward by Air Canada was one that they had made an arrangement, and had evidently made application to the Air Transport Committee, to spend approximately $3 million for the purchase of a 30 per cent equity in Wardair.
December 20, 1973

As one of the members who support the motion I believe that if Air Canada wishes to buy an airline that is its right and it should have the opportunity to do so. However, this expenditure falls into line with an investment program being undertaken by Air Canada, and I think the committee was justified in making the recommendation it did, particularly in view of the fact this money was being asked for in the form of a capital allowance which parliament was being asked to advance to Air Canada and, second, Air Canada itself admitted it was embarking on this project for which it needed money. It was also indicated that this matter had been placed before the Canadian Transport Commission and that the decision of the commission had been appealed to cabinet which was considering the matter.
Without making this recommendation I submit it would have been impossible for the committee to have approved the expenditures that were being asked for in the financing bill or it would have been a fact that part of that money was earmarked by Air Canada to be used for that purpose. It appears to me, because the decision was reached after long and detailed study of the financial expenditures of Air Canada, that it was proper for the committee to come to the conclusion that this particular expenditure, within the financial terms of the bill, was not in the best interests of Canada or of Air Canada's financing. Therefore it was suggested to the government in this report that it give consideration to the recommendation made by the members after a long and detailed study of the matter that this expenditure not become part of the expenditures to be allowed Air Canada if the financing bill were passed.
The bill is available to the House today because of the decision of the committee this morning, and it is my opinion that if the sixth report is not adopted there will be considerable reluctance on the part of most members of that committee to endorse the financing bill. Therefore I think this is a point to which the government should give consideration. I submit that it was legitimately made in the committee and therefore I believe it is a legitimate point for discussion in the House.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say on the matter, having been a member of the committee at that particular time. I want to say that the chairman of that committee proved to be very capable and impartial and all members of the committee appreciated it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The fundamental point that was brought out in the committee-and I think Beauchesne, Bourinot and other authorities stress it-is that the chairman of a committee in essence acts on behalf of Mr. Speaker. The Chairman at that time had grave doubts about the acceptability of the original motion presented by the hon. member for Mississauga if I recall correctly the testimony which appears in issue No. 24 of the proceedings of the committee. It was at the request and suggestion of the chairman that the motion was reworded so as to make it acceptable in his opinion. Furthermore, he went on to point out that in effect the motion simply recommended to the government that when making a final decision on
Transport and Communications Wardair the government take into consideration the motion made before the appropriate committee.
The fundamental point which I should like to make is that if the chairman of every committee representing Mr. Speaker makes a decision indicating that a motion is in order only to find some weeks later that he is overruled in the House, it seems to me that we will be unintentionally undermining the position of chairmen for all future meetings and we could make committee hearings irrelevant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on this matter. I am a member of that committee and I was at the meeting when the motion was first put and when it was reworded on the recommendation of the chairman. Like the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), I am concerned about the freedom of members of committees and about the future of committees.
The difficulty that committees always face is that in order for their members to be able to discuss anything outside the narrowest of parameters they must obtain a reference from the House. What that means is permission from the minister, whether it is permission for the committee to travel or to consider certain aspects of their work. One way to make the work of committees much more successful is to give them additional freedom. I am not referring to a congressional type of committee system, but I am very concerned that if this motion is ruled out of order it will threaten the confidence that people may have in committees in the future.
I think this motion was put forward by people who tend to be philosophically opposed to public airlines. Had I been there, I would have voted against the motion. The very fact that I was not there allowed the motion to pass, and for that I am sorry. Nevertheless, it was passed and I think it is incumbent on the House to rule on the recommendation of the committee provided it is in order.
I assert again that the motion is in order. The bill was a financing bill having to do with Air Canada and the CNR, and certainly part of their financing involves their investment policy. I cannot understand why this has been questioned. I am opposed to the motion, but I am certainly philosophically at one with the members who have spoken here today and have suggested that, despite whether they are opposed to or in favour of the motion, the motion is in order and that it is the business of the committee to make such recommendations.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I think the content of the recommendation by the committee is important when you consider the implications. It in no way states or requests that the government do anything which has already been determined by the government. I think it is important to remember that all the committee is asking the government to do is to give a little input or a little consideration to the committee's request with respect to a matter that is already before cabinet and already under consideration. It does not in any respect

December 20, 1973
Transport and Communications
seek to overturn established government policy. I think this point should be taken into consideration as well.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not a member of the committee which considered the bill that has been reported today-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That will be reported.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that will be reported. As I say, I was not a member of the committee that considered Bill C-164, but I am a member of the House which gave the reference to the committee. The reference given to the committee is a narrow one authorizing the standing committee to consider Bill C-164. The committee is limited by that reference and, however important other issues are, they cannot be referred back to the House for a decision when the committee itself is not authorized by the House to consider or to report upon them. The committee is obligated to consider the bill and to report the bill.
If the subject matter of the sixth report were relevant to the principle of the bill, if it were germane to the clauses or to any particular clause of the bill, then it would be possible for the committee to deal with the matter of Wardair within the confines of the bill. That would be a proper course. Indeed, when the bill comes back to the House, if the subject of Wardair is relevant to any part of the bill it is open to hon. members to amend that part of the bill in order to ensure that this particular item becomes part of the law. But I suggest it is not particularly relevant to the bill itself and that it cannot be reported in this way or dealt with in the House because the committee did not have the authority to make that decision or recommendation. I do not take issue with the hon. member's assertion about the importance of the matter or the importance of standing committees, but I do support your earlier position, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite contrary to the rules to move concurrence in this particular report at this stage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has spoken on the point of order but I am sure the House would want to hear him again. I believe he has a further comment to make.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a further comment to make only because it was suggested, quite correctly and accurately, that I had advised the mover of the motion in the first instance that I felt it was out of order in the manner in which he was moving it, and I did suggest that he change it in such a way as to make it acceptable. I think the House should be made aware of the manner in which I suggested it should be changed so that we might be better able to judge the intent of the motion.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we were dealing with a financing bill to authorize the sum of $147 million, of which $2.7 million has already been spent on Wardair, but is held in escrow until the deal is finalized. The mover of the motion first put it in this manner. "That this committee opposes the purchase of 30 per cent of Wardair stock by Air Canada." I suggested to the mover that the committee could not go on record as opposing it and that, we really

only had the ability to advise and ask the government, or in essence ask parliament, to consider what we had studied and what was referred to us. In essence Bill C-164 was referred to us, dealing with Air Canada financing, and part of its financing was in actual fact spent on this purchase. I advised the mover of the motion that I might find his concept in order if he could word his motion in such a way that the committee would ask the government or ask parliament-in fact the exact words I used were "the House"-to consider the advisability of refusing this. With the motion couched in those words, I was certainly under the impression, after having served for 15 years on committees, that it would fall within the terms of reference of the Committee to study CNR and Air Canada financing up until June 30, 1974, in which period this expenditure fell, and in the committee we were informed that Air Canada was in fact prepared to expend $2.7 million.
I want you to rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that no matter how you rule on this motion you will in no way inhibit my participation as chairman of the transport committee. I will continue to rule, I will continue to adjudicate or judge the actions of that committee in as fair and impartial a manner as is within my capabilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No matter how you rule in this instance, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to carry on and will not feel hampered or encumbered at all by your ruling. I want you to be assured of that.
I have studied the references in Votes and Proceedings of June, 1971, and of February 16, 1971, when the committee structure was somewhat different from what it is today. At that time committees were made up of an overwhelming majority of government members. Now we have a committee system that is nearly equal in balance, and I can assure you that it is sometimes difficult to wrestle with that kind of equal balance. I felt at the time that I was doing the right thing, I still do and I will continue to do so no matter how you rule.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge is rising to participate. It seems to me that hon. members who have spoken up to this point have greatly helped and assisted the Chair, to the point where I would be prepared to make a ruling. However, I will listen to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge if he has comments to make additional to those already made for the guidance of the Chair.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Speaker, up until this point we have mainly heard from members who support the motion and who feel that a committee should have the right and authority to deal with matters that are usually reserved for decision by the House of Commons. May I, as a private member, protest that viewpoint. I am not prepared to be bound by decisions of committees, particularly knowing how the committees operate. I am prepared to be bound by decisions of the House. Although I do not always agree, at least there are 264 members here. I repeat that I am not prepared to have some claque on a committee decide what I am going to be in favour of.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What did he refer to me as?
December 20, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Claque.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will quack him.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their assistance to the Chair in the making of a ruling on this very important point which was brought about by the motion of the hon. member for Skeena for concurrence in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to the House of Commons. As I said at the outset, the fact that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena is being questioned procedurally is not by any stretch of the imagination a reflection on the proceedings in the committee or the excellent work which all members agree has been done in that committee by its distinguished chairman.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Knowing the hon. member's independence of thought I am sure he will continue to rule unhindered, as I think he said, by any decision of the Chair. In spite of this, the Chair has to make a ruling on the basis of my understanding of the Standing Orders.
The objection of the Chair is not necessarily to the report. The report came forward and appeared on the order paper. There was no objection raised although the Chair might have had the same doubts the hon. member for Crowfoot and other members of the committee obviously had when the original motion was moved or after it was amended. But the motion did come before us and appeared from day to day on the notice paper along with a number of other notices on which no motions, for concurrence, as yet have been submitted to the Chair.
I have previously indicated my difficulties in respect of these motions. The hon. member for Crowfoot has referred to the fact that in a number of instances there have been similar reports. He is quite right. There is no doubt whatsoever that this has happened before and the example he gave was "right on", as hon. members say from day to day in supporting statements by their own people. There was a report which came from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs as reported in the Journals of the House for February 16, 1971, at page 333. This report was a substantive report. It was perhaps even more subject to question than the one now before us because it had financial provisions. The hon. member for Crowfoot and others have referred to that. But hon. members will appreciate that there was no motion for concurrence in that report. This is where the difficulty arises. The Chair would have been placed in a rather awkward position if at that time there had been a motion for concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs as it appears on page 333 of the Journals of the House to which I have just referred. The Chair might well have had to reach a decision and make a ruling that what those committees had before them, as this particular committee has had before it, was a bill.
The situation is quite different when a committee has before it a general reference, such as an annual report of a
Transport and Communications department, when there is greater latitude in the submitting of substantive recommendations to the House.
With respect, I suggest to hon. members there is no authority to support the contention that a committee of the House when considering a bill should report anything to the House except the bill itself. This is the difficulty that we have now. A recommendation has been made which may very well have been relevant to the bill but it has come to the House by way of a substantive recommendation.
My thought would have been, as has been suggested by hon. members and I believe by the President of the Privy Council, that if that recommendation were relevant, as it might possibly or probably should be, to one of the clauses of the bill, an amendment should have been introduced in the committee.
I refer hon. members to a few citations. Citation 304, paragraph 2, of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition reads as follows:
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference. In the case of a select committee upon a bill, the bill committed to it is itself the order of reference to the committee, who must report it with or without amendment to the House.
At page 494 of May's Eighteenth Edition it is stated:
The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill clause by clause and, if necessary, word by word, with a view to making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable.
If the substance of the report now before the House is founded on or related to the bill, it would follow that the bill in one form is before the committee when that question in another form is before the House. I refer hon. members to section 1 of citation 414 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which states as follows:
The House is not supposed to be informed of the proceedings of a committee on a bill until the bill has been reported; and discussion of the clauses, with the Speaker in the chair, when the bill is still before the committee, is consequently irregular.
I would have thought such a substantive recommendation as that contained in the report now before the House could not be proposed either in committee of the whole or at the report stage of the bill. I suggest again that what might have been proposed by the committee would have been an amendment to the bill so that the bill, once reported, would have included that amendment.
My difficulty is that what we have now before us is a substantive recommendation, with which I do not quarrel-I do not quarrel with the proceedings of the committee and I have no objection to the ruling made by the chairman of that committee in any way-but when it comes to proposing that we should consider the matter as a substantive recommendation I suggest to hon. members that there are ways and means under our Standing Orders for a substantive proposition to be considered by the House. However, this cannot be done, I suggest, by way of a recommendation from a committee studying a bill.
I would hope that hon. members who feel strongly about this matter might consider possible reconsideration of the matter in the committee itself since the bill has not yet been reported to the House. This is a point which the hon. member for Crowfoot has indicated is a possibility.

December 20, 1973
Foreign Investment
Taking all circumstances under consideration and taking into account, surely, that there is not a single precedent in the proceedings of the House to support the proposition that such a procedure is acceptable, I would find it very difficult to make an exception at this time in favour of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order, for clarification purposes. Are you suggesting in your ruling that the committee re-examine Bill C-164 in light of your ruling? I have taken it upon myself as chairman of the committee to try to get that bill through the committee and part of that effort was passing on to the House the sixth report of that committee. I would hope you are not referring that bill back to the committee or asking us to re-examine it.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the last thing I have in mind.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Horner (Crowfoot).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This might have been done under presentation of reports but I am sure the House will be pleased to accept the report even on motions.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


TRANSPORT
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I am tabling two copies in both official languages of the third report of the federal-provincial committee on Atlantic region transportation.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, during recent months, my departmental officials and I have received a number of inquiries from or on behalf of potential foreign investors asking what steps they should take if they were planning to establish a new business in Canada prior to second proclamation of the act or to acquire a Canadian business prior to first proclamation. Now that the foreign investment review legislation has received Royal Assent, I want to comment on that question.

The Foreign Investment Review Act is to take effect in two separate steps. From the date of the first proclamation, which I hope can be implemented within the next three to four months, the provisions relating to acquisitions of Canadian businesses will apply. After the government has had an opportunity to gain experience in administering the takeover provisions, and has consulted the provinces, the second proclamation relating to new business will be made. Although it is not possible for me, at this time, to state how soon after the first proclamation the second proclamation will occur, this period should obviously be as short as is feasible, taking account of the factors to which I have just referred.
Part of the problem which has been put to me by investors is that, in some cases, they must undertake considerable forward planning, sometimes at considerable cost, before being satisfied that the circumstances in Canada warrant their investment. By the time they are prepared to establish the new business, the second proclamation may have taken place. Similarly, firms now planning to acquire a Canadian business may find that the period required for implementing the acquisition is several months or longer and, before they are ready to conclude their transaction, the first proclamation may have occurred.
I do not believe that these factors create a serious problem. The Foreign Investment Review Act sets out the criteria for assessing significant benefit. These are known to the investor. Furthermore, it is always possible for potential investors to talk informally with my officials at a fairly early stage in the development of their plans in case any clarification of government policy is required.
Quite apart from the requests which I have received from businessmen that they have the opportunity to talk with the government about their plans during the interim period prior to the proclamations, I, too, am concerned that large new investments could take place prior to the second proclamation, without any opportunity for the government to satisfy itself that the principles in the Foreign Investment Review Act were being adhered to. I am equally aware that acquisitions of Canadian business enterprises could take place between now and the first proclamation without an opportunity for review.
For all these reasons, I want to announce that I have directed my departmental officials to be ready to discuss with potential foreign investors any plans they might have involving large new investments in Canada or involving acquisitions of large or medium-sized Canadian businesses or involving acquisitions of Canadian business in particularly sensitive areas, for example, Canadian businesses in the cultural area or owning an important technology. Indeed, I expect foreign investors making investments in any of the categories to which I have just referred to come forward readily to discuss their plans with my officials before finalizing their transactions, although I recognize that such discussions will be on a voluntary basis.
I would envisage that in the process of discussing these investments with potential investors, I and my officials will be in close contact with provincial counterparts to
December 20, 1973

ensure that the perspectives of both levels of government are brought to the attention of the investor. In discussing individual cases with investors, the factors which the federal government would look at are, of course, the same ones as are specified in subsection 2(2) of the act.
There is one other matter on which I would like to comment, the question of what constitutes an "unrelated" business. With the permission of the House, I would like to table some preliminary guidelines as to when a business might be unrelated to a business already carried on in Canada. This is necessary as new investments by foreign-controlled firms now operating in Canada into unrelated lines of activity constitute a category of new investment that will be subject to review after second proclamation.
These guidelines are intended to assist investors in determining whether they should be discussing their new investment plans with the government prior to second proclamation. I want also, at this time, to invite comments and suggestions, both of a general and detailed nature, from all interested groups concerning these preliminary guidelines on related business with a view to the establishment of more definitive guidelines after the second proclamation. If I can receive all views on this subject within the next four to six months, this will provide the government with an adequate opportunity to study and evaluate all representations prior to second proclamation.
I look forward to receiving co-operation from members of the business community, both in Canada and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 41(2) I should like to table the preliminary guidelines in both official languages.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting announcement. First, the minister advised he cannot say when the proclamation of Part I will take place. He then goes on to tell us he cannot tell us when the proclamation of Part II will take place. He then went on to say, at least by inference, that after years of preparation no significant guidelines are prepared and ready to release to Canadian businessmen, not even interim guidelines in many areas. It would seem that the essence of an industrial strategy is forward planning.
The minister says that the lack of guidelines is not serious because the criteria are set out in the act, but these are so vague that they could be subject to any interpretation. As everyone knows, they are totally subjective. As a matter of fact, they are so vague that one person could find any foreign investment to provide significant benefit to Canada and another would find just the contrary, depending on his personal point of view.
Finally, in desperation, the poor, confused businessman is being asked to consult with the minister's officials in respect of this matter in the interim period until the act is proclaimed. In addition, the release is so badly drafted that it is not clear whether the foreign investors are being advised to consult with the officials about their plans, the plans of the foreign investors, or whether they are to consult with the officials about the plans of the officials. This ambiguity should be cleared up at the earliest possible time.
The minister said: "... any plans they might have involving large new investments in Canada or involving acquisitions of large or medium-sized Canadian busi-
Foreign Investment
nesses or involving acquisitions of Canadian businesses in particularly sensitive areas, for example, businesses in the cultural area or owning an important technology." If the minister is referring to the plans of his officials, why did he not refer to the plans of the government? Obviously because the government has no plans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Obviously because the minister has no plans. Obviously because the minister gave the officials no guidelines as to how they should operate. The question now arises as to who in fact is running the department, because the guidelines are apparently to come up rather than go down from the minister and the government.
Having made the suggestion, he goes on to say that in discussing individual cases the factors to be looked at are those set out in the bill. This is passing strange when it is universally agreed that the criteria in the act are almost infinitely vague. They are like the artificial fog used by movie makers to obscure and then obliterate the silhouette of the set and the actors on it.
The minister then asks for help with guidelines to determine what in fact constitutes a related business. The minister should have done this long ago, preferably before the act was passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Today he asks for help in order to prepare more definite guidelines than the temporary guidelines he issued today. A quick reading of the temporary guidelines underlines how desperately the minister needs help.
Someone in the oil business could enter the coal business, the atomic energy business, the solar energy business, the tidal power business, the hydrogen fusion business or perhaps even the cattle business to produce manure from which energy could be recovered. Someone in the automobile business could enter the locomotive business, begin building ships, manufacture snowmobiles, carriages or bicycles or, as a last resort, manufacture boots and shoes, excluding work boots.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Guideline (b) permits total vertical integration which, in the case of a number of foreign owned industries, will permit them almost total freedom of access to vaguely related fields.
In making this statement today the minister added to the confusion in a hurtful and alarming manner. If the government's energy and industrial policies are as uncertain as its foreign ownership policy, one can only say, God help Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for making a copy of his statement available to us in order to give us an opportunity to go through it. However, I must say I find it very unclear. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) said that when the bill was before the House a few months ago it did have very precise definitions. I find that the guidelines are not

December 20, 1973
Foreign Investment
too precise either. I refer to the guidelines the minister tabled but did not read to the House. No wonder he did not read them out; they are so vague.
The guidelines deal with the definition of a related business. The foreign ownership bill is in two parts; the first deals with takeovers and the second with expansion into new areas or unrelated businesses. If a business is deemed to be related, then it will not be screened by the foreign investment agency and will be allowed to go ahead. I want, now, to show how vague and how wide open is the definition of "related business". I take here the second guideline,-it is very bureaucratic-which is as follows:
A new business may be related to another business ... if the new business produces a product to be used as an input for an existing process or activity of the investor, provided that a substantial proportion of the output of the new business is used as an input for the existing process or activity.
What the devil does that mean? Really what it means, in layman's language, is that if a firm is large, if it is multinational or multi-industry, if it is vertically integrated, that firm can expand into almost any area it wishes and be classified as related, and it will not be screened by the foreign investment review agency. Really it means that a huge company such as Imperial Oil could expand into almost any industry in this country without being screened by the foreign investment review agency.
I will give an example of what I mean. Imperial Oil has a subsidiary called DEVCON which is involved in development and the real estate business. According to the guidelines tabled by the minister, Imperial Oil through its subsidiary could become involved in almost any aspect of real estate. They could probably get into the construction business. They could probably, because it is related, get into the land assembly business. They could get into almost any aspect of residential or commercial real estate. Imperial Oil has another subsidiary called Building Products of Canada Limited which constructs building equipment. Through this subsidiary Imperial Oil could construct the building equipment needed to build houses and apartments, commercial buildings and so on which they might be planning to construct.
Imperial Oil has a fertilizer company. It also has a transportation company and could expand in those areas because they are related and would be relevant to the activities of Imperial Oil. They have a great interest in the restaurant business through Voyageur Restaurants. They are also interested in the twine and rope business through a company called Polytwine. One can easily see that under the definition the minister has given us of "related business", international corporations, when they are multiindustry and multiproduct, can expect to get into almost any area without being screened under the provisions of the bill.
Consider a company such as Bell Canada which owns Northern Electric and Microsystems. Microsystems produces all kinds of components in the computer industry. They could expand through Microsystems into almost any aspect of computer technology and not be screened under the provisions of the legislation. Most of the large multinational corporations are concerned with thousands of prod-

ucts; they can claim their expansion to be in a related area and be untouched by the terms of the bill this House passed a few weeks ago.
Another point I wish to comment on is regulation (d) which the minister outlined in his guidelines. It says that a business may be related in the case of a service industry if it is complementary to the existing business of the investor. An example given is that of a wholesale business which could expand by constructing a warehouse. This would be considered related, and therefore not screenable.
I will give an example of how companies can get around this regulation. International Telephone and Telegraph manufactures telephones and telegraphic equipment. Where do people most use telephones? In a hotel. So ITT bought out the shares of the Cavalier Hotel chain. And what do hotels use to a great extent? Toilet paper. So they manufacture toilet paper. What do people who go to hotels use but cars? So they run their own rental car fleet. All this is relative and integrated toward that service industry, and therefore is not screenable.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest very strongly that the guidelines do not mean anything at all. Almost any multinational corporation can get around the guidelines because they are involved in almost every product in use. There is an oil company producing toothpaste, an oil company in the rope business, and so on. The only way to stop foreign investment is to deal with existing firms as they expand their assets or their sales in this country, not as they expand into one product or another.
Parliament will have to enact really tough laws if it intends to slow down or reverse the trend of foreign ownership in our economy which is causing us to lose wealth by the exportation of capital, and to lose jobs by the exportation of processing and manufacturing into other countries around the world. All these guidelines will do is to provide 500 extra jobs for bureaucrats in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as they try to interpret the guidelines and apply them.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Sheflord):: Mr. Speaker, on November 26 when the House passed the legislation of foreign ownership, we had expect ad that it would create more confusion. Now, today the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has made a commendable effort to enlighten the House and future investors in Canada.
I am quite disappointed when I realize, to mention one point, that one of the future guidelines which will govern investments in Canada is far from being explicit. The French and English texts of paragraph (e) in the press release are inconsistent. It shows once again that the minister with his guidelines as well as with his bill was trying to give some explanations concerning investments, but he did not succeed in doing so. Today, we are still confused, we are in the fog and note that the government is fumbling.
The English text reads as follows:
(e) the new business uses and existing or similar technical process to that already used by the investor in Canada-
December 20, 1973

Here is how the French text reads:
Si la nouvelle entreprise utilise un procede technique deja existant ou semblable a celui deja utilise par l'industrie au Canada . . .
Now, Mr. Speaker, referring to the Canadian industry does not in the least mean investors, In fact, the English text refers to investors, and the French text, to the Canadian industry in general. From the French text, I come to the conclusion that just about no American or other foreign investor will be able to invest in Canada. Under paragraph (e) of the French text, they are precluded from doing so because nearly all foreign investors in Canada already own Canadian companies producing goods similar to those we want to produce through new investments.
That is a new proof that our investment policy is unfortunately going nowhere and proceeds by trial and error. On one side, investments are to be encouraged and on the other, control of the Canadian economy by foreign investors is to be prevented. That is an absolute contradiction and the problem will be solved when and only when the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the government develop a truly Canadian investment policy allowing Canadian companies to produce here, with Canadian capital, and thus which would stop them from being continually exploited and calling for foreign investors and telling them: We do not want to see you, because we want to control our own economy.
Mr. Speaker, today's statement will unfortunately lead to new arbitrary decisions on the part of public servants and allow for a still greater play of influence concerning foreign investors and public servants. This will also widen the lobbying circle in Canada and give public servants more power over the development of industries and investments.
Unfortunately, I do know on which of the two texts officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are going to base their decision when telling a company: You are welcome. On the other hand, when they do not want anything to do with one company or the other, they may tell it, according to the French version: You are already producing in Canada the goods that you want to produce.


CONGRATULATIONS TO SECRETARY OF STATE ON HIS MARRIAGE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I move:
That this House approve the marriage of the member of parliament for Peterborough, the hon. Secretary of State, who abandoned bachelorhood at noon today without consulting his colleagues and without the proper security check having been completed on his bride by the RCMP, and congratulate him on this ingenious method of beating the energy crisis.
Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The applause of the House indicates that there is unanimous consent.

[ Translation]


SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN IN EASTERN CANADA- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent question whose importance is unquestionable as it is of national interest. It is about the shortage of oats supplies in eastern Canada which could greatly hurt the dairy industry already showing a deficit, as well as other sectors of agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member move his motion. He is now making a speech. Standing Order 43 does not permit him to make one in support of a motion. He should state as soon as possible, and preferably immediately, the purpose of the motion that he wishes to bring to the attention of the House.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will do it immediately.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That an emergency debate be held in this House before the Christmas recess in order to study the reasons why eastern Canada farmers have difficulty obtaining feed grain supplies, especially as concerns oats, since these problems are very harmful to the dairy industry in particular and to other agricultural productions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.

[ English]


MR. NYSTROM-CONGRATULATIONS ON BIRTH OF SON- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, like the Solicitor General, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this House congratulates the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on the arrival yesterday of a seven-pound son, and we commend him on this ingenious method of correcting the political imbalance in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 20, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Fairweather:: Move that we adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the Chair hear a motion for the adjournment of the House?


REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SYSTEM OF READJUSTING REPRESENTATION AND DETERMINING NUMBER OF MEMBERS FROM EACH PROVINCE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
December 17, 1973-The President of the Privy Council:
That the system of readjusting representation in the House of Commons, including the method of determining the number of members for each province established by section 51 of the British North America Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the consumer price index for the regional cities of Canada shows increases in all regional cities and substantial increases in three cities, for example, Ottawa with a 10.2 per cent increase, Quebec City with an 11 per cent increase and St. John's Newfoundland, with a 10.1 per cent increase, I ask the Prime Minister whether he now intends to wait until the finance ministers' conference at the end of January, or in the face of this new evidence that inflation in Canada is out of control will he now instruct the Minister of Finance to make a policy statement before the adjournment of the House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I have been discussing these matters. I cannot indicate that he will make such a statement before the House adjourns tomorrow. If it is going to sit some further time, of course we would want to reconsider the matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that three cities in Canada, as announced by Statistics Canada today, have shown a better than 2 per cent increase in the cost of food, and in view of the fact that the quarterly report of the Food Prices Review Board released at 2.30 today in Montreal makes no substantive recommendations to the government, I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he would meet with the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board to review and assess the work

of the board, or is he satisfied with the functions of the board to date?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to meet with the chairman. I might point out that the Food Prices Review Board has not adopted the practice of making specific recommendations in its quarterly reports. It has done so in other reports and these recommendations have provided a basis for policy action by the government, for example, increasing the subsidy on bread and the decision to advance the implementation of the increase in family allowances.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is the minister now in a position to reply to the telegram from the Consumers Association of Canada referring to the request by the Canadian Egg Marketing Board for import controls on eggs and egg products in view of the substantial increase in the cost of food and, more particularly, in view of the substantial increase in the price of eggs in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is also referring to telegrams sent to the Prime Minister and, I think, to other ministers This matter is under study by the government.


James Aloysius McGrath: The telegram was sent to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I ask the minister whether he agrees with the stand taken by the Consumers Association of Canada.


Mr. Nowlan:: Do you know what it is?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, I do. I might point out to my hon. friend that I believe the Prime Minister received the same telegram as I did and that is what I was referring to. As far as the request is concerned, I do not think there should be any action taken by the government that is not strictly necessary to help confirm that Canadians have the most adequate supply of food at the most reasonable possible prices.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of members are seeking supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps we might complete the first round of questions and I will return to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton and others who have supplementaries on this subject.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the recent takeover of the Macdonald Tobacco Company by R. J. Reynolds of North Carolina, and in view of the fact that the result of this sale will mean for the first time complete foreign domination
December 20, 1973

of this section of the Canadian economy, clearly contrary to the intent of the Foreign Investment Review Act, would the minister advise the House what specific steps he has taken in regard to blocking that sale, stopping it from progressing any farther or even reversing it?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised to read in the press of the proposed sale by Macdonald's to Reynolds Tobacco Company only one week after Royal Assent had been given to the bill. I met with senior members and representatives of the Reynolds Tobacco Company yesterday in Ottawa; they came to Ottawa at my request. I think it is clear that the deal has not yet gone through. I put a number of questions to them and I expect to hear from them in the very near future.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the present hiatus in the coming into force of the bill, and in view of the fact the minister really does not have legislative tools to block or prevent interim takeovers, does the minister intend to introduce an amendment to the Foreign Investment Review Act which would have a retroactive provision requiring review of all takeovers during this interim period on a priority basis, so that the review board would consider takeovers made in the interim period first and, second-
Oral Questions
mination every two weeks of the actual price at which feed grain is selling in the prairie region, as agreed upon between the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and the Canadian Wheat Board, and the selling of that grain out of Thunder Bay at a price which relates directly to that level on the prairies. This means that the grain is available to a variety of buyers at that price. The price varies every two weeks when there is a further determination.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Considering the reply just given by the minister and the policy that was implemented, could the minister tell the House whether he was informed by the Association des producteurs agricoles du Quebec of the present situation in the province of Quebec, taking into account the figures quoted in my previous question?
[ English]


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, these specific prices have not been brought to my attention, but the general supply problem which has been in existence for some time in the eastern part of the country has been brought to my attention frequently by Liberal members of parliament in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member who has had the floor for some time would allow the minister to answer the first question. He will be recognized for a further supplementary, after which I shall see the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing retroactive legislation to the House. I think I made clear in my statement on motions today the type of behaviour I would expect of firms contemplating a large investment for the establishment of a new business or the takeover of a large or medium-size Canadian industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see a number of hon. members seeking supplementaries on the three subjects which have been raised. We will return to the first question and the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I have noted hon. member who are seeking the floor for other supplementaries and they will be recognized as soon as possible.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
* *
*
[ Translation]

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
Since the new feed grain marketing policy for the whole of Canada implemented in the middle of October and whose object was to show equity towards Quebec farmers seems to be cleverly distorted by some middlemen since barley late last week was sold at $6 per hundredweight in eastern Canada as compared with $4.35 in western Canada, does the minister intend to conduct an inquiry and take action to put an end to such exploitation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have an indication from the hon. member of the specific figures to which he refers. As hon. members know, the feed grains policy this year involves the deter-


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the undisputed fact, based on the government's own statistics, that the real purchasing power of consumers has experienced a very drastic decline this year, can the minister tell us if this represents an expected and acceptable result of government economic policies, or will the minister now be acting so as to protect consumers from further erosion of their buying power and incomes?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the statistics to which the hon. gentleman refers, and which I of course do not challenge, are not complete in the sense that they neglect to advise the House that in terms of real purchasing power this House is entitled to consider the increase in disposable income of Canadians as the result of the reduction in taxes and the increases in pensions and family allowances. This means that in terms of real disposable income in the third quarter of this year, which is the period to which the hon. gentleman refers, over the third quarter of last year the real disposable, personal per capita income in this country was 8 per cent over that of last year.

December 20, 1973
Oral Questions


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to disposable income; I was referring to purchasing power. There is a difference. May I direct my supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because the indices covering real purchasing power show the real squeeze on the people of this country, would the minister be good enough to consider asking Statistics Canada to produce these statistics monthly instead of every six months?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to draw to the attention of Statistics Canada the representation of the hon. member.


REQUEST THAT HOUSE DEBATE LOSS LEADER PRACTICE OF FOOD CHAINS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of continued high food costs, will the minister bring forward for debate the subject of loss leaders and the predatory behaviour of the food chain giants, as the last study for criteria in respect of loss leadering was made in the mid-1950s?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is something the House could certainly look at in the course of the debate on and consideration of the bill to implement stage one of our new policy on competition.


GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT AND RATE OF INFLATION-AVAILABILITY OF FORECASTS BY MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR 1974
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who I believe is to meet with the provincial Ministers of Finance on January 24 or 25, or perhaps on both days. Is it his intention to present at that meeting forecasts for the year 1974 with regard to growth in the gross national product and the consequential financial effects of this for the government of Canada and the provinces, and also with regard to the anticipated or projected rate of inflation for 1974?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, over the past two or three years, at these annual meetings of finance ministers held for the purpose of comparing the budgetary forecasts and fiscal postures of the provinces and the federal government, as well as the monetary posture of the federal government, it has been customary, and we shall again follow the practice next January, to exchange on a confidential basis views and forecasts on a number of items based on a range of probabilities. That will be done again on a frank and confidential basis.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then the minister is prepared to say that he has forecasts which he will be presenting to the finance ministers of the provinces with regard to his expectations as to the GNP, the rate of inflation and related matters,

but he is not prepared to make this information available to the House?


John Napier Turner: That is not the way I
put it, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The minister himself used the word "confidential".


John Napier Turner: Yes, I did. This is done by all governments in order to achieve, prior to their budgetary presentations, prior to my presentation in the House of a budget and prior to the provincial Ministers of Finance presenting their budgets, a confidential overview of the economy. That is why the information is kept confidential. We do this so as not to trespass on the rights of the respective legislatures or of parliament. One of the difficulties, of course, in forecasting inflation next year, and I have pointed this out to the House, has to do with worldwide factors which we must consider, entailing now uncertainties in the pricing of fuel, world commodities and agricultural products.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. As both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture have indicated that one of their key policies in order to stop the inflated price of food in Canada is increased Canadian production, and as it is now apparent that not only have prices not been curtailed but Canadians are producing even less than is necessary to meet domestic demand in certain products, including butter and cheese with the closing of Canadian cheese factories and creameries, can the minister indicate if the government proposes to bring forward any new initiatives in order to encourage greater domestic production?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question may be right as it pertains to some agricultural products. However, the vast bulk of agricultural production is increasing in Canada. We outlined in September to the provincial ministers and in ongoing meetings since that time-we will be meeting early in January again to finalize them- programs to stabilize agricultural income in Canada. I am sure this will guarantee an increase in production when we pass the energy allocation bill, which will enable people to plan their production because we will have energy for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Kent-Essex and then the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister will dispense with his verbosity and give me a direct answer to this question. In view of the fact that production of all commodities in Canada is seriously affected by the
December 20, 1973

increases in input costs which ultimately are passed on to the consumer, and in view of the fact that fertilizer and fuel are main components in agriculture and that fertilizer is double the price it was last season, can the minister now advise us whether the government intends to take any action to confine the increase in input costs to a reasonable range?


Eugene Whelan: I would caution the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the very statement he is making certainly opens the doors for fertilizer companies to take advantage of the impression that is created in the minds of farmers that the price of fertilizer will go up. Our advice and information does not show anywhere near a doubling of the price. It shows some increase because fertilizers are subject to the same increases which everybody in the world faces. For instance, rock phosphate, which we import, has gone up four times in the last month over what it was the month before.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The statement made by the Minister of Agriculture is incorrect because the current posted prices to farmers of products being sold today show almost a 50 per cent increase over just four months ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose on a point of order but that is debate rather than a point of order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister rises on a point of order.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I intend to submit a paper to the House tomorrow that will put some of the facts on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: There goes the recess.


OIL-PRODUCTION AND SHIPMENT BY ARAB STATES
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of which I have given some notice. In view of reports that shipments of oil from Arab terminals are up nearly 40 per cent, does the minister have any evidence or corroboration confirming the suggestion that Arab states may not have cut production by anything like the amount first claimed?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to the hon. gentleman for reminding me of the article in the Economist. I have had inquiries made as to the facts stated therein. I think one thing is clear, that whatever the shipments out of Ras Tanura are the shipments into Portland have gone down.
Oral Questions


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister said he intends to investigate the statistics. If he intends to do that, will he see whether the multinational companies are using events in the Middle East to justify increases in prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will bear that suggestion in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a second supplementary, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Joliette and then the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Mark Willson Rose: Since both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have stated publicly that they have not seen the contracts of companies dealing in offshore oil, and in view of the fact that the oil companies have threatened to invoke force majeure to reallocate oil shipments, does the government intend to demand that these contracts be revealed before, or upon, the establishment of the national oil corporation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir.

[ Transla tion]


FEED GRAIN-ASSURANCE THAT HIGHER TRANSPORT RATES WILL NOT LEAD TO HIGHER PRICES FOR QUEBEC CONSUMERS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a supplementary question to those asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse.
Answering yesterday a question from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said that the rail movement will be augmented to ensure feed grain supplies for the province of Quebec. As this transportation will be more costly, is the Prime Minister prepared to ensure the House that Quebec producers will not have to pay increased transportation costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss the question with the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce following the question by the hon. member for New Westminster. Can the minister advise the reason for the proposed sale of Macdonald's and tell us whether this is in any way related to its inability to

December 20, 1973
Oral Questions
compete effectively with other foreign-eontrolled corporations operating in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will understand that the whole thrust of the Foreign Investment Review Act is concerned with the actions of the purchaser and not the motivation of the vendor.


STEPS TO OVERCOME SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the hon. member for Kent-Essex. I direct it to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Because the minister was absent last Friday, the Prime Minister took as notice a question regarding persistent reports that many feed grain users in eastern Canada face severe shortages of this commodity. I should like to ask the minister what specific plans the government now has to alleviate this situation.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated to the House yesterday, and I think the day before as well, a meeting was held in Moncton on Monday of this week with the various interested parties, including the grains group, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, the Canadian Wheat Board and the railways. As a result of that meeting, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will be obtaining information as accurate as possible on requirements for supplies, and co-operation will be sought on all sides to see that the supplies required get to their destinations appropriately and that stocks are built up as a reserve as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure we can get in all the supple-mentaries before the end of the question period. Perhaps hon. members would want to spend the rest of the question period on this subject. For the moment I will see the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, then the hon. member for Laval and perhaps others.


FEED GRAIN-AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES FROM WHEAT BOARD AND RAILWAY CARS FOR MOVEMENT TO EASTERN CANADA
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of that meeting in Moncton and the fact that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board had his officials there and the further fact that all four parties did come to a consensus, has the minister received a firm commitment from the Wheat Board that stocks will be released and a commitment from the railways that rolling stock will be supplied to take the grain east that is designated by the Livestock Feed Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there never has been any question of any hesitation on the part of the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of the availability of stocks. As long as the shipping season was open a certain priority was being given at the terminals to the

loading of vessels, including the loading of domestic grain into vessels. That is now turning very much to the loading of railway cars for the remaining movement of grain and, as far as I know there is full co-operation on all sides. Therefore I am optimistic about the situation.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR EASTERN PROVINCES REPRESENTATION ON CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
In view of the feed grain situation in the eastern provinces, which are not represented on the Canadian Wheat Board, is the minister prepared, in connection with the implementation of the new feed grain policy, to see to it that those provinces are represented by commissioners on the wheat board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the chief function of the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to be to act as marketing agent for exportable grain and the grain that is exported from the prairie region. The persons who are appointed to the Canadian Wheat Board as commissioners and staff are people chosen for their ability and not necessarily on a regional basis. Indeed, at the present time one of the commissioners happens to be a Canadian born in the Ottawa area. On the other hand, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board performs extremely important functions in attempting to protect the needs of the users of feed grain in all parts of Canada, and that board will be seen as having an even more important role in the future in respect of feed grain policy.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Local Initiatives Program, namely the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he give the assurance to the House that the local initiatives projects which are still to be announced in many constituencies, and mainly in Quebec and Lotbiniere, will be announced tomorrow night at the latest?


Some hon. Members:: As of midnight.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that all projects that are going to be approved will carry such an announcement by this weekend.
December 20, 1973


INDUSTRY
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frorvtenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It pertains to the scarcity of newsprint being experienced by Canadian weekly newspapers. Can the minister give the House an assurance that a sufficient supply of newsprint to the weekly newspapers of Canada will be maintained?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I checked on this question as recently as two days ago, I think, and I believe that as a result of the representations that I and my officials have made I can give that assurance.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte followed by the hon. member for Trinity.


PROVISION BY CANADA OF BUNKER C OIL TO MAINE PULP MILLS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the major disruption of trade and traditional employment patterns in western New Brunswick, part of Quebec and in the state of Maine which will result if the National Energy Board does not allow fulfilment of longterm Canadian contracts to provide bunker C oil to pulp mills in Maine, has the minister asked the National Energy Board to reconsider export applications for bunker C oil supply to these mills and, if so, what is their position now?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker,.I have spoken to the National Energy Board following discussions with the hon. member and with Premier Hatfield on this question. The board advises me that in their judgment there is an insufficient quantity of bunker C oil available on the east coast for them to be able to certify that these exports will be surplus to Canadian requirements. Therefore, under the authority of the statute they would be required to refuse applications. I have suggested to my department that we might explore this further with Washington to see if there might be a possible quid pro quo between the situation in Maine and that of the Lower mainland of British Columbia.


Fred Alward McCain: In view of the fact that according to the press-


An hon. Member:: That is not a fact.


Fred Alward McCain: You say that to the press yourself-there has been no cutback to Canada from traditional sources of supply for the refineries in eastern Canada, and since it has been suggested that Aramco may not be delivering to Canada the supplies which are released for us, what pressure has the government exerted through the minister's
Oral Questions
department or any other department to obtain the supplies supposedly destined for Canada as they leave home?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course the National Energy Board does not share the opinion of the hon. gentleman with regard to available supplies. We have to make certain that all supplies continue to arrive in Canada, but the fact remains that there has been a 25 per cent production cutback by the Arab exporting states, and we have had to share that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair undertook a moment ago to see the hon. member for Trinity, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[La teri\


INDUSTRY
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is related to a previous question and it is in two parts. I should like to direct it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The first part related to the shortage of newsprint for weekly newspapers which is putting pressure on them and in some cases making offers to take them over by larger organizations seem more desirable than they would be otherwise. Is the minister taking this into account in his deliberations as to how they might receive adequate supplies? The related part of my question is whether the minister is willing, during the interregnum until the foreign takeover bill is proclaimed, to give corporations which intend to make new investments in Canada or are embarking on takeovers binding rulings which would apply after the proclamation is in effect?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think those are two different questions and I will try to deal with each in turn, if you will allow. With regard to the first part with respect to newsprint, I think the hon. member may know that the Canadian industry because of strikes has suffered a loss of some 600,000 tons of newsprint production, which has created the condition of shortage in the industry. Their deliveries to their Canadian customers are up 10 per cent; their deliveries to their foreign customers are up by a smaller amount. They are making major efforts to ensure that their Canadian customers are looked after first.
With regard to the second question concerning binding rulings prior to the first proclamation, at the present time I am not contemplating that step.

December 20, 1973
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask him whether his attention has been drawn to complaints that the national economic conference organized by the Economic Council of Canada did not have adequate numbers of representatives from labour, consumer, and academic groups and, if so, whether the minister will discuss the complaints with the chairman of the Economic Council.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have read reports of the complaints, as the hon. gentleman has. I can only say to him that the conference was organized by the Economic Council of Canada, not by the government.


David Orlikow: Would the minister consider discussing with the chairman of the Economic Council the complaint that virtually every study paper presented at that conference was prepared by a group which consisted almost exclusively of representatives of industry and that representatives of other groups had virtually no opportunity to see and to prepare criticisms of those papers before they were presented to the conference?


John Napier Turner: I will draw the hon. gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairman. I must remind him, first, that the Economic Council of Canada is an independent organization, independent of government and, second, that a third of its membership is made up of representatives of the labour community.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will be running short of time very soon and I would hope they would limit the number of supple-mentaries. I am counting on the co-operation of hon. members so we can see as many members as possible before we reach the end of the question period. I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a supplementary.


David Orlikow: My question is very simple. Would the minister discuss with the chairman of the Economic Council the possibility that, if they continue to do what they are doing, labour representatives on the Economic Council will consider resigning?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he inform the House whether the United States took any diplomatic reprisals against Canada last winter

in retaliation for parliament having condemned the December bombing raids against North Viet Nam?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Is the minister aware of the fact that during January and February Canadian diplomats were advised by the U.S. state department that no one above the level of the Canada desk officer would receive them?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be placed on the order paper.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the government's increasing lack of interest for the Local Initiatives and Opportunities for Youth programs, would the minister advise the House whether he is considering other means to help Canadians fight unemployment? If so, would he kindly describe what he intends to do?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member is seeking a general statement from the minister, which should normally take place in the House on motions.

[ English]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of the statement which has been made by the Director General of the International Air Transport Association to the effect that there will be very serious complications in attempting to apply the proposed head tax to international air transport, may I ask the Minister of Transport if these problems were thoroughly considered prior to his announcement? Further, was the head tax proposal discussed with any of the officials of the International Air Transport Association?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, our department right now is holding discussions with the airline authorities to see what kind of administrative difficulties might be encountered. I have not received any report. As indicated in the press release, we set the date of January 1, but we said that if administra-
December 20, 1973

tive arrangements are not arrived at there might be a delay.


PROPOSED PASSENGER HEAD TAX-POSSIBILITY OF CONTRAVENTION OF ICAO GUIDELINES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the minister indicate that he did not get a wire from the International Air Transport Association, but as a supplementary question I wish to ask if he was made aware of the fact that the proposed head tax also contravenes the guidelines established by the ICAO council, in which Canada recently concurred, namely, that such charges as the Department of Transport proposes to impose must not be introduced without prior consultation and, further, that adequate advance notice must be provided?
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter, but I believe that all consultations that had to take place under our international responsibility have been held.
Oral Questions
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the quarterly report of the Food Prices Review Board states that the Canadian economy has undergone a substantial upswing in activity during the last two years, resulting in considerably increased corporation profits, including corporations in the food sector, will the minister now consider the introduction of an excess profits tax as a means of preventing the consumer from being gouged by further higher prices?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that on an earlier occasion. This would not be the time to announce it, and I am not sure it would achieve the result that the hon. member thinks it would achieve, but I do agree with her that there has been a tremendous upswing in the economy in the last two years.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
*
*
[Stage Direction]


SUGGESTED SUMMARY OF FINAL REPORT OF LeDAIN COMMISSION TO BE DISTRIBUTED FREE OR AT SMALL COST
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I had wished to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the LeDain Commission report but he has just left the chamber. I will ask a related question of the Minister of Labour in his capacity as director of Information Canada. In view of the importance of the final 1,148 page LeDain report, and in view of the fact that at a price of $7.95 it is very expensive and will not reach many people, does Information Canada intend to bring out a summary that could be distributed free or inexpensively so that LeDain's significant findings can be widely studied, such as the fact that alcohol is the biggest drug problem in Canada today?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to ascertain whether this is the plan of that department. It would then, of course, be up to Information Canada to make distribution, as it does for all publications that emanate from other departments of government.
*	=t=
*


FINANCE
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I return to the subject of food prices and my


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Vegreville of the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the strong protest sent to the minister by the Director General of IATA. Can the minister state, for the edification of the House, why he has chosen this means of a passenger head tax to raise revenue when he could have accomplished the same thing by increasing landing fees and user charges at airports for the major air carriers?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the minister to reply briefly, but it seems to me that a question asked in this way is argument rather than a question. The hon. member for Vegreville.


PROPOSED PASSENGER HEAD TAX-REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether in view of the obvious haste and clumsiness with which the minister has proceeded in this particular-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been recognized for the purpose of asking a question, and I think he should ask his question. There is just one minute left before the end of the question period.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the administrative unworkability of the proposed head tax, which has been attested to by the domestic carriers and now by the international carriers, would the minister now consider postponing application of the head tax until full consultation has been had with both domestic and international air carriers?
t Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the department's opinion is obviously that it is

December 20, 1973
Oral Questions
possible to administer this tax in an efficient manner. If by any chance it should become impossible to do so, or if it became clear that we cannot administer it, we would then reconsider the matter.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I raise a very brief point of order so as not to rob the question period of further time. I wonder if the minister might be permitted at the conclusion of the question period to return to motions to make a short statement in order to clarify this situation in view of the very serious consequences.


Mr. Speaker:: I will inquire about that shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to the building of the proposed Garrison Dam project in the United States and its far-reaching implications for Manitoba and part of Saskatchewan. Is the project continuing at the present time, and has the government received any word from the United States in reply to its protest against further work being carried out on the project?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the House knows, Mr. Speaker, we have requested a moratorium on further construction until such time as the authorities of the two countries can reach an understanding that Canadian rights and interests have been fully protected. We have not yet had a response to our note.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar on a supplementary. Then I will inquire whether there is unanimous consent to return to motions and, if there is not, will call orders of the day.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can assure the House, and more particularly the people of Manitoba and of the area affected in Saskatchewan, whether or not the federal government will keep pressing for a moratorium so far as the building and completion of this dam is concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dinsdale:: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking to ask supplementaries and additional questions. We have gone about three minutes beyond the question period. I am agreeable to having more questions but this can only be done if there is unanimous consent to continue with the question period.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Mr. Marchand (Langelier).]


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously there is not unanimous consent. Earlier a suggestion was made by the hon. member for Central Nova and I will now inquire whether the Minister of Transport wishes to return to motions to make a statement. I gather there is not unanimity on this either.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. Appreciating fully that there are still sincere and last minute negotiations taking place between leaders of all parties that might affect next week and our plans with respect thereto, may I ask the government House leader if he will now, or certainly tomorrow, establish the order of business in the usual way on the basis that we might unfortunately still be here next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I agree that-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You have both Grinch and Scrooge over there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They are on both sides of the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, Grinch is over there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we are trying to work out some satisfactory solution in order to complete the business of the House in an orderly way. If that falls down, the procedure would be to continue with the election expenses bill and then take the export tax measure. However, that could also be subject to further discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr, Speaker, I rise on a point of order based on the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway of the Minister of Finance. I notice that the Food Prices Review Board released its report in Montreal this afternoon and not to members of parliament, yet one of the members of the House has been quoting from that report. I wonder which government department, if any, leaked the report to one of the government members, namely, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, before other members got it?


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for St. John's East had it first.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether that is a point of order. It is rather more like a question and there does not appear to be an answer forthcoming. Perhaps hon. members might discuss between themselves what happened, if anything. Orders of the day.
December 20, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 19, consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections; motion No. 7 (Mr. Rodriguez) and motions Nos. 17 and 31 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask your indulgence to consider motion No. 27, which appears in my name, as being withdrawn. Since it duplicates another motion, there is no purpose in its being on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the motion has not been moved. I do not see why it requires unanimous consent to remove it from the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the solution would be to wait until we reach that item of business, after which we might have the usual interesting procedural debate on such matters. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had the floor and still has the floor.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the commencement of consideration of this bill the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) raised a question of privilege with respect to something I had said earlier in the debate. Since the Minister of Transport raised the matter I have had the opportunity to look at what he said and at what Hansard reported me as saying. I understand that the minister had an objection to the following words used by me, or the implication of them. I am quoting now from page 8908 of yesterday's Hansard, where the minister quoted the following:
On the one hand, he was giving out $6 million to IBM and the next day he went knocking on their door saying, "I am collecting funds for the Liberal Party."
That was the end of the quotation. What occurred, obviously, was the statement I made it was a figurative or pictorial statement and not a literal declaration that the minister himself went personally as a fund collector to IBM, to Noranda or Gaspe Copper, I think it was, or any of the other companies which received grants under his name. In fact, I know the minister made the declaration that he at no time collected any money on an earlier occasion when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made reference to a letter that went out over the minister's signature, when he was minister of
Election Expenses
regional economic expansion, and invited people to a cocktail party partly for the purpose of cocktailing and partly for the purpose of fund raising.
I do, even though I was speaking figuratively, extend to the minister my apologies for the implication in that remark, or what he drew from it, that he went personally as a fund collector. That was not the intent of what I was getting at. What in fact I was getting at was the simple question of a conflict of interest. I will say that. If the minister so desires, I will say it outside the House so that he can proceed with a court case. I thought then, and I think now, that there was a serious conflict of interest involved in the minister of regional economic expansion being in the position of making gifts, or grants in aid to corporations which applied for them pursuant to a statute of the Parliament of Canada while at the same time he was one of two co-chairmen of the national campaign committee of the Liberal Party. That is the conflict of interest.
I see the minister is leaving, so he obviously is not interested in my going any further into that matter. Apart from the fact that many of the companies which received grants under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion while the minister was then minister of the department attended a fund raising dinner in Toronto at which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke, I am sure the minister did not himself collect any money. I accept his statement on that matter, but he sure had a great deal of conflict of interest involved.
If the minister would like to sue me for saying that he did have a conflict of interest, that there was a conflict between being minister and making gifts of money to corporations while he was chairman of the national campaign committee of the Liberal Party, I will gladly make that statement outside the House and see the minister in court, if that is what he wants. He obviously does not, because he knows the truth of and the implications behind what I am saying.
Apart from that, I think the subamendment that is before us should commend itself to hon. members. I will not read it word for word because if I did I would have to make sure I got all the commas in the right places. What it says is that in so far as individual persons are concerned, they can only make contributions to a political party- there is another section of the act that says they have to be the beneficial owner of that money-or to candidates if they are Canadian citizens or people with landed immigrant status, which is entry into Canada pursuant to statute of parliament; in other words, being here in a legal way. With respect to corporations, it says quite succinctly and clearly that only corporations which are Canadian owned-and it uses percentage figures for what "Canadian ownership" means-and corporations which are not effectively controlled by a foreign group or individual in another land can make contributions to political parties or candidates.
It says that trade unions, only if they are Canadian, can make contributions to political parties or candidates, and that associations or organizations-these are all groups and classes set out in that clause of the bill-can only make contributions if they are organized and chartered as such pursuant to the law of the province.
8940

December 20, 1973
Election Expenses


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to accommodate the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member explain to the House how one could accurately, from day to day, determine whether a company is more than 10 per cent owned by a foreign concern or foreign people? These shares trade every day on the market. It would be almost impossible to keep abreast of the exact percentage owned by a foreign concern.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we manage to do it under the Bank Act and with respect to some insurance companies. Transcoastal Life was one, although I think it has since changed its name. United Investment Life was another. There are provisions in the foreign ownership bill for it. We manage to do it under other statutes, too. I am sure it would not be impossible for a corporation to make such a statement at the time it wanted to make a contribution to a political party. In any event, if it is set out in the statute, the obligation is on the group or corporations that makes the contribution to apprise itself whether it is legal to make that contribution; it is a responsibility that devolves on the particular corporation.
While we are on the subject of contributions to political parties, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about the source of funds of the New Democratic Party especially as it relates to the trade union movement. Let me set it out for you, if I can, without quoting chapter and verse from our constitution. There is provision within the constitution of the New Democratic Party, as there was in the CCF as well, under which any economic or other group that wants to in Canada, but not outside Canada, can make the decision of its own volition to affiliate its members who so desire with the New Democratic Party. It agrees to pay an affiliation fee of 60 cents per year, five cents per month, for each member of the organization who may want to affiliate. That organization is then an affiliate member of the New Democratic Party. Some trade unions located in Canada have made that decision. Some I know, some I do not. Of those I know, the decision was made in Canada by members of the union who are Canadians. They pay dues to that organization. The decision is made in a democratic way; someone moves a motion, it is debated and there is a vote. There is provision for people to opt out of paying the five cents per month affiliation fee.
The entire mechanism of the decision-making is within Canada. It is made by members of organizations within Canada, not outside. As far as I know, there is in fact a prohibition; there is no mechanism within the NDP whereby organizations outside this country can establish a relationship of that nature with our party.
What we want to do is spell out in the law that if the Teamsters Union, for the sake of argument, wants to make a donation to the Liberal Party, it should do so within Canada. The same should apply to any other union or organization. In the subamendment we want to see this

apply to corporations. We tried to define that a corporation shall be not less than 50 per cent Canadian owned in order to meet the criteria established by law for being classified as a Canadian corporation which is entitled to have some influence on the political process in this country.
What we disagree with most strenuously is the practice, to the extent that it exists, or the possibility of forces and elements outside Canada paying the bills for candidates running for election in order to represent Canadian interests. They already dominate our economy. Through that economic domination they have an undue, disproportionate influence on our social values and our social and educational systems. They should not be permitted to have an influence on our political system.
We deny to all except Canadian citizens the right to vote for members of parliament. We have removed the last exemption which applied to British subjects; that exemption will cease some time in 1975. The last exemption has been removed from the Elections Act. There must be the "you don't change the goalposts in the middle of the game" concept. There must be recognition of the fact that certain rules were established and existed at a certain point in time. In any event, those people could not become Canadian citizens for five years because that is what the law says. There was a five-year tolerance period beyond the last amendment in 1970. To all intents and purposes, only Canadian citizens will be able to vote in Canadian elections to elect members to this chamber. A companion to that should be the provision that only Canadian money from Canadian sources can be used.


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


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31 of the election expenses bill. I have a particular interest in these motions since during the committee I prepared motions with a similar intent. After giving due consideration to the mechanisms and intentions involved, I eventually withdrew my motions. These three motions and the amending motion which came up yesterday are obviously an attempt to keep Canadian elections politically financed by Canadians whether they be individuals, trade unions, organizations or whatever.
The original three motions which refer to registered parties and candidates in terms of donations and expenses all read the same provided, however, that all such money shall be in Canadian funds and collected from Canadian sources. There is not much reference to "Canadian sources" which was debated in the House yesterday. The term "sources" was not sufficiently clear. I find that the amending definition of the word "sources" is not much improved. The suggestion was made to remove the word "sources" and replace it with the following:
"citizens, persons with landed immigrant status, corporations which have no less than 50 per cent of their voting stock owned by Canadian citizens and not more than 10 per cent of their voting stock owned by any foreign group or person, trade unions which are located in Canada, and associations or organizations"
I have some difficulty, as was expressed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), understanding how
December 20, 1973

we could keep a day-to-day record of the percentile ownership of Canadian corporations. We currently do this in terms of corporation returns and the Income Tax Act, but I do not know whether it would be a workable concept in terms of an election which could be called mid-year or at any other time. In addition, I am not happy with the expression "trade unions located in Canada". The word "located" does not seem to be particularly suitable when talking about Canadian identity. It would be possible, I think, for trade unions whose essential characteristics in some way relate to foreign trade unions to qualify under this amendment and be capable of making contributions.
We really have not gotten around the problem which I believe is intended to be resolved by this particular amendment. There is a different solution, one which I listened to with a great deal of attention when it was originally proposed in committee. As the bill now stands, it will provide in the order of $25,000 to $30,000 per candidate in the average riding. It will provide for the declaration of donors to registered parties. It will remove the anonymity of donors of amounts over $100. I suggest there is an alternative method by which interference in the Canadian political situation can be reduced. That is publicity. In the first instance, the bill clearly and extensively provides for information with respect to donations to registered parties and/or candidates and provides, as well, for publication of those amounts. I think it quite likely that the four parties now in the House, or any parties as they are currently registered, would be the first to make a great deal of noise to the news media. The news media would be willing to carry stories where contributions are, in fact, made by non-Canadian residents whether corporate, trade unions or individuals.
In the final analysis, rather than attempt to provide legal definitions covering who will have the right to make a donation, it would probably be better to rely on our opposition parties. I think we should rely on all the parties to act as watchdogs for one another in terms of relations of this kind.
As one of the members of the committee, I want to thank all members for the co-operation shown, irrespective of party. A tremendous amount of work and time was put in. As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) mentioned the other day, this really is a committee bill, the result of an input to which everyone contributed, and I believe it will have a substantial effect upon Canadian elections in the future.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take the time of the House for long on this subject, but we are dealing here with a very important subamendment; it is not one we can gloss over lightly. I should like to congratulate the mover of the subamendment which in my view deserves to be given serious consideration. It represents a sensible change, one which seeks to introduce a definition which is clearly necessary if the purpose of the legislation is to be achieved.
I wish to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) who spoke on the subamendment yesterday. In the course of his speech the hon. member said, referring to the amendments:
Election Expenses
I suggest they represent a deathbed repentance on the part of the NDP. Suddenly they realized their total source of funding had been the international unions.
Both those statements are blatantly false and I think it proper that someone should rise to challenge that kind of sheer nonsense. The fact is, there has been no deathbed repentance but, rather, a serious attempt to improve this bill. And if there were a deathbed repentance, it is better to have some measure of repentance than none at all-and members of the Conservative party obviously do not intend to repent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have nothing to repent for. We do not take money from international unions.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They certainly do not want to lose the funds which have been flowing to them in the past from the United States and which can continue to flow under the bill as presently drafted, the only difference being that disclosure would now be required. However, people like ITT will not let that stand in the way of supporting their political friends, I am sure. It is patent nonsense to say our major source of funding has been the international unions. In the New Democratic Party, funding for local campaigns comes almost 100 per cent from the local people. That is the difference between the NDP and the Liberals or the Conservatives.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) referred to a paper by Dr. Paltiel who made a careful analysis of the sources of political funds contributed to the various political parties. He pointed out, correctly, that a great deal of the money spent on the national campaign of the NDP comes from the unions. That has never been hidden.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: International unions, too.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: But the hon. member failed to tell us that in the same paper Dr. Paltiel had this to say:
In contrast to the major parties, the NDP is financed from the bottom up with both individual and affiliated (trade union) membership fees being paid jointly to the provincial and federal parties.
This is the second difference which the hon. member for Victoria failed to acknowledge: the NDP is financed from the bottom up, while the Liberal and the Conservative parties are financed from the top down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is wrong.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Well, the hon. member will have to argue that with Dr. Khayyam Z. Paltiel who seems to have done a great deal of study on this subject.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, he is not an authority on the party to which I belong.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: When he spoke yesterday, the hon. member for Mississauga said that seven members from the New Democratic Party had spoken on this issue during the day, implying that somehow there was an attempt being made to frustrate the wishes of parliament in connection with this legislation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not "implying"; it was a
statement.
26695-53 i

December 20, 1973
Election Expenses


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On the contrary, it represented a serious attempt to improve one of the most important provisions of the bill, and I understand that these efforts have the support of the entire caucus.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Your leader is not here.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I make no apology for rising to support not only the amendment but also the subamendment, which makes a significant contribution to the improvement of this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment proposed by Mr. Barnett, seconded by Mr. Knight. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The division or divisions will be held at a subsequent time.
We shall now proceed to a group of motions, Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) moves: No. 8.
That Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canadian Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, be amended by deleting the words "thirty cents" in section 13.2(1) of subclause 4(1) and substituting therefor the following: "fifteen cents".
The second motion is moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), the third motion is moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the fourth motion is moved by the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters).
No. 9.
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 "thirty cents" where they appear in section 13.2(1) of sub-clause 4(1) and substituting therefor the following:
"twenty cents".
No. 10.
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 "thirty cents" where they appear in section 13.2(1) of sub-clause 4(1) and substituting therefor the following:
"twenty cents".
No. 11.
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 "thirty cents" where

they appear in section 13.2(1) of sub-clause 4(1) and substituting therefor the following:
"twenty-five cents".
Before recognizing the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), we are faced with three different sums, and I think if any divisions are called the first positive division would mean that any subsequent motion concerning these figures would not be put by the Chair. This would arise on the day the recorded divisions are held.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might put this in context since there are a number of amendments dealing with different values. Basically, the bill contains the provision in section 13.2(1) that in order to determine what would be the limitation on expenditures made by a registered party, as distinct from a candidate's expenditures in a constituency, you multiply by 30 cents the number of names appearing for each registered party on the preliminary list of voters for all electoral districts within which that registered party is running candidates. The limitation on expenditure for a registered party may well vary from party to party, depending on how many candidates each party runs in an election.
To arrive at a very rough determination I think we should use the maximum figure, because that is the number that may well be attained. In other words, in finding out what this means one should take into account the possibility that a registered party will run a full slate of candidates. At the moment, without any alteration in the system of redistribution, there are 264 constituencies.
If I may look to the next election, there would be something in the neighbourhood of 14 million registered voters in all of Canada. The point reached in the last federal election was 13 million and some hundred thousand, I forget the exact figure. However, with the increase in population and as a result of new people coming to Canada as immigrants, I am sure 14 million registered voters will be the minimum. Multiplying 14 million by 30 cents as proposed in the bill brings us to the sum of $4.2 million, and this is the amount that must not be exceeded by a registered party running candidates in all constituencies. This is the limit on the amount it may spend for the purpose of conducting an election. To appreciate more fully what this means, we must refer to the definition of election expenses with which we dealt briefly the other day. This matter was cleared up specifically in the committee when the government moved an amendment as incorporated in subclause (1.1) on page 9 of the bill.
A registered party may expend money in addition to the $4.2 million. This additional money is in respect of contributions or gifts made by or on behalf of a registered party for the use of candidates at an election. In other words, if a registered party wants to make a donation or contribution-this is standard practice in some parties-from its central fund to one of its candidates in a federal district, this contribution or gift is not included in the computation of the 30 cents times the maximum number of voters. Therefore, in addition to the $4.2 million limitation arrived at by this provision, there are the amounts that a registered party may donate to its candidates running in ridings throughout the country. This amount will vary, I am sure, depending on the assessment made by the registered party of the chances of their candidate for any given seat.
December 20, 1973

For example, I am sure that a registered party would look at a particular seat and assess its chances. It might have a good chance of winning the seat, or perhaps it won the seat last time but by a narrow margin, and so it would decide to put in some additional money to assist its candidate. Or there might be another constituency in which the party would not appear to have the ghost of a chance because traditionally it has elected the member of another party. Therefore its contribution would be minimal or nil, or at any rate token. But whatever the aggregate of the gifts to candidates in electoral districts, they are in addition to the $4.2 million maximum.
According to Professor Paltiel, a rough average for both the old-line parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, is $5,000. Multiplying that $5,000 by 264 candidates gives you an additional $1.3 million. So that for a national party's expenditure we are really talking in terms of $5.5 million as the effective limitation imposed by this provision. Another provision of the bill puts a limitation on the amount that a candidate in a constituency can spend. This limitation fluctuates, depending on how many voters are in the constituency, and there is a formula for this further on in the bill.
Putting the limitation of 30 cents per name at the national registered party level together with the limitation imposed on expenditures in constituencies, you arrive at an approximate limitation-it will vary according to how many registered voters there are-of something in the order of $11 million for a registered party and its candidates for the conduct of a national election. The total is $11 million, of which $4.2 million is to be for direct campaign expenses at the registered party level.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that three figures have been mentioned in the motions moved-15 cents, which is half the proposed limitation, 20 cents and 25 cents. I hope the House will vote on these motions beginning with the motion asking for 15 cents. I hope one of these motions will pass, for obvious reasons. The purpose of the motions is to cut down the anticipated limitation contained in this clause of the bill. I put it that way because I submit that, in any factual sense, the limitation proposed in the bill is no limitation at all as the amount which can be spent at present is about 2 VS times the amount spent in 1972 when a peak was reached, I believe.
We are indebted to Professor Paltiel for the analysis made of campaign spending. The professor is the only person currently analysing political party finances. That was done in 1970, and has again been done in the paper from which I shall quote. So far as I know, this is the only current material which puts these facts together. As mentioned earlier, this material was obtained as a result of extensive conversations with representatives of the various political parties.
I wish to refer to parts of this material. First, in table 1 of the paper, on page 8a, there are listed Liberal national headquarters' expenses for the 1965, 1968 and 1972 campaigns. Expenditures are broken down into ten categories: radio time, television time, print media, other advertising agency costs, printed and other material, leader's tour, other travel, surveys, administration, and something
Election Expenses
called "other expenses" which includes a sum of $15,000 for the campaign directed at first-time voters; in other words, at those presumably who had reached voting age in 1972. These expenses total $1,321,989. Call it $l'/2 million in round figures.
According to my calculations, the present limitations under the bill would permit expenditures about three times that size. Those limitations would not limit Liberal Party activities. In assessing and analysing the meaning of those expenditures, Professor Paltiel says:
The most significant change in the 1972 campaign was the sharp increase in spending on the broadcasting media-
The significance of that I will touch on in a moment.
-and the employment of sophisticated computerized direct mail techniques as well as on surveys of various types.
Surveys of various types did not figure as items of expenditure in 1965 and 1968, although they did so figure in 1972 inasmuch as $75,000 was spent under that heading. More than twice as much was spent in 1972 on television time, $460,000 having been spent then as compared with $200,000 in 1968. In addition, nearly $100,000 was spent on radio. Let me point out that the bill provides for a refund of 50 per cent of moneys spent on radio and television. As I said, the limitation of $4.2 million is about 2 V4 times what the Liberal Party spent last year. The party will be able to double its expenditure on radio and television and the extra time will not cost it a penny because it will get half the money back from the public purse. So instead of spending roughly half a million dollars, it can spend one million and be subsidized for half its expenditure out of the public purse.
Professor Paltiel suggests that the picture regarding campaign spending needs to be completed. That is significant. We are now talking about campaign expenses or, rather, about those campaign expenses incurred in the period following the issuance of the writ, up to polling day. We are talking about approximately 58 days, depending on when the election is announced, and about an expenditure of $4.2 million. Professor Paltiel suggests that somehow or other Liberal Party headquarters-perhaps the news is borne on the breezes of the air-manages to learn in advance of events when the election writ is to be issued. That, at any rate, is the implication of Professor Paltiel's words as follows:
To complete the picture of Liberal Party finances in the last campaign some attention must be paid to the ongoing inter-election and sustaining expenses of the party in the period just prior and just after the election. In 1969 the cost of maintaining national headquarters amounted to $363,000. This sum has remained fairly stable but rose by about 25 per cent in the period just prior to the issuance of the writ of dissolution and the launching of the campaign in 1972.
So in addition to being able to spend $4.2 million, the figure suggested in the bill, which is 2'/2 times what the Liberal Party spent the last time, that party-because of some connection that enables it to gather information which is available to nobody else-will undoubtedly be able to spend more at national headquarters just prior to the issuance of the writ and gain whatever advantages flow from that. So in considering that $4.2 million limitation, which as I said represents a figure almost three times greater than that spent by the party in 1972 when its expenditures reached a peak, we must conclude that the

December 20, 1973
Election Expenses
limitation is a farce. It is not any limitation. We could cut the 30-cent figure in half, to 15 cents, and still have enough to fight a manageable election campaign. Of course, I am now referring to the extravagant parties which form the government and the official opposition.
I mention the official opposition because it comes next in Professor Paltiel's examination. The source of the information, according to Professor Paltiel, is a letter from Mr. Finlay MacDonald, national campaign chairman of the Progressive Conservative party of Canada, to the author, dated August 7, 1973. He lists these expenditures similarly as he did in respect of the Liberal Party, which include radio advertising, television advertising, printed material, other expenses, leader's tour and administrative expenses. He sets them apart as separate items, which is significant in light of the example I quoted in section 1.1 which says that the amount contributed by a registered party to its constituency candidates is not included in the limitation. So he includes there a special item for the Conservative Party.
It is true it comprises provincial allotments, meaning gifts to the provincial section of the party, including money paid to constituents. I assume it could all go to a constituency. However, that amount goes from the national headquarters of the Progressive Conservative Party for the conduct of management, the leadership tour, national campaign, donations and contributions in provincial sections and areas. That amount of money was $1,748,165.31. I might as well include the 31 cents. The expenditure, including that of $1.7 million, of the Conservative Party in that campaign was $4,152,321.
By deducting from that the amount donated to constituencies and provincial areas, we arrive at an expenditure of $2.4 million. Again, the limitation of 30 cents times voters insofar as the Progressive Conservative Party is concerned establishes a limitation of about twice the amount that that party expended in the last federal election. We must remember that in the last federal election of 1972 the fortunes of the Conservative Party were moving upward.


An hon. Member:: Still are.


An hon. Member:: That is what you think.


Frank Howard: My friend can express whatever hope he likes. I am talking about the fortunes of his party. They were moving upward and had reached a peak. If the hope of the hon. gentleman from the Conservative Party is correct and the fortunes of his party are still moving upward, then they will have a very long way to go before they reach the limitation in this bill, because the limitation means nothing to an expenditure of that nature by that party. There was no difficulty in raising funds. He goes on to say this about the Conservative Party:
-the Conservative campaign is highly centralized with campaign operations tightly controlled by headquarters personnel-
When I read that I wonder where the hon. gentleman yesterday got the gall to say I belonged to a party that was centralized. The Conservative Party is highly centralized, with campaign operations tightly controlled by headquarters' personnel using such devices as a countrywide tele-

phone. In the statement I have here there is reference to "WATS-line". I do not know the technological terminology for that. It is a central control system, in any event. It is the Big Brother concept. It is clear that the party has somewhat greater difficulty in raising funds for between election periods as distinct from election periods. The Statement continues:
Moreover, the present minority government situation which prompts parties to maintain a "war footing" presents some hardships to a party which has "no adequate steady flow of interim financing" and lacks the perquisites of the party in office. However, such inter-election costs cannot falll short of $350,000 for a party like the Progressive Conservative.
He refers to the maintenance of a continual war footing basis. We do the same in the NDP. The expenditure that might be directed toward the national campaign are already taking place. As each period of time approaches when we might be faced with an election, as happens from time to time in this parliament, the intensity of activity within the respective national and provincial headquarters of the party builds up. There is an expectation of an election to take place. Perhaps it might be at the time of the Throne Speech, on the budget or on something else. However, every time that expectation and fervour increases around here, the message goes out to the national headquarters of the party, "This may be it: Get ready". So the potential expenditure of money by the Conservative Party relating to the campaign increases in the period prior to whenever the writ may be issued, so it cannot be computed in terms of election expenses.
I turn now to NDP campaign financing because we will come under this. Professor Paltiel says:
Manifestly, the two old-
I enjoy that adjective.
-major Canadian parties were amply supplied with monetary resources in the 1972 campaign and to a degree the New Democratic Party as well experienced a sizeable gain in revenues and spending at the federal office level in the 1972 campaign.
We certainly did. We overwhelmed ourselves, Mr. Speaker. I think we spent $370,000 out of our national headquarters, an undreamed of amount for the conduct of an election campaign by a people's party which receives its funds from individual citizens, small groups and people in the community. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) pointed out that as a grassroots party we are financed from the community level up to the top and not from the top down to the bottom which is the case in respect of the Liberals and the Conservatives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it might be convenient to agree that it is five o'clock.
December 20, 1973



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn)-Post Office-Time taken for special delivery letter mailed in Regina to reach Mississauga-Request for explanation; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Youth- Alleged abandonment of programs-Request for statement.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) on a point of order.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through the usual channels. I think there would be agreement to consider item 46 under private members' notices of motions instead of the business set down for today which would have been notices of motions (papers).


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, could I ask on what page the motion appears to which the hon. member is referring?


John Mercer Reid: Page 48 in Monday's order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion is that we consider Motion No. 46 in the name of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol). This would require unanimous consent because it would mean dispensing with private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills. Is it agreed that this course of action be followed and that motion No. 46 be considered during private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Ian Arrol (York East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of commissioning a special study, in co-operation with the provinces, to investigate the problems of Canadian industry concerning the development and inplementa-tion of anti-pollution devices.
He said: Mr. Speaker the voice of the environmentalist has scarcely been heard in this House and in the land in the last days of this year. Concern is still felt by many, but the voice of the environmentalist has currently been lost in the tumult of louder voices raised in alarm throughout
Anti-pollution Devices Study the industrial world that we may not have adequate energy resources. So anxious have we been to maintain the materialistic idea of ever-increasing production that we tend to forget the price paid in ever-increasing pollution.
I suggest it is fitting at this season of Christmas, on the threshold of the new year, that we pause to think of the future of Canada, not only as a nation that could with its still unexploited and unexplored energy riches be among the first nations of the world industrially but as a nation that could be among the first nations of the world in developing the anti-pollution and environmental controls which must be developed if the world is not to choke in its wastes. Some beginnings have been made by the federal government such as the Clean Air Act, the Canada Water Act, amendments to the Canada Shipping Act regarding marine pollution, and others. But the board to be established under the energy supplies emergency bill could destroy the purpose toward which we have been working. This board will have the right to make regulations that will take away the effect of all our environmental laws already in existence. This is another reason for the caution that has been expressed on this side of the House about the powers being given under the proposed bill.
The effects of industry on our environment, even in this new land of ours, are noticeable, especially among our mining areas, forestry areas, hydro electric developments, and areas where gas and oil resources are found. But in the tumult over the energy crisis is responsibility to be disregarded? What about the active co-operation with the provinces and the United States that was the cry in the land a few months ago?
Pollution knows no boundaries. Concern must be expressed, felt and acted upon at all levels. Through the measure I propose, once again we would activate that concern and we would co-operate with such bodies as the ministry of the environment in Ontario and make certain, through the combined power of the provinces and the federal government, that legislation that all concerned people agree should be passed for our future will be passed through such co-operation. While so many nations have a past that corrupts their future, the future of Canada is still to be achieved in our own terms. No matter the mistakes of the past, the future is as broad and uncorrupted as is most of the land. We in this land are masters of our own destiny. What is to be is what we choose to make it.
So I hope for the support of all parties in the House for my modest proposal that in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of commissioning a special study in co-operation with the provinces to investigate the problems of Canadian industry concerning the development and implementation of anti-pollution devices. Canada, unique among most of the modern nations, has adequate energy resources and a unique responsibility to use them well so that generations ahead can say "well done". Otherwise, we will be cursed for corrupting our heritage.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member on the motion he has brought forward. It is very timely and I am sure

December 20, 1973
Anti-pollution Devices Study concerns Canadians in all walks of life. As the hon. member has indicated, what concerns us particularly is the need for pollution controls that will take into consideration the present emergency with regard to all forms of energy and the difficulties that have been created by the inability of the government or industry in general to provide proper pollution controls.
It is interesting to note that a new automobile built according to 1975 pollution control standards has a considerably reduced mileage per gallon of gas and at the same time the pollution control device installed on the car has a short lifespan. I have heard-and I think that the minister responsible for the National Research Council should have taken a look at the effects of pollution control-that some of the imported cars will have a catalystic pollution control unit using a totally different type of catalyst. It has been indicated by the Nader organization in the United States that the emissions from those catalysts might be much more toxic and noxious than the gases that are currently being emitted by our automobiles.
It seems to me that the government should have provided pollution controls long ago to reduce toxic automobile emissions and at the same time maintained a degree of efficiency in the conservation of one of our major fuel sources. This could be easily accomplished, of course, by reducing the size of automobile engines. The other day I was in one of the oil capitals of Canada where I was offered a ride in a 1974 General Motors half ton truck. I was interested to find that the truck had a 455 horsepower engine and that the mileage the driver got from that brand new truck, which had about 1,500 miles on it, was only eight miles to the gallon. He is getting eight miles to the gallon and the control devices on the truck reduce pollution by 50 per cent. It would seem to be very simple arithmetic that if we went back to the 65 horsepower motors we had in the late 1950's the driver could probably get 30 miles to the gallon from that vehicle.
It seems to me we have been ridiculous in the demands we have made which have almost eliminated any efficiency that could be obtained through normal type of engine development for vehicular traffic. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the efficiency of pollution devices is of very short duration. What really concerns me, however, is that recently the Minister of Transport and Communications for the province of Ontario publicly recommended that people remove pollution control devices from their automobiles in order to conserve gasoline. I hope that will not be the solution. I agree with the previous speaker that it is absolutely essential that we continue to control pollution in Canada.
One of the greatest pollutants, of course, is the automobile internal combustion engine. I believe that if we really put our minds to it and utilize the resources of the National Research Council to develop proper controls we would be able to eleminate efficiently more of the pollution that takes place.
Until recently on the North American continent it was difficult to believe that pollutants, which are by-products of basic production in the woodworking industry, mining and smelting or a by-product of urbanization, with gar-

bage being a great problem, are in themselves almost as valuable as the basic commodity which in the first place emitted the pollutant. For years in the Sudbury district the emphasis was on employing people in mining nickel and smelting the raw material in that area at as cheap a rate as possible. For miles around, and particularly throughout Blizzard Valley, crops were destroyed annually. As the public began to mount opposition and as the government became more and more involved in lawsuits, steps were taken to make it mandatory that Inco eliminate as much sulphur pollution as possible. That sulphur in itself has now become a valuable by-product. Thousands and thousands of tons of sulphuric acid are now exported from the Sudbury area.
The same is true of almost any pollutant. Rather than disseminating it through the air, in water or into the land it can be developed into a valuable product. One of our greatest future assets in heating cities like Toronto and Montreal will be the separation of bio-degradable waste from cans, bottles and other reclaimable items in garbage. Already this is being used to create energy in certain areas, and the sale of that energy from waste will probably pay for the handling process.
As Canadians and people throughout, the world become more and more concerned about the pollution problem I believe that economic uses will be found for pollutants and that they will become a valuable new resource for development by secondary industry. Here I think of the steps already taken in countries like Japan. I can remember the Japanese efforts in their early days of waste reclamation. Our country used to be covered with tin cans, particularly oil cans. As a child I remember getting a Christmas toy and on the inside you could still see the painted name of Imperial Oil of Canada. The can had been turned inside out, manufactured into a toy and returned as a valuable commodity.
I congratulate the hon. member for York East on bringing this matter forward today. I sincerely hope that departmental officials, both in the field of science and the field of trade and commerce, will give serious consideration to providing the technical know-how to all types of industry in Canada and will undertake further research into pollution emission from automobiles so that what is now a pollutant, what is now dangerous to health, what is now dangerous to our environment can be made in itself productive and become a useful, worth-while product. If we fail to do this, then within a very short period of time not only will we have a crisis in energy but also a crisis in iron, in nickel, in food materials, in fertilizer, and in fact in all the basic resources of the country and of the world.
I believe we have the know-how to eliminate many pollutants. We have the know-how to recycle and make valuable what today are dangerous and obnoxious pollutants affecting the very life style of our people. But if we are not willing to undertake the necessary action until we reach a crisis stage we will fail many generations yet to come.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words about the motion on pollution introduced by the member for York East (Mr. Arrol).
December 20, 1973

We all know what can contribute to pollution. We also know what are the means to be taken to prevent or eradicate it. Several factors contribute to pollution. Buses, for example, could surely be electrified. Buses are operating with fuel whose chemical disintegration gives rise to pollution. All buses could be electrified and would thus contribute to the removal of pollution.
Mr. Speaker, one municipality is now spending $500,000 on a lake shore in order to eliminate pollution. Meanwhile, it picks up waste, snow mixed with a lot of salt and every kind of dirt that can be found in a municipality and throws that in the very stream where people get their drinking water. It has already picked a quarrel with some company, pretexting that they were throwing wastes into a lake and polluting the water. The same municipality, having made representations before that company to eliminate pollution, has imposed penalties to it through the provincial government while the municipality itself causes pollution because it throws all its wastes into the water. And nobody worries about that.
In my view, laws and regulations should also apply to municipalities that contribute to pollution while calling for its elimination. A great many municipalities in Canada dump snow mixed with salt into streams. This contributes greatly to water pollution and is harmful to fish. All communities located on the shores of lakes surrounded by cottages and buildings where people live should have their own sewage systems. In most cases, raw sewage is dumped into waterways. To treat it would involve spending hundreds of millions of dollars everywhere in Canada. Mr. Speaker, we are always up against the same difficulty: the necessary funds are lacking.
At the present time, the federal government shares part of these costs with provincial and local governments. However, Mr. Speaker, this can hardly improve the situation. Indeed, the debts and taxes of rate payers are increasing and they are too high already. So that is not the solution to the problem.
To solve the problem, Mr. Speaker, as we often say in our speeches, since this is public property and aimed at helping people and getting pollution out of our waters or off the shores of our streams, funds would absolutely have to be made available at very low interest rates. Governments would have to open their eyes and ears and make funds available at very low interest rates. At present governments themselves are borrowing at 9 to 10 per cent, and municipalities at 10 to 12 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, that does not make sense. That is how municipalities become endebted, municipalities or public bodies are prevented from intervening to get rid of pollution. Mr. Speaker, we have that all across Canada. Everywhere there are projects to be carried out but we cannot do that because we do not have the necessary funds or because the debts of both municipal, provincial and federal governments are so high that nothing seems to be worth undertaking anymore.
I would have another suggestion to make to get rid of pollution. In cities we could run cars on the same sources of electric power as buses which would contribute to eliminating a lot of pollution. There is no shortage of
Anti-pollution Devices Study electrical energy in any of the Canadian provinces, and especially not in Quebec. There is an abundance of it and, as the means to produce it are many, it could be used for automobile propulsion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if governments were willing to go further, they could make available to scientists the necessary capital, at a low rate of interest, at administrative cost, and thus enable them to do research with a view to equipping cars with electrical power and making them operate on dry batteries. There certainly must exist, even now, inventions to make automobiles run on electrical power; this would eliminate pollution to a large extent. Mr. Speaker, the present oil shortage could be corrected this way.
There are a number of other means to alleviate the oil shortage. We could suggest allotting the required capital to developing new types of energy. In a few years, nearly all pollution would be eliminated in Canada. Then, in all our cities, we would live as before the advent of modern times and new technology.
We are not against technology, quite the opposite, we are for its progress, we want to make use of it. But, Mr. Speaker, we can use it without poisoning ourselves and others and without poisoning the atmosphere for the future generations and the fauna of our beautiful country.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate the hon. member who moved this motion. 1 am sure that other members have a lot to say and to suggest on this subject. It is all very well to make suggestions, but it is even better to put them in practice.
I urge the government, through the work of the committees for instance, to find a way to stop pollution and especially to finance these projects aimed at the welfare of the population.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to take part in this debate and congratulate the hon. member for having introduced this motion. It gives us an opportunity to examine those things we have been speaking about for so long and to bring them forward in this forum where hopefully some of the devices we know about may gather the attention they deserve.
With your permission and with the permission of the mover of the motion I should like to enlarge the somewhat narrow interpretation of one word in his motion, namely, "devices". I feel that I have his permission to do so, and with your permission I would expand it to include not just an attachment to the various means of locomotion we now have or an attachment to chimneys that emit smoke but actual vehicles.

At the same time, I should like to thank the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) who did such a good job in preparing the way for my comments. As a matter of fact, I was just thinking of using a car developed in British Columbia by engineers of the University of British Columbia and which was given a name which is very famous in those circles, that of Dr. Walter Gage. The car is now called the "Wally Wagon".
So, Mr. Speaker-
8948

December 20, 1973
Anti-pollution Devices Study
[ English]
The Wally Wagon was developed by the engineering faculty of the University of British Columbia precisely with this view in mind. A group of mechanical engineers, chemists, physicists and metallurgists, because of the technologies involved, designed an engine. They designed the sort of panels that would be required to develop that engine in the most economical way with the maximum utilization of every conceivable idea of anti-pollution devices. The Wally Wagon was granted a prize last year at a convention in Detroit at which there were a number of other devices and vehicles. It was given the prize for the best design and the most economical car developed from the point of view of anti-pollution devices.
The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) suggested that automobiles in urban areas be run on electricity. He lives in one of the fortunate provinces, as do I, where all electricity is developed by hydro power. As hon. members know, there are parts of the country which have to rely on oil and coal for the development of electricity. Therefore we have to ask ourselves whether we are really being anti-pollutionists by urging the creation of power by coal and oil to run cars which do not run on oil or oil products.
The Wally Wagon is powered by an engine which runs on liquid gas. The carburetor or mechanics that go into the conversion of this liquid gas to provide the mode of power have been taken into account with the result that emission from the Wally Wagon is reduced to the absolute minimum. It is indeed a low pollution vehicle.
There is another form of pollution. Our large cities are being polluted by the physical presence of vehicles. It is very difficult to find a parking space. We should get rid of this type of pollution as well.
The Wally Wagon is a very small car. Its measurements are approximately eight feet long and five and a half feet high. Two or three of these could be parked in the area required to park a large car.
This is another form of pollution that would not be beyond the definition of anti-pollution devices contained in the proposed resolution of my colleague. In this particular stream of thought I suggest we might consider such a small vehicle or a better developed one like it, with its production base not only in Canada but, with luck, in my province, as a means of dealing with our urban transportation problems. We could park our vehicles outside our large urban areas. We could get in such a car, put in a 25 or 50 cent piece, drive to town and park it somewhere. There would be a lot of parking places. It would not be a personal car but a community-owned vehicle. If there were another 10 minutes on it, someone could take it for that 10 minutes but would have to produce another quarter to get them to where their personal vehicle was parked. I suggest that it be coin operated.
The hon. member for Compton talked about capital accumulation. I am not thinking in terms of government assistance. I believe there are pools of capital in this country that could be used for the development of a device of this sort. We should use the resources of our country. We have them all ranging from steel to our petrochemical

industries. Many of the panels and other pieces of modern vehicles are indeed manufactured from derivatives of our petroleum resources.
I suggest this would be an excellent way of decentralizing our industry. I am sure all members who have flown from the west to the central provinces have noticed great areas covered with a haze of pollution. It is time we cut down on this pollution which is becoming the bane of the large cities. It is derived to a considerable extent from industry of a variety of sorts. Industry must be decentralized. This would decentralize pollution and making it a little less onerous for areas that now have heavy pollution.
I comment the hon. member for his initiative in bringing forward this resolution. I urge the government to consider seriously his recommendation that a study be undertaken in this area leading to the development of practical instruments which will reduce more and more the pollution that is besetting us.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter this debate. However, I was tempted to do so by the speech of my colleague a few moments ago. He spoke of the importance of auto emission with regard to the matter before the House and how it must be studied. It must be studied from two points of view. It must ensure that devices used on motor vehicles are sufficient, and I emphasize that word, for the purpose of protecting our atmosphere and our environment from pollution. We have to examine the devices to ensure that we are not overdoing in a quantitive sense the capability of the auto emission control devices, particularly at a time when we may be faced with a shortage of petroleum products.
I do not suggest that we panic, run the other way and advocate the removal of all these devices from cars. I think they are very valuable. However, the aspect of research suggested in the motion might be an opportunity to ascertain the true worth of these devices in Canadian terms, whether our requirement is such that control ought to be as stringent as in other jurisdictions and whether the potential danger is as great. We have a tendency to follow, but I believe there is an opportunity for this country to lead in a field that is very important to us.
I am sure that when my hon. friend talked about research into the development and implementation of anti-pollution devices he did not intend us to think only in terms of the mechanical aspect of those devices. It is fair to say that the speed with which the installation of antipollution devices is demanded by the community will have a great bearing on the cost to the industries and businesses concerned. I think it is unfair to businesses generally to demand the expensive installation of anti-pollution devices overnight without at the same time developing some form of compensation to them. By this I do not mean outright payments, although it might well come to that; I do not necessarily mean a grant, although it may turn out to be that, or a combination of the two. I am thinking in terms of a tax incentive or some such mechanism. If the public wants pollution control, if people want to stop the pollution of rivers and streams, they must not burden too greatly the productive capacity of the industries con-
December 20, 1973

cerned, some of which are having trouble continuing their operations. Some assistance should be given in a meaningful way to business and industry, to businesses and industries which are being forced by circumstances or may be forced by circumstances to instal expensive pollution control devices.
I do not believe we have considered the question of public transportation as an integral part of the whole subject of pollution control and as one which therefore requires urgent attention. Only yesterday in Ottawa the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton announced a planning study, one of a series, indicating it will probably be ten years before the national capital gets a rapid transit system.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Ridiculous! Too many studies and not enough action.


Walter David Baker: As a member representing the national capital area I am absolutely appalled by the length of this period. It has even been suggested the development of the system might take longer than ten years, that it might take 19 years. If we are to be strangled in the downtown area because of congestion aggravated by traffic fumes, as I think we shall, it is criminal that the planning study should consider a period of ten years as a minimum. It is criminal that no leadership is being shown by the federal government in the national capital so as to ensure that the capital offers an example of what a modern transport facility could provide. Surely, as the motion suggests, we are bound to consider the needs of a changing community. Surely to God we ought not to be told in this area that we must wait for ten years before the pollution problem is dealt with and that in the meantime we are to be stuck with diesel fuel burning buses giving limited services on narrow streets. If the regional municipality accepts the findings of that report they are not worth the powder to blow them to blazes. For its part, the government of Canada should recognize it has responsibility to take the lead, by using the tri-level committee it has established, to ensure that the time period I have mentioned is cut down. It is tragic that after having the apple of a reasonable transportation system held out to us we should now be called on to wait for so long a period.
There is still time to avoid following courses of action which have all but destroyed older cities in other countries. In terms of transportation in this and similar cities we are still thinking of a system which is akin to the horse and buggy. Perhaps as a result of the wording of the motion before us other cities will not be plagued by the lack of modern services. I do not know of anything in a modern urban city that is more important than public transportation if a city is to be a good place in which to live, a place to enjoy and a place in which to raise a family. I do not know why the downtown areas have to be the scene of traffic congestion. There is still time in this country to correct the errors of the past, and possibly the device suggested by my hon. friend in his motion is one means of making progress. Surely, in the national capital, some leadership ought to be shown.
I think it is axiomatic that we must look to other forms of energy which will not pollute the atmosphere. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has talked about solar
Anti-pollution Devices Study energy. I wonder how advanced and concentrated is the effort being made in this area. I suspect that on examination one would find that these efforts are scattered and sporadic. Ontario possesses what is perhaps one of the world's finest hydroelectric systems. A tremendous electrical industry is being built up in Quebec. Perhaps in time we shall not be dependent on non-renewable resources. Consideration has been given to using manure as an alternative source of energy.
Hon. members who come from metropolitan areas, or close to them, know the idea has developed that garbage from any one of our cities can be shipped out and dumped somewhere else, or used as fill. There is right now under consideration in the Department of the Environment a technical process, imported from Europe, the like of which is not known on the North American continent. An announcement is supposed to be coming at some time with respect to use of process for the national capital area on a trial basis. The federal government has indicated its intention to contribute to it. I think it could mark a new departure in garbage disposal and the production of industrial energy into the bargain. I wish the federal government would get on with the project. They have taken the position that they wish to lead, and I ask them to lead, not in the partisan sense but in the sense of the importance of this process to the community.
I do not think there is any matter more important to us when we remember that our environment, whether the air, our water or our land, is a very fragile thing and that we have abused it. I suppose this always happens in a nation that thinks in terms of building rather than conserving. Perhaps since the general environment is irreplaceable, and in view of the factors that I have mentioned, we should now think of conserving. I think my colleague has done a great service to us who sit in this House and to the country in bringing forward this proposal, which I am delighted to support.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: December 20, 1973
Anti-pollution Devices Study
ahead of the United States, not only in our research but in the action we have taken as a result of that research.
Take, for example, oil spills. The Coastguard hastened to tell us we had much better clean-up methods than they had thought of in the United States. I refer to those used off the coast of Nova Scotia near Halifax, and I think the same methods are used off the British Columbia coast.
Reference has been made to a council that would deal with air pollution, but I think its terms of reference are too narrow. Water is polluted by industry and by human sewage-certainly the Great Lakes are-and this must be studied too. The study being conducted at Burlington is a model for all countries. The United States sends its people to Burlington to see what is going on, and they give us full marks for what we are doing and say we are ahead of them.
The United States has had to cut back its anti-pollution programs in big cities that pollute Lake Erie, such as Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo and Toledo, since they are finding them too expensive. I talked about this with my friend the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), a while ago and he admitted that we have to cut back too. Much as we would like these anti-pollution devices, we have to keep people warm and we are using more gasoline. Therefore, we must set up certain priorities. We have an excellent research council and good university programs all across Canada. We are not behind the United States or any other country in our attempts to beat this problem. The biggest culprit is the internal combustion engine. It runs on gasoline and the sooner we get an alternative, such as an engine run on hydrogen, the better. A lot of countries are working on this problem today.
As has been suggested, municipal waste is a huge problem. In Massachusetts today there is a plant that separates glass, metal, paper, food and other things found in garbage. Enough money is made from selling this waste glass and metal to run the plant at a profit and to use the residue as combustible material to fuel an electricity plant. This is a wonderful thing. Our own energy department is aware of it, but it is a long-term project. Nevertheless, it is a good way to dispose of our garbage. Enough power is derived from it to light the homes and streets of the municipality and it accounts for a large percentage of total electricity requirements. We should do further research into making use of our waste and making sure it is turned into something that will provide fuel and power at no additional expense to the taxpayer.
Another point I want to emphasize is that pollution controls on cars, smokestacks and so on can be lifted temporarily. We are not choking yet. In certain cities like Los Angeles the pollution is bad, and none of us likes pollution, but I do not think we should get excited about it when we have an energy crisis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being six o'clock the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[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; motion No. 8 (Mr. Howard), motion No. 9 (Mr. Barnett), motion No. 10 (Mr. Brewin) and motion No. 11 (Mr. Peters).
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, just before five o'clock I believe I had reached the point of revealing the story regarding finances and expenditures of certain political parties. I had quoted from the paper by Professor Paltiel and had dealt with the part relating to the Liberal and Conservative parties as a prelude to chapter 3 which concerns the New Democratic Party. The pertinent part which I want to quote now says:
Manifestly, the two old major Canadian parties were amply supplied with monetary resources in the 1972 campaign and to a degree the New Democratic Party as well experienced a sizeable gain in revenues and spending at the federal office level in the 1972 campaign. While miniscule in comparison with its two leading competitors, this growth permitted the party to wage a campaign replete with airplane tours and media expenditures, similar in shape if not in dimensions with that of its rivals. In comparison with the 1968 campaign expenses of the NDP federal office totalling $216,100, 1972 election expenses at the national party level were $370,644-
A quick calculation with regard to the limits contemplated in the bill show, I think, that those limits are about 11 or 12 times greater than the expenditures made by the NDP. Therefore, so far as we are concerned that limit is inordinately high and unreachable. New Democratic Party expenditures are listed under candidates' deposits, organization, travel organizers, telephone, printing costs, leader's tour, survey, contingencies, and so on. There is an item here under "bad debts", which is something neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives seemed to be bothered with. Including the media expenses, contingencies and so on, the expenditure totals $370,000. I think he indicates something very significant here in terms of the strong difference of structure which exists between the NDP and other parties, because within our budget as listed here there is an item of $84,000 for provincial quotas, that is, the provincial sections of the NDP raise money toward a budget. They raise this money on a quota basis toward a budget at the federal level for federal expenditure. Professor Paltiel points out the significance of this by saying the following:
The provincial revenue quotas are symbolic of the fact that in contrast to the major parties, the NDP is financed from the bottom up with both individual and affiliated (trade union) membership
December 20, 1973

fees being paid jointly to the provincial and federal parties, with the former being charged with the support of the latter rather than the reverse.
In other words, within the NDP we are truly a community and constituency-based political organization, a people's party in the full sense of the word. We finance the operation of our party from the community to the provincial level and the federal level, which means the national party. The membership dues I pay go to help maintain the federal office. Conversely, as the financial analysis indicates, the Liberals and Tories collect their money at the top in large chunks and finance the party from the top down. So there is control at the top by large financial contributions.
In the reverse situation, the NDP operates quite differently. There is indicated here, as well, a listing of income for the year 1972 to the federal office of the party through individual and sustaining memberships. That means individual Canadian citizens can belong to the NDP by paying a membership fee voluntarily and by saying they will sustain and finance the party either through an individual or sustaining membership. The sustaining membership may vary from province to province because each province sets what it calls sustaining memberships. In British Columbia at one time it was a minimum of $1 a month. If you become a member and agree to contribute $1 a month you are classified as a sustaining member. The membership, individual and sustaining, in 1972 accounted for $102,000 in membership fees, just about half the total income of the national office. We even had some money at one stage on deposit, and there is an amount of $763 for interest.
Then there is a list of federal general fund expenditures which are related to the convention of the NDP. This list is filed with the federal convention of the NDP every two years and is in fact public information. We are, in terms of disclosure of the source of funds, the only political party that has steadfastly indicated that anybody can obtain this information at any hour-don't come around at three o'clock in the morning because you will have some difficulty getting hold of the treasurer-by looking at the financial records of the party. We regretted this on one occasion in British Columbia, in a sense, when we were taken up on that offer by some newspaper men. They spent so much time in our provincial office during the course of the campaign that they interfered with the conduct of the provincial campaign. Nevertheless, the books were open to them.
Information concerning the source of funds is available to everybody. We have continued to hold that position because we believe that if we are in the business of dealing with the public, the public should know what we are doing and such information should not be hidden behind the fence. We believe in these principles and this is the reason we are moving these amendments in respect of campaign financing. We believe this should apply to all parties. Professor Paltiel further states:
Unfortunately no information has been obtained concerning national level expenditures of the Social Credit (Creditiste) movement in the 1972 campaign.
There was no information available, and no disclosure to Professor Paltiel. This is fine; it is the business of the national Social Credit Party if it does not wish to disclose
Election Expenses
this information to Professor Paltiel. But there is a very revealing-I was somewhat amazed when I saw it-declaration by Professor Paltiel who says certain things and then this:
-despite the indications that Creditiste agents attempted to collect funds from the business community including the Canadian subsidiaries of American-controlled multinational firms like ITT.
That is the corporation in the United States that is noted singularly for its involvement in the political sphere and for attempting to suppress the rights and freedoms of people in various parts of the world. I think it is shameful that a national party in Canada should be in the position of having gone to an organization of that nature in an attempt to solicit funds. However, that is its business. In any event, that is the basic substance of what Professor Paltiel said after he had made a study of the political parties in Canada.


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


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Abitibi on a question of privilege.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the assertions of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which do not surprise me. However, I would suggest that the validity of the statement he just read has never been proven. He is perfectly free to utter such nonsense but, I repeat, it has never been proven anywhere.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member is aware that the privileges of the House are related to the rights of individual members. Assertions, opinions and interpretations constitute a matter for debate and the hon. member will perhaps have the opportunity to answer the hon. member for Skeena in a few moments.
[ English]


Frank Howard: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not much moved by someone saying that something has not been proven. There is a great difference between saying that and saying something is untrue. I know a lot of things about the Social Credit Party in British Columbia, when it formed the government there, which were not proven but were common knowledge concerning its activities in that province. I do not intend to recall them all here. However, I would point out to my friend from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) that the former premier of the province of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, while he was premier saw great promise in the hon. member's leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), at a national convention of the Social Credit Party and once sought to nominate him as leader. Unfortunately, he lost out to Bob Thompson who went somewhere else. But it is a known fact that the Social Credit Party in British Columbia refused to disclose to its own members the source of its campaign funds in an election campaign. There was a secret fund kept and controlled by the leader of the party in that province. I do not know whether he got money from ITT and other such groups, but it would not surprise me if he did.

December 20, 1973
Election Expenses
All I was reading to the hon. gentleman was what Professor Paltiel said. I do not give any other credence to it. I only know that Professor Paltiel made a careful examination of this- subject and it seems passing strange to me that suddenly, months after this document has been known, members of the Social Credit Party in the House rise and say that that was not proven. I accept that it was not proven and the hon. member for Abitibi does not know anything about it. But he is not the whole organization in the Social Credit Party and it may well be that the Social Credit Party at the national level, or at the Quebec level at this stage, operates on the same basis as did the Social Credit Party in British Columbia. The leader of the party in that province kept entirely unto himself and the director of something called the educational fund information about the sources of campaign funds. He did not even disclose it to members of his own caucus or to the legislature. Maybe that is why the hon. member for Abitibi does not know what is going on between his party and ITT and other groups of that sort.
In any event, we are dealing with the question of the so-called limitations on expenditures by national parties in the conduct of a national campaign. I submit, judging from the financial information that has been given out, that in fact these are not limitations. You cannot call it a limitation when you place a limit 2 'A to three times the level reached by a particular party, namely, the government party in this case, or twice as much so far as the official opposition is concerned-twice as high as the level they reached just last year. That is not in fact a limitation; it is simply some kind of formula that will permit the Liberal Party to run around the country and say, "Look how grand we are. Look how good and pure we are. We brought in a bill that limits campaign expenditures." That is a lot of rot. This bill does not limit campaign expenditures in the least. The way inflation is going, it may limit campaign expenditures some day in the future; but it will not now and it will not at the next federal election when a party such as the Liberal Party spends at the federal level, as it declared it did, the sum of $1,321,000.
They spend that sum of money and then turn around and say that they want to limit campaign expenditures at the national level by imposing a limit of $4.2 million. That is no limitation; they can squander another $3 million on leader's tours, surveys and other things that go on during an election campaign, and still not reach the limit stated in the bill. The Conservative Party does likewise. So far as the financial experience and history of the NDP is concerned, we will probably never reach that level of expenditure. The total limitation is in the neighbourhood of $11 million for the national campaign. All that excessive expenditure means to the two old-line parties is that they are intent upon following the notion that the more money you spend, the greater is the possibility of buying votes. Certainly that is wrong in our democratic structure, in my view.


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


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this group of motions, and I will speak very briefly. One of them is in my name, and they are all to the same effect. They deal with the highly important principle introduced into Canadian federal legislation for the first time, that there should be limits on expenditures by parties as well as limits on expenditures by individual candidates. This is something which we have tried to achieve for a long time, and we are glad to see the principle stated in the section that we are discussing to which the present amendments seek a further amendment. They seek a further amendment for the purpose of making the limitation a rational one.
I concur entirely with the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that if you set the limit so high that it encourages even greater expenditures than in the past, you are not really setting a limit at all. I had thought that one of the basic purposes of this legislation, in the interest of fairness and so that money should not be a major consideration in the election of members of parliament, was to cut down the expenditures to be made in respect of elections. But the figure that we have here of 30 cents for each voter in Canada, or at least in the constituencies represented by the particular party, means-as the hon. member has pointed out- expenditures of at least $4 million in addition to some of the other expenditures which he listed and which I will not repeat.
In our view, that is no limitation at all; in fact, it is a farce to talk about limiting campaign expenditures, to say that this is one of the purposes of the legislation and then to set the limit so high that it is no real limitation at all-it is a move upward rather than a move downward. The parliamentary secretary in a discussion on a radio program with me today said, and he is quite right, that there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about the figure of 30 cents, nor is there about the other figures we have mentioned in the three amendments. One amendment brought in by the hon. member for Skeena provides for a reduction to 15 cents. The amendment I have introduced strikes a happy mean at 20 cents, and for some reason or other the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has been rather conservative and has said that we should restrict it to 25 cents.


Frank Howard: That is what Les Benjamin said.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not care whether he said it or not, the motion is in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming. I think I am entitled to say that between the two extremes of the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming I have chosen the happy mean, the via media, and I think that is a pretty sensible approach to the matter. We may not know why 30 cents was chosen, and in fact I think the minister disclaimed in the committee any particular knowledge or rationale behind the fixing of 30 cents. All I do know is that it is much too high, and this is a serious amendment trying to make this bill fulfil the goal in which we believe and in which the people of Canada believe, and that is the genuine limitation of party expenses in elections. That is the reason we support this motion.
December 20, 1973

I stated earlier that my intervention would be brief because I am anxious to see this bill passed, so I will say nothing more except that this is a motion which should be accepted by the House. I prefer my version, but if other versions meet the wishes of the House I will be perfectly happy.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am rather sympathetic to the viewpoint of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who I know has had an interest in this subject for a long time. I agree that I was being overly generous. The government said 30 cents. We would like any kind of compromise on that figure. I would be prepared to support the figure suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood, and even more pleased to support the figure suggested by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The hon. member for Skeena cuts it in half. That probably means a contribution from the federal treasury of about $1,100,000 to the federal parties, and an over-all sum of $2,100,000 is not a small contribution to make on behalf of the parties. But really when one looks at the amount of money necessary to run an election, one begins to wonder.
We have gone both ways on this particular subject. There was a time in England under the British parliamentary system when a person had to have a certain amount of money before he could become a candidate for office. Over the years it was decided that that was not the kind of limitation which should be placed on people and on the representatives of people. But it is still the type of limitation that is in force with respect to becoming a member of the Senate. It is surprising how many people in Canada today have enough money to meet the criteria to become senators. I believe one has to own $4,000 worth of property. I remember the case of one person appointed to the Senate: he did not have $4,000 and had to borrow it from a finance company on the strength of the salary he was going to get as a senator.
There is no question that over the years many people elected to this House have had to go in hock to finance companies in order to get enough money to run their campaigns. There have been occasions when a constituency organization in my party has had to go to a bank and make a personal loan to one or two people to finance an election campaign. In some cases this is necessary, and may even be desirable. During the depression years, when money was very scarce, people were desperately looking for candidates to represent them rather than the institutions which they believed were causing their difficulties. I well remember one of my constituents telling me he participated in an election in 1933 in one of the poorer sections of the dust bowl in Saskatchewan. He and some of his friends went out and cut cord wood, loaded it on a flat car and sold it for $2 a cord to get enough to finance part of the campaign for J. S. Woodsworth. He also told me about riding around the country on horseback raising money for the local candidate. We have come a long way from that situation because through this bill we are saying that $4.2 million should be provided by the treasury for the conduct of an election.
Of course, this is not a large sum of money when compared with what was spent by the parties in the last
Election Expenses
general election. Paltiel indicates that the last election cost at least a reported $32 million and may have cost considerably more when the government's expenses in connection with the election machinery are included. I think I have seen the figure of $11 million mentioned to cover that operation. Thus it can be seen that elections are a very expensive proposition. For this reason alone it may be necessary for the treasury to provide money to run elections. If this is so, then I suggest that we start off with as low an amount as possible, and that we put strong limitations on various aspects so that elections do not run into multimillion dollar figures but, rather, that election expenses are reduced to the point where they can be easily scrutinized either by the agent who is going to be appointed or by the auditors who will be going over the accounts of the various candidates.
It is my personal opinion that we would be well advised to provide the individual candidate with the opportunity to mail something to the electors in his riding at a cost of about 8 cents to 10 cents per name, but given in kind rather than through this type of arrangement which could lend itself more to the expansion of expenditures by national political parties than to a reduction of expenditures.
We have heard a lot of argument on how political parties are financed. How the New Democratic Party has been financed has never been a secret. It has been financed by people who had a problem and who decided to join together to end that problem. It is interesting to read in Paltiel's report of the last election of something that surprised him, namely, that the amount of money the NDP gets between elections varies very little from year to year, indicating that the party's supporters are willing to make the same kind of contribution each year in order to see that the party continues as their political spokesman.
The other political parties have tended to adopt more elite ways of raising money. It is interesting to look at the direction in which they are going. A history of the last several elections in the United States shows that the Republicans, the Democrats, and even the Wallace campaign adopted several methods of raising money. In the final analysis, most of these methods of raising money created almost as many problems as they were able to solve with the money that they received. They have included fund raising dinners; this has been copied in Canada, sometimes successfully and sometimes not so successfully. In most cases where they are successful an organization is hired to make the arrangements for setting up the dinner and they are paid a certain proportion of the proceeds for running it. In the United States I gather they were paid 7 per cent or 8 per cent of the net take. These have been fairly successful in the United States but I do not know whether political parties in Canada have gone into fund raising to this extent.
There is a second method that can be bought and of course it has a price, and that is direct mailing. They do not direct mail to all the constituents but have a very elaborate system through which they buy names that they believe would be advantageous. In the last United States election the Democratic Party bought lists of names that were involved in causes-anti-war, anti-poverty and two

December 20, 1973
Election Expenses
or three of the major protest groups. These turned out to be as good fund raising propositions from a business point of view as did the normal register of Democratic voters. On the other hand, the Republican Party found that selecting names by the computer operation at so much a name was much more satisfactory.
This all leads to the problem that most political parties are faced with today, Mr. Speaker, and that is running an election by computer in a computerized society. In the last presidential election in the United States they were able to raise so much money that they had $3 million or $4 million left over. This was available for other purposes, so some bright young people were given sums of money and told to do something with it that would have an effect on the election. They did something with it that had an effect on the election that was overwhelmingly successful but also overwhelmingly disastrous. It was disastrous for the people who did it because of the corruption involved, and it was disastrous for all political parties in the United States and in Canada because of the results that flowed from the use of that extra money.
An election cannot be conducted without money, and it certainly behooves us to have enough money available to at least have the message of a candidate, no matter whether he has a chance of winning, put before the public. To that degree the payment of a sum of money from the treasury is a good thing. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think there should be a limitation on that expenditure except for the contribution that an individual wishes to make in a particular riding. As they say, it is true that you have to show the flag in areas where a political party may not have much strength. The Conservatives are having this problem in the province of Quebec-they have joined the New Democratic Party which has had the same problem in that province for many years. My guess is that the Conservatives will be no more successful in showing the flag in Quebec than we have been, but I think it is a fact that they have to do it. If I were a Liberal, I would be scared that neither the New Democratic Party nor the Conservatives are successful in the province of Quebec because that might be to their detriment rather than to their advantage.


Mr. Hurlburt:: You had better worry about British Columbia.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says that we need to worry about British Columbia. We have always felt a certain amount of hope in the province of British Columbia, and this has been going on for many years. I sat with a colleague who had for many years been leader of the CCF in that province and who had come close to forming the government.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Never.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to inform the hon. member who raised the question that we have been very satisfied in the last year and a half to find that there is now a government in that province.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Of sorts.


William Arnold Peters: We have been able to show the flag for many years in that province, but his party has not done very well there although they may have done a little better than they did in Quebec. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go through all the provinces. We have had very little success in a number of them ourselves, and I do not see any sense in throwing rocks. I suggest that it is a fact of politics that you have to present, as a party, the image of being available in those areas. It is a fact that if people in other parts of Canada believe that a political party is worth while, then you should at least have the right to put forth your program to people in other parts of the country. For this reason I am sympathetic to the idea of providing a sum of money.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this should have been mixed up with so many other considerations for I would like this bill to have contained a clause somewhat along the lines that have been suggested; a total, inescapable report clause that would have made it mandatory to make honest reports. It is interesting to note that we have always allowed those people who have lost to get by without making any kind of report. I believe that if the name of the game is to provide reasonable contributions so that the stories of candidates who have something to say can be told across the country, and if a contribution from the treasury will make that possible we should support it. It should be reasonable; it should not be an excessive amount of money. I believe that not too many years ago $4.2 million would have been more than most political parties considered elections should cost. Costs have escalated to the point where we are now spending well over $30 million each election and they are costing $10 million or $11 million to operate. It indicates that we have not kept pace with modern thinking when we allow expenses to go so high.
Mr. Speaker, if that $4.2 million is properly distributed I think there will be an opportunity for some organizations which feel they would like to become political parties to do so. I have been impressed with the way political parties are formed almost overnight. Sometimes they disappear just as quickly, of course. I am thinking, for instance, of the teachers of this nation who a few years ago were all status quo people and never objected whatever the government did. In British Columbia they embraced the Social Credit Party with open arms and loved them to death until that government suddenly decided there was going to be compulsory arbitration. I have been in many schools in Ontario where press releases from Queen's Park were prominently displayed on the bulletin board and were required reading for all the teachers. There certainly was no resentment about that.
We might well see a new political movement started by some of the so-called white collar workers and professional people of the nation. I sincerely hope we are not making it difficult for them to enter the political arena, run as candidates and get their message across to the public. It seems to me that 30 cents is too high. I should like the government to consider 15 cents, which I believe is a reasonable amount. I would be prepared to support the proposition of the hon. member for Greenwood that it be 20 cents.
December 20, 1973

What we should avoid is getting ourselves into the position the Americans have done. Give us the money, they say, and we can win an election. I was pleased to note that despite these circumstances south of the border, a third party was able to make an impact during the last presidential election there without the funds available to the two major parties. I was pleased that a third party was able to champion a number of causes and rally round it people who were often of dissimilar views but who were ready to support a group which would allow individuals to make a contribution to the political scene without the backing of large sums of money.
Mr. Paltiel indicates that the Conservative Party assessed the possibilities of 50 ridings in Ontario and chose a number to be visited by the leader himself as part of a special attempt to increase support in those ridings. We, too, have hired people to assess the possibilities of ridings and determine in which of them candidates might best be run, and I am sure all political parties have done the same. No people are worse copycats then politicians: if one thinks of something good, another will immediately seek to copy it. We need look no further than the publications which individual members send to their constituents. If someone gets hold of a copy which appears to contain a new idea or involves a new format, it is immediately picked up.
I believe the country would be prepared to see a contribution made to candidates, even a $4 million contribution, if they were sure this was all the election would cost. It may be I get my contributions from the men who work in the mines, or in industry, or on the farms. The other two political parties may get their money from the men who run the multinational corporations. But in the end the money will all come from the men at the bottom. It is they who will pay it, either directly or indirectly. In one case, though, a person makes a donation knowing what he is doing and believing that to do so is in his interest. In the other case they are making an indirect contribution and one which very often will be used against them rather than for them. For these reasons I hope the House will accept the amendment calling for 15 cents.


An hon. Member:: Ten cents.


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friend brings it down to 10 cents. That sounds like a nice round figure. I wish he had been here when the amendments were being made; he could have moved a reduction to 10 cents. As I was saying, 15 cents represents a little over $2 million, a sizeable amount of money to be made available to candidates for the purpose of carrying on a reasonable campaign. I am aware that it does not go directly to the candidates, but a politician would be very naive if he did not believe that a contribution made to the central party did not give him at least some measure of political advantage, whether in recognition by the news media or in other ways. I therefore hope the minister responsible for the bill will consider reducing this figure of 30 cents which I and my colleagues believe to be unnecessarily large and not really required for the effective conduct of an election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There are four motions before us: No. 8, in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard); No. 9, in the name of the hon.
Election Expenses
member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), which is identical to motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin); and No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
I hope the House will permit me to put the question in this way: Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Peters, moves:
No. 8.
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 "thirty cents" where they appear in section 13.2(1) of subclause 4(1) and substituting therefor the following:
"fifteen cents".
The motions in the names of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Greenwood would delete "thirty cents" and substitute the words "twenty cents". The final motion, in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming, would delete "thirty cents" and substitute "twenty-five cents". As I indicated earlier, I thought that if a motion carried positively on any divisions that arise from these motions we are now considering, that would dispose of all motions that followed subsequently. Therefore I will put the one in the name of the hon. member for Skeena. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The three divisions, or the two divisions, or the one division, as the case may be, will be deferred until a later date. The next motion is motion No. 12, in the name of member for Comox-Alberni. Since he is not here, I presume there is someone to move it on his behalf.


Frank Howard: Regretfully, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has to be, and is, in attendance at the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which was scheduled to meet at eight o'clock this evening. I have his authority to move this motion on his behalf.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think this would probably require the permission of the House, but I gather this would be a courtesy that is normally extended.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena), for Mr. Barnett, moved:
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 word "not" where it appears in section 13.2(1.1) of subclause 4(1).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is a point of order arising?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have one brief comment to make. The hon. member is seeking to delete a

December 20, 1973
Election Expenses
negative in the clause, and on that ground I think it should be declared out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Skeena rising on the point of order?


Frank Howard: Not really, Mr. Speaker. I was rising to speak to the motion, but I will deal with the point of order. This arose in the committee as a result of the examination of the definition of "election expenses". It relates to the question of amounts paid as election expenses. The definition of "election expenses" is given on page 2 of the bill and is:
(a)	amounts paid,
(b)	liabilities incurred
(e) the commercial value of goods-
And so on. The words we are concerned with here are "amounts paid". Since I knew the practice existed in varying degrees in different parties, I asked whether the words "amounts paid" included donations or contributions or gifts or transfers of money paid out of the national treasury to constituency associations, the official agent in constituency associations, candidates and so on. Initially I thought it would be included because it was an amount paid out of the treasury of the federal branch of the party concerned. As the definition says further on, one of the purposes of these amounts was to promote or oppose directly, and during an election, a particular registered party, or the election of a particular candidate.
The minister in charge of the bill, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), said no, that was not the intention of the definition of election expenses; the intention was that contributions, donations or gifts from the central funds of the party paid to a candidate or official agent were not to be included in the election expenses. Just in case there was any doubt about it, he said that the government proposed to put into the bill later on an amendment to make doubly sure that this was not to be included. The amendment put in is the one we are now seeking to amend.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are seeking to amend an
amendment?


Frank Howard: Yes.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How about an amendment to an amendment that you are seeking to amend?


Frank Howard: I would have thought that my hon. friend from Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) would have been delighted with my grammatical construction in that sentence, which would reflect the education I have received as a result of sitting next to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who advises us on these matters. The amendment I am seeking to amend is shown on page 9 of the bill. This is the amendment that the government put forward in the committee to clarify and to make sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that this kind of expenditure was not included in the "amounts paid" part of the definition of election expenses. Section (1.1) reads as follows:

In determining, for the purposes of this section, the amount of election expenses incurred by a registered party on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of an election, there shall not be included any amount in respect of contributions or gifts made by or on behalf of the registered party for the use of candidates at the election.
One way to approach this problem would be to vote against section (1.1.), which would remove it from the bill. I say this because, at the very best, there would be doubt as to whether these would be contributions or gifts made by or on behalf of the registered party for the use of the candidate. We would leave in doubt whether contributions should or should not be included under amounts paid for election expenses.
Certainly there was doubt about this in the minister's mind or he would not have brought forward the change in the first place. Certainly there was doubt in my mind, which is understandable; but then there is also doubt in my mind about all kinds of other questions. There is doubt in my mind as to what "amounts paid" might mean. I know that there was doubt in the mind of the cabinet minister responsible for drafting this bill. He said in so many words, "Yes, there is doubt in my mind." He suggested that the relevant portion should be changed. The parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Kenora-Rai-ny River (Mr. Reid), moved the motion and it carried. He was a member of the committee. He wanted to insert the particular clause in question.
I submit that if we negative it, remove it completely, there will be continuing uncertainty as to whether or not such contributions as I have alluded to should be included under amounts paid. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), the sponsor of this motion, looked at this question carefully. We discussed it among ourselves. We wondered what was the best approach and in the end we felt that an amendment simply to take out the word "not" would be the best way of handling it. The result would not be a direct negative, inasmuch as we should be left with a positive declaration that for the purposes of this section we could determine what are election expenses incurred by a registered party. We would remove any doubt about it. People would know what is meant by amounts paid as defined in the definition section. They would know what those words mean in relation to expenditures. They would know that certain items should be included under amounts paid and certain expenses should be so included. That would be a positive declaration. They would know that there shall be included under amounts paid any amount in respect of a contribution or gift made by or on behalf of the party.
It could not be done the other way, I submit, as much uncertainty would be the result. After all, not all candidates, official agents or chief agents who will perform their functions under this law-incidentally, I hope this will not be the law-will have sat on the committee and heard the involved and detailed discussions that took place. Members in the committee and in the House have alluded to the fantastic input which the committee had in connection with this bill. Even in the minds of committee members who spent hour after hour looking at this question there was doubt.
December 20, 1973

I submit that if we were to remove this clause we would bring about a great deal of confusion and it would be difficult to figure out what amounts should be included in returns on election expenses. We would not know what amounts of money should be included and what should not be included under amounts paid. Further, even if the parties wanted to do the right thing they would find it extremely difficult to do so. They might do the wrong thing even though they want to do the right thing. For that reason, for the sake of clarity if for no other reason, I suggest this motion must be considered as being in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for their contributions. I think, in making my determination, I will not be bound by considerations of procedural nicety. As both the President of the Privy Council and the hon. member for Skeena are well aware, the proposed clause before us could have been tackled in one or two ways. Either one word could have been taken out, which would have achieved the result of negativing it, or the whole thing could have been knocked out with a positive motion, which also would have resulted in the clause being negatived.
Therefore, I think this is not a question which the Chair ought to resolve. It seems to me this is a positive matter of principle which the House should determine one way or the other. For that reason, without going at great length into the niceties of it, I would say that the question should be put.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni let me say that I am sure he would like to see the subject matter of his motion placed before the House for determination. May I express certain thoughts on his behalf. Let me deal with the sense of the motion. We have just dealt with motions related to limiting expenses. The bill, in a declaratory sense, says that expenditures are to be limited; yet in fact that limit is no limit at all.
The chief agent of a party, and registered agents are authorized under the bill to spend with respect to the conduct or management of an election an amount equal to 30 cents times the number of voters on the voters' list in the riding being contested. In absolute terms, as has been mentioned before, that would permit the party to spend $4.2 million on such an election. We have been seeking to bring about a further limitation with regard to campaign expenses. We have also brought forward suggestions with regard to the manner in which political parties are to keep books once they have concluded their campaign expenditures.
[ Translation]


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. I am just coming from the Confederation building. There is no bus service from the Confederation building to the House of Commons. Buses are running in downtown Ottawa but the members' service-


An hon. Member:: From Parliament Hill.


An hon. Member:: From the Confederation building.
Election Expenses


Marcel-Claude Roy: I beg your pardon? There is no service at all, Mr. Speaker. I had to come here with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), by truck-


An hon. Member:: A tow truck.


Marcel-Claude Roy: -bearing licence number D16457 and driven by Mr. Arthur Rochon. We have no service at all as I just said. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because this has to do with services from which electors get the benefit in the final analysis. We have to be here. I came here to work like other members, but the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) presented a motion yesterday, and it was defeated by 182 to 1. He keeps on with his filibuster. I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that members would be provided with transportation service from the Confederation building since they cannot come to the House of Commons at the present time. As a matter of fact, the approaches to the Confederation building have not even been cleared up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the Speaker of the House of Commons is never responsible for acts of God or for removing them, but I think the Chair would have to recognize that members are not able to take part in the debate tonight because of weather conditions. I think some leeway should be given to them to make their contributions on these points when the House resumes tomorrow, or next week, or the week after, or at some other time.


Frank Howard: In January or February the weather will be about the same, Mr. Speaker. I have great sympathy with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. I do not have my office in the Confederation Building. However, I was at the Confederation Building-not that this puts me in any different class from anybody else. I was visiting there. I came out of the Confederation Building and came up that way at about 25 minutes after seven. I did not have occasion to use a truck. I took the old-fashioned way of walking, and I arrived here in ample time.
I do not think that acts of God such as snowstorms and things of that nature should deter members from getting here. I got my feet extremely wet in the process; they are still wet. Nonetheless, I arrived here and my colleague from New Westminster is here as well. I do not know whether he walked, flew or how he got here, but he did get here.
The other reference about conducting a filibuster may be as accurate a statement as the hon. member will ever utter in this House. I am amazed at his perceptiveness, because it took him so long to discover this. Of course, he has remedies available to him and these remedies are also available to the party to which he belongs. Surely one should not be castigated for trying to examine in as close a manner as possible all the fine, intriguing points in this bill which will have a massive effect on the electorate and upon political parties. This is what we are setting out to do in this discussion.
[ Transla tion]


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker.

December 20, 1973
Election Expenses


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Marcel-Claude Roy: It is not a matter of exercise, as the hon. member said. However, it did give me some exercise, which I appreciated as I am used to it. But I am rising on a question of privilege to ask why the area around the Confederation building was not cleared, as is now being done on the hill. This did give us some excellent exercise however and we appreciated it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think that the hon. member has a good argument about snow removal, but I believe that the Deputy Speaker has already ruled on that and I do not consider the point raised by the hon. member as a question of privilege.


Frank Howard: The amendment before us seeks to deal with the very serious question of campaign fund expenditures. We all know that money is a pretty potent force at election time. We know there is a tendency for candidates, particularly for registered parties, to think that the more lavish they make the brochure, the more money they spend with an advertising agency in preparing television plugs and spots, the more the political parties concerned can sell its image. They tend to draw a distinction in the sense of image which is not very credible. There is an attempt to develop mechanisms that are not designed to promote public discussion, to establish conversation in the community or to enlighten people about the issues in the campaign.
We all know this. No party is very different from another in that regard. They are designed to influence, to manipulate or to have an effect. They are designed to be attractive primarily to the apolitical voter; they are designed primarily for that person in our society, and there are quite a number of them. By my assessment, 20 per cent to 25 per cent of those who vote are within the group that has the general reference apolitical. These people do not pay attention to politics. The campaign expenditures are designed to have an impact upon or influence that type of voter. That type of voter has no sort of involvement or connection with the political process because he does not generally pay any attention whatsoever to politics, government, legislative items, policies, or who did or did not do what in the political arena. It is considered that he is likely to be influenced at the emotional level more than at the mental level, the level of thought, analysis and logic.
We know that it costs a good deal more in production and agency fees if someone is hired to work out a slick, smooth 30-second television shot designed with no other thought in mind than to impress or make an impact upon the voter. One would pay a good deal more for this type of television program than for the more honest one involving a five-minute period or longer in which one converses in detail or in depth about a party's ideas, programs and policies in an attempt by this mechanism to get across a point of view or an understanding to the general public. There is a tendency not to do that sort of thing and there is a tendency toward the other, that is, toward buying advertising expertise. There is a tendency to go to those agencies which spend the whole year around developing

ads designed to sell toothpaste or underarm deodorant, or whatever else might be sold by someone who wishes to sell it.
In respect of a political party, this is regrettable. This is not necessarily a severe criticism of a political party but it is a sad commentary, I think, upon the level of political demand in the country if a political party feels it should go to an agency and ask it to make up a package for it, but rather than call it Crest, call it NDP; do not call it Arrid but call it Liberal or whatever. Just substitute the political party's name for the name of the mouthwash and sell it in the same way. That costs a lot of money.


An hon. Member:: What would you call it?


Frank Howard: There is an old-fashioned country word that people use, not only people on farms. I worked in logging camps and underground in hard rock mines, and I know what that word is. It has been used in this House; it appears in Hansard at one stage in reference to a speech made by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and appropriately declared as such. There is a word for it that I think probably we should not use at the moment, not when one is carefully thinking about what one has to say. It is a word that might be blurted out somewhere, a word that may be euphemistically called male bovine excrement.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is not very parliamentary.


Frank Howard: It is a perfectly satisfactory parliamentary expression. None of our parties is distinctly different from any other in that regard, in that we tend to find the most expensive way to run an election campaign within the limits of our budget; we tend to move up as high as we possibly can. I am glad the hon. member for Trinity has come here. I made a passing reference to some remarks he made. They were not unkind. They were true, correct and accurate, but not unkind.
In any event, we tend to find within the limits of the money we have available the most expensive things to do in an election campaign. We are not content any longer to run off an old-fashioned, mimeographed bulletin, black ink on white paper. What we want now are two or three-colour jobs, and the slicker the paper, the better; the more crisp and so-called professional it looks, the better. We do not want a campaign brochure but something that looks like Playboy or Cosmopolitan in its visual impact.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Did you not see the NDP pamphlet in the last election?


Frank Howard: I am just telling my friend that no party is distinctly different from any other in that regard.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: When you have international unions to support you, how can you be different?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I know it is late in the day, but I think the hon. member knows the rules of the House. When an hon. member has the floor, he has the right to speak and not be interrupted by other hon. members.
December 20, 1973


Frank Howard: Right on, Mr. Speaker; thank you very much. It is the hon. member for Mississauga who made those interjections. He is not nearly as competent as was the hon. member for Peel South, when there was a member for Peel South here. The hon. member for Mississauga had an opportunity a moment ago to stand up and be counted like a man with respect to the type of union contributions to which he referred, but he ducked the issue. Why? Because he wanted to continue to protect their source of funds. He was not concerned about cutting off anybody else's source of funds, but he wanted to continue to protect his party's source of funds from south of the border and make sure that no one knew about it and that they could come in by the back door, that it was folded money, unidentifiable money.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. First I would like to ask the hon. member whether he is rising on a point of order or a question of privilege.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows full-well that it is only his party that is relying on international union contributions, that these contributions do not come to the PC party, that this party does not rely-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member knows very well that this is a point of debate or opinion. I think the Chair must tell him right away that the hon. member who has the floor is the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Frank Howard: I would have thought the hon. member for Mississauga would have got that message before. I do not want to go any further in that direction. All this information was set down on the record earlier today in great detail, with great clarity and precision, with complete disclosure while the hon. member for Mississauga was not here to listen to it. If he would like to find the truth about that matter, let him read Hansard. It is there.
I would get back to the amendment before us. As I said, all political parties have this tendency to produce the most slick brochure possible, thinking that that will have the greatest impact and that it will attract people to vote for us because we are able to present whatever it is we have to present. We have a manner of presenting it that would appear attractive, that would appear as if careful thought had gone into it, that would look appealing to the eye. Our television programs tend to do the same thing. We run newspaper advertisements that are designed not to impart information to the general public about anything, and not to indicate that one party or another has a particular philosophy or a particular policy or a particular program, but designed to leave the impression, in the mind of a voter, of a particular name. We have posters. A classic one is that of a minister of national defence cuddling up to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and whispering. This was on a billboard in Winnipeg. It was not designed for any other purpose except to say that the then minister of national defence and the Prime Minister were pretty close buddy-buddies, so much so that they whisper confidentialities to each other in full public view on the billboard.
Election Expenses


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He is in bed half the time when there is an emergency. I guess that is what happens to the Prime Minister also.


Frank Howard: I have no commentary to make about things of that nature. Those are interruptions from the hon. member for Mississauga. I want to deal with the items that are before us and I hope he will not try to drag the conversation in that direction. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have warned him a sufficient number of times that he should stay in order. Now we come to the matter of how much these national elections are to cost.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It will not cost you that much while David and Pierre are together.


Frank Howard: We want them to cost more. One thing I have noticed about these chatterboxes in the Conservative Party is that they make their most sensible comments from the position in which they are now. It may well be that this is because it is that part of their anatomy that is resting at that particular time.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Will you be reading from the telephone directory now? You have not done that yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I wonder whether the hon. member has terminated his speech, or is some interruption keeping him from expressing his ideas? I would point out to hon. members that we are getting closer to the adjournment hour tonight, but still order must be maintained. The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) had been asking questions. I would plead with him not to interrupt any more as the Chair is having a hard time following the speaker who has the floor.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member for Skeena agree?


Frank Howard: I would be more than delighted, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: This amending motion No. 12 seeks to take the word "not" out of proposed section 13.2(1.1) of subclause 4(1). Would the hon. member who is moving this motion tell us the effect of that? I haven't the vagues idea.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Greenwood is kind of embarrassed and is trying to get us back on the track again. Probably if I could put it in one sentence it may help to clarify the whole matter. Most times when you seek to take the knots out of something, you unravel it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: That is what we are seeking to do here, to remove one of the knots and unravel, or ravel-I am not sure which is correct not being a person who has done much knitting lately. However, we are attempting to unravel a very involved and complicated bit of political declaration.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you try a zipper?

December 20, 1973
Election Expenses


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I cannot hear these comments and I let them go by. But seriously, in reponse to the previous question, what is involved is simply that there is a provision in the bill, that we just dealt with, that says the limitation on campaign expenditures by political parties shall not exceed 30 cents times the number of voters in those ridings within which they run candidates. The key words are that that "election expenses" shall not exceed that amount of money, whatever the multiplication comes to.
We have the figure of roughly $4.2 million if parties run candidates in all ridings. When the matter was being considered by the committee we inquired, with respect to the definition of election expenses, whether or not within that definition there was to be included the amount of money that a registered party, or the central headquarters of a party, the national office or whatever they want to call it, gave as donations or contributions to the various constituencies and candidates. This has ranged anywhere from $4,000 to $7,000 in some areas, averaging $5,000 to $6,000 per candidate for the two old-line parties. There was doubt in the committee whether or not that type of expenditure by a national party was to be included within the definition of election expenses. The President of the Privy Council said so, that it was not to include that. If other words, the limitation on election expenses would be 30 cents times the number of voters on the list, plus whatever a political party wanted to donate to its respective candidates running under its banner in the particular ridings. And for more clarity he moved this amendment, which is now before us as 13.(2) (1.1) on page 9 of the bill, and which says:
In determining, for the purposes of this section, the amount of election expenses incurred by a registered party on account of or in respect of the conduct or the management of an election, there shall not be included any amount in respect of contributions or gifts made by or on behalf of the registered party for the use of candidates at the election.
We seek to take the "not" out of that so that when it is removed it will clearly say that the 30 cents times the number of voters on the voters' list, whatever total that comes to, will include the contributions that the party makes to its registered candidates. In other words it would have the effect, within the 30 cents factor, of limiting that by the amount the party contributes to candidates. I do not know whether Hansard got the last interjection, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member for Greenwood said that I have got him convinced. So I have got his vote tied up tight. Now I have only to convince some 260 other members of the House.
Looking, for argument's sake, at the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, this would not affect the campaign fund expenditures of that party one iota because in the last federal election they expended $1,321,989 to cover radio time and television time, printed media and other advertising, leader's tour, travel, surveys, administration and the like, and in addition to that contributed something in the neighbourhood of $5,000 on the average per candidate running for the Liberal Party.
On just a very rough estimate of $5,000 times 264 candidates, that came to something in the neighbourhood of $1.3 million. So that in addition to the other $1.3 million they spent in the last election campaign, they could make this

$5,000 contribution or donation to each one of the candidates running for the Liberal Party and only come to an amount of $2.6 million, which would still leave ample room for expansion within the $4.2 million available according to the formula in the bill.
I know that revealing this kind of information about a $5,000 contribution on average from the national headquarters of the Liberal Party has caused a number of Liberal members in the House to raise their eyebrows and look in my direction. Obviously they are the ones who did not get $5,000; they got much less. Maybe at that time they were not in favour with the leader of the party, and he figured that if he cut back on these contributions they would not have much chance of getting at him. It is obvious that he did that with a number of members of the previous parliament because they were defeated in that campaign.


William Arnold Peters: Maybe that is how he got his $100 million or $200 million.


Frank Howard: No, he would not have accumulated his $100 million or $200 million that way. With respect to the PC party, again talking in terms of what is indicated with regard to their activities, they also would not be affected one bit because their total expenditure, according to Mr. Finlay MacDonald who was, and maybe still is, their national campaign chairman at the time he provided this information, total PC national office expenditures in the 1972 campaign were $4,520,321 which, if the 30 cents formula were applied, would be just about right where the limit was; and that included the amounts of money allocated to constituencies, or remitted to constituencies, and Professor Paltiel points out that the constituency allocations appeared to average out at $6,600.
Some provinces and their constituencies, like Alberta, were entirely self-sustaining. So what the total contribution was is hard to say from that, except that Mr. MacDonald does say that the total remittance to provincial allotments and constituencies was some $1,748,000-that was the national campaign-bringing it up to a total of $4.1 million.
If we are seriously concerned about trying to effectively and reasonably limit campaign expenses, then we should be thinking seriously about either limiting or reducing the amount of that 30 cents. That can be done by one of those deferred divisions or by taking out the word "not" and saying that we had reached the peak. Both the Liberals and Conservatives, by their own statements, had concluded that that was a peak expenditure last time, and it was a peak position in so far as finding the flow of campaign contributions to the treasury is concerned. I think they will find that the more campaigns cost, the more difficult it will be to raise money. I know that is true of my own constituency and the organization to which I belong. We have found it more and more difficult all the time to raise money.


An hon. Member:: No wonder.


Frank Howard: We have a great deal of difficulty, Mr. Speaker. Somebody says he wondered why, or "no won-
December 20, 1973

der," or whatever. We believe in the principle that you control and dominate and finance and run a political party from the community, from individual memberships and individual participants. We raise our moneys in Skeena from the contributions of individuals in addition to the membership fees to the party. All of this is tabled. All of it is public information and I have it with me now. If the hon. member for Mississauga wants it, I will gladly get it for him and table it in the House. That is how we obtain our money, purely within the constituency from individual contributions and by running raffles, dances and social events. Lots of people do this. We do not print it and we do not phone IT & T, IBM or any of the others.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: What about the UAW?


Frank Howard: My hon. friend indicated UAW. I guess this is a question-do we phone up UAW? I do not even know who UAW is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he is not addressing the Chair and I do not know of any rule that he should answer a question that is not officially asked in the House by an hon. member. I should like him to address the Chair.


Frank Howard: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. It was a transgression on my part. I should like to indicate that if anybody wants to get recognized in a formal way and ask questions, I will be very pleased to answer them.


An hon. Member:: Next week, too?


Frank Howard: Certainly next week. In fact, I may have the answers next week. I do not have all the answers right now. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have difficulty in raising money. A few years ago in my constituency I looked at the returns the other candidates had filed. I am sure they looked at mine, and that is all right. I looked at the return filed by the Liberal Party and the return for that campaign within the constituency run by the Liberal Party, and the Liberal candidate showed an expenditure of $5,000-odd. It showed one contribution exactly equal to the expenditures, and the source of that contribution was the Liberal Federation of Canada. I know that the Liberal Party raised money in Skeena in the election campaign, but I do not know where it went. I also know that a lot of Liberal Party members in that riding would like to know because the Liberal Federation of Canada paid the whole shot.
The Conservative Party received contributions some years ago, too. The Conservative candidate in the riding listed his source of campaign funds and one was a contribution of $2,000 or $4,000 from one Frederick Field, and accountant in Vancouver. When the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister and had some authority for appointments, lo and behold, shortly after the election this Frederick Field was made a member of the board of the Bank of Canada and the Industrial Development Bank. We raised the question and Mr. Field said, and I gather quite rightly, "Good heavens; I thought I got here on merit and not by any contribution". It turned out that Frederick Field was simply the treasurer of the Conservative Party in British Columbia at that time. The Conservative candidate had make an error and
Adjournment Debate
instead of listing the Conservative Association, or whatever it was, he listed Frederick Field because that was who signed the cheque. It really did not come from Frederick Field at all, but from some unknown source.
We have to seriously face the question of whether we are really concerned about continuing to think that the more money we spend, to more we will be able to influence voters. To continue in that direction, I submit, tends to demean us as individuals, tends to demean political parties and tends to place them in the same class as mouthwash and toothpaste companies. Instead of being the Progressive Conservative Party, it might be Proctor-Gamble next time, or whoever makes those sorts of things. That will be the name that will appear by mistake. The advertising agency, instead of saying "Vote Progressive Conservative" will be saying "Vote Proctor-Gamble". It will not make much difference to the advertising agency which advertises the idea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on December 6 I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) if he knew where Mississauga was and how it could conceivably take five days for a letter send special delivery and express, with a 40-cent stamp on it, to come from Regina, Saskatchewan, to Mississauga. There is at least one direct flight per day by Air Canada from Regina to Mississauga. On November 21 a Mrs. Stutt went into the Regina head office of the post office of this government in Regina, Saskatchewan, and deposited with the postmaster's clerk there a letter marked "Special Delivery" and "Express" containing four Grey Cup tickets. Five days later, one day after the Grey Cup had been played at Toronto, that special delivery, express letter was delivered by the postmaster's servant to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Robb in Mississauga.
In answering that question, the postmaster said he was going to spend a lot of money on the Gateway post office in Mississauga: that was the only answer he had. Sir, citizens of this country, relying on the monopoly system of postal delivery, supposedly guaranteed, having spent 40 cents, not 8 cents, on a special delivery express letter,

December 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
having spoken to the clerk in the main office in the post office in Regina, find that their letters took five complete days to be delivered-more than five if one counts the whole of the period between the 21st and the 26th. I repeat, this was a letter marked "Special Delivery, "Express" on which a 40-cent stamp had been placed, and there is a direct airline service between the two centres at least once a day.
That is about the worst case I have come across, but it is not the only case. At least once or twice a week I personally write to the Postmaster General, and my constituency office writes to the postmaster's officials in Mississauga several times a week with respect to the kind of mail service the city of Mississauga receives. I want to remind the Postmaster General that Mississauga is larger than the city of Victoria, the capital of British Columbia; that it is larger than St. John's, the capital of Newfoundland; that it is larger than Regina, the capital city of Saskatchewan; larger by far than the city of Charlottetown, the capital of Prince Edward Island; and larger, indeed, than the City of Quebec which is the capital of the fair province of Quebec. Nevertheless, this city receives a postal service upon which the major industries within it cannot rely.
I have communicated to the Postmaster General evidence from the St. Lawrence Cement Company that it takes six days for special delivery of documentation to Mississauga from Chicago. Indeed, the St. Lawrence Cement Company has advised me that in no circumstances would it trust the Post Office of Canada; it would prefer to use the services of special bank courriers for the delivery of mail and important documentation.
Sometimes we in Canada cannot get too enthusiastic about the difficulties facing commercial organizations. After all, they only meet huge payrolls and pay enormous taxes to support such ineffective operations as I have been describing! There are people like Helen Friese who delivered evidence to me showing that it took mail from July 14 to September 10 to get from Port Credit to Toronto.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Shame.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have also received information from councillors of the city of Mississauga that even within the city mail sometimes takes six days to go from the sub-post office at Port Credit to the sub-post office at Malton. There are people who have been residents in my community since it was called the township of Toronto. They bring me evidence that mail in that part of the city of Mississauga still served by rural delivery usually takes seven days to come from Toronto.
This sort of thing goes on and on. Every time I write the Postmaster General about the kind of service Canadians expect, that people in a developed urban location like the city of Mississauga are entitled to receive from their government, I get wishy-washy, beautiful letters. Sometimes the department sends its officials to talk to my constituents. They give them the finest of soft soap. If they would spend half the effort on service that they spend on soft soaping and advertising their new direct service, their guaranteed delivery system, their wonderful six-letter codes, and give this community the kind of service it received with the pony express prior to the steam engine, we would be happy.
[ Transla tion]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would briefly remind the hon. member that Toronto Post Office employees are handling about 5 million pieces of mail a day. I would also remind the hon. member that at this time of the year the employees of my department are handling about 10 million pieces of mail a day. Of course, we admit that errors are possible and I would like the hon. member to think that with a percentage of errors of only one per cent about 200,000 people would be entitled to complain for late mail.
I think that the hon. member has been slightly exaggerating in his speech and if he is in a position to give a few examples of errors I am convinced that with some goodwill he will find that the mailing services have been quite efficient in hundreds of cases. Perhaps he forgets that for one delayed letter 99 others are delivered on time. I think I should also emphasize that throughout the Post Office administration the improvement of our service depends to a large extent on factors independent from my department such as weather, road conditions and delayed planes or trains which are so many factors liable to influence the punctuality of mail deliveries.
There is also the fact that human nature is fallible and mistakes are bound to happen in the handling of mail. But I do not think that the hon. member is in a position to complain mainly because he is from Mississauga and that in reply to his letter I informed him on December 6 that precisely in Mississauga, we would build an ultra-modern post office to sort out the mail automatically, help improve considerably the mail handling and make that service much more efficient.
To my mind, the hon. member must think that everything works properly, under normal conditions. I urge him to make a personal inquiry. He gives me as an example a letter mailed from Regina which reached its destination too late. If tthe hon. member mails his letter before 11 a.m. in Regina, one can normally guarantee delivery in Mississauga on the next day; if the letter is mailed after 11 a.m., in the same city, it will not normally reach its destination the day after the next. In closing, I therefore say to the hon. member that, in most cases, we respect the time limits we set ourselves. When delays occur, unfortunately, we apologize for them. We strive earnestly to improve the service.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.13 p.m.

Friday, December 21, 1973